On 05/08/2019 16:08, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 15:27, Spike wrote:

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.


But even if it were accurately reported (which seems unlikely as Graham
has described) then so what? We know that there can be a considerable
lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to have its full
effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters

When those that advocate global warming countermeasures

- stop taking plane trips to conferences

- advocate a crash program of nuclear power

- sell their beachfront properties

Then I might believe a single word they say

So the full consequences of the CO2 level in 2000 won't be seen until at
least eg 2040-2050. Maybe you could come back to this forum then and we
can review what actually happened.


Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.
Its all doom in ten years and has been for the last 40.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 19:15:00 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Oh well there goes another record

https://twitter.com/LanderVanTricht/...626112/photo/1

In fact the maximum was probably higher as we only see hourly readings, no climate data (333)
AAXX 02184 04416 46/// /1204 10047 20039 36951 57006=
But here it is +4.7°C, where is all this melt going to go?

Of course some will still be in denial!

Keith (Southend)

It appears that the climber actually climbed up into a "nose" of warm air aloft as he passed through an inversion. Temperature on the slopes way below was still very sub zero.
We have all seen these on Tephigrams in the past.
I remember witnessing this vrey phenomenon in the Chilean Andes back in 1993... felt very strange. Had to refer to some of our soundings on our return to camp.

Mystery solved.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 9:46:05 AM UTC+12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/08/2019 16:08, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 15:27, Spike wrote:

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.


But even if it were accurately reported (which seems unlikely as Graham
has described) then so what? We know that there can be a considerable
lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to have its full
effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters

When those that advocate global warming countermeasures

- stop taking plane trips to conferences

- advocate a crash program of nuclear power

- sell their beachfront properties

Then I might believe a single word they say

So the full consequences of the CO2 level in 2000 won't be seen until at
least eg 2040-2050. Maybe you could come back to this forum then and we
can review what actually happened.


Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.
Its all doom in ten years and has been for the last 40.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

You won't be seen on the "other forum", and a good thing too.

JGD posted
On 05/08/2019 15:27, Spike wrote:

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.


But even if it were accurately reported (which seems unlikely as Graham
has described) then so what? We know that there can be a considerable
lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to have its full
effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc.

Then it is not yet countable as evidence for global warming.

Almost anything *could* happen. However, it's only when it *has*
happened that it can be taken as evidence for or against an empirical
theory.


--
Evremonde

On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a
considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to
have its FULL effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.

On 05/08/2019 19:15, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 5 August 2019 15:27:25 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 05/08/2019 15:29, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote:

The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said
was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about.

As I pointed out in the two examples I gave, quotes can often bear
little or no relationship to what was actually said. I've also seen
articles based on press statements that have been so mangled that they
also bear no relevance to the original statement.

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.

That article was correct. It is backed up in a book both I and Graham have read, "Losing Earth: The Decade We Could Have Stopped Climate Change", by Nathaniel Rich, 20119.

Thanks for confirming the article was correctly founded - it means we
can put an end to the 'mis-reporting by the media' line of argument that
was initially used to cast doubt on it.

If we had taken action in 1980 and 1990 we could have prevented the disasters that have only just begun, with record temperatures, floods, and wildfire spreading throughout the world, not to mention the immigration crises affecting both Europe and the USA, and sea level rise accelerating.

i thought the lag in Al Gore's day was 800 years rather than the 30 to
40 you suggest - but didn't he have the graph the wrong way round, with
temperature rise following the CO2 rise? The Vostock ice-cores confirmed
that CO2 lags temperature rather than leading it.


--
Spike

On 06/08/2019 09:07, Spike wrote:
On 05/08/2019 19:15, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 5 August 2019 15:27:25 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 05/08/2019 15:29, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote:

The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said
was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about.

As I pointed out in the two examples I gave, quotes can often bear
little or no relationship to what was actually said. I've also seen
articles based on press statements that have been so mangled that they
also bear no relevance to the original statement.

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.

That article was correct. It is backed up in a book both I and Graham have read, "Losing Earth: The Decade We Could Have Stopped Climate Change", by Nathaniel Rich, 20119.

