info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[COP26] the very height of hypocrisy....
261 views
Skip to first unread message
Spike
Nov 3, 2021, 5:30:50 AM11/3/21
to
Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
the planet'.
Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
"Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
what to do!".
COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
run through this jamboree,,,
--
Spike
Scott
Nov 3, 2021, 5:45:47 AM11/3/21
to
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:30:50 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
A cynical view, I would say. The carbon emissions attributable to
this individual event must be a small proportion of the annual total
and at least it has got people in the same place talking to each
other, which can only be a good thing.
Anyway, what has the cost price of the jet got to do with anything? It
is surely the kilogrammes of CO2 emitted per kilometre flown that
counts :-)
wrote:
this individual event must be a small proportion of the annual total
and at least it has got people in the same place talking to each
other, which can only be a good thing.
Anyway, what has the cost price of the jet got to do with anything? It
is surely the kilogrammes of CO2 emitted per kilometre flown that
counts :-)
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 3, 2021, 5:49:15 AM11/3/21
to
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 3, 2021, 5:50:30 AM11/3/21
to
say ....
Graham Easterling
Nov 3, 2021, 5:55:57 AM11/3/21
to
On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 09:30:50 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>
> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>
> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
> the planet'.
>
> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>
On this point I have to find myself agreeing with you. It's all now a political carbon trading game. I'll continue with my CO2 emitting activities, but give you a few pounds to protect the last few trees (if you can find them).
> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>
> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>
> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
> the planet'.
>
> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>
I also found it vaguely amusing that officials, having decided to block the Rainbow Warrior then subsequently realising it could get under the bridge at low tide, had to do a lot of backtracking & excuse making.
I listened to the depressing interview with a South American leader who said he'd protect what was left of his rainforest if the rich countries give him a lot of money (fair enough) but if he was to do that he was free to escalate his fossil fuel exploration programme. The interviewer seemed to regard this as good news. Basically, at best, there would be no destruction of the rainforest but fossil fuel use would vastly increase. The Brazil leader also agreed, and we all know what he's been up to. Some illegally logged Amazonian rainforest wood is now in the UK Cabinet Office (Greenpeace marked it at source & tracked it).
Politicians eh?
Channel 4 pointed out that the Amazon basin is now, for the first time, a net emitter of CO2. So much for a carbon sink eh?
Graham
Penzance
Graham Easterling
Nov 3, 2021, 6:00:14 AM11/3/21
to
A private jet is unquestionably the worst option.
Graham
Penzance
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 3, 2021, 6:29:44 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
>
for EDF that actually said they were 'investing in wind, *nuclear*, and
solar'...
Hitherto one would be forgiven for thinking they had only windmills,
instead of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors anywhere in the world...
--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
newshound
Nov 3, 2021, 6:48:42 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 10:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>>
>> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>>
>> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
>> the planet'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
>> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>>
>> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
>> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
>> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
>> what to do!".
>>
>> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
>>
>> ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
>> latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
>> run through this jamboree,,,
>>
>>
> This morning for the very first time evvah, I heard and advert on telly
> for EDF that actually said they were 'investing in wind, *nuclear*, and
> solar'...
>
> Hitherto one would be forgiven for thinking they had only windmills,
> instead of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors anywhere in the world...
>
>
Remember that this is the UK branch of the company, and an important
> On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>>
>> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>>
>> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
>> the planet'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
>> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>>
>> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
>> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
>> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
>> what to do!".
>>
>> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
>>
>> ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
>> latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
>> run through this jamboree,,,
>>
>>
> This morning for the very first time evvah, I heard and advert on telly
> for EDF that actually said they were 'investing in wind, *nuclear*, and
> solar'...
>
> Hitherto one would be forgiven for thinking they had only windmills,
> instead of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors anywhere in the world...
>
>
part of their business is the retail side.
Quoting the Gene Wilder line from Blazing Saddles, which I was delighted
to discover was actually an ad-lib:
"You know.....Morons"
newshound
Nov 3, 2021, 6:52:15 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
>
science.
Spike
Nov 3, 2021, 6:54:22 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 10:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> This morning for the very first time evvah, I heard and advert on telly
> for EDF that actually said they were 'investing in wind, *nuclear*, and
> solar'...
