On 6 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, Spike wrote:

>> 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.

That remains the crux of your argument that most climate scientists disagree
with - at least AIUI.

> 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)
>

Nothing is explained there to my untrained eye - it's simply a table listing
the relationship between various gases and radiative forcing. The explanations
lie in the references. And even if I could access those, I wouldn't be able to
understand them.

I take it you can understand - for example, Wigley, Tom (1987) Relative
contributions of different trace gases to the greenhouse effect. Climate
Monitor, 16. pp. 14-28. You can critique that paper in context, and in
relation to subsequent related work?

> Some of Wigley’s papers are referenced.

Well yes, but the paper goes on the make the point that CO2 is a significant
variable:

"The most recent decadal increase in radiative forcing is attributable to CO2
(56%) . . . considering anthropogenic emissions of all gases in 1990, and
integrating their effect over 100 years, shows that 60%> of the greenhouse
forcing from these emissions comes from CO2" (p.45)

At least AIUI. I'm sure you'll correct me :-)

>
>> 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!

Are you? And peer reviewed climate scientists don't, then?

> Every time the subject of ‘so many degrees
> for so much CO2’ is mentioned, this is where it comes from.
>

Yes, I agree.

Anyways, I think there's coincidence and cause going on here. I don't think
you're supposed to read that CO2 is the only anthropological variable - at
least I don't.

> It’s their show, not mine.

OK fine, but why cite a paper that appears to refute your argument?

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 06/08/2023 12:42, Brian Gaff wrote:
> 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
>

Reminds me of being a kid on family holiday on IoW. What to do on a
rainy day, a coach tour of the island.
Getting on the coach in Newport it seemed odd the driver was wearing a
sou-wester and oilskin cape. Not a full coach and soon after setting off
, frantic movement for some passengers to other seats.
First uphill and another sudden passenger movement from the back seat.
Then going down the hill , the waterproof apparell came apparent. Water
had been collecting in the luggage rack from holes in the roof and
cascaded over the driver.
Similar had happened to those at the back. People near the wheel arches
had road spray spraying over them from holes in the chassis .
Makes you wonder what the state of the ex London underground trains were
like in the wet.

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

On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
much CO2'.

--
Bessie Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:54:02 UTC+1, Steve wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:36:19 +0100

> Ludicrous right-tard twat.

That's a very convincing contribution to the debate I'm sure.

Bill

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:48:57 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

>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.

But are they actually using the results in the global temperature
averages? And why not use satellites for land temperatures as well?
They would give a much better average, not overly influenced by UHI's.
>>
>> 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 :-)

So why not use satellites for all the temperature measurements, land
and sea, or even better, simply measure the temperature of the
troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere, i.e. the bit we occupy
and the part most relevant to the global warming argument)? Roy
Spencer at the University of Alabama (Huntsville) issues regular
updates on the temperature of the troposphere, measured by satellite.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/

--
Chris

In article <uao77c$29bvo$1@dont-email.me>, N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/08/2023 12:42, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > 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
> >

> Reminds me of being a kid on family holiday on IoW. What to do on a
> rainy day, a coach tour of the island. Getting on the coach in Newport it
> seemed odd the driver was wearing a sou-wester and oilskin cape. Not a
> full coach and soon after setting off , frantic movement for some
> passengers to other seats. First uphill and another sudden passenger
> movement from the back seat. Then going down the hill , the waterproof
> apparell came apparent. Water had been collecting in the luggage rack
> from holes in the roof and cascaded over the driver. Similar had
> happened to those at the back. People near the wheel arches had road
> spray spraying over them from holes in the chassis . Makes you wonder
> what the state of the ex London underground trains were like in the wet.

All, I think, "underground" lines have above ground sections at the ends of
the line, so I suspect any leaks would have shown up when in service in
London

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
> much CO2'.

Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
calculate the change in one from the change in the other…

--
Spike

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, Spike wrote:
>
>>> 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.

> That remains the crux of your argument that most climate scientists disagree
> with - at least AIUI.

What I have used is their own science!

If you don’t like it or agree with it, you’ll need to find another reason
on which to base your belief .

>> 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)
>>
>
> Nothing is explained there to my untrained eye - it's simply a table listing
> the relationship between various gases and radiative forcing. The explanations
> lie in the references. And even if I could access those, I wouldn't be able to
> understand them.

The claimed logarithmic relationship for CO2 is mentioned there.

> I take it you can understand - for example, Wigley, Tom (1987) Relative
> contributions of different trace gases to the greenhouse effect. Climate
> Monitor, 16. pp. 14-28. You can critique that paper in context, and in
> relation to subsequent related work?

Probably…there won’t be anything unsurprising in it.

>> Some of Wigley’s papers are referenced.
>
> Well yes, but the paper goes on the make the point that CO2 is a significant
> variable:

That’s why we’re discussing it.

> "The most recent decadal increase in radiative forcing is attributable to CO2
> (56%) . . . considering anthropogenic emissions of all gases in 1990, and
> integrating their effect over 100 years, shows that 60%> of the greenhouse
> forcing from these emissions comes from CO2" (p.45)

It’s a way of saying that deltaT=constant*ln(C/C0)

> At least AIUI. I'm sure you'll correct me :-)

>>> 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!

> Are you? And peer reviewed climate scientists don't, then?

Heavens…what I quoted was from the climate scientists own work!

>> Every time the subject of ‘so many degrees
>> for so much CO2’ is mentioned, this is where it comes from.

> Yes, I agree.
>
> Anyways, I think there's coincidence and cause going on here. I don't think
> you're supposed to read that CO2 is the only anthropological variable - at
> least I don't.
>
>> It’s their show, not mine.
>
> OK fine, but why cite a paper that appears to refute your argument?

I cited their work to refute their argument!

--
Spike

On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:09:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
>> much CO2'.
>
> Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
> calculate the change in one from the change in the other…

Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and
therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one
can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:09:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
>>> much CO2'.
>>
>> Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
>> calculate the change in one from the change in the other…
>
> Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and
> therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one
> can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.

That’s exactly what it does!

A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
exponential, or y=c*(ln(x)) which is logarithmic, but none stop you
calculating y from x.

--
Spike

On 05/08/2023 12:52, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/08/2023 11:29, Jeff Layman 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.
>>>>
>>>> Currently 14°C, and steady grey  overcast with persistent rain.
>>>>
>>>> Autumn appears to have arrived three months early.
>>>
>>> Yep. Gave up sitting in the cold and turned on the fan heater an hour
>>> ago.
>>>
>> FuckinAda. That's going it a bit. I put on a jumper. Luckily the Aga
>> chucks out 800W into the kitchen. And that filters up to here a boit.
>> I shut all the windows though.
>
> Already had the woolie stuff on. No Aga to help out, and I'd forgotten
> that the window vents (for the log burner in the lounge) were open;
> they're now shut! Only had the heater on long enough to bring the room
> up to 20°C, and now the sun's out the room should stay warm enough
> without the heater.
>
what a spoilt lot you are, woolies, logburners, god help us when Putin
starts on us !

On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:09:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
>>>> much CO2'.
>>>
>>> Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
>>> calculate the change in one from the change in the other…
>>
>> Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and
>> therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one
>> can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.
>
> That’s exactly what it does!
>
> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
> exponential,

that's not exponential.

> or y=c*(ln(x)) which is logarithmic, but none stop you calculating y from x.

Of course not. But only with linear can you take any old amount of CO2
*anywhere on the curve* and get the same number of *degrees out*. For any
other equation type, the number of *degrees you get out* depends on *where on
the curve you take your CO2 amount*.

--
"The EU Customs Union is a racket that defends producers in rich countries against producers in poor countries."

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:09:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
>>>>> much CO2'.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
>>>> calculate the change in one from the change in the other…
>>>
>>> Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and
>>> therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one
>>> can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.
>>
>> That’s exactly what it does!
>>
>> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
>> exponential,
>
> that's not exponential.

It’s got an exponent…

>> or y=c*(ln(x)) which is logarithmic, but none stop you calculating y from x.
>
> Of course not. But only with linear can you take any old amount of CO2
> *anywhere on the curve* and get the same number of *degrees out*. For any
> other equation type, the number of *degrees you get out* depends on *where on
> the curve you take your CO2 amount*.

The equation the IPCC uses calculates the temperature delta from the ln of
the CO2 ratio, it doesn’t deal with absolute CO2 or temperature levels as a
linear graph would. That’s probably because according to the IPCC
hypothesis adding CO2 *adds* to whatever temperature the planet has; and
according to Wigley that relationship is logarithmic.

--
Spike

On 07 Aug 2023 at 10:57:22 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:

>>> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
>>> exponential,
>>
>> that's not exponential.
>
> It’s got an exponent…

Exponential would have x as the exponent. Winky is your friend here:

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

y = mx^2 + c

is a power function.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On 7 Aug 2023 10:27:12 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

>On 07 Aug 2023 at 10:57:22 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
>>>> exponential,
>>>
>>> that's not exponential.
>>
>> It’s got an exponent…
>
>Exponential would have x as the exponent. Winky is your friend here:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
>
>y = mx^2 + c
>
>is a power function.