Thanks for confirming the article was correctly founded - it means we
can put an end to the 'mis-reporting by the media' line of argument that
was initially used to cast doubt on it.

If we had taken action in 1980 and 1990 we could have prevented the disasters that have only just begun, with record temperatures, floods, and wildfire spreading throughout the world, not to mention the immigration crises affecting both Europe and the USA, and sea level rise accelerating.

i thought the lag in Al Gore's day was 800 years rather than the 30 to
40 you suggest - but didn't he have the graph the wrong way round, with
temperature rise following the CO2 rise? The Vostock ice-cores confirmed
that CO2 lags temperature rather than leading it.


Al gores movie should have been called 'a most convenient lie'
There was so much bad science and plain wrong science in it that it was
a glaring indication that what was going on was not a dangerous truth
being revealed but a very nasty agenda...

And there you have it, when you catch out the Establishment lying to
you, and you know they are lying to you, and you know they know they are
lying to you, its pretty scary.

Like I said, the day they abandon air travel, sell their beachfront
properties and agitate to build and all nuclear gird is the day I will
believe them.

They know however that they are lying and therefore there is no need.



--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 06/08/2019 09:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , JGD
wrote:

On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.

Well even if they did, what of it. Just because Newton or Copernicus or
whichever astronomer it was who first predicted eclipses, did so,
didn't make them right. What made them right was that the eclipses then
*happened*, on time and on budget. And not just once.

The Chinese astronomers had got pretty good at predicting eclipses way
back (as had most other religions). Having the sun go out suddenly
and/or the moon turn blood red would be pretty scary if you didn't know
why. Knowing when gave them a sense of power over things. Many cultures
had something along the lines of Saros and Inex periodicities mapped.

By the time the Jesuits turned up armed with the heretical modern
science (they were early adopters of Copernicism not-withstanding Papal
edicts - and the Vatican observatory is still today very capable) the
resident Chinese astronomers had got sloppy and were beaten. The story
of Ferdinand Verbeist's exploits methods and influence on the Chinese
emperor is well known to us because Chinese wood block prints survive
(as do some of his cannons with Verbiest fecit on them). It is an
interesting story. Not known if there are more wood cuts out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdin...onomy_contests

A lot of what is known about medieval manufacturing techniques comes
from the extensive collection of Chinese wood block prints.

Einstein's General Relativity was a *hypothesis* until his predictions
were *tested* via the Brazil eclipse of 1919 and the calculations about
the precession of Mercury's orbit. Only after that did his ideas get
elevated to the status of a theory.

It was confirmed by experimental tests - important enough that Eddington
was allowed to prepare for observing it despite Einstein being German.

The same applies to this climate stuff, I'm afraid. And don't try to
fob me off with any cock about what the models *tell* us. Models make
predictions, they don't *tell* us anything.

The models are plenty good enough now to tell us that CO2 and other
trace polyatomic greenhouse gasses are warming the planet.

Even the canonical deniers for hire admit that - at least when they are
being scientific. You cannot balance the Earth's global energy budget
without including greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's.

And you cannot magic the sun brighter because it is under constant
satellite surveillance. I suppose you want to deny HADCRUT temperature
data too, but the Berkeley Earth group set out as sceptics and
reproduced it closely with a further extension back to the 1800s.

It is odd that we have FLIC models for relativistic jets and all sorts
of other exotic phenomena that attract nothing like this level of
hostility. They are still only models but they are now very refined
models that give a pretty good predictions. We are only beginning to see
the effects now. It will be bad for champagne production in France but
good for making it in the southern UK. Our infrastructure is already
showing that it cannot handle the higher rainfall from warm summer heat.

I suppose the interesting question is what will it take before you do
accept that anthropogenic global warming is real?

How many metres of water does Westminster have to be under at high tide?

How many years of record breaking summer heat and flash floods?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 06/08/2019 08:24, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.


They didn't predict a lag in the '70s when they said things were warming
really fast.
Now there is a pause the models failed to predict they are saying there
is a lag just to hide the fact the models don't actually work.