> Hitherto one would be forgiven for thinking they had only windmills,
> instead of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors anywhere in the world...
IIRC the ad uses the technique of displaying their sources as
> for EDF that actually said they were 'investing in wind, *nuclear*, and
> solar'...
> Hitherto one would be forgiven for thinking they had only windmills,
> instead of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors anywhere in the world...
...wind...NUCLEAR...solar...
(slightly exaggerated due to limited display facilities)
but the NUCLEAR is dead centre of the screen,
--
Spike
Andrew
Nov 3, 2021, 7:00:42 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:49, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
arena, or wherever they are holding it.
Spike
Nov 3, 2021, 7:14:05 AM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:50, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 09:49, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
>> On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>>> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>>> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
>>> the planet'.
>>> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
>>> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>>> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
>>> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
>>> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
>>> what to do!".
>>> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
> On 03/11/2021 09:49, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
>> On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>>> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>>> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
>>> the planet'.
>>> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
>>> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>>> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
>>> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
>>> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
>>> what to do!".
>>> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
>> time to rebel against all that shit
> we had the best summer up here in Glasgow so bring on global warming I
> say ....
Four degrees is approximately the difference in climate between Exeter
> we had the best summer up here in Glasgow so bring on global warming I
> say ....
and Glasgow...
--
Spike
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 3, 2021, 1:19:47 PM11/3/21
to
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 3, 2021, 1:24:32 PM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
>
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 3, 2021, 1:29:37 PM11/3/21
to
We will rewire the global financial system - Sunak
we will be handing your tax money to foreigners in developing countries
and the green companies us ministers have shares and interests in
we will tax everything we don't like to the hilt and you will have no
choice what you eat or how you live
whilst guvmint ministers will still travel around in limos and planes
this arrogance and contempt is what happens when there is no feasible /
credible guvmint opposition
you won't easily remove the scum from the snp or labour...........these
gutter trash schemies have never had it so good and would otherwise be
in low paid employment, or benefits
Rod Speed
Nov 3, 2021, 1:34:20 PM11/3/21
to
Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig...@ntlworld.com> wrote
Yeah, you should have set fire to yourself in front of all of them.
That would have got some action for sure.
That would have got some action for sure.
Richard
Nov 3, 2021, 2:00:07 PM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
> latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
> run through this jamboree,,,
>
TimW
Nov 3, 2021, 3:06:08 PM11/3/21
to
Bill gates didn't arrive in Glasgow on a yacht. Might have been good if
he did, especially 'sailing' but he didn't. Bezos jet didn't cost 60M
dollars. It cost a lot but not that much.
Gates and Bezos aren't attendees at COP26, it's a UN inter governmental
conference. Even if they are there they aren't telling anybody to be
poor. Especially Bezos ffs he wants you to buy a lot of stuff on amazon.
'Spike' is clearly an idiot
TW
Peeler
Nov 3, 2021, 3:07:57 PM11/3/21
to
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 04:34:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
Rod Speed
Nov 3, 2021, 3:10:27 PM11/3/21
to
Richard <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote
> Spike wrote
>> ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
>> latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
>> run through this jamboree,,,
> The *real* problem is too many people breeding too many people.
Not anymore. That problem has been fixing itself for decades
now. Birth rates have dropped dramatically EVERYWHERE
now except where they are already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#1950_and_2015
> Spike wrote
>> ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
>> latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
>> run through this jamboree,,,
> The *real* problem is too many people breeding too many people.
now. Birth rates have dropped dramatically EVERYWHERE
now except where they are already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#1950_and_2015
Peeler
Nov 3, 2021, 4:19:21 PM11/3/21
to
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 06:10:21 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff...@googlegroups.com>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff...@googlegroups.com>
TimW
Nov 3, 2021, 4:27:39 PM11/3/21
to
On 03/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
>
> Bill Gates sails into Glasgow on a $2m-a-week rented superyacht.
>
> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>
> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
> the planet'.
>
> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>
> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
> what to do!".
>
> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
You forgot to mention that Bezos earth Fund is spending 10 Billion
>
> Jeff Bezos flies in on his $60m private jet.
>
> All to tell *you* that *you* have to give up *your* lifestyle 'to save
> the planet'.
