There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.

“The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”

Stalling weather patterns is a bad thing. Can't wait until the north pole goes iceless, then we're really going to see things happening.

https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 11:11:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.

You don't need a professor to tell you that, though you'd expect a professor to be a little more specific.

A higher global temperature means a higher equilibrium water vapour pressure over every body of water. A one degree Celcius rise in temperature means a 7% increase in water vapour pressure. Since oceans cover about two third of the earth's surface, this does mean that there's eventually going to be 7% more rain when this water vapour condenses again. I've posted that point here from time to time. It doesn't say anything about the "intensity" of the rainfall, which varies a lot from place to place.

That extra 7% of water vapour is 7% more latent heat of condensation, which turns into 7% extra wind energy, but there's no obvious way of predicting where this will show up.

> “The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”

Again. the intensity of the rainfall varies from place to place. It sounds like pretentious twaddle.

> Stalling weather patterns is a bad thing. Can't wait until the north pole goes iceless, then we're really going to see things happening.

That's not part of the Vox report, but rather Fred Bloggs trying to be a weather prophet, generating his own pretentious twaddle.
>
> https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.
>
>“The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”

Cool. That explains our "historic dry summer."

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 7/19/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.
>>
>> “The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”
>
> Cool. That explains our "historic dry summer."
>
>
>

New England is having a historic hot and wet summer, for about the past
8 weekends it's done one of two things, 90+ degrees in the shade, or
pour rain. Feels more like Belize than Massachusetts

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

> That's not part of the Vox report, but rather Fred Bloggs trying to be a weather prophet, generating his own pretentious twaddle.

The only one around here spewing pretentious "twaddle" is yourself as has been extensively established.
Modeling prospective weather patterns in a world with an iceless northern arctic is an area of study receiving serious concentration at the moment. Preliminary indications are that it will not be pretty. Look up your own links, parasite.

> >
> > https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.
>
> “The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”

Tweets say it is all caused by HAARP.
I guess you can make some people believe anything.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:03:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > That's not part of the Vox report, but rather Fred Bloggs trying to be a weather prophet, generating his own pretentious twaddle.
>
> The only one around here spewing pretentious "twaddle" is yourself as has been extensively established.

To your complete satisfaction. It's as reliable and "well established"as most of your other conclusions.

> Modeling prospective weather patterns in a world with an iceless northern arctic is an area of study receiving serious concentration at the moment. Preliminary indications are that it will not be pretty. Look up your own links, parasite.
> > >
> > > https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change

Did it years ago. Remember the Barents and Karal Seas, north of Finland? This is a more recent paper on the subject.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/aop/jcliD200205/jcliD200205.xml

The link I posted here some years ago seems to have been to this paper

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568

When mere variations in ice cover are shown to have dramatic effects, predictions of what might happen when it totally vanishes are a trifle premature.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.
>
>“The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”
>
>Stalling weather patterns is a bad thing. Can't wait until the north pole goes iceless, then we're really going to see things happening.
>
>https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change

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

Check the deaths and the years.

The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
incompetence.

Am 20.07.21 um 00:55 schrieb John Larkin:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are two main links between climate change and extreme rainfall events like the one in northwestern Europe. First, as Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University, told me, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. “According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, a one-degree rise in temperature has the potential to give you a 7 percent increase in the intensity of rainfall,” Fowler said.
>>
>> “The second point is that the [Earth’s] poles are increasing in temperature at two to three times the rate of the equator,” Fowler said. That, she said, “weakens the jet stream of the mid-latitudes, which is basically over Europe. In summer and autumn, the weakening of the jet stream has a knock-on effect causing slower-moving storms. So there’s a double whammy of increasing intensity, but the storm lingers longer too.”
>>
>> Stalling weather patterns is a bad thing. Can't wait until the north pole goes iceless, then we're really going to see things happening.
>>
>> https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
>
> Check the deaths and the years.
>
> The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
> incompetence.

No, the incompetence is is in your comment.

When it starts raining and within a few hours there comes as much
water as normally in a year; when a small brook where you could normally
walk through is suddenly 10 meters deep, then the competence of the
officials just does not matter. When this brook goes through a village
that used to adorn it with flowers and children playing in it, and no
problems in the last 500 years, but now it will flow through the houses
one floor up.

The rise time was in the minute scale, catching people in the sleep.
You had lost when you happened to be there. 150 people drowning in
such a relatively small rural area has never ever happened before.

And then the weather slowly moved down south/east via Bavaria to
Austria. There still were some deaths although it had lost a lot
of power. It's not that Belgium and the Netherlands were spared.

