bob, there is logic to it (laws of thermodynamics maybe). causation or correlation is open to debate.
bob, earth is the iron core magnet we are talking about.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the facts? How is the temperature of the earth's core being increased?
bob, that is what we are debating. if I drop an orange into boiling water, it's core is going to heat up.
Have you gone bananas?
Sadly, Tommy is just using a tactic to distract from the study I posted. I'll be more aware of his use of that tactic next time.
42OhmsPA, to be determined. I can see how using co2 to heat our atmosphere could heat our core also(given time)
Bob, I'm just following your posts. and I got it on-topic also
It appears you've caught one hell of a thermal high on your hand glider, was Leo involved?
42OhmsPA, could you explain?, leo =law officer?
No, user leothomson, a troll that finally stayed under his bridge who I can't properly tag since they are one of the only members I have on ignore.
42OhmsPA, was he form wisconsin also?, maybe everyone from wisconsin has lost their minds.(that would make me feel better, maybe)
Idk Tommy he never discussed his location, I think it changed frequently based on water levels under the bridges he occupied.
42OhmsPA, true that. I can only hope to have your inverter issue someday.
Maybe some one needs to point out to those republicans that employers could just as easily be democrats, from what I have seen from the populists posting here, that trust in employers should vanish quite rapidly. (Quite sad it even has to be pointed , but nationalism/populism is a curse on mankind))
They’re not even cost-effective, says Clark: “Not only are EVs themselves 40% more expensive to buy than petrol cars, but they are also costlier to run. The average charge for refuelling at a rapid charger is 22p per mile, compared with 17p for petrol.”
wattsupwiththat.com
Nice find Bob! Thank you!
I can see using a carbon analysis from tree rings at a single site from before the event could lead to their conclusions. Pretty scary.
I did find a couple:
Of course, that's about extinctions and not climate change. Some of the peer reviewed comments are quite funny:
| If they did twist other's research who knows about the authenticity of the other findings? While he might be wrong about why Neanderthals died off, pretty sure the reversal has been linked to mass die offs. To the right is the 42,000 year old fossilized tree they dug up and was the single source of data for the paper. The problem with singular data points is you never know how reliable they are. In fact, their paper says the same thing about the Greenland data (although Greenland is much bigger than that tree). For example, a local volcano enriching the CO2 in the area might be the cause. |  |
This is the opposite as to what we are seeing today with global warming. So, it still sounds like the Greenhouse Gas theory more closely matches what the planet is experiencing. If their paper is correct and we do start to see warming from this, we could be in for a world of hurt if both coincide.
The total impact from the Adams event wasn't that much all in all, especially when coupled with natural climate change which gives those temperatures.
So, if the north American glaciers were forming at the time of the Adams event, how was it even global warming and not localized warming?
| Another thing that seemed odd was how far apart the Adams event was from the Field reversal as shown to the right. The field reversal looks like is was in an ice age, and the Adams event long before that. In fact, it looks very much like a normal climate cycle except for the peak afterwards and extra-long cold cycle. We know the field reversals, when they happen, are quite quick geologically (< 1000y). |  |
Welcome to my world! ; -)