>
> Meanwhile, the 400 jets that brought the party-goers aka 'delegates' had
> to fly empty for 30 miles in order to find parking space.
>
> "Surely" they cry "You don't expect *us* to live in a mud hut, wear
> sackcloth and ashes, live on vegetables grown by the door, and crap in a
> hole in the ground! For god's sake, we're the elite - *we* tell *you*
> what to do!".
>
> COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
Dollars fighting climate change. It is relevant I think to your
accusation of hypocrisy.
TW
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Nov 4, 2021, 4:22:44 AM11/4/21
to
Spike
Nov 4, 2021, 5:45:52 AM11/4/21
to
*us* what we should have to suffer in order to 'save the planet', while
they carry on as normal for them. Shove that for a game of darts. The
jets flying into and out of COP26 probably each used more energy to do
that than I use in a year, and the massive floating gin-palaces used in
COP26 clearly do so, yet I'm the one that has to cut down . We already
have sky high electricity prices in order to pay for 'green energy'.
Someone was complaining about the 1.8m tons of concrete used in Hinckley
C, yet a swift calculation shows that the UK windmill fleet has so far
used perhaps 50% more than that, and they are talking of building a
Yorkshire-sized fleet in the North Sea! Nuclear power stations last 60
years, windmills last 20...'Green' people clearly Can't Do Sums, which
is Really Not A Good Place to start from when elites start telling you
what you should do.
--
Spike
Cursitor Doom
Nov 4, 2021, 8:05:54 AM11/4/21
to
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:30:50 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>COP26 - the very height of hypocrisy....
As ever you hit the nail on the head, Spike.
>ITMT the focus seems to have shifted from CO2 to CH4, obviously the
>latest enemy we - rather then the elites - have to fight. Shades of 1984
>run through this jamboree,,,
reliable stats don't go back as far as they do for CO2. The fact that
some of us were questioning their FAKE CO2 timeline necessitates this
switch.
--
"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership."
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
TimW
Nov 4, 2021, 9:11:11 AM11/4/21
to
governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
poor on the back of climate change?
TW
Spike
Nov 4, 2021, 11:07:49 AM11/4/21
to
On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
> governments to act.
The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the planet
> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
> governments to act.
is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. We're currently half
way through a warm period.
Can you mention, or have you heard of, a mechanism by which governments.
money, curbing CO2, or COP can control this CO2-unrelated,
non-human-activity-related cyclic behaviour?
> We need the government to build infrastructure to
> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
> poor on the back of climate change?
Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
or farting cows.
--
Spike
Paul from Dawlish
Nov 4, 2021, 12:02:50 PM11/4/21
to
spikey tries to go for the 'natural cycles' argument. Brilliant!! Just as I said he would. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
`go on spikey; blame it all on sunspot cycles. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This just gets better and better.
`go on spikey; blame it all on sunspot cycles. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This just gets better and better.
Spike
Nov 5, 2021, 5:54:17 AM11/5/21
to
On 04/11/2021 16:02, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
>> temperature changes by several thousand years. We're currently half way through a
>> warm period.
> spikey tries to go for the 'natural cycles' argument. Brilliant!! Just as I said he would. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So you're saying that the Vostok data is wrong?
That's a brave position to take.
> `go on spikey; blame it all on sunspot cycles. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
No need to, Vostok scuppers the current 'global warming' narrative quite
nicely.
> This just gets better and better.
Doesn't it just.
--
Spike
> Spike wrote:
>> The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the planet
>> is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. and also that CO2 changes *lag*
>> The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the planet
>> temperature changes by several thousand years. We're currently half way through a
>> warm period.
> spikey tries to go for the 'natural cycles' argument. Brilliant!! Just as I said he would. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's a brave position to take.
> `go on spikey; blame it all on sunspot cycles. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
nicely.
> This just gets better and better.
--
Spike
TimW
Nov 5, 2021, 6:35:19 AM11/5/21
to
TW
Spike
Nov 5, 2021, 6:59:20 AM11/5/21
to
--
Spike
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 5, 2021, 7:10:15 AM11/5/21
to
Just been listening to an Insulate Britain chap on GB News. I have never
heard such a selfish arrogant prick in all my life. Says he is a retired
doctor. So he has been feeding on public money all his working life.