The weather IS changing.

Gerhard

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
>
> Check the deaths and the years.

Why?
Flow models, control dams, building regulation, and soil disturbance are major variables,
and deaths are NOT a measure of the flood rise. Deaths might
just indicate built-up areas, i.e. regional population pressures.

> The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
> incompetence.

Not surprisingly, someone in an armchair halfway around the world
knows he can blame the victims...

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
>>
>> Check the deaths and the years.
>
>Why?
>Flow models, control dams, building regulation, and soil disturbance are major variables,
>and deaths are NOT a measure of the flood rise. Deaths might
>just indicate built-up areas, i.e. regional population pressures.
>
>> The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
>> incompetence.
>
>Not surprisingly, someone in an armchair halfway around the world
>knows he can blame the victims...

Not the victims, but the politicians. There were forecasts of heavy
rain, and some of those towns are in flood plains. A similar thing
happened in Texas not long ago.

https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/ems/copernicus-emergency-management-service-forecasts-warns-and-monitors-devastating-floods-germany

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:38:32 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
>>>
>>> Check the deaths and the years.
>>
>>Why?
>>Flow models, control dams, building regulation, and soil disturbance are major variables,
>>and deaths are NOT a measure of the flood rise. Deaths might
>>just indicate built-up areas, i.e. regional population pressures.
>>
>>> The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
>>> incompetence.
>>
>>Not surprisingly, someone in an armchair halfway around the world
>>knows he can blame the victims...
>
>Not the victims, but the politicians. There were forecasts of heavy
>rain, and some of those towns are in flood plains. A similar thing
>happened in Texas not long ago.
>
>https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/ems/copernicus-emergency-management-service-forecasts-warns-and-monitors-devastating-floods-germany

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-knew-the-floods-were-coming-but-the-warnings-didnt-work-cn99wjxzs

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/19/german-villages-could-be-left-with-no-drinking-water-after-floods

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 12:56:10 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:38:32 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
> >>>
> >>> Check the deaths and the years.
> >>
> >>Why?
> >>Flow models, control dams, building regulation, and soil disturbance are major variables,
> >>and deaths are NOT a measure of the flood rise. Deaths might
> >>just indicate built-up areas, i.e. regional population pressures.
> >>
> >>> The recent German floods seem to mostly be caused by official
> >>> incompetence.
> >>
> >>Not surprisingly, someone in an armchair halfway around the world
> >>knows he can blame the victims...
> >
> >Not the victims, but the politicians. There were forecasts of heavy
> >rain, and some of those towns are in flood plains. A similar thing
> >happened in Texas not long ago.
> >
> >https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/ems/copernicus-emergency-management-service-forecasts-warns-and-monitors-devastating-floods-germany

> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-knew-the-floods-were-coming-but-the-warnings-didnt-work-cn99wjxzs

The Murdoch press can be relied on to print the kind of report that Cursitor Doom would like - he defines the demographic that they want to appeal to.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/19/german-villages-could-be-left-with-no-drinking-water-after-floods

The Guardian seems to be saying that climate change requires a better flood- and extreme-weather- warning system and while the German authorities are putting one together, they haven't got all the bugs out yet. The 10th September 2020 dry run didn't go as well as had been hoped, and the current disaster has exposed a few more weaknesses. The politicians do seem to have put in quite a lot of effort, but reality has a way of finding weak spots on the best laid plans.

Armchair critics do find it easy to blame politicians and administrators , but they had been working on the problem. It would have been nice if they had come up with a more effective solution, but they certainly hadn't ignored it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
> No, the incompetence is is in your comment.
>
> When it starts raining and within a few hours there comes as much
> water as normally in a year; when a small brook where you could normally
> walk through is suddenly 10 meters deep, then the competence of the
> officials just does not matter. When this brook goes through a village
> that used to adorn it with flowers and children playing in it, and no
> problems in the last 500 years, but now it will flow through the houses
> one floor up.
>
> The rise time was in the minute scale, catching people in the sleep.
> You had lost when you happened to be there. 150 people drowning in
> such a relatively small rural area has never ever happened before.
>
> And then the weather slowly moved down south/east via Bavaria to
> Austria. There still were some deaths although it had lost a lot
> of power. It's not that Belgium and the Netherlands were spared.
>
> The weather IS changing.
>
> Gerhard

While it is certainly true that the events were unusual and that it
is a bad trend likely caused by changing weather, what really went wrong
is that warnings from meteorologic institutions bubbled too slowly through
federate, state and regional levels of authority to warn the people
in their homes about the oncoming danger.