On 06/08/2019 11:12, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2019 09:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , JGD
wrote:

On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.

Well even if they did, what of it. Just because Newton or Copernicus or
whichever astronomer it was who first predicted eclipses, did so,
didn't make them right. What made them right was that the eclipses then
*happened*, on time and on budget. And not just once.

The Chinese astronomers had got pretty good at predicting eclipses way
back (as had most other religions). Having the sun go out suddenly
and/or the moon turn blood red would be pretty scary if you didn't know
why. Knowing when gave them a sense of power over things. Many cultures
had something along the lines of Saros and Inex periodicities mapped.

By the time the Jesuits turned up armed with the heretical modern
science (they were early adopters of Copernicism not-withstanding Papal
edicts - and the Vatican observatory is still today very capable) the
resident Chinese astronomers had got sloppy and were beaten. The story
of Ferdinand Verbeist's exploits methods and influence on the Chinese
emperor is well known to us because Chinese wood block prints survive
(as do some of his cannons with Verbiest fecit on them). It is an
interesting story. Not known if there are more wood cuts out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdin...onomy_contests

A lot of what is known about medieval manufacturing techniques comes
from the extensive collection of Chinese wood block prints.

Einstein's General Relativity was a *hypothesis* until his predictions
were *tested* via the Brazil eclipse of 1919 and the calculations about
the precession of Mercury's orbit. Only after that did his ideas get
elevated to the status of a theory.

It was confirmed by experimental tests - important enough that Eddington
was allowed to prepare for observing it despite Einstein being German.

The same applies to this climate stuff, I'm afraid. And don't try to
fob me off with any cock about what the models *tell* us. Models make
predictions, they don't *tell* us anything.

The models are plenty good enough now to tell us that CO2 and other
trace polyatomic greenhouse gasses are warming the planet.

No, they are not.
They are plenty bad enough to tell us to 3 sigma that whatever is
warming the planet is *not* CO2.

But even teh most rapid warmist will aqdmit that. What warms teh planmet
is teh positive feedback of water vapour, or so they say, which
ampolifies CO2. In their models.

It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not.



Even the canonical deniers for hire admit that - at least when they are
being scientific.

No, they dont. Not to any signicicant extent. Me farting warms the
planet. Lighting a candell warms the planet. Excess CO2 warms the planet
all by insignificant amounts


You cannot balance the Earth's global energy budget
without including greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's.

You can't balance the Earth's global energy budget
*with* including greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's.

Something is happening here, but they dont know what it is, do they Mr
Phil Jones (and Michael Mann)


And you cannot magic the sun brighter because it is under constant
satellite surveillance. I suppose you want to deny HADCRUT temperature
data too, but the Berkeley Earth group set out as sceptics and
reproduced it closely with a further extension back to the 1800s.


Why would one want to? teh merest wisp of cloud drops surafec radaiaton
by up to a factor of 8...

It is odd that we have FLIC models for relativistic jets and all sorts
of other exotic phenomena that attract nothing like this level of
hostility. They are still only models but they are now very refined
models that give a pretty good predictions.

Unlike Climate change which gives totally crap predictions.

We are only beginning to see
the effects now. It will be bad for champagne production in France but
good for making it in the southern UK. Our infrastructure is already
showing that it cannot handle the higher rainfall from warm summer heat.


WQe are not seeing any eg=fefcts now at all expoecpt frok greeing in te
sahel due to better paknt grwoth in arid regioiusn

I suppose the interesting question is what will it take before you do
accept that anthropogenic global warming is real?


Well for a start if all its protagonists didnt fly first class to
climate conferences, advocated nuclear power and sold their beachfront
properties I might thinkg that thay at least believed in it.

How many metres of water does Westminster have to be under at high tide?

How many years of record breaking summer heat and flash floods?

Ther are no record breaking summers compared to the MWP or the RWP aor
the holocene optimum. or even the 1930s

Flash flooding is more a result of deforestation and building on flood
plains than weather.


And I am sure some climate scientist assured me that weather is not climate.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.