If he is that bothered by climate change, why not agitate for 100%
nuclear power? far better and more cost effective solution.
God help us if people like him were in charge.
Oh. Carrie is.
--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.
Paul from Dawlish
Nov 5, 2021, 10:36:40 AM11/5/21
to
I just laugh at them. It's all they are worth. The scientists settled the science some years ago now, Tim. People like spikey are just neanderthals in that respect, trying to re-hash old arguments, long since demolished, on their own cave walls.
Cursitor Doom
Nov 5, 2021, 5:01:22 PM11/5/21
to
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:59:21 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
the face of it all,, sir!
--
"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."
- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.
wrote:
I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
the face of it all,, sir!
--
"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."
- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.
Spike
Nov 6, 2021, 5:22:09 AM11/6/21
to
On 05/11/2021 21:01, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>> or farting cows.
>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
> the face of it all, sir!
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>> or farting cows.
>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
The alternative is to suffer unanswered the claptrap of the
Paul-from-Dawlish types...
--
Spike
Spike
Nov 6, 2021, 5:28:35 AM11/6/21
to
On 05/11/2021 14:36, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:35:19 AM UTC, TimW wrote:
>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>>>> governments to act.
>>> The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the planet
>>> is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. We're currently half
>>> way through a warm period.
>>> Can you mention, or have you heard of, a mechanism by which governments.
>>> money, curbing CO2, or COP can control this CO2-unrelated,
>>> non-human-activity-related cyclic behaviour?
>>>> We need the government to build infrastructure to
>>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
>>>> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
>>>> poor on the back of climate change?
>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>> or farting cows.
>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
> I just laugh at them. It's all they are worth. The scientists settled the science some years ago now, Tim. People like spikey are just neanderthals in that respect, trying to re-hash old arguments, long since demolished, on their own cave walls.
I can see why your interminable posts in uk.sci.weather reporting GISS
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:35:19 AM UTC, TimW wrote:
>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>>>> governments to act.
>>> The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the planet
>>> is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. We're currently half
>>> way through a warm period.
>>> Can you mention, or have you heard of, a mechanism by which governments.
>>> money, curbing CO2, or COP can control this CO2-unrelated,
>>> non-human-activity-related cyclic behaviour?
>>>> We need the government to build infrastructure to
>>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
>>>> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
>>>> poor on the back of climate change?
>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>> or farting cows.
>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
> I just laugh at them. It's all they are worth. The scientists settled the science some years ago now, Tim. People like spikey are just neanderthals in that respect, trying to re-hash old arguments, long since demolished, on their own cave walls.
and how hot each month is, are never answered. They just laugh at you.
It's all you're worth,
--
Spike
Spike
Nov 6, 2021, 7:05:40 AM11/6/21
to
On 05/11/2021 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 10:59, Spike wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>> or farting cows.
>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
> Can't be done.
> Just been listening to an Insulate Britain chap on GB News. I have never
> heard such a selfish arrogant prick in all my life. Says he is a retired
> doctor. So he has been feeding on public money all his working life.
> If he is that bothered by climate change, why not agitate for 100%
> nuclear power? far better and more cost effective solution.
On another forum a chap was bemoaning the 1.8m tons of concrete used to
> On 05/11/2021 10:59, Spike wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>> or farting cows.
>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
> Can't be done.
> Just been listening to an Insulate Britain chap on GB News. I have never
> heard such a selfish arrogant prick in all my life. Says he is a retired
> doctor. So he has been feeding on public money all his working life.
> If he is that bothered by climate change, why not agitate for 100%
> nuclear power? far better and more cost effective solution.
build Hinckley C, until I did a swift calculation that the UK's current
fleet of windmills may well have used 50% more - and that they want to
build a subsidy farm in the North Sea the size of Yorkshire!
> God help us if people like him were in charge. Oh. Carrie is.
currently be.
I watched the first few minutes of The Trick on iPlayer - it was quite
obvious that the copious use of 'denier' and 'sceptic' showed the film's
pro-CC bias. There a series on R4 just started, called The Hack That
Changed The World, I expect it to be as bad as The Trick.
