On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> >> >facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> >> >game away.
>> >> ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
>> >> preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
>> >> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
>> >
>> >Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
>> >pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
>
>> A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
>> runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
>
>Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
>Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
>polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
>Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
>varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
>data-collection time.
>
>> The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
>> couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
>> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
>
>Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The
>'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
>trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
>Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
>and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
>of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.

"As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."

Check Google Earth.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>>>>> fellow at The
>>>>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>>>>> throughout the
>>>>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>>>>>> lobby
>>>>>> against smoking bans."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>
>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>
>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>
>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>> was
>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>
>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>
>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>
>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>> their media allies across the globe.
>
>That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>
>Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>and our children's children.

It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:54:00 +0000, Steve <steve@steve.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
>I'm beginning to think

That's okay, Steve, we all have to start somewhere.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:59:27 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
>> > oppressed and held back.
>>
>> Having a lower IQ doesn't help them very much either. Whereas Asian and
>> other races do very well.
>
>IQ tests are culture-related and very poor indicators of innate
>intelligence. If you took an IQ test devised for Africans by an
>African, who had never been outside Africa, you would fare a lot worse
>than a native of that country.

That's a fair point. Cultural differences count for a lot. So let's
take a look at some up to date figures which take account of that.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

You'll note that the far eastern countries are very well represented
in these tables. We in the West really need to pull our socks up!

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>
>>> I don't think it is deliberate. Who wants to travel a hundred and fifty
>>> miles into a wilderness to read a thermometer? And even with digital
>>> thermometers there needs to be electric power.
>>>
>>> And in airports, what is needed for aircraft is the air temperature
>>> there, at or near ground level, because that affects landing and takeoff
>>> speeds.
>>>
>>> What is slightly mire worrying is the way they record 'daily averages'
>>>
>>> In the days of mercury or alcohol thermometers you read the maximum and
>>> minimum temperatures recorded by the sliding steel bars, added them
>>> together, and halved them.
>>>
>>> Not very precise, or average, but the best you could do.
>>>
>>> However digital thermometers respond much faster than mercury does, so
>>> it's possible to record a very brief maximum caused by e.g. a car or jet
>>> exhaust, by a climate activist shining a mirror on the weather
>>> station...or holding a lighter underneath it...
>>>
>>> And of course nearly all land weather stations have seen encroachment by
>>> urbanisation since 1950.
>>>
>>> What about the sea? Well that too is a tad suspect. It generally now
>>> measures from the intakes of cooling water into the ships engines. But
>>> ships tend to stick to shipping lanes, because they represent the
>>> shortest distances between choke points and popular destinations. and
>>> are pouring out hot water into the seas in those lanes.
>>>
>>> The best measurements are satellite, but they don't record earth
>>> temperatures, but the radiation over an area that may come from clouds
>>> high up, weather balloons, and buoys that duck down into the deep water,
>>> and record temperatures on the way up.
>>>
>>> In short, the actual data on which all these models are based, is not
>>> nearly as solid as people are told it is.
>>>
>>> And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5°C...
>>
>> From the link above
>>
>> "NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average
>> land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius
>> above the pre-industrial average."
>>
>> so people are panicking by a possible 0.15c increase above that, which
>> will somehow suddenly become a planetary-scale extinction event.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Which is so far well within the range of 'natural' variation...
>>>
>>> In the little ice age ...'mean annual temperatures across the Northern
>>> Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average
>>> temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE.'...
>>>
>>> Not saying man made climate change isn't happening - it would be hard to
>>> justify saying that human activity has no effect whatsoever - but there
>>> is no smoking gun and no gunshot residue either.
>>>
>>> It could as easily be 99% natural. Or systematic errors in measurement.
>>>
>>> The real indicators would be places like the US and Canadian prairies to
>>> see whether they were getting earlier harvests consistently. Or whether
>>> the Siberian tundra were in fact becoming available for agriculture.
>>
>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>
>Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>reliable indicator of rising temperatures.

Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:31:38 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
>The temperature station data is smoothed with surrounding station readings, and if anything gives a slightly lower reading than would be obtained with perfectly unbiased locations. This topic has been covered before in great detail. It's a waste of time talking to you because everything is just total bullshit to you, and you're mentally ill.

Gosh, what nasty people post here. Off-topic, of course.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>>>>>> fellow at The
>>>>>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and
>>>>>>> libertarian
>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>>>>>> throughout the
>>>>>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> lobby
>>>>>>> against smoking bans."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate
>>>>>> change
>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel
>>>>> free
>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>
>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>>> was
>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>
>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>
>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>
>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>> harm”
>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>
>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive
>> today".
>>
>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>> and our children's children.
>
> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.

