On 05/08/2023 19:22, Fredxx wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 18:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/08/2023 18:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2023 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:11, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2023 17:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 15:19, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the  'hottest evah on
>>>>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not conflating weather with climate are you? Sure sounds
>>>>>>> like it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not. Hot weather in Spain and Greece cannot be climate
>>>>>> change, it is, after all, only weather.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that's true because the Beeb insisted it *was* climate
>>>>>> change. And like Russia, whatever the beeb currently says is a
>>>>>> lie. Always.
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be so clever to see through all the obfuscation.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am.
>>>
>>>
>>> They say pride comes before a fall.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/oceans-hit-highest-ever-recorded-temperature
>>>
>>>
>> They say reading the guardian damages your intelligence.
>
> Who is they? Deniers of possible man made climate change?
>
No, people with acuity and common sense. And a healthy scepticism about
matters that make certain groups huge amounts of taxpayers money, for no
discernible results.

Let's say the alarmists are right: What are we going to do about it?
Without China, and India, we are pissing in the wind.

Any sane person who was actually concerned would develop reliable cost
effective nuclear technology and sell it to those countries. They
wouldn't piss around with 'renewables' or heat pumps or electric cars
without actually doing some serious studies as to how effective these
would be and at what cost to the nation, and if the cost exceeded the
cost of slightly warmer summers and a fer inches of sea level rise, they
would spend the money on sea defences and planting pineapples.
None of the responses add up to politicians shaking in their boots for
fear of climate change.

Greta got that one right, but wasn't smart enough to come to the correct
conclusions when she asked 'why aren't you doing anything about it?'

For three simple reasons.

Firstly, there is no real crisis. Its a bit warmer maybe than it used to
be, but not by much.

Secondly, climate has always changed and we have no way of telling
whether this change is in any way something we can affect or not. The
*actual* science suggests that the anthropic component to any climate
change is small - less than half a degree currently, .

Thirdly, the cost of doing something about stopping it massively exceeds
the cost of adapting to it.

Politicians know this. So 'climate change' is just another convenient
bogey man to justify more taxes, more power to the state, and more cash
to cronies in the renewables business. Any intelligent person can work
that out, and that's why nothing is being done about it.

Sadly Greta isn't very intelligent, although she seems at least to be
reasonably honest.

>> And no, there is no record of sea temperatures that is in nay way
>> reliable, even now, let alone 50 or 100 years ago.
>
> No record? You must be having a laugh, or head firmly planted in the
> sand singing "la la la".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
>
Wikipedia is as infested with Marxists as the Guardian, when it comes to
climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley

Compare that story with :

https://thewikipedian.net/2010/10/20/banned-from-wikipedia-almost/#comments

There is far far too much money and too many careers riding on the
climate change narrative for the truth to be told to the general public.
You have to dig in odd corners where they forgot to change the data, to
find out.

And an in depth understanding of feedback systems and computer modelling
helps a lot too.

Climate scientists don't have that knowledge. Only engineers and
physicists do really.

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 18:31:07 +0100
Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 17:41:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 05/08/2023 14:53, Steve wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:36:19 +0100
> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on
> >>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
> >>>
> >>> Currently 14°C, and steady grey overcast with persistent rain.
> >>>
> >>> I am reminded of family holidays in the 1960s, confined to reading
> >>> books in grandparents musty house, because instead of shivering
> >>> on a dank beach, even my mother baulked at the thought of doing
> >>> it in the pouring rain...
> >>>
> >>> Autumn appears to have arrived three months early.
> >>>
> >>> Only Spain and Greece seem to be south of this wild and wet North
> >>> Atlantic jet stream.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ludicrous right-tard twat.
> >>
> >
> >Oh dear. I see class hatred is the order of the day.
>
> It's the school holidays. That sort of language is all they're capable
> of these days.
>
Hahahahahahaha... Huddle together old chaps, you'll keep that pesky
reality at bay, for a little while, anyway.

Wait until you see the snow that the warming climate can bring to the
UK. Try waving your flags and blue passports at that.

Silly cunts.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> And no, there is no record of sea temperatures that is in nay way
> reliable, even now, let alone 50 or 100 years ago.
>
So how can the climate change protagonists claim that we're in a crisis?