--
Spike
Cursitor Doom
Nov 6, 2021, 7:40:52 AM11/6/21
to
On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 11:05:38 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
Terrible shame what happened to R4. It used to be a trove of
worthwhile programs in the distant past, but it's just become another
platform for Cultural Marxists to spout on about the virtues of
Globalism, the menaces of AGW, Slavery, Racism, 'the
Patriarchy'/Wimminz issues and how amazing and emancipating it is to
have AIDS.
wrote:
worthwhile programs in the distant past, but it's just become another
platform for Cultural Marxists to spout on about the virtues of
Globalism, the menaces of AGW, Slavery, Racism, 'the
Patriarchy'/Wimminz issues and how amazing and emancipating it is to
have AIDS.
newshound
Nov 6, 2021, 1:03:38 PM11/6/21
to
On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>>
>
>>
>
> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
> poor on the back of climate change?
> TW
But what do you have in mind? It's not governments, or giant
> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
> poor on the back of climate change?
> TW
corporations who are responsible for carbon dioxide, it is people going
about their everyday lives.
Outlaw IC engines (or tax them out of existence) and you destroy the
economy. You can't currently replace planes, shipping, or trucks with
electric. We don't have the generating capacity to ditch gas and oil for
winter heating. This is true everywhere in the world. And only a few
countries dominate the emissions. Whatever options are suggested, the
cure is pretty much worse than the disease apart perhaps for large scale
nuclear. And I don't see much sign yet that people will accept it,
except perhaps in China and India.
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 6, 2021, 1:25:17 PM11/6/21
to
--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."
Lucas Bergkamp
Rod Speed
Nov 6, 2021, 2:02:07 PM11/6/21
to
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
Everyone will accept it once the alternative is riding bikes everywhere and
freezing in the winter.
> TimW wrote
>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet? Are
>> you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody poor on
>> the back of climate change?
>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet? Are
>> you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody poor on
>> the back of climate change?
> But what do you have in mind? It's not governments, or giant corporations
> who are responsible for carbon dioxide, it is people going about their
> everyday lives.
>
> Outlaw IC engines (or tax them out of existence) and you destroy the
> economy. You can't currently replace planes, shipping, or trucks with
> electric. We don't have the generating capacity to ditch gas and oil for
> winter heating. This is true everywhere in the world. And only a few
> countries dominate the emissions. Whatever options are suggested, the cure
> is pretty much worse than the disease apart perhaps for large scale
> nuclear. And I don't see much sign yet that people will accept it, except
> perhaps in China and India.
And France.
> who are responsible for carbon dioxide, it is people going about their
> everyday lives.
>
> Outlaw IC engines (or tax them out of existence) and you destroy the
> economy. You can't currently replace planes, shipping, or trucks with
> electric. We don't have the generating capacity to ditch gas and oil for
> winter heating. This is true everywhere in the world. And only a few
> countries dominate the emissions. Whatever options are suggested, the cure
> is pretty much worse than the disease apart perhaps for large scale
> nuclear. And I don't see much sign yet that people will accept it, except
> perhaps in China and India.
Everyone will accept it once the alternative is riding bikes everywhere and
freezing in the winter.
John Brown
Nov 6, 2021, 2:05:15 PM11/6/21
to
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> On 06/11/2021 17:03, newshound wrote:
>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
>>> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
>>> poor on the back of climate change?
>>> TW
>>
>> But what do you have in mind? It's not governments, or giant corporations
>> who are responsible for carbon dioxide, it is people going about their
>> everyday lives.
>>
>> Outlaw IC engines (or tax them out of existence) and you destroy the
>> economy. You can't currently replace planes, shipping, or trucks with
>> electric. We don't have the generating capacity to ditch gas and oil for
>> winter heating. This is true everywhere in the world. And only a few
>> countries dominate the emissions. Whatever options are suggested, the
>> cure is pretty much worse than the disease apart perhaps for large scale
>> nuclear. And I don't see much sign yet that people will accept it, except
>> perhaps in China and India.
>
> Everywhere except W Europe and USA is building out new nuclear
Japan, Africa, South America, Oceania etc isn't.
>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out yet?
>>> Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make everybody
>>> poor on the back of climate change?
>>> TW
>>
>> But what do you have in mind? It's not governments, or giant corporations
>> who are responsible for carbon dioxide, it is people going about their
>> everyday lives.