This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
now more than a hundred years ago now.

> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
> due to CO2. End of.

On 01/02/2024 22:47, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>>>>>> fellow at The
>>>>>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>>>>>> throughout the
>>>>>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>>>>>>> lobby
>>>>>>> against smoking bans."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>
>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>>> was
>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>
>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>
>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>>
>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>
>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>>
>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>> and our children's children.
>
> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
> due to CO2. End of.

Is that your way of saying you don't have children, or have children but
you don't retain contact with them?

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:13:42 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >...calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
> >trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
> >Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
> >and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
> >of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.

> "As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
> Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
> this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."

Yeah, so those temperatures being higher than optimum,
we expect the trees to stop breathing CO2 and close up.
The range is 25 to 35 C, thermoregulation only occurs inside those
limits.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-8, Loose Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 19:01:26 +0000, Anita 'Annie' Shein is jew
> paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum <RJ...@TheWor1d.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:16:07 -0800, NOT Michael Ejercito
> ><MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:01:51?AM UTC-8, Anita 'Annie' Shein
> >>is jew paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum wrote:
> >> > That's what illegal gook 'immigrants' like you are doing, gook!
> >> Yet again you cling to this fiction that I am some sort of illegal
> >>alien, instead of the American citizen that I am!
> >
> >Yet again, you cling to this delusion that you are an American citizen
> >instead of the illegal Flip Chinaman that you are!
> >
> >Does this even LOOK like a g-ddam American?
> > https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3sTCuxtlf/?hl=en
> How does something like that even get past the border?
People like me (Americans) get past the border by presenting
passports to customs agents at ports of entry!

Michael

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 2:57:22 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer
> <prufer...@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
> >On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >>facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >>game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >>garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >>https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> >
> >The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
> >Heartland Institute.
> >
> >Wikipedia:
> >
> >"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public
> >policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on
> >climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
> >
> >"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the
> >1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby
> >against smoking bans."
> >
> >
> >Thomas Prufer
>
> Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
> than rational.
>
> I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
> moved four times, always in the warmer direction.

Because Anthony Watts told you that it had. Neither of you has the sense to realise that this doesn't affect the global warming statistics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:11:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid..invalid> wrote:
> >On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>
> >And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5°C...
>
> From the link above
>
> "NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average
> land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius
> above the pre-industrial average."
>
> so people are panicking by a possible 0.15c increase above that, which will somehow suddenly become a planetary-scale extinction event.

Nobody sane has said anything of the sort. The climate change denial propaganda that John Larkin cuts and pastes into his posts does like to claim that, but they do have to do a lot of selective quotation from fringe groups to get the quotes they want.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2024/02/01 1:13 p.m., john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>> game away.
>>>>> ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
>>>>> preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
>>>>> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
>>>>
>>>> Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
>>>> pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
>>
>>> A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
>>> runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
>>
>> Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
>> Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
>> polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
>> Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
>> varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
>> data-collection time.
>>
>>> The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
>>> couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
>>> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
>>
>> Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The
>> 'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
>> trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
>> Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
>> and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
>> of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
>
>
>
> "As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
> Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
> this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
>
> Check Google Earth.
>

As of 1952 the highest temperature recorded in the UK was 37.8C (100F)
on August 9, 1911 in Greenwich. 40.3C is 104.5F for comparison purposes.

Just an old book I picked up - CLW_1952.pdf

https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/download/file/io_1222f365-1041-4be8-889e-f53850885bdc

There are a few more people in the UK now than in 1911, and a few more
thermometers...not saying that is significant, but more data points does
tend to catch outliers.

John ;-#)#

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:25:22 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
> >> Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
> >> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
> >> than rational.
> >
> >That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
> >try and understand the truth.
>
> I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
> intelligent professionals. Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus
> because eveyone agrees.

You've made that claim before, and your example was continental drift. As soon as we could see that the continents actually were drifting, the concensus flipped very rapidly.

> Sometimes breakthroughs are achieved by autistic people who are immune to the emotional influence of their peers and seniors.

Not very often. I can't think of a single example.
> >I remember an employee many years ago saying 'just tell me what I have
> >to do to get paid' He had no interest whatsoever beyond that, and he is
> >not alone.
> >
> >Loads of people who work in big organisations are simply not
> >interested...in the truth or anything. Just in keeping the job to pay
> >the mortgage and keeping the family in death burgers.
> >
> >They are in reality, simple slaves. And willing with it.
> Sure. Maybe their golf game is more important.
> >
> >They are not paid to think, but to obey.
> >
> >They make ideal climate scientists.