--
Chris Green
·

On 05/08/2023 19:48, Steve wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 18:31:07 +0100
> Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 17:41:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/08/2023 14:53, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:36:19 +0100
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on
>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently 14°C, and steady grey overcast with persistent rain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am reminded of family holidays in the 1960s, confined to reading
>>>>> books in grandparents musty house, because instead of shivering
>>>>> on a dank beach, even my mother baulked at the thought of doing
>>>>> it in the pouring rain...
>>>>>
>>>>> Autumn appears to have arrived three months early.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only Spain and Greece seem to be south of this wild and wet North
>>>>> Atlantic jet stream.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ludicrous right-tard twat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear. I see class hatred is the order of the day.
>>
>> It's the school holidays. That sort of language is all they're capable
>> of these days.
>>
> Hahahahahahaha... Huddle together old chaps, you'll keep that pesky
> reality at bay, for a little while, anyway.
>
> Wait until you see the snow that the warming climate can bring to the
> UK. Try waving your flags and blue passports at that.
>
> Silly cunts.
>
>

"Nature does not forgo the winter because people dislike the cold".

― Confucius....

"Que sera sera"
― Popular song

"The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, nor all thy piety
nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash
out a word of it"

― The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Whatever climate change may, or may not be, in progress, is for all
practical purposes, inevitable.

Only stupid people think they can stop it. Intelligent people prepare
for it and thieves sell snake oil solar panels and windmills.

Chaucer had his pardoners. Today we have Vattenfall. Selling moral
forgiveness to the gullible sinners.

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

On 05-Aug-23 18:33, Fredxx wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/08/2023 18:11, GB wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2023 17:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2023 15:19, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the  'hottest evah on
>>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not conflating weather with climate are you? Sure sounds
>>>>> like it.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course not. Hot weather in Spain and Greece cannot be climate
>>>> change, it is, after all, only weather.
>>>>
>>>> I know that's true because the Beeb insisted it *was* climate
>>>> change. And like Russia, whatever the beeb currently says is a lie.
>>>> Always.
>>>
>>> You must be so clever to see through all the obfuscation.
>>
>> Yes, I am.
>
>
> They say pride comes before a fall.

In proper English, that should be "autumn", not "fall".

--
Sam Plusnet

On 05/08/2023 19:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 19:22, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 05/08/2023 18:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2023 18:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:11, GB wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 17:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 15:19, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the  'hottest evah on
>>>>>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're not conflating weather with climate are you? Sure sounds
>>>>>>>> like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not. Hot weather in Spain and Greece cannot be climate
>>>>>>> change, it is, after all, only weather.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that's true because the Beeb insisted it *was* climate
>>>>>>> change. And like Russia, whatever the beeb currently says is a
>>>>>>> lie. Always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be so clever to see through all the obfuscation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They say pride comes before a fall.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/oceans-hit-highest-ever-recorded-temperature
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They say reading the guardian damages your intelligence.
>>
>> Who is they? Deniers of possible man made climate change?
>>
> No, people with acuity and common sense.

Common sense suggests we shouldn't play with fire. For those who have
children and a family it makes sense to maximise their chance of having
a good life. For those without children or estranged from their
children, I can see why they simply don't care, and see measures to
reduce global warming as a hit on their way of life.

> And a healthy scepticism about
> matters that make certain groups huge amounts of taxpayers money, for no
> discernible results.

That will always happen. There are both winners and losers to change.

> Let's say the alarmists are right:  What are we going to do about it?
> Without China, and India, we are pissing in the wind.

By setting an example. Much of India's issues are from exporting
manufacture to those countries. There are also talks about associating
imports with CO2 release.

> Any sane person who was actually concerned would develop reliable cost
> effective nuclear technology and sell it to those countries.

Nuclear technology doesn't matter to those who deny climate change.
People like you are damaging the prospect of nuclear technology when
it's so more convenient to burn fossil fuels.

<snip>

> Firstly, there is no real crisis. Its a bit warmer maybe than it used to
> be, but not by much.
>
> Secondly, climate has always changed and we have no way of telling
> whether this change  is in any way something we can affect or not. The
> *actual* science suggests that the anthropic component to any climate
> change is small - less than half a degree currently, .
>
> Thirdly, the cost of doing something about stopping it massively exceeds
> the cost of adapting to it.

The smart money is on anthropomorphic climate change. It's not a risk
some of us want to take on behalf of our children, and our children's
children. See above for deniers.

> Politicians know this.  So 'climate change' is just another convenient
> bogey man to justify more taxes, more power to the state, and more cash
> to cronies in the renewables business. Any intelligent person can work
> that out, and that's why nothing is being done about it.

You're now talking crap. It's a concern to more than politicians.

> Sadly Greta isn't very intelligent, although she seems at least to be
> reasonably honest.
>
>
>>> And no, there is no record of sea temperatures that is in nay way
>>> reliable, even now, let alone 50 or 100 years ago.
>>
>> No record? You must be having a laugh, or head firmly planted in the
>> sand singing "la la la".
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
>>
> Wikipedia is as infested with Marxists as the Guardian, when it comes to
> climate change.