>>
>> Outlaw IC engines (or tax them out of existence) and you destroy the
>> economy. You can't currently replace planes, shipping, or trucks with
>> electric. We don't have the generating capacity to ditch gas and oil for
>> winter heating. This is true everywhere in the world. And only a few
>> countries dominate the emissions. Whatever options are suggested, the
>> cure is pretty much worse than the disease apart perhaps for large scale
>> nuclear. And I don't see much sign yet that people will accept it, except
>> perhaps in China and India.
>
> Everywhere except W Europe and USA is building out new nuclear
John Brown
Nov 6, 2021, 2:07:16 PM11/6/21
to
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote
> mind?
Nukes.
> On 04 Nov 2021 at 13:11:08 GMT, TimW <ti...@nothanks.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs.
>
> What action do you have in mind. And what infrastructure do you have in
>
>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will require
>> governments to act. We need the government to build infrastructure to
>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs.
>
> mind?
Nukes.
Paul from Dawlish
Nov 6, 2021, 2:20:09 PM11/6/21
to
Just suffer spikey. Being laughed at, for still being on the grid, is all deniers like you deserve. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
PPS Go on; call it all a great big global conspiracy (again)! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
PPS Go on; call it all a great big global conspiracy (again)! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Peeler
Nov 6, 2021, 3:26:23 PM11/6/21
to
On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 05:05:10 +1100, John Brown, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
05:05 in Australia? And you are up and trolling ALREADY? Do sociopaths like
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
you know NO SHAME AT ALL?
--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1...@news.mixmin.net>
Peeler
Nov 6, 2021, 3:26:56 PM11/6/21
to
On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 05:02:03 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
dennis@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5....@fx46.iad>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
dennis@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5....@fx46.iad>
Peeler
Nov 6, 2021, 3:28:02 PM11/6/21
to
On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 05:07:11 +1100, John Brown, better known as cantankerous
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
--
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>
Spike
Nov 7, 2021, 4:54:47 AM11/7/21
to
On 06/11/2021 18:20, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:22:09 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 21:01, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>>>> or farting cows.
>>>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>>>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
>>> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
>>> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
>>> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
>>> the face of it all, sir!
>> The alternative is to suffer unanswered the claptrap of the
>> Paul-from-Dawlish types...
> Just suffer spikey. Being laughed at, for still being on the grid, is all deniers like you deserve. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>> PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
>> PPS Go on; call it all a great big global conspiracy (again)! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
When Aneurin Bevan was asked how he intended to get doctors onside in
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:22:09 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 21:01, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>>>> or farting cows.
>>>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>>>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
>>> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
>>> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
>>> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
>>> the face of it all, sir!
>> The alternative is to suffer unanswered the claptrap of the
>> Paul-from-Dawlish types...
> Just suffer spikey. Being laughed at, for still being on the grid, is all deniers like you deserve. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>> PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
>> PPS Go on; call it all a great big global conspiracy (again)! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
order to run his National Health Service, he replied "I'll stuff their
mouths with gold". Looks like it works for scientists too: "Here's an
open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
come free.
--
Spike
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 7, 2021, 6:49:53 AM11/7/21
to
"Today, there are seven reactors in Latin America – three in Argentina,
two in Brazil and two in Mexico.
All three countries also have ambition to build new power reactors.
Here, we take a closer look at each plant."
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/nuclear-power-latin-america/
" Belarus, Bangladesh and Turkey are all constructing their first
nuclear power plants.
About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power
programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point
expressed an interest. In the following list, links are provided for
those countries that are covered by specific country pages:
In Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt,
Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal,
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, Ethiopia.
In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
In SE Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand,
Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia.
In east Asia: North Korea."
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.
Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
Col
Nov 7, 2021, 10:49:14 AM11/7/21
to
> When Aneurin Bevan was asked how he intended to get doctors onside in
> order to run his National Health Service, he replied "I'll stuff their
> mouths with gold". Looks like it works for scientists too: "Here's an
> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
> come free.
>
>
--
Col
Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg
Rod Speed
Nov 7, 2021, 12:12:56 PM11/7/21
to
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote
Usual mindless polly bullshit.
