Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #601129

Re: climate change

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: climate change
Date	2023-02-09 08:54 +0100
Message-ID	<k4jn5hF18dU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <1q5faea.g4cf1a12sjvbxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <75f0d5a6-fbf0-45ef-b66b-db71385ddb75n@googlegroups.com> <50f32938-e441-47c9-92ae-82b738fd2fe3n@googlegroups.com> <k47secF4m80U1@mid.individual.net> <9e1eebda-1188-4e38-be51-b2540c507e4dn@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 06.02.2023 um 07:06 schrieb Paul Alsing:

>> Well, the main factor in weather is not reradiation of IR by rare gases
>> like CO2.
>>
>> I would say, that CO2 is entirely irrelevant for weather, while clouds
>> aren't.
>>
>> And from weather we can take averages and generate what (falsely) is
>> called 'climate'.
>>
>> Such 'climate' will change upon human influeces, too, but not because of
>> CO2.
>>
>> The main agent is water and mankind influeces water by e.g. cities,
>> pollution and agriculture (and several others).
>>
>> It would be wise, if the problem called
>> climate' is under consideration and means to solve the issue are
>> investigated, that the main factor is kept in focus, while others like
>> rare gases are kept in mind for later.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> You are really demonstrating here just how much about climate science that you simply do not know! You have a LOT to learn and your guesses are completely wrong.

If you call my statements wrong and ask me to read some textbooks, you 
demonstrate, that you believe in what textbooks say and that textbooks 
violate my description.

I would say, that scientific content in textbooks had to be 
scientifically correct, hence should not be in conflict to my 
statements, which are based on simple logic.

But if they are, as you wrote, this would be a serious problem for the 
textbooks, because my own statements are based on simple logic, which 
scientific textbooks of any kind should not violate.

To demand acceptance of illogic scientific statements is something you 
cannot possibly expect.

TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 11:13 -0800
  Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-03 21:49 +0100
  Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 19:23 -0800
    Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-04 21:10 +0100
      Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 12:06 -0800
      Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 22:06 -0800
        Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-09 08:54 +0100
          Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 08:57 -0800
            Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 09:49 -0800
              Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 16:03 -0800
                Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 22:25 -0800
              Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-10 21:42 -0800
                Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-11 08:01 +0100
                Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-10 23:10 -0800
                Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-12 09:03 +0100
                Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-10 23:13 -0800
            Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-11 08:25 +0100
        Re: climate change Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2023-02-16 13:36 +0000

csiph-web