On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 6:53:50 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> 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.

You had to be pretty ignorant to take it seriously. I did spell out why at the time, and you don't seem to have understood any of that. You exhibit the same kind of persistent incorrigible ignorance about "highly conserved" areas of the genome, which do mutate - exactly like the rest of the genome - but where most of the mutations are lethal, so we never get to see them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2021/07/19 6:10 a.m., 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.
>
> “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
>

This is called cherry picking your sources to match the event. Now, if
you want to blame Climate Change on the current dry spell that is
happening in parts of the US and a few other places on the planet you
ignore the atmosphere holds more water and find a report that says that
warm air is hotter than cooler air and thus absorbs more moisture hence
droughts.

The climate changes due mostly to changes in solar output, perturbations
in Earths orbit, levels of cosmic radiation (super novas likely screw
with the weather) and human changes to soil conditions, paving over lots
of land, contrails increasing cloud cover, and perhaps a wee bit due to
CO2. The CO2 factor that contributes to affecting IR radiation tops out
about the current level, so other sources are needed that feed on some
people's need to feel guilt, thus look elsewhere.

We don't burn witches any more, we carbon tax them.

John :-#)#

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 3:35:10 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/07/19 6:10 a.m., 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.
> >
> > “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
> >
> This is called cherry picking your sources to match the event. Now, if
> you want to blame Climate Change on the current dry spell that is
> happening in parts of the US and a few other places on the planet you
> ignore the atmosphere holds more water and find a report that says that
> warm air is hotter than cooler air and thus absorbs more moisture hence
> droughts.

Actual explanations are a little more complicated than that. but if you are a sucker for climate change denial propaganda, you don't get to find out about that.
>
> The climate changes due mostly to changes in solar output, perturbations
> in Earths orbit, levels of cosmic radiation (super novas likely screw
> with the weather)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova

There have been about 20 in the last 11 million years. We'd be well aware of one if it happened and invoking them here is pure flimflam.

> and human changes to soil conditions, paving over lots of land, contrails increasing cloud cover, and perhaps a wee bit due to CO2.

In reality a lot due to CO2, and a bit more from the extra water vapour in the atmosphere which is a direct consequence of the extra CO2.

> The CO2 factor that contributes to affecting IR radiation tops out about the current level, so other sources are needed that feed on some people's need to feel guilt, thus look elsewhere.

Total nonsense. More CO2 in the atmosphere pushed up the effective radiating altitude for wavelengths that CO2 absorbs (and re-emits). The air was colder up there, but isn't any more. This kind of effect doesn't "top out".
> We don't burn witches any more, we carbon tax them.

The people who don't want to be carbon taxed are lot richer and more powerful than witches ever were, and they are happy to spend some of their money on climate change denial propaganda. You have to be pretty gullible to fall for it, but John Robertson - like John Larkin - is quite gullible enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:35:10 PM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:

>... Now, if
> you want to blame Climate Change on the current dry spell that is
> happening in parts of the US and a few other places on the planet you
> ignore the atmosphere holds more water and find a report that says that
> warm air is hotter than cooler air and thus absorbs more moisture hence
> droughts.

No, actually you observe that (hotter) atmosphere holds more water, and thus
will absorb evaporated moisture and move it downwind to a greater
extent than in previous centuries...

> The climate changes due mostly to changes in solar output...

Whoa! We've not seen 'changes in solar output' on any such scale as
would cause our observed warming. And, we've done lots of looking.
Someone is lying to you if they said otherwise.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:34:34 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>
>On 2021/07/19 6:10 a.m., 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.
>>
>> “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
>>
>
>This is called cherry picking your sources to match the event. Now, if
>you want to blame Climate Change on the current dry spell that is
>happening in parts of the US and a few other places on the planet you
>ignore the atmosphere holds more water and find a report that says that
>warm air is hotter than cooler air and thus absorbs more moisture hence
>droughts.
>
>The climate changes due mostly to changes in solar output, perturbations
>in Earths orbit, levels of cosmic radiation (super novas likely screw
>with the weather) and human changes to soil conditions, paving over lots
>of land, contrails increasing cloud cover, and perhaps a wee bit due to
>CO2. The CO2 factor that contributes to affecting IR radiation tops out
>about the current level, so other sources are needed that feed on some
>people's need to feel guilt, thus look elsewhere.
>
>We don't burn witches any more, we carbon tax them.
>
>John :-#)#

Funny, I was thinking just yesterday about burning heretics. It sure
reduced the rate of scientific and technical innovation.

We have patents and peer review now, which are less effective.

(Personally, I think CO2 is great stuff. Plants love it. We need more,
and thankfully Australia is shipping it to China and Indonesia to
liberate.)

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:54:38 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:34:34 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >On 2021/07/19 6:10 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> Funny, I was thinking just yesterday about burning heretics. It sure reduced the rate of scientific and technical innovation.

I doubt if it had any effect on technical innovation.

Edward Wightman, a Baptist from Burton on Trent, was the last person burned at the stake for heresy in England in Lichfield, Staffordshire on 11 April 1612.

The Royal Society - formally The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a learned society and the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences -was founded on 28 November 1660, when it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as The Royal Society.

This is roughly when science got formalised and started generating "scientific innovation", so science wasn't around when burning heretics was popular..

Galileo Galilei lived from 15 February 1564 to 8 January 1642 and was discouraged from disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church's official position on some scientific subjects. It didn't stop him from discovering the moons of Jupiter.
> We have patents and peer review now, which are less effective.

Patents are a device for encouraging people to publish their discoveries. Peer review is a device for keeping obvious rubbish out of the scientific literature. It doesn't do a perfect job, but it does get rid of a lot of nonsense - I've done enough refereeing to be well aware how much.
> Personally, I think CO2 is great stuff. Plants love it.

Plants use it. But if you give them more, their leaves have few stomata so the plant can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water. This isn't demonstrating passionate attachment.

>We need more, and thankfully Australia is shipping it to China and Indonesia to liberate.

Actually, we don't. The fossil carbon extraction industry wants to keep on making loads of money out of digging it up and selling it as fuel, so they are willing to spend so of the profits on climate change denial propaganda, and John Larkin is silly enough to be suckered by it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney