
Charlie
9.9K posts

Charlie
@Charlie157874
Christian. Just another fellow Time traveler. No DMs, delete and block. Happily married 30 plus years.







Let me introduce a new, very scary word to the Climatistas 'Acclimatise' It means 'getting used to a different climate' Humans are very good at it. Sleep easy









GPT: Comment on the following interaction: "human activity is driving rapid warming now." Hmmm...no. Our temperatures are determined by forces that have been in play for hundreds of years, if not thousands, and by enormously complex interactions among layers of the ocean, planets of the solar system, oddities in orbits, and vibrations of our travel through the galaxy. The statement raises a real issue, but it also mixes together factors that operate on very different timescales. A climate scientist would likely respond that: Yes, Earth's climate is influenced by many long-term forces. Changes in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) operate over roughly 20,000–100,000 years. Ocean circulation patterns influence climate over years to centuries. Solar variability affects climate. Volcanic activity, continental drift, and other geologic processes matter over long periods. The key question is not whether these forces exist, but whether they explain the warming observed since about 1970. Orbital cycles currently favor a very slight long-term cooling trend, not warming. Solar output has not increased enough over recent decades to explain the observed warming. Internal ocean oscillations (such as ENSO, PDO, and AMO) redistribute heat within the climate system and can temporarily accelerate or slow warming, but they do not provide a sustained source of additional energy to the Earth system. The mainstream scientific argument is therefore an attribution argument. It is not: "Climate is simple, and humans are the only influence."Rather: "Many influences affect climate, but the dominant explanation for the rapid warming observed over the last several decades is the increase in greenhouse gases from human activities."The strongest part of your statement is the reminder that the climate is an extraordinarily complex system. Scientists agree with that. The weaker part is the implication that because the climate is complex, human influence cannot be identified. Complexity cuts both ways. For example, a physician can recognize that smoking increases lung cancer risk even though human biology is vastly complex. Likewise, climate scientists attempt to separate the effects of solar changes, volcanic eruptions, ocean cycles, and greenhouse gases using multiple independent lines of evidence. There is also a philosophical difference embedded in the exchange: The statement "human activity is driving rapid warming now" is a claim about the dominant cause of the recent trend. Your response emphasizes that the climate is influenced by many causes across long periods of time. Those are not necessarily contradictory. A system can be governed by many natural influences over millennia while still having a dominant short-term forcing today. The scientific debate is therefore not whether orbital mechanics, ocean layers, solar variability, or other natural processes exist—they unquestionably do. The debate concerns their relative contributions to the warming observed over the last century, particularly since the mid-20th century. The prevailing assessment of organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is that greenhouse gases from human activities are the primary driver of recent warming, while natural factors continue to contribute to shorter-term and regional variations. My comment: of course they do!!! Trillions in funding depend on the climate narrative. They aren't going to give that up easily!!!! If ever!!!!