To compare articles like the quoted Wikipedia article with Marxism is a
good indication you've lost your argument.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
>
> Compare that story with :
>
> https://thewikipedian.net/2010/10/20/banned-from-wikipedia-almost/#comments
>
> There is far far too much money and too many careers riding on the
> climate change narrative for the truth to be told to the general public.
> You have to dig in odd corners where they forgot to change the data, to
> find out.
>
> And an in depth understanding of feedback systems and computer modelling
> helps a lot too.

Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.

> Climate scientists don't have that knowledge.

You're not coming across very well. Next you'll be saying art students
have a better understanding of engineering.

> Only engineers and
> physicists do really.

Engineers rarely perform scientific research, and most climate
scientists are physicist or experts in similar a relevant field.

On 05 Aug 2023 at 21:53:20 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/08/2023 19:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/08/2023 19:22, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2023 18:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:11, GB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 17:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 15:19, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on
>>>>>>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're not conflating weather with climate are you? Sure sounds
>>>>>>>>> like it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not. Hot weather in Spain and Greece cannot be climate
>>>>>>>> change, it is, after all, only weather.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that's true because the Beeb insisted it *was* climate
>>>>>>>> change. And like Russia, whatever the beeb currently says is a
>>>>>>>> lie. Always.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be so clever to see through all the obfuscation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I am.
>>>>>
>>>>> They say pride comes before a fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/oceans-hit-highest-ever-recorded-temperature
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They say reading the guardian damages your intelligence.
>>>
>>> Who is they? Deniers of possible man made climate change?
>>>
>> No, people with acuity and common sense.
>
> Common sense suggests we shouldn't play with fire. For those who have
> children and a family it makes sense to maximise their chance of having
> a good life. For those without children or estranged from their
> children, I can see why they simply don't care, and see measures to
> reduce global warming as a hit on their way of life.
>
>> And a healthy scepticism about
>> matters that make certain groups huge amounts of taxpayers money, for no
>> discernible results.
>
> That will always happen. There are both winners and losers to change.
>
>> Let's say the alarmists are right: What are we going to do about it?
>> Without China, and India, we are pissing in the wind.
>
> By setting an example. Much of India's issues are from exporting
> manufacture to those countries. There are also talks about associating
> imports with CO2 release.

This is just waffle.

>> Any sane person who was actually concerned would develop reliable cost
>> effective nuclear technology and sell it to those countries.
>
> Nuclear technology doesn't matter to those who deny climate change.

Of course it does. Fossil will get harder and more expensive to extract,
whatever the truth of AGW. Which is why we should be pushing nuclear.

> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.

Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how
these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
models are initialised and what with.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Roger Scruton

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2023 at 21:53:20 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

>
>> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.
>
> Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how
> these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
> models are initialised and what with.

QUOTE
An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower
temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that
this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not
the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot
tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.

The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert
models predicted. From the paper:

Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT
trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The
total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model
simulations during the same period. UNQUOTE

Satellite temperature rise = 0.5x model-predicted rise.

Data from thousands of balloon flights agrees with the satellite data.

Only the ground thermometers agree with the models.

--
Spike

On 5 Aug 2023 at 19:20:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 05/08/2023 18:57, RJH wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2023 at 18:53:01 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/08/2023 18:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2023 18:11, GB wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 17:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 15:19, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on
>>>>>>>>> record', but fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're not conflating weather with climate are you? Sure sounds
>>>>>>>> like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not. Hot weather in Spain and Greece cannot be climate
>>>>>>> change, it is, after all, only weather.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that's true because the Beeb insisted it *was* climate
>>>>>>> change. And like Russia, whatever the beeb currently says is a lie.
>>>>>>> Always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be so clever to see through all the obfuscation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They say pride comes before a fall.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/oceans-hit-highest-ever-recorded-temperature
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They say reading the guardian damages your intelligence.
>>> And no, there is no record of sea temperatures that is in nay way
>>> reliable, even now, let alone 50 or 100 years ago.
>>
>> Honestly, you just to need to read it:
>>
>> "Sea surface temperature measurements made from ships go back more than 150
>> years and are some of the longest instrumental records available for
>> understanding the climate".
>>
>
> Sea surface temperatures are not sea temperatures,

As the source explains . . .

> The record is
> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
> confuses the issue.

That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.

> The BBCand the Guardian present clear simple messages for simple people.
> Its not that simple
>

The simple message is that something's happening and they don't know *fully*
why. You, though, do . . .
>
>> This was more worrying, as much because they know something's happening but
>> don't know why. Yet.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/29/something-weird-is-going-on-search-for-answers-as-antarctic-sea-ice-stays-at-historic-lows
>>
> Of course we do, but its not man made global warming. Its El Nĩno plus a
> volcano.
>

Your source below goes on to say that volcanos contribute a small, temporary,
amount ('a few hundredths of a degree') to the overall heating effect - and
much les sthan human activity. El Nino isn't mentioned - good luck trying to
use that phenomena to explain climate change.

