Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 12:36:21 AM UTC+12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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. Denialism is getting desperate when resorting to a libertarian rant in lieu of scientific fact. |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote:
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. There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970. http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/ “Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the truth.” [Ambassador Kosh] Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed. |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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. 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. And the model predictions made during the mid-70s regarding the expected temperature rise by the year 2000 proved to be correct. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/ “Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the truth.” [Ambassador Kosh] Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed. |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/08/2019 14:12, Martin Brown wrote:
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. Back in the mid-noughties the Met Office published a document about global warming (as it was called then), and in its many pages there was a diagram illustrating 12 forcing mechanisms and the then current state of scientific knowledge of each one. Only one of these was shown as being understood to a 'good' level. That was CO2, of course. Eight, yes *eight*, of the other levels were shown as having *very low* levels of understanding. In scientific terms, if one wants to construct a model of climate and its forcings, the above essentially means that the inputs to the models are little more than a guessing game, and it is small wonder that they have predicted nothing - not even the current thermopause. -- Spike |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 07/08/2019 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote: 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. There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970. http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data rubbish there has been little warming for the last 20 yeaqrs compared to what was predicted. don't let the idea that the last few hottest years have all been recent fool you into thinking its significant, we are on a plateaux and you would expect the hottest years to be on that plateaux. |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/08/2019 11:12, Martin Brown wrote: On 06/08/2019 09:08, Tim Streater wrote: 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. You really should sober up before reaching for the keyboard. You are giving the impression of an inebriated nutter here. It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not. Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong. 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 clearly are delusional. The CO2 warms the planet slightly and that warming also increases the atmospheric water vapour content as well as making CO2 less soluble in the seas which is another potential feedback. You know as well as I do that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. As an aside one of the first pieces of work I did as a researcher was on quantifying the relationship for a precision computer code to find the driest possible locations on Earth for placing observatories. 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) Why make personal attacks on these two scientists? 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 That pretty much sums you up. Incoherent ranting and raving by a deranged right whinger. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/08/2019 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/08/2019 09:07, Spike wrote: 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. Well said. See also this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ource=Facebook |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 07/08/19 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown wrote: On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not. Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong. Would that that were the case. What is actually waiting for any such person is the sack, oblivion, and removal of any and all status as a researcher, including prospects for future grants. That is what awaits any nay-sayer of the current orthodoxy (an interesting word to choose to use, too, I venture to suggest). Anyone remember David Bellamy? He dared to question those promoting man made global warming etc and was promptly sidelined by the BBC etc. Prior to that, he was extremely popular. Unlike Attenborough, Bellamy is a real scientist, not a jumped up presenter. |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 8:06:08 PM UTC+12, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 06/08/2019 11:12, Martin Brown wrote: On 06/08/2019 09:08, Tim Streater wrote: 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. You really should sober up before reaching for the keyboard. You are giving the impression of an inebriated nutter here. It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not. Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong. 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 clearly are delusional. The CO2 warms the planet slightly and that warming also increases the atmospheric water vapour content as well as making CO2 less soluble in the seas which is another potential feedback. You know as well as I do that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. As an aside one of the first pieces of work I did as a researcher was on quantifying the relationship for a precision computer code to find the driest possible locations on Earth for placing observatories. 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) Why make personal attacks on these two scientists? 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. |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 07/08/19 11:03, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/19 10:50, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Martin Brown wrote: On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not. Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong. Would that that were the case. What is actually waiting for any such person is the sack, oblivion, and removal of any and all status as a researcher, including prospects for future grants. That is what awaits any nay-sayer of the current orthodoxy (an interesting word to choose to use, too, I venture to suggest). Anyone remember David Bellamy? He dared to question those promoting man made global warming etc and was promptly sidelined by the BBC etc. Prior to that, he was extremely popular. Unlike Attenborough, Bellamy is a real scientist, not a jumped up presenter. No one is 'promoting' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's is a scientific fact. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ancient climate records 'back predictions' Climate sensitivitysimilar in past warmings | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Climate Change Disaster Is Imminent!! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | Climate change 'disaster by 2026' | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
20 years ago today - York Minster | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |