On 06/08/2023 11:48, RJH 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.
>>
>> 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 how do they know what the rest of the ocean is like, and at depth?
They dont. They fill in with 'interpolations' and call that 'fact'.

point is that you assume they have some magic formula for validating
extremely sparse and inaccurate data to come up with something
immaterial called 'global *averge*sea temperature'. They don't and they
cant. They feed what data they have into a model, and turn the handle
and out pops a number, but what the model is actually assuming to get
that number is never revealed.

--
“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 06/08/2023 14:58, Chris Hogg wrote:
> 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.

Well they do, but they dont show any significant global warming, so they
are disregarded.
To be fair, what they measure is the radiations they see, and that may
or may nor reflect the temperature at the surface.
Loads of heat boils off the oceans , ends up as massive cumulonimbus and
sheds heat faster than a whore sheds knickers, causing the earth below
to be cooled by rain while the satellite sees a hot spot of heat loss.
In short the satellite my be measuring the temperature of the upper
atmosphere, not the land or the sea.

Toss in the sparsity of land and sea based monitoring stations, and
their proximity to human activity, and the whole thing is a right
buggers muddle.

Most of us who bother to read the arguments conclude that even if there
is such a thing as 'average surface level global temperature' nothing
we have now comes close to actually measuring it.

> 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/
>

If only it were possible. The troposphere is still pretty thick. at 5-9
miles -
the temperature variation in it is immense. +50°C to -50°C is not
unreasonable from ạ desert surface to 47,000 feet.

Have you hard the story about the man selling 'the antidote to all the
emissions of Great Britain's effect on the climate' It was a brick. By
standing on that your altitude increases by enough so that the lapse
rate would counteract the entire effect of the UK's carbon emissions on
global temperatures, as alleged by the alarmists.

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 06/08/2023 12:13, Fredxx wrote:
> And as others have pointed out water vapour is a positive feedback
> mechanism. And is more dominant than CO2.
No. it isnt.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 07/08/2023 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/08/2023 14:58, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well they do, but they dont show any significant global warming, so they
> are disregarded.

Not true. Satellites confirm that there is little troposphere warming,
but not surface temperatures, which are in line with direct measurements.

https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

On 07/08/2023 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/08/2023 12:13, Fredxx wrote:
>> And as others have pointed out water vapour is a positive feedback
>> mechanism. And is more dominant than CO2.
> No. it isnt.

Yes it is. I guess art students wouldn't have a clue what positive
feedback is:
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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

Well said.

--
Spike

Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> 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).

This might be Wigley’s paper, but they want me to pony up several hundred
dollars or apply through my institution to get the full article. I have the
one, but am not willing to risk it, and I don’t have the other:

Published: 20 June 1985
Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean
temperature

T. M. L. Wigley & M. E. Schlesinger
Nature volume 315, pages 649–652 (1985)
Cite this article

1162 Accesses
141 Citations
25 Altmetric
Metrics details
A Corrigendum to this article was published on 01 August 1985
Abstract
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to cause
substantial changes in climate1. Recent model studies suggest that the
equilibrium warming for a CO2 doubling (Δ T2×) is about 3–4°C2–4.
Observational data show that the globe has warmed by about 0.5°C over the
past 100 years5,6. Are these two results compatible? To answer this
question due account must be taken of oceanic thermal inertia effects,
which can significantly slow the response of the climate system to external
forcing. The main controlling parameters are the effective diffusivity of
the ocean below the upper mixed layer (κ) and the climate sensitivity
(defined by Δ T2×). Previous analyses of this problem have considered only
limited ranges of these parameters. Here we present a more general analysis
of two cases, forcing by a step function change in CO2 concentration and by
a steady CO2 increase. The former case may be characterized by a response
time which we show is strongly dependent on both κ and Δ T2×. In the latter
case the damped response means that, at any given time, the climate system
may be quite far removed from its equilibrium with the prevailing CO2
level. In earlier work this equilibrium has been expressed as a lag time,
but we show this to be misleading because of the sensitivity of the lag to
the history of past CO2 variations. Since both the lag and the degree of
disequilibrium are strongly dependent on κ and Δ T2×, and because of
uncertainties in the pre-industrial CO2 level, the observed global warming
over the past 100 years can be shown to be compatible with a wide range of
CO2-doubling temperature changes.

--
Spike

On 07/08/2023 10:57, Spike 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.
>
>
The IPCC doesn't do *any* science, it reviews other people's, and
generates an executive summary for political purposes.

Neither is it within it's written terms of reference to question whether
human generated climate change *actually exists*, or at what level . It
exists to (allegedly) analyse the impact of its *assumed * existence and
generate political recommendations.

Which are things the mainstream media always seems to forget to mention.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 07/08/2023 12:53, Tim Streater wrote:
> 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.
>

y=x to the power infinity, is a step function. its zero for values of x
below 1, and infinite for values above...
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 07/08/2023 13:19, Fredxx wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/08/2023 14:58, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well they do, but they dont show any significant global warming, so
>> they are disregarded.
>
> Not true. Satellites confirm that there is little troposphere warming,
> but not surface temperatures, which are in line with direct measurements.
>
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
>

PLEASE dont quote 'skeptical scieince', its isn't skeptical and it
certainly isn't science, and its the most discredited site on the
internet. It is full on Marxist agitProp.

The satellites cannot measure what they cannot see or sense, and
there's 20 miles of atmosphere between them and the ground, so whilst
someone may have produced a model that makes it seem like they have
measured ground temps, that's a model output, not a fact.

>

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 07/08/2023 13:21, Fredxx wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/08/2023 12:13, Fredxx wrote:
>>> And as others have pointed out water vapour is a positive feedback
>>> mechanism. And is more dominant than CO2.
>> No. it isnt.
>
> Yes it is. I guess art students wouldn't have a clue what positive
> feedback is:
>
> https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
>
>
Water vaporises,rises by convection, above any greenhouse gases,
transfers heat to space, and thereby lowers the earths temperature, and
it also becomes a cloud and reflects heat back to space.

Now you may consider that water in a cloud is not vapour and therefore
'water vapour' is a greenhouse gas and makes things warmer is strictly
true, but its role in the huge negative feedback loop that is absorbing
heat via the latent heat of evaporation, rising in incomputable ways way
beyond the bulk of the CO2, radiating like fuck and turning into
sunlight-opaque clouds of ice, is most certainly not.
Overall the *water* cycle is massive negative feedback, taking tropical
maritime heat and transferring it both directly to space and also
towards the temperate and polar latitudes as warmer wet air that turns
to clouds and rain and cools stuff down.

Even an ArtStudent should be able to grasp that.
water makes clouds and ice, how? by losing heat. Where does the heat go?
Space. What is the effect of the water and ice in clouds? overall cooling

Water * vapour* may be a potent greenhouse gas but we are 100%
saturated with it in tropical regions anyway. As any ArtStudent who has
been there knows. It cant make things any warmer than they already are.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"