Why do you bother citing sources that don't support what you're saying?

> But that doesn't get you funding for windmills

Doesn't get you even that in the UK.

> or a more authoritarian
> Marxist government.

Okey-dokey.

>
> https://flipboard.com/topic/hungatongahungaha'apaivolcano/tonga-volcanic-eruption-may-have-role-in-fueling-summer-heatwaves/a-nSrzL3DNR0uDrpsPxlOT4g%3Aa%3A7668203-23b6a1daa8%2Fflipboard.com

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tonga-volcanic-eruption-may-role-011242725.html

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 05/08/2023 21:53, Fredxx wrote:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I feel somewhat sad for you

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 05/08/2023 18:33, Fredxx wrote:

>
>
> They say pride comes before a fall.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/oceans-hit-highest-ever-recorded-temperature
>
>

The opening paragraph

"The surface temperature of the world’s oceans has hit its highest ever
level as climate breakdown from burning fossil fuels causes the oceans
to heat."

Absolutely no doubt in the writers mind as to the cause!

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 5 Aug 2023 21:30:00 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid>
wrote:

>Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 05 Aug 2023 at 21:53:20 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.
>>
>> Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how
>> these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
>> models are initialised and what with.
>
>QUOTE
>An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower
>temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that
>this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not
>the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot
>tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.
>
>The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert
>models predicted. From the paper:
>
>Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT
>trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The
>total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model
>simulations during the same period. UNQUOTE
>
>Satellite temperature rise = 0.5x model-predicted rise.
>
>Data from thousands of balloon flights agrees with the satellite data.
>
>Only the ground thermometers agree with the models.

I find it odd, to say the least, that satellites are used to measure
sea level rises but land and sea based devices are used to measure
temperatures. Both methods have their pros and cons, but could it be
that the satellite temperatures are 'off message' so are quietly
ignored.

--
Chris

On 05/08/2023 22:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.
No one denies it is real, that is an invention of the Left. The
scepticism is how large it actually is, amongst all the other things
that cause the climate to vary.

Looking at year on tear data, co2 marches inexorably up, but climate is
up and down faster than a whores drawers.

Total proof that CO2 is not dominating climate.

> Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how
> these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
> models are initialised and what with.

The problem is that the models do not model the two most important
impacts on surface temperature - clouds, that shield the surface from
the sun by day and keep it warmer at night, and the physics of
turbulence and convection , that carry huge amounts of earth's heat to
the top of the atmosphere to radiate into space unhampered by any CO2
below it.

Why? Because these things are *incomputable*. That is why we still have
wind tunnels, and not supercomputers, in both the area of aircraft
design and formula one racing.

Worse, the models not only simply 'parametrise' (a big word that means
'fudge') the effects of these two dominant phenomena, but they also add
in unspecified and invisible *positive feedback* to make the models sort
of work over the past.
That is, the sequence goes like this.

1. Assume CO2 affects the climate. There are reasonable scientific
grounds for this but that is where the science stops.
2. Assume that *any* climate change since 1970 has been *dominated* by
CO2. There are no scientific grounds whatsoever for making this assumption.
3. Construct a model based on this assumption that includes all the
reasonably well known factors that can be computed, but fudges all the
ones that can't be computed.
4. Run the model and find it simply doesn't match reality. In the period
1970-1990 there was more apparent warming than there should have been.
5. Instead of throwing the model away as bunk, introduce yet another
fudge factor, positive feedback, so that a warmer earth make the earth
warmer!
6. Now run the model again, with the 'parametrised' clouds and
convection, and the invisible 'positive feedback' added in. Eureka, not
only do the models approximate well to 1970-1990, the future predictions
are so scary that Obama said we had only 4 years to save the planet.

That was 14 years ago.

Around 2000, although CO2 marched ever upwards. warming essentially
stopped.

It may or may not have restarted. This year is an El Niño year, and we
had a massive undersea eruption last year, whose effect has been to
inject enormous quantities of water vapour and aerosols into the
stratosphere. No one is sure how much, or what the effect will be, but
everyone agrees it will have an effect.

All the climate bollox is based on a slender thread of science, and a
flawed assumption, fed into models that are incapable of modelling two
of the most important climate modifiers.

The world has been, we know, both warmer and colder than this in the
past, and with less and more carbon dioxide than there is now. If the
positive feedback that is said to exist did exist, the climate would
never have allowed humans to exist at all.

History is full of examples where climate change came, utterly
independent of CO2 , and destroyed a civilisation.

