|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 1, 2023 18:27:03 GMT
dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/"The Met Office has failed to quash the doubts that have arisen about its claimed 40.3°C UK record temperature produced on the afternoon of July 19th by the side of the main runway at RAF Coningsby. The military station is home to two squadrons of Typhoon jets and is extensively used for fighter pilot training. The U.K. record was set at 3.12pm during a mini-heatwave following a large jump of 1.3°C over the previous five minutes. Within a minute of the record being set, the temperature fell by 0.6°C. The Daily Sceptic has sought a response to three questions seeking further details about the events surrounding the record, but to date has had no reply." Perhaps Climate Change is not quite the disaster it is being painted as the 40C plus is oft quoted as evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Jan 2, 2023 6:06:37 GMT
As the Arctic ice gets thinner there is the potential for a major storm to break up the ice causing it to be carried out of the Arctic by ocean currents ... leaving large areas of open sea which will absorb the Sun's heat. This heat will melt the seabed permafrost and release large amounts of Methane ... which will accelerate Global Warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 2, 2023 8:07:11 GMT
dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/"The Met Office has failed to quash the doubts that have arisen about its claimed 40.3°C UK record temperature produced on the afternoon of July 19th by the side of the main runway at RAF Coningsby. The military station is home to two squadrons of Typhoon jets and is extensively used for fighter pilot training. The U.K. record was set at 3.12pm during a mini-heatwave following a large jump of 1.3°C over the previous five minutes. Within a minute of the record being set, the temperature fell by 0.6°C. The Daily Sceptic has sought a response to three questions seeking further details about the events surrounding the record, but to date has had no reply." Perhaps Climate Change is not quite the disaster it is being painted as the 40C plus is oft quoted as evidence. There are a lot of questions to be asked about the way that temperatures are now recorded - and whether they can be compared directly with historic recordings made with different equipment and in different places. It's also a fact that there are far more weather stations now than there were in, say, 1850 - so you would expect to see more "record" temperatures. And I wonder about the wisdom of recording temperatures at the side of a main runway. I think the highest temperature every recorded on Earth was recorded in 1913. And I wonder why the sea temperatures recorded by bouys (regarded as the most accurate readings we have) were discarded because they were too low to fit the IPCC graph that dismissed the "hiatus".  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 2, 2023 8:09:35 GMT
As the Arctic ice gets thinner there is the potential for a major storm to break up the ice causing it to be carried out of the Arctic by ocean currents ... leaving large areas of open sea which will absorb the Sun's heat. This heat will melt the seabed permafrost and release large amounts of Methane ... which will accelerate Global Warming. good news - more people die of cold than of heat. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 2, 2023 10:45:21 GMT
dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/"The Met Office has failed to quash the doubts that have arisen about its claimed 40.3°C UK record temperature produced on the afternoon of July 19th by the side of the main runway at RAF Coningsby. The military station is home to two squadrons of Typhoon jets and is extensively used for fighter pilot training. The U.K. record was set at 3.12pm during a mini-heatwave following a large jump of 1.3°C over the previous five minutes. Within a minute of the record being set, the temperature fell by 0.6°C. The Daily Sceptic has sought a response to three questions seeking further details about the events surrounding the record, but to date has had no reply." Perhaps Climate Change is not quite the disaster it is being painted as the 40C plus is oft quoted as evidence. - and whether they can be compared directly with historic recordings made with different equipment and in different places. It's also a fact that there are far more weather stations now than there were in, say, 1850 - so you would expect to see more "record" temperatures. And I wonder about the wisdom of recording temperatures at the side of a main runway. I think the highest temperature every recorded on Earth was recorded in 1913. And I wonder why the sea temperatures recorded by bouys (regarded as the most accurate readings we have) were discarded because they were too low to fit the IPCC graph that dismissed the "hiatus". ....and where they are recorded. In East Anglia Norwich is regularly quoted as the lowest winter temperature yet if they were brave enough to take a thermometer and wind sock up to somewhere like Cromer, they'd find it is almost invariably colder and windier by some way. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 2, 2023 11:49:42 GMT
dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/"The Met Office has failed to quash the doubts that have arisen about its claimed 40.3°C UK record temperature produced on the afternoon of July 19th by the side of the main runway at RAF Coningsby. The military station is home to two squadrons of Typhoon jets and is extensively used for fighter pilot training. The U.K. record was set at 3.12pm during a mini-heatwave following a large jump of 1.3°C over the previous five minutes. Within a minute of the record being set, the temperature fell by 0.6°C. The Daily Sceptic has sought a response to three questions seeking further details about the events surrounding the record, but to date has had no reply." Perhaps Climate Change is not quite the disaster it is being painted as the 40C plus is oft quoted as evidence. There are a lot of questions to be asked about the way that temperatures are now recorded - and whether they can be compared directly with historic recordings made with different equipment and in different places. It's also a fact that there are far more weather stations now than there were in, say, 1850 - so you would expect to see more "record" temperatures. And I wonder about the wisdom of recording temperatures at the side of a main runway. I think the highest temperature every recorded on Earth was recorded in 1913. And I wonder why the sea temperatures recorded by bouys (regarded as the most accurate readings we have) were discarded because they were too low to fit the IPCC graph that dismissed the "hiatus". It seems they were desperate to get the temperature over the magic 40C, (who remembers who held the mile record before Bannister broke 4 mins) so much so that they dismissed possible anomalies in the readings like several Typhoons taking off at the time of recording but apparently it was a 'rigorous assessment' so it was obvious lt was correct. I used to keep weather records on a thermo-hygrograph on several construction sites and in the long hot summer of 76 or some in the 80s I can never remember any temperature jumping to the maximum like that or diving away so quickly and thin cloud cover was erratic. It smacks of being a political reading instead of an actual bona fida reading |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 2, 2023 13:49:45 GMT
Yes, this has all become political. It still annoys me that the IPCC fed its temperature readings through a filtering process that assumed that temperature was related to CO2 concentrations. It was obvious it would discard readings that didn't fit their required graph - which happened to be their most accurate readings. Which is why a few scientists resigned because it was "crap" as one said.
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Jan 2, 2023 21:53:34 GMT
The total amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking by about 230 billion tons per year since 1980. 95% of the thick, multiyear ice has already gone. There is no doubt that at some time in the not too distant future large areas of the Arctic that are presently covered in ice during the Summer will be open water. This will result in an acceleration of Global Warming ... which some "Doom" forecasters say will "Crush humanity like a bug."
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 3, 2023 5:37:40 GMT
The total amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking by about 230 billion tons per year since 1980. 95% of the thick, multiyear ice has already gone. There is no doubt that at some time in the not too distant future large areas of the Arctic that are presently covered in ice during the Summer will be open water. This will result in an acceleration of Global Warming ... which some "Doom" forecasters say will "Crush humanity like a bug." It will be reverting to what it was millions of years ago as will the Sahara. The Earth's axis is moving as are deep underwater currents. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 3, 2023 7:33:56 GMT
The total amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking by about 230 billion tons per year since 1980. 95% of the thick, multiyear ice has already gone. There is no doubt that at some time in the not too distant future large areas of the Arctic that are presently covered in ice during the Summer will be open water. This will result in an acceleration of Global Warming ... which some "Doom" forecasters say will "Crush humanity like a bug." Possibly. But the question is what's causing it? Most of the rhetoric is directed at CO2, but what if it's nothing to do with CO2? It could be ocean currents that are bringing warmer water up to the surface. It could be a blip - or could be any number of natural factors. Or it could be caused by our deforestation of the planet. Et cetera. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 3, 2023 11:00:46 GMT