It would have been impossible to avoid the damage, but some 100 lives
could have been spared when alerts had been sent.
Here in the Netherlands the alerts were sent, and while the water levels
were much lower here and cannot be directly compared, we do not have
any human loss here, only damage.

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 6:35:45 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:03:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > > That's not part of the Vox report, but rather Fred Bloggs trying to be a weather prophet, generating his own pretentious twaddle.
> >
> > The only one around here spewing pretentious "twaddle" is yourself as has been extensively established.
> To your complete satisfaction. It's as reliable and "well established"as most of your other conclusions.
> > Modeling prospective weather patterns in a world with an iceless northern arctic is an area of study receiving serious concentration at the moment.. Preliminary indications are that it will not be pretty. Look up your own links, parasite.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change
> Did it years ago. Remember the Barents and Karal Seas, north of Finland? This is a more recent paper on the subject.
>
> https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/aop/jcliD200205/jcliD200205.xml
>
> The link I posted here some years ago seems to have been to this paper
>
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568
>
> When mere variations in ice cover are shown to have dramatic effects, predictions of what might happen when it totally vanishes are a trifle premature.

For over ten years climatologists have been linking declining sea ice to significantly increased frequency of jet stream blocking events and consequent extreme weather. You don't need to waste a bunch of time on stupid predictions of atmospheric phenomena that 1) you can't control and 2) are having a devastating effect right now. Absolutely nothing is in dispute. All that jazz was from an era when the science was attempting to pressure the political powers into taking more GHG reduction action. That era is over. The resulting political instability, which is on its way, is going push it over the edge.
WAPO climate news is free:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/dominoes-fall-vanishing-arctic-ice-shifts-jet-stream-melts-greenland-glaciers/
Recent discovery of massive amounts of Greenland ice melt draining into oceans.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/lakes-on-greenland-ice-sheet-can-drain-huge-amounts-of-water-even-in-winter
Another recent discovery using NASA sensor has discovered same thing in Antarctic.
https://www.livescience.com/antarctic-subglacial-lakes.html

We don't need a bunch of blithering idiots who can't make heads or tails of anything writing a bunch of indecipherable gibberish about science and models they don't understand.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 8:09:44 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 6:35:45 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:03:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's not part of the Vox report, but rather Fred Bloggs trying to be a weather prophet, generating his own pretentious twaddle.
> > >
> > > The only one around here spewing pretentious "twaddle" is yourself as has been extensively established.
> > To your complete satisfaction. It's as reliable and "well established"as most of your other conclusions.
> > > Modeling prospective weather patterns in a world with an iceless northern arctic is an area of study receiving serious concentration at the moment. Preliminary indications are that it will not be pretty. Look up your own links, parasite.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change
> > Did it years ago. Remember the Barents and Karal Seas, north of Finland? This is a more recent paper on the subject.
> >
> > https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/aop/jcliD200205/jcliD200205.xml
> >
> > The link I posted here some years ago seems to have been to this paper
> >
> > https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568
> >
> > When mere variations in ice cover are shown to have dramatic effects, predictions of what might happen when it totally vanishes are a trifle premature.
>
> For over ten years climatologists have been linking declining sea ice

In specific areas.

> to significantly increased frequency of jet stream blocking events and consequent extreme weather.
> You don't need to waste a bunch of time on stupid predictions of atmospheric phenomena that 1) you can't control and 2) are having a devastating effect right now.
> Absolutely nothing is in dispute. All that jazz was from an era when the science was attempting to pressure the political powers into taking more GHG reduction action.

The science was mostly interested in working out what was going on. Career scientists don't waste their time pressuring politicians to do anything other than pony up more money to pay for more scientific investigations.

> That era is over.

There was no such era. People - like you - who think that there was don't have a clue about what was actually going on.

> The resulting political instability, which is on its way, is going push it over the edge.

The politicians still haven't got a proper grasp of what is going on. The penny is starting to drop with some of the more intelligent politicians, and the instability is coming from the stupider ones who can't understand what their brighter colleagues are carrying on about, and imagine that they are being taken for suckers.

> WAPO climate news is free:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/dominoes-fall-vanishing-arctic-ice-shifts-jet-stream-melts-greenland-glaciers/
> Recent discovery of massive amounts of Greenland ice melt draining into oceans.
> https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/lakes-on-greenland-ice-sheet-can-drain-huge-amounts-of-water-even-in-winter
> Another recent discovery using NASA sensor has discovered same thing in Antarctic.
> https://www.livescience.com/antarctic-subglacial-lakes.html
>
> We don't need a bunch of blithering idiots who can't make heads or tails of anything writing a bunch of indecipherable gibberish about science and models they don't understand.