The Mayans for example, had a thriving civilisation until as late as the
16th or even 17th century. Then it vanished. Probably due to the cold
period we call 'the little ice age'

Then, as now, their priests struggled to save it by the simple expedient
of sacrificing yet more people on the altar of yet more false gods.
Nothing happened though, and the climate changed anyway, and the
civilisation collapsed.

The great civilisations that flourished in what is today Iraq, all
vanished due to climate change. Despite their inability to construct all
wheel drive chariots.

None of this is even mentioned by the BBC or in the Guardian though is it?

Guess who the REAL anti-science contra factual climate deniers are...

Now if we take all this on board, and I personally do, and we look at
the challenges facing future generations, the real challenges are the
exhaustion of fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy, and the wars
that will result over the control of what is left. Cf Ukraine et al. And
the fact that climate change of the entirely natural sort, due to
volcanoes, earthquakes asteroid impacts or just the general chaotic
nature of the climate itself, is likely to raise challenges that will
require access to enormous amounts of energy to solve.

And the only energy we have left that actually *works* is nuclear.
'Renewable' energy is as effective in halting climate change as
sacrificing virgins to Kukulcan on the pyramids of Chichen Itza and
throwing them into the local cenotes...

Which is why I think that the real climate deniers, those that believe
the simplistic narratives fed to them by the BBC and the Guardian and
the Russian oil and gas interests, are the greatest danger to Western
civilisation that there is. By diverting enormous quantities of GDP into
pointless virtue signalling they have placed the future of western
civilisation at extreme risk. Without oil, gas or nuclear, we collapse.

That suits the hardened Marxists, to whom complete societal collapse
is, as a credo, the precursor to a freer and better society.

Tell that to the Mayans, The Sumerians, The Hittites, the Assyrians...

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 06/08/2023 00:19, RJH wrote:
>> The record is
>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>> confuses the issue.
> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.
>

Oh dear. You think they do, do you?

You simply haven't looked at the reality of climate science at all, you
take it all on trust.

Just like the Germans took it all on trust in the 1930s.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 6 Aug 2023 at 07:38:58 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/08/2023 00:19, RJH wrote:
>>> The record is
>>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>>> confuses the issue.
>> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
>> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.
>>
>
> Oh dear. You think they do, do you?
>
> You simply haven't looked at the reality of climate science at all, you
> take it all on trust.

Not all. Just looking at the balance of probabilities. Who's right? You? Or
them?

Not that hard :-)

> Just like the Germans took it all on trust in the 1930s.

That didn't take long.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 06/08/2023 07:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2023 21:30:00 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 05 Aug 2023 at 21:53:20 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.
>>>
>>> Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how
>>> these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
>>> models are initialised and what with.
>>
>> QUOTE
>> An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower
>> temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that
>> this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not
>> the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot
>> tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.
>>
>> The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert
>> models predicted. From the paper:
>>
>> Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT
>> trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The
>> total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model
>> simulations during the same period. UNQUOTE
>>
>> Satellite temperature rise = 0.5x model-predicted rise.
>>
>> Data from thousands of balloon flights agrees with the satellite data.
>>
>> Only the ground thermometers agree with the models.
>
> I find it odd, to say the least, that satellites are used to measure
> sea level rises but land and sea based devices are used to measure
> temperatures. Both methods have their pros and cons, but could it be
> that the satellite temperatures are 'off message' so are quietly
> ignored.
>

The fact of the matter is that most sea and land thermometers are where
the people are.

And people burn energy and make heat. Shipping lanes are full of warm
surface water from ships cooling systems. Cities are heat islands
because the normal ways of losing heat through vegetation are mostly
missing.

I live in Suffolk. One winters night my car thermometer read 0°C in
Surrey, 2°C in Central London, -2°C as I passed through Newmarket, and
-3°C when I arrived home in the countryside.

Now what was the 'real' temperature?

The satellites are good in that infra red sensors can measure huge
swathes of sea and land, but they are bad in that they are measuring
total heat loss effective temperatures from the upper atmosphere as
well, not land or sea *surface* temperatures.

I read somewhere a report that (until it was replaced with a digital
sensors, some remote lighthouse with an old mercury thermometer had
recorded over 100 years with the same exact thermometer and showed
*absolutely no sign* of rising temperatures *whatsoever*.

The whole thing is fiendishly complex. There is doubt about how
temperatures are measured, there is doubt about the effects of clouds
and convection to the upper air, there is doubt about the models and the
assumptions that are built in, and there is doubt about the motives of
many of the protagonists.

The only place that is completely doubt free is in the minds of those
who believe without question what they read in the Guardian, or hear or
see on the BBC etc.