The total amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking by about 230 billion tons per year since 1980. 95% of the thick, multiyear ice has already gone. There is no doubt that at some time in the not too distant future large areas of the Arctic that are presently covered in ice during the Summer will be open water. This will result in an acceleration of Global Warming ... which some "Doom" forecasters say will "Crush humanity like a bug." Possibly. But the question is what's causing it? Most of the rhetoric is directed at CO2, but what if it's nothing to do with CO2? It could be ocean currents that are bringing warmer water up to the surface. It could be a blip - or could be any number of natural factors. Or it could be caused by our deforestation of the planet. Et cetera. Man changes many things. The dust bowls in the US were man made once the tough prairie grass was removed and the ground cropped every year, even now the large aquifer in a similar sort of region is gradually being drained with insufficient rainfall to replenish it, the Sahara has extended southwards due to overuse, the Chinese deforested Vietnam in the 14th century for the rare timbers and in the US mountain top removal in the Cumberlands has changed the area, and the effects of the weather, entirely. Why we should now be concentrating on CO2 as the sole cause of our ills seems at best a distraction from dealing with the actual problems which has obviously been, for the last hundred years, population. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 3, 2023 14:34:01 GMT
Great post SP. In particular the abstraction of water from aquifers is causing damage (often invisible at first) all over the world - extending deserts and creating more.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 10, 2023 13:25:36 GMT
Possibly. But the question is what's causing it? Most of the rhetoric is directed at CO2, but what if it's nothing to do with CO2? It could be ocean currents that are bringing warmer water up to the surface. It could be a blip - or could be any number of natural factors. Or it could be caused by our deforestation of the planet. Et cetera. Man changes many things. The dust bowls in the US were man made once the tough prairie grass was removed and the ground cropped every year, even now the large aquifer in a similar sort of region is gradually being drained with insufficient rainfall to replenish it, the Sahara has extended southwards due to overuse, the Chinese deforested Vietnam in the 14th century for the rare timbers and in the US mountain top removal in the Cumberlands has changed the area, and the effects of the weather, entirely. Why we should now be concentrating on CO2 as the sole cause of our ills seems at best a distraction from dealing with the actual problems which has obviously been, for the last hundred years, population. All that seems feasible — but it doesn't remove the fact that there's been excess CO2 caused by human activity over the last hundred years. This has been referenced by Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics:
The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits about 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide through this natural cycle every year.
That total dwarfs humanity’s contribution, amounting to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels.
If people emit only a tenth as much CO2 as nature does, then why are scientists so concerned about our emissions driving climate change? It is because our extra chunk of carbon emissions has tipped out of equilibrium what was once a balanced cycle.
"What's being taken out by natural processes is more or less equal to what's being put in—other than the extent to which we've disturbed it,” Rothman says. This is why the atmospheric level of CO2 continues to creep up as humans keep burning fossil fuels: Human activities tip the scales by adding carbon to the air faster than the planet’s sinks can absorb it.
It looks like we will have to learn to live with the effects of climate change — the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era...
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 13:55:35 GMT
The question still remains as to whether man's contribution to CO2 is the cause of significant problems. Prof Rothman has said that the natural emissions of CO2 "dwarf" human contributions by 10 times. Bearing in mind that the effect of CO2 on AGW is logarithmic rather than linear it would seem that man's contribution to CO2 isn't making much difference. Small amounts are NOT likely to tip the cycle out of equilibrium. What's more likely to be making the difference is either our removal of the Earth's stabilisers or natural effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 10, 2023 14:14:23 GMT
The assertion that there was a ‘balanced’ cycle which we are now disturbing out of proportion doesn’t sit well with me. The processes described work on the available amount of material. If the amount of material generated without human effort dwarfs the amount produced by other means then the system will adjust or more to the point keep processing the extra until it reduces that’s how it works.
If the prof had said the amount produced by us dwarfs or even begins to equal the amount produced in other ways I’d be worried.
But a process that dwarfs our added component ? No sorry. More proof of the hysteria of the Greta Cult
|
|