I thought 'parabolic' was the usual term 'cos they plot as parabolas.

--
Chris

On 7 Aug 2023 09:57:22 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid>
wrote:

>
>The equation the IPCC uses calculates the temperature delta from the ln of
>the CO2 ratio, it doesn’t deal with absolute CO2 or temperature levels as a
>linear graph would. That’s probably because according to the IPCC
>hypothesis adding CO2 *adds* to whatever temperature the planet has; and
>according to Wigley that relationship is logarithmic.

Presumably Wigley was basing his analysis on Beer-Lambert.
https://tinyurl.com/45bx39w9 etc.

--
Chris

On 06/08/2023 11:08, 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
>
> 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
>
+1001

In essence that is what the *science* says. Ex of any other factors a
doubling of CO2 is just under a degree centigrade warming, which cannot
account for any of the major climate swings of the last 4 billion years.

I must say I thought there was a theoretical cases for that figure in
terms of absorption spectra, but yes, that is the figure that is down to
CO2, and that is the figure that upset climate scientists when in the
70s 80s and 90s climate was apparently warming much more than that.

At that point they had two choices. The sane one would have been to say
'so obviously something else is causing it' but you don't get quoted in
the Guardian or appear on BBC news for that, so they chose a different
hypothesis, that something was *amplifying* temperature change.

Fitting that into the model gave excellent hind-casting and predicted
all the disaster that we are so familiar with - none of which has
actually happened.
The alternative hypothesis, that they simply didn't understand climate
properly at all, and had no reason to introduce, and, as it turned out,
no evidence whatsoever to support any 'amplification' - in fact quite
the reverse - was the null hypothesis that would spell the end of the
climate doom gravy train.

So it was buried in the small print of the actual IPCC reports, and
ignored totally by the doom laden executive summary, which is all anyone
read, anyway.

Climate science is bunk, it's a teeny kernel of actual science,
surrounded by a turd sized lump of unwarranted assumptions, given
credibility by being run through dozens of supercomputers, that give the
same politically convenient but wrong, answer.

The climate is changing. The climate always *has* changed. *Most* of the
reasons why it changes are simply not known, and carbon dioxide is, at
its current levels, simply almost completely irrelevant. Except in terms
of promoting plant growth in arid reasons, where it is doing sterling
service.

That is the real state of the science. Almost complete ignorance. We
still dont know what caused the Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period,
the Mediaeval Warm Period or the little ice age, and that's in the last
10,000 years.
Tucked in there is a period of rapid cooling - the so called 'Younger
Dryas' that is partially understood.

Other periods in earths history can be vaguely aligned with asteroid
strikes, prolonged volcanic eruptions or plate tectonics allowing (or
obstructing) ocean currents transporting tropical heat to the poles.

As far as we can tell, periods of global warning are *followed* by
periods of increased carbon dioxide, presumably from ocean outgassing of
dissolved material. No examples as far as I recall of geological periods
of warming being *preceded* by CO2 rise, exist. In fact when volcanoes
spew it out, the general effect is to generate cold, on account of them
also spewing out aerosols.

The real situation is not as is popularly portrayed, it is that climate
changes and we are powerless to stop it, but might do well to prepare
for it with e,g, things like tidal barriers etc and be prepared to adapt
agriculture to it.

CO2 is simply a distraction, and the whole industry based on the
assumption that CO2 is evil is in fact a monumental fraud.

TPTB know this, but once you start a lie, it's really hard to admit you
lied, and knew you lied. Especially if your status career and income
depend upon it.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 06/08/2023 11:45, RJH wrote:

> The fact that variables other than CO2 are at play has never (to my knowledge)
> been in dispute.
>
Well yes, it sort of has, because buried in the mire of the models that
are run to predict climate change is the base assumption that, compared
with CO2, they can be safely ignored.

This is why so much effort has gone into erasing or minimizing the
significance of all the pretty drastic warm and cold periods in the
last 10,000 years as 'merely local effects' while one bristlecone pine
on the Yamal peninsula tree (
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html)
indicates 'serious global climate change'

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

That is not the scientific consensus.
That is the *political* consensus,

The overwhelming *scientific* consensus is that CO2 makes a difference,
but not enough to worry about.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 06/08/2023 13:29, RJH wrote:
> "The most recent decadal increase in radiative forcing is attributable to CO2
> (56%) . . . considering anthropogenic emissions of all gases in 1990, and
> integrating their effect over 100 years, shows that 60%> of the greenhouse
> forcing from these emissions comes from CO2" (p.45)
>
> At least AIUI. I'm sure you'll correct me 😄

Read that carefully. " 60% of the greenhouse forcing from these
emissions comes from CO2"

First of all, it refers to green house forcing *only*, and secondly it
refers to greenhouse forcings from "these emissions".

It implicitly * ignores every other factor* that can influence climate.

The earths climate is not controlled, only slightly affected, by
'greenhouse forcings'

And human emissions may account for 60% of all *emissions*, but not 60%
of all *greenhouse gases*.

So the wording is carefully chosen to give a far bigger impression than
it actually states as fact.

Why would a concerned responsible scientists do that?

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

Jonathan Swift

Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2023 09:57:22 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The equation the IPCC uses calculates the temperature delta from the ln of
>> the CO2 ratio, it doesn’t deal with absolute CO2 or temperature levels as a
>> linear graph would. That’s probably because according to the IPCC
>> hypothesis adding CO2 *adds* to whatever temperature the planet has; and
>> according to Wigley that relationship is logarithmic.
>
> Presumably Wigley was basing his analysis on Beer-Lambert.
> https://tinyurl.com/45bx39w9 etc.

Wigley’s paper on the matter is apparently hard to find; he is reported as
saying he doesn’t have a copy (which is mildly surprising) and the Hadley
Centre certainly should have (but seem reluctant to produce one).

--
Spike

On 06/08/2023 14:30, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
> much CO2'.
>
No, what is stated is so many degrees for each DOUBLING of CO2,. The
science, what little there is, suggests around 0.9°C. If you consider
that the water vapours and heat circulation of the planet constitute a
negative feedbacks system that could actually result on as little as
half that.

So by the end of the century, maybe half a degree of warming. Barely
detectable and nothing like the periods of warming and cooling we have
had with completely stable CO2, post the Younger Dryas.

What the climate modellers did was to attempt to erase those periods
from the record, and introduce *positive* feedback to make CO2
accountable for *all * otherwise unexplained global warming since 1970
or thereabouts.
And it is that *positive* feedback, placed in the *models* (that has no
evidence to support it at all), that causes the scary predictions we
are bombarded with, of 1.5°C or 2.0°C or 3.5°C per each doubling. Plus
the introduction of totally implausible catastrophic 'tipping points' .

This is all simply fantasy. There is no evidence for *any* of it. Not
today, not in the past.

In one breath they say 'the world has never warmed faster than this
ever' and in the next they say 'tipping points' Well if there are
tipping points, why didn't the earth warm faster in the past when CO2
was at far higher concentarions? None of it adds up., Its all carefully
crafted *bullshit*.

We might ask them about well preserved mammoth carcases who appear to
have frozen to death with grass in their mouths. And been buried in
permafrist ever since. Rapid cooling it seems is another matter...

There is science, and there is 'climate science' and there is religion,
and there is a political narrative.

Don't confuse them

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/08/2023 11:08, 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
>>
>> 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
>>
> +1001
>
> In essence that is what the *science* says. Ex of any other factors a
> doubling of CO2 is just under a degree centigrade warming, which cannot
> account for any of the major climate swings of the last 4 billion years.
>
> I must say I thought there was a theoretical cases for that figure in
> terms of absorption spectra, but yes, that is the figure that is down to
> CO2, and that is the figure that upset climate scientists when in the
> 70s 80s and 90s climate was apparently warming much more than that.
>
> At that point they had two choices. The sane one would have been to say
> 'so obviously something else is causing it' but you don't get quoted in
> the Guardian or appear on BBC news for that, so they chose a different
> hypothesis, that something was *amplifying* temperature change.
>
> Fitting that into the model gave excellent hind-casting and predicted
> all the disaster that we are so familiar with - none of which has
> actually happened.
> The alternative hypothesis, that they simply didn't understand climate
> properly at all, and had no reason to introduce, and, as it turned out,
> no evidence whatsoever to support any 'amplification' - in fact quite
> the reverse - was the null hypothesis that would spell the end of the
> climate doom gravy train.
>
> So it was buried in the small print of the actual IPCC reports, and
> ignored totally by the doom laden executive summary, which is all anyone
> read, anyway.
>
> Climate science is bunk, it's a teeny kernel of actual science,
> surrounded by a turd sized lump of unwarranted assumptions, given
> credibility by being run through dozens of supercomputers, that give the
> same politically convenient but wrong, answer.
>
> The climate is changing. The climate always *has* changed. *Most* of the
> reasons why it changes are simply not known, and carbon dioxide is, at
> its current levels, simply almost completely irrelevant. Except in terms
> of promoting plant growth in arid reasons, where it is doing sterling
> service.
>
> That is the real state of the science. Almost complete ignorance. We
> still dont know what caused the Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period,
> the Mediaeval Warm Period or the little ice age, and that's in the last
> 10,000 years.
> Tucked in there is a period of rapid cooling - the so called 'Younger
> Dryas' that is partially understood.
>
> Other periods in earths history can be vaguely aligned with asteroid
> strikes, prolonged volcanic eruptions or plate tectonics allowing (or
> obstructing) ocean currents transporting tropical heat to the poles.
>
> As far as we can tell, periods of global warning are *followed* by
> periods of increased carbon dioxide, presumably from ocean outgassing of
> dissolved material. No examples as far as I recall of geological periods
> of warming being *preceded* by CO2 rise, exist. In fact when volcanoes
> spew it out, the general effect is to generate cold, on account of them
> also spewing out aerosols.
>
> The real situation is not as is popularly portrayed, it is that climate
> changes and we are powerless to stop it, but might do well to prepare
> for it with e,g, things like tidal barriers etc and be prepared to adapt
> agriculture to it.
>
> CO2 is simply a distraction, and the whole industry based on the
> assumption that CO2 is evil is in fact a monumental fraud.
>
> TPTB know this, but once you start a lie, it's really hard to admit you
> lied, and knew you lied. Especially if your status career and income
> depend upon it.