Some if us who have lived abroad in countries where state corruption and
propaganda is not so well disguised, recognise it in the output of the
mass media in Europe. Those who have never lived outside of it, think it
is the real thing.
I am sad for them.

We are all being lied to all the time by almost everybody in a position
of power or authority, because that is how they got there and are
allowed to stay there.

Some of us accept that, shrug, and do our own research. Others believe
they are being told the truth.

Oh well. You can only do what you can do.

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 06/08/2023 09:03, RJH wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2023 at 07:38:58 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 06/08/2023 00:19, RJH wrote:
>>>> The record is
>>>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>>>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>>>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>>>> confuses the issue.
>>> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
>>> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear. You think they do, do you?
>>
>> You simply haven't looked at the reality of climate science at all, you
>> take it all on trust.
>
> Not all. Just looking at the balance of probabilities. Who's right? You? Or
> them?
>
Without knowing the circumstances of people whose salaries depend on
them supporting a particular political position, you cannot arrive at
the probabilities.
Is the Pope a Catholic? Does that mean that all te experts in the
Catholic church who believe in God, are, *on the balance of
probabilities*, right?

Your logic is flawed.

> Not that hard :-)
>
>> Just like the Germans took it all on trust in the 1930s.
>
> That didn't take long.
>

I believe it was the climate alarmist who first linked 'climatet
denial' to 'holocaust denial' It's been there all along.

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on record', but
> fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>
> Currently 14°C, and steady grey overcast with persistent rain.
>
> I am reminded of family holidays in the 1960s, confined to reading books
> in grandparents musty house, because instead of shivering on a dank
> beach, even my mother baulked at the thought of doing it in the pouring
> rain...
>
> Autumn appears to have arrived three months early.
>
> Only Spain and Greece seem to be south of this wild and wet North
> Atlantic jet stream.
>

Gaia's revenge for the UK govt wanting to make money out of licences for
continued oil and gas extraction.

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
<http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:36:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/08/2023 07:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> The fact of the matter is that most sea and land thermometers are where
> the people are.
>
> And people burn energy and make heat. Shipping lanes are full of warm
> surface water from ships cooling systems. Cities are heat islands
> because the normal ways of losing heat through vegetation are mostly
> missing.
>
> I live in Suffolk. One winters night my car thermometer read 0°C in
> Surrey, 2°C in Central London, -2°C as I passed through Newmarket, and
> -3°C when I arrived home in the countryside.

Crossing Brum - less than 7 miles - can often see a 2C shift in
temperature.

And famously London used to cool during the day as tubes brought in
colder air from the suburbs. I imagine that's less marked now they have a/
c ?

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2023 at 19:20:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Sea surface temperatures are not sea temperatures

> As the source explains . . .

>> The record is
>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>> confuses the issue.

> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.

Let’s go to the fundamentals. The following is the derivation on the change
in planetary temperature caused by a change in CO2 levels:

QUOTE

The equations can be expressed in a single equation to calculate the rise
in temperature ΔT because of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:

dT= a0 * a * ln (C/C0) in degrees centigrade

with a0 = 0.266 degree centigrade/W/m^2 and
a= 5.35 W/m^2

The constant will be a * a0 = 1.42 degree centigrade

Assuming doubling of the CO2 concentration, then
ΔT for that doubling=0.984 degree centigrade.

So finally we have

ΔT= 1.42 ln (C/C0) degree centigrade.
and for every doubling to temperature the rise in temperature will be about
one degree centigrade.

One has to assume that the above equation remains linear in ln (C/C0)

This can be valid so long as the CO2 concentration is still small compared
to the major air gases.

ENDQUOTE

Note that the term ln(C/C0) stems from a paper by Wigley of the Climatic
Research Unit. It does not appear to derive from theory, and I understand
that Wigley does not have a copy of the original paper.

The two constants mentioned also do not appear to be founded in theory.

The relationship appears in one of the addenda to one of the IPCC’s
background papers, but not in publications intended for governments or the
public.

Yet this is the foundation of the current thinking by climate scientists.

You will note that the relationship is logarithmic: the first doubling of
CO2 adds 1 degree, but to get another degree CO2 will need to double again.

However, we can also use this equation to calculate the swings in CO2
levels necessary to bring about the temperature change between peaks of the
interglacial periods and troughs of the ice age, easily available from the
Vostok ice-core record. These swings in planetary temperature are some
11degC.

<https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg>

So using this figure, and the IPCC’s equations, we see that

11=1.42 ln(C/C0) or 11/1.42=7.74=ln(C/C0)

Taking antilogs e^7.74=2300

So to drive a temperature rise of +11degC from a CO2 level of 200ppm (at
the trough of the glaciation), CO2 levels would need to rise to 200x2300ppm
or almost equal to half the atmosphere’s constituents.