They don't.

> When the predicted climate disaster doesn't materialize, the "science"
> of climate prediction will swing in some new direction, to some new
> concensus. They will say "but we have more powerful computers now."

You do invent predicted climate disasters without ever citing the prediction you claim was made.

So far , anthropogenic global warning is proceeding as has been predicted for the past thirty years - which is when the warming got big enough to be statistically significant,

The predictions aren't that precise - heat transfer from the equator to the poles through the oceans depends on deep ocean currents that we don't know that much about, though the Argo buoys are starting to map them. Without that data even the best computers can't do all that well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:48:32 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:13:42?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >...calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
>> >trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
>> >Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
>> >and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
>> >of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
>
>> "As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
>> Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
>> this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
>
>Yeah, so those temperatures being higher than optimum,
>we expect the trees to stop breathing CO2 and close up.
>The range is 25 to 35 C, thermoregulation only occurs inside those
>limits.

Read the bit that you snipped.

I don't see any trees on that giant runway.

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 9:55:49 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:54:00 +0000, Steve <st...@steve.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
> >Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> >I'm beginning to think.
>
> That's okay, Steve, we all have to start somewhere.

Zero Hedge isn't a good place to start. Once you can think, you will realise that it is lying to you. Cursitor Doom can't think and enjoys being lied to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:23:03 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:31:38 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> >The temperature station data is smoothed with surrounding station readings, and if anything gives a slightly lower reading than would be obtained with perfectly unbiased locations. This topic has been covered before in great detail. It's a waste of time talking to you because everything is just total bullshit to you, and you're mentally ill.
>
> Gosh, what nasty people post here. Off-topic, of course.

And Fred has every right - and in fact an obligation - to point out Cursitor Doom's unfortunate failings. Naive people might otherwise take him seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Syhdney

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> >> >facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> >> >game away.
>> >> ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
>> >> preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
>> >> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
>> >
>> >Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
>> >pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
>
>> A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
>> runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
>
>Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.

Airplanes don't need intelligence to push hot air around. Neither do
you.

>Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
>polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
>Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
>varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
>data-collection time.
>
>> The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
>> couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
>> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
>
>Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The
>'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
>trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.

That area is heavily forested and the only big flat vegetation-free
space around there is the runway with the weather station. I think you
are sugesting that all weather stations should be constructed by first
cutting down all the trees and paving some acres flat first.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:23:10 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> >> >facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> >> >game away.
> >> >> ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
> >> >> preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
> >> >> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
> >> >
> >> >Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
> >> >pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
> >
> >> A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
> >> runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
> >
> >Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
> Airplanes don't need intelligence to push hot air around. Neither do
> you.
> >Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
> >polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
> >Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
> >varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
> >data-collection time.
> >
> >> The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
> >> couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
> >> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
> >
> >Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The
> >'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
> >trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.

> That area is heavily forested and the only big flat vegetation-free
> space around there is the runway with the weather station. I think you
> are sugesting that all weather stations should be constructed by first
> cutting down all the trees and paving some acres flat first.

Hell, no. I'm suggesting that the personal station you operate, with RTD
sensors, isn't sited in an open area exposed to sky and free airflow like
a Stevenson box is supposed to be. It isn't unlikely to mismatch against
hourly reports from such a station as the airstrip example.

On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>
>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>
> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
> half-baked hypothesis.

It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give
or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and
the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get
named unto the 1990s).

You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>
>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>> half-baked hypothesis.
>
> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
> unto the 1990s).

He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
increased at all because some antique book he has
claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.

> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,

We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic,
Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.

> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
> unto the 1990s).
>
- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated.
And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the
multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all
warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas
show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts
the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of
surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any
positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one
has to ask just how alarming that really is.

- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically
definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.

the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which
no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a
catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.

> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar
Logic.
As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are
usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the
historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the
infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case.

We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name
of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all
without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?

You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:51:25 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <62dcaae57b421e2b3b10e97d9c0ddf08@haph.org>

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously half-baked hypothesis.

> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
> and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
> 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give
> or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and
> the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get
> named unto the 1990s).

> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes in
CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.

The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on
the subject, he uses work previously published by Lambert, who found an
empirical relationship between the two. This empirical relationship has
never been proved, it was merely a convenience employed by Lambert.

You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a
footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted in documents published
for either
decision makers or the general public.

--
Spike