> Looks like it works for scientists too:
> "Here's an open-ended grant for your centre
> to prove that CO2 causes global warming".
> "Thanks, we're on it right away".
No one gets an open ended grant.
And I believe that man made global warming is
still an open question and even if its true, its far
from clear that it would be a bad thing anyway.
> Looks like it works for scientists too:
> "Here's an open-ended grant for your centre
> to prove that CO2 causes global warming".
> "Thanks, we're on it right away".
And I believe that man made global warming is
still an open question and even if its true, its far
from clear that it would be a bad thing anyway.
John Brown
Nov 7, 2021, 12:26:02 PM11/7/21
to
> Africa is,
Not building out new nuclear.
> South America?
> "Today, there are seven reactors in Latin America – three in Argentina,
> two in Brazil and two in Mexico.
> All three countries also have ambition to build new power reactors.
> Here, we take a closer look at each plant."
>
> https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/nuclear-power-latin-america/
>
> " Belarus, Bangladesh and Turkey are all constructing their first nuclear
> power plants.
> About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power
> programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point expressed
> an interest. In the following list, links are provided for those countries
> that are covered by specific country pages:
>
> In Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland,
> Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
> In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including Saudi
> Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt,
> Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
> In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya,
> Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, Ethiopia.
> In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela,
> Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
> In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
> Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
> In SE Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand,
> Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia.
> In east Asia: North Korea."
>
> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx
Cursitor Doom
Nov 7, 2021, 12:53:28 PM11/7/21
to
On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 09:54:46 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
>On 06/11/2021 18:20, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:22:09 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2021 21:01, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>>>>> or farting cows.
>
>>>>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>
>>>>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
>
>>>> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
>>>> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
>>>> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
>>>> the face of it all, sir!
>
>>> The alternative is to suffer unanswered the claptrap of the
>>> Paul-from-Dawlish types...
>
>> Just suffer spikey. Being laughed at, for still being on the grid, is all deniers like you deserve. ?????
when they fabricated evidence to suggest discredited AGW still had
some merit. Lying bastards!
--
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality."
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
wrote:
>On 06/11/2021 18:20, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:22:09 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2021 21:01, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/11/2021 10:35, TimW wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>>>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So far,
>>>>>>> Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were 3degC warmer
>>>>>>> than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag* temperature changes by
>>>>>>> several thousand years. There's plenty of global warming to come,
>>>>>>> according to Vostok, and it's nothing to do with gas boilers, ICE cars,
>>>>>>> or farting cows.
>
>>>>>> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>
>>>>> I try to educate idiots - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.
>
>>>> Still casting your pearls before swine by the looks of things, Spike.
>>>> I'm afraid some folk just cannot face the truth and get really
>>>> confused and angry when confronted with it. I admire your fortitude in
>>>> the face of it all, sir!
>
>>> The alternative is to suffer unanswered the claptrap of the
>>> Paul-from-Dawlish types...
>
>
>>> PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
>
>>> PPS Go on; call it all a great big global conspiracy (again)! ?????
>>> PS Do keep on posting though. It's such entertainment. I don't know what we'd do without you!
>
>
>When Aneurin Bevan was asked how he intended to get doctors onside in
>order to run his National Health Service, he replied "I'll stuff their
>mouths with gold". Looks like it works for scientists too: "Here's an
>open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>come free.
Spot on, Spike. That's exactly what the University of East Anglia did
>When Aneurin Bevan was asked how he intended to get doctors onside in
>order to run his National Health Service, he replied "I'll stuff their
>mouths with gold". Looks like it works for scientists too: "Here's an
>open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>come free.
when they fabricated evidence to suggest discredited AGW still had
some merit. Lying bastards!
--
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality."
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Peeler
Nov 7, 2021, 1:19:46 PM11/7/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 04:12:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
--
Hawk addressing the obnoxious senile Australian pest:
"I'm willing to bet you scream your own name when jacking off."
MID: <s78tjv$14d$2...@dont-email.me>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
04:21 in Australia, AGAIN, you subnormal and abnormal senile TROLL? LOL
--
Hawk addressing the obnoxious senile Australian pest:
"I'm willing to bet you scream your own name when jacking off."