In fact, they rise from 200 to 280ppm.

So, something other than CO2 is driving planetary temperatures, and CO2 has
very little indeed to do with it.

HTH

--
Spike

On 6 Aug 2023 at 11:08:36 BST, Spike wrote:

> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2023 at 19:20:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> Sea surface temperatures are not sea temperatures
>
>> As the source explains . . .
>
>>> The record is
>>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>>> confuses the issue.
>
>> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
>> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.
>
> Let’s go to the fundamentals. The following is the derivation on the change
> in planetary temperature caused by a change in CO2 levels:
>
> QUOTE

Regrettable snip of impressive-looking non-attributed quote - alas, nothing to
do with the observation that sea surface temperatures are rising.

>
> So, something other than CO2 is driving planetary temperatures, and CO2 has
> very little indeed to do with it.
>

The fact that variables other than CO2 are at play has never (to my knowledge)
been in dispute.

You disagree with scientific consensus that CO2 is a significant variable -
that's up to you of course.

> HTH

Not overly.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 6 Aug 2023 at 09:36:45 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> I find it odd, to say the least, that satellites are used to measure
>> sea level rises but land and sea based devices are used to measure
>> temperatures. Both methods have their pros and cons, but could it be
>> that the satellite temperatures are 'off message' so are quietly
>> ignored.

Apparently, satellites have been used to measure sea surface temperatures for
the past 20 years.
>
> The fact of the matter is that most sea and land thermometers are where
> the people are.

As has been pointed out, if you can figure that out, I'm sure that most if not
all climate scientists can.

Even I can FFS :-)

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 06/08/2023 07:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 22:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.
> No one denies it is real, that is an invention of the Left. The
> scepticism is how large it actually is, amongst all the other things
> that cause the climate to vary.
>
> Looking at year on tear data, co2 marches inexorably up, but climate is
> up and down faster than a whores drawers.
>
> Total proof that CO2 is not dominating climate.

A typical art student who doesn't understand variability (noise) of
measurement.

It's the trend that matters.

>> Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to
>> know how
>> these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the
>> models are initialised and what with.
>
> The problem is that the models do not model the two most important
> impacts on surface temperature - clouds, that shield the surface from
> the sun by day and keep it warmer at night, and the physics of
> turbulence and convection , that carry huge amounts of earth's heat to
> the top of the atmosphere to radiate into space unhampered by any CO2
> below it.
>
> Why? Because these things are *incomputable*. That is why we still have
> wind tunnels, and not supercomputers, in both the area of aircraft
> design and formula one racing.

Wind tunnels are used for fine tuning. There are some good models at
predicting drag but not in detail.

> Worse, the models not only simply 'parametrise' (a big word that means
> 'fudge') the effects of these two dominant phenomena, but they also add
> in unspecified and invisible *positive feedback* to make the models sort
> of work over the past.
> That is, the sequence goes like this.

I suppose you would call vacuum permittivity a fudge too.

> 1. Assume CO2 affects the climate. There are reasonable scientific
> grounds for this but that is where the science stops.
> 2. Assume that *any* climate change since 1970 has been *dominated* by
> CO2. There are no scientific grounds whatsoever for making this assumption.
> 3. Construct a model based on this assumption that includes all the
> reasonably well known factors that can be computed, but fudges all the
> ones that can't be computed.
> 4. Run the model and find it simply doesn't match reality. In the period
> 1970-1990 there was more apparent warming than there should have been.
> 5. Instead of throwing the model away as bunk, introduce yet another
> fudge factor, positive feedback, so that a warmer earth make the earth
> warmer!

And as others have pointed out water vapour is a positive feedback
mechanism. And is more dominant than CO2.

> 6. Now run the model again, with the 'parametrised' clouds and
> convection, and the invisible 'positive feedback' added in. Eureka, not
> only do the models approximate well to 1970-1990, the future predictions
> are so scary that Obama said we had only 4 years to save the planet.

Yep, not all models are right. Get used to it. See the bigger picture.

> That was 14 years ago.
>
> Around 2000, although CO2 marched ever upwards. warming essentially
> stopped.
>
> It may or may not have restarted. This year is an El Niño year, and we
> had a massive undersea eruption last year, whose effect has been to
> inject enormous quantities of water vapour and aerosols into the
> stratosphere. No one is sure how much, or what the effect will be, but
> everyone agrees it will have an effect.

Yep, best not take a single year as an example for all.

> All the climate bollox is based on a slender thread of science, and a
> flawed assumption, fed into models that are incapable of modelling two
> of the most important climate modifiers.

I suppose that is the difference between scientists and engineers and
art students. Art students don't have a clue and say bollox to anything
they don't understand whereas engineer and scientists understand the
limitations of their models.

