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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'tÂ* 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 JonesÂ* (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.

Â*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

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

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.

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'tÂ* 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 JonesÂ* (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.

Â*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.

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.