You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.

You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.

Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
>
> You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.

You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.

And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.

The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.

I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.

Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>> You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
>
>You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
>
>Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
>

Children! Behave yourselves.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:07:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >>
> >> You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> >
> >You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> >
> >Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> >
> Children! Behave yourselves.

This is a bit rich, coming from a prime example of the kind of blithering idiot that Fred Bloggs ought to be complaining about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:53:04 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > >
> > > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> >
> > You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> > Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.
>
> The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.
>
> I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.
>
> Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.

There you go again falling back on some elementary physical chemistry definitions, which apparently is all you know. I don't see a whole lot of discussion about the atmosphere being composed of gases and universal gas law when it comes down to the nitty gritty of performing weather computations.

> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:56:21 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:53:04 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> > >
> > > You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> > You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> > > Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> > And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.
> >
> > The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.
> >
> > I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.
> >
> > Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.
>
> There you go again falling back on some elementary physical chemistry definitions, which apparently is all you know. I don't see a whole lot of discussion about the atmosphere being composed of gases and universal gas law when it comes down to the nitty gritty of performing weather computations.

Obviously not. It's the kind of fundamental information you need before you can start, and you don't seem to have it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:29:23 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:56:21 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:53:04 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> > > >
> > > > You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> > > You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> > > > Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> > > And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.
> > >
> > > The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.
> > >
> > > I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.
> > >
> > > Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.
> >
> > There you go again falling back on some elementary physical chemistry definitions, which apparently is all you know. I don't see a whole lot of discussion about the atmosphere being composed of gases and universal gas law when it comes down to the nitty gritty of performing weather computations.
> Obviously not. It's the kind of fundamental information you need before you can start, and you don't seem to have it.

Did I claim to be an atmospheric physicist like you seem to be doing? We keep catching in one charade after another.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 12:11:58 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:29:23 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:56:21 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:53:04 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> > > > You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> > > > > Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> > > > And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.
> > > >
> > > > The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.
> > > >
> > > > Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.
> > >
> > > There you go again falling back on some elementary physical chemistry definitions, which apparently is all you know. I don't see a whole lot of discussion about the atmosphere being composed of gases and universal gas law when it comes down to the nitty gritty of performing weather computations.
> >
> > Obviously not. It's the kind of fundamental information you need before you can start, and you don't seem to have it.
>
> Did I claim to be an atmospheric physicist like you seem to be doing? We keep catching in one charade after another.

Where on earth have I claimed to be an atmospheric physicist? I know more about the subject than you and John Larkin (which isn't difficult), but you don't have to engage in the nitty gritty of atmosphere calculations to do that.

I once met

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

She'd given a talk to a group that had happened - by chance - to include me, and very impressive it was too.

--
Bill Sloman, Suydney

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:33:05 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 12:11:58 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:29:23 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:56:21 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:53:04 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:15:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You'd be a prime example of that kind of blithering idiot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're a prime example of a mentally deficient.
> > > > > You do like to make that claim. Supporting it is beyond you.
> > > > > > Never in a million years could you ever develop a working knowledge of the kind of atmospheric physics necessary to participate in the discussion.
> > > > > And what kind of "atmospheric physics might that be"? The atmosphere is composed of gases, and the universal gas law describes them pretty well.
> > > > >
> > > > > The detailed stuff is weather, and that's chaotic - which is isn't the same as random, merely short term unpredictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not actually participating in any discussion - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, which is much less difficult to establish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fatuous speculations about what might happen when the Arctic Ocean is finally ice-free exist to be jeered at, not discussed.
> > > >
> > > > There you go again falling back on some elementary physical chemistry definitions, which apparently is all you know. I don't see a whole lot of discussion about the atmosphere being composed of gases and universal gas law when it comes down to the nitty gritty of performing weather computations.
> > >
> > > Obviously not. It's the kind of fundamental information you need before you can start, and you don't seem to have it.
> >
> > Did I claim to be an atmospheric physicist like you seem to be doing? We keep catching in one charade after another.
> Where on earth have I claimed to be an atmospheric physicist? I know more about the subject than you and John Larkin (which isn't difficult), but you don't have to engage in the nitty gritty of atmosphere calculations to do that.

I don't think you do know more than me since you completely missed the significance of the recent global energy imbalance measurement. You even ridiculed it as being of no value. You have to be pretty ignorant to do that.

>
> I once met
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Slingo
>
> She'd given a talk to a group that had happened - by chance - to include me, and very impressive it was too.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Suydney