> The world has been, we know, both warmer and colder than this in the
> past, and with less and more carbon dioxide than there is now. If the
> positive feedback that is said to exist did exist, the climate would
> never have allowed humans to exist at all.
>
> History is full of examples where climate change came, utterly
> independent of CO2 , and destroyed a civilisation.

History assumes the same conditions. If you can provide a time when man
spewed tons of CO2 into the atmosphere then you're doing very well.

> The Mayans for example, had a thriving civilisation until as late as the
> 16th or even 17th century.

Typical art student nonsense. Engineers and scientist will know the
Mayan Civilisation died out largely at the hands of the Spanish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

> Then it vanished. Probably due to the cold
> period we call 'the little ice age'
>
> Then, as now, their priests struggled to save it by the simple expedient
> of sacrificing yet more people on the altar of yet more false gods.
> Nothing happened though, and the climate changed anyway, and the
> civilisation collapsed.
>
> The great civilisations that flourished in what is today Iraq, all
> vanished due to climate change. Despite their inability to construct all
> wheel drive chariots.

The smarts suggest it was down to the type of agriculture, much like the
dust bowl areas in the US. Only an art student would attribute it down
to climate change.

> None of this is even mentioned by the BBC or in the Guardian though is it?
>
> Guess who the REAL anti-science contra factual climate deniers are...

Art students?

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2023 at 11:08:36 BST, Spike wrote:
>
>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 Aug 2023 at 19:20:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>> Sea surface temperatures are not sea temperatures
>>
>>> As the source explains . . .
>>
>>>> The record is
>>>> patchy, because ships do not sail everywhere, and the change from
>>>> measuring water temperatures by a thermometer in a bucket, compared
>>>> with engine coolant intakes let alone buoys dropped in the sea, further
>>>> confuses the issue.
>>
>>> That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do.
>>> They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.
>>
>> Let’s go to the fundamentals. The following is the derivation on the change
>> in planetary temperature caused by a change in CO2 levels:
>>
>> QUOTE
>
> Regrettable snip of impressive-looking non-attributed quote - alas, nothing to
> do with the observation that sea surface temperatures are rising.
>
>>
>> So, something other than CO2 is driving planetary temperatures, and CO2 has
>> very little indeed to do with it.
>>
>
> The fact that variables other than CO2 are at play has never (to my knowledge)
> been in dispute.

Quite. But climate science isn’t accounting for the swings between glacial
and interglacial periods. The concentration changes in ‘greenhouse gases’
is largely immaterial. So why are $trillions being spent to ‘combat’
something so irrelevant?

The logarithmic relationship is mentioned here:

<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/radiative-forcing-of-climate/>

(Table 2.2 of the pdf)

Some of Wigley’s papers are referenced.

> You disagree with scientific consensus that CO2 is a significant variable -
> that's up to you of course.

I’m using the fundamental foundations of what you call ‘the scientific
consensus’ in the calculations! Every time the subject of ‘so many degrees
for so much CO2’ is mentioned, this is where it comes from.

It’s their show, not mine.

>> HTH
>
> Not overly.

--
Spike

I remember in the 80s, My Mother and I thought it would be good to get a
coach to the Isle of Wight. The weather was set fair in Surrey and we did
not in those days have mobiles to check the weather elsewhere.
However, When we got to the coast to catch the ferry across, the sky was
obscured and the famous 'missle' set in. When we got off at the other side,
it was raining in bucket loads, and so it continued through all the various
places. Never even got to see Alum Bay, it was too misty and wet. After all
of this when it was time to come back, when we got mid way from the Ferry to
home the sky cleared and it was pleasantly warm, indeed our neighbour had
just had a Bar BQ, and told us it had been a warm and pleasant day all the
time we were away.
What does this prove? Well you can just forget going on Coach tours, I
think as the same thing happened in Blackpool in September.
And now i am on my own, people say why not go on a coach trip. Bah Humbug.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uanoe3$2685g$1@dont-email.me...
> On 05/08/2023 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> The Beeb can insist that this year is the 'hottest evah on record', but
>> fuck that for a game of soldiers.
>>
>> Currently 14�C, and steady grey overcast with persistent rain.
>>
>> I am reminded of family holidays in the 1960s, confined to reading books
>> in grandparents musty house, because instead of shivering on a dank
>> beach, even my mother baulked at the thought of doing it in the pouring
>> rain...
>>
>> Autumn appears to have arrived three months early.
>>
>> Only Spain and Greece seem to be south of this wild and wet North
>> Atlantic jet stream.
>>
>
> Gaia's revenge for the UK govt wanting to make money out of licences for
> continued oil and gas extraction.
>
> --
> Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
> <http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>