Well said.

--
Spike

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 07 Aug 2023 at 10:57:22 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
>>>> exponential,
>>>
>>> that's not exponential.
>>
>> It’s got an exponent…
>
> Exponential would have x as the exponent. Winky is your friend here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
>
> y = mx^2 + c
>
> is a power function.

Ta.

None of which affects the assertion that the fundamental scientific basis
of CO2-driven climate change rests on an assertion that was published in a
paper that is proving hard to find, and was only mentioned once in an
addendum to an IPCC report that was not included in documents produced for
either governments or the public. And which, when real data is plugged into
it, doesn’t account for the transitions between ice ages and interglacials.
Something Really Big is driving the climate, and it ain’t CO2.

--
Spike

On 06/08/2023 15:36, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:09:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 12:31:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so
>>> much CO2'.
>>
>> Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to
>> calculate the change in one from the change in the other…
>
> Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and
> therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one
> can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.
>
See mine. No one actually *does*, it's always per DOUBLING of CO2. Which
if we stick to the science means that we could burn all the economically
viable fossil fuel there is, pop the CO2 up to 600 ppm and still stay
under two degrees rise.

And probably a lot less.

https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/08/how-much-warming-can-we-expect-in-the-21st-century/

is a particularly fair and balanced assessment of everything we have
been talking about, written by real climate scientists in the only place
they can get published these days.

As you can see if you read even part of it, the science is very far from
settled.

And in one part of it, that relating to clouds, they claim a 'strongly
positive' feedback from clouds, as they keep you warm at night.

They also reflect back huge amounts of daytime radiation, just like ice
and snow.
This is ignored even in this well written summary.

Conclusion ? There is no fucking consensus among climate scientists
about anything, and claims range from 'mostly harmless' to 'end of life
as we know it' depending more on the personal political hue than their
ability to Do Sums.

Climate models are like sewers, what you get out depends on what you put
in, and you can get any kind of answer you want depending on what
assumptions you make in a space that is utterly devoid of *real factual
data*.

99% of so called climate science is in fact gravy train research into
what *might* happen *if* the worst predictions were true.

Less than 1% of it goes into trying to give some statistical weight to
the likelihood that any of the assumptions made in predictions have *any
validity whatsoever*!

I recall one paper where a researcher calculated as best he could the
impact on the lowering of temperature caused by a dust cloud emitted by
a volcano. His results matched actual cooling pretty exactly. He applied
no positive feedback whatsoever.

THEN he *applied* positive feedback to show what the same loss or
increase would do in terms of climate! So his results matched the
'consensus' among climate alarmists.

Peer reviewed and ticked.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 07 Aug 2023 at 11:37:37 BST, "Chris Hogg" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2023 10:27:12 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07 Aug 2023 at 10:57:22 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 06 Aug 2023 at 15:52:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is
>>>>> exponential,
>>>>
>>>> that's not exponential.
>>>
>>> It’s got an exponent

>> Exponential would have x as the exponent. Winky is your friend here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
>>
>> y = mx^2 + c
>>
>> is a power function.
>
> I thought 'parabolic' was the usual term 'cos they plot as parabolas.

For an exponent of 2, yes, but other exponents are available.

--
Bessie Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."