MID: <s78tjv$14d$2...@dont-email.me>
Peeler
Nov 7, 2021, 1:20:13 PM11/7/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 04:25:57 +1100, John Brown, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
Paul from Dawlish
Nov 9, 2021, 1:18:39 PM11/9/21
to
The only thing that spikey deserves is to be laughed at for such views. Same with all deniers. I think they say these things when they've missed the bus...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
RedAcer
Nov 12, 2021, 12:49:14 PM11/12/21
to
On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote:
....
grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150 years!!!
Steve Oates.
>
>
....
> "Here's an
> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
> come free.
No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a
> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
> come free.
grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150 years!!!
Steve Oates.
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 12, 2021, 1:00:49 PM11/12/21
to
worst virtually nonexistent.
Depending on the negative feedback levels.
Of course to fit the *natural* warming post 1970, they postulated
positive feedback, to the extent that the earths climate would never
have been stable enough for life to evolve. But that's what they now
insist is the case.
Wankers.
> Steve Oates.
>
>>
>>
>
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
Fredxx
Nov 12, 2021, 1:09:54 PM11/12/21
to
On 12/11/2021 18:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 17:49, RedAcer wrote:
>> On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote:
>> ....
>>> "Here's an
>>> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>>> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>>> come free.
>>
>> No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a
>> grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150
>> years!!!
>>
> And it predicts that global warming will be at best minimal, and at
> worst virtually nonexistent.
I'm not sure what literature you're reading but the majority of
> On 12/11/2021 17:49, RedAcer wrote:
>> On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote:
>> ....
>>> "Here's an
>>> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>>> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>>> come free.
>>
>> No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a
>> grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150
>> years!!!
>>
> And it predicts that global warming will be at best minimal, and at
> worst virtually nonexistent.
scientific opinion believe otherwise.
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 12, 2021, 4:39:54 PM11/12/21
to
On 12/11/2021 18:50, Tim Streater wrote:
> That's certainly true for the majority of opinion that is allowed to express
> itself.
>
Look at exactly what Fredxx said:
"The majority of scientific *opinion*"? And what has an opinion, or a
majority got to do with science?
At once we see that the theory is not *scientific*, but political and
commercial *marketing*.
"believe otherwise".
And again, its not a matter of fact, or data, its a matter of religious
*faith*.
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
> itself.
>
Look at exactly what Fredxx said:
"The majority of scientific *opinion*"? And what has an opinion, or a
majority got to do with science?
At once we see that the theory is not *scientific*, but political and
commercial *marketing*.
"believe otherwise".
And again, its not a matter of fact, or data, its a matter of religious
*faith*.
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 13, 2021, 3:13:15 AM11/13/21
to
On 12/11/2021 22:30, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2021 at 21:39:52 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> of consensuses in the past, which have turned out to be wrong [1]. As Galileo
> could confirm.
> better or worse job of making correct predictions about the future. A
> sun-centric Solar System works better than an Earth-centric one, and Newton
> does even better.
>
Er, no, it just makes the maths easier...With modern computation we
could transform the axes from heliocentric to Earth centric and get
identical results.
Heliocentrism isn't a *fact*, it's a *point of view*. Relativity
assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.
That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points of
view that
- make the maths simpler
- give the 'right' answers.
Climate change does neither, really.
--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
> On 12 Nov 2021 at 21:39:52 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2021 18:50, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 12 Nov 2021 at 18:09:53 GMT, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/11/2021 18:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 17:49, RedAcer wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> "Here's an
>>>>>>> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>>>>>>> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>>>>>>> come free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a
>>>>>> grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150
>>>>>> years!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> And it predicts that global warming will be at best minimal, and at
>>>>> worst virtually nonexistent.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what literature you're reading but the majority of
>>>> scientific opinion believe otherwise.
>>>
>>> That's certainly true for the majority of opinion that is allowed to express
>>> itself.
>>>
>> Look at exactly what Fredxx said:
>>
>> "The majority of scientific *opinion*"? And what has an opinion, or a
>> majority got to do with science?
>
> Well quite. My comment was more making the point that there have been plenty
>
>> On 12/11/2021 18:50, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 12 Nov 2021 at 18:09:53 GMT, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/11/2021 18:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 17:49, RedAcer wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> "Here's an
>>>>>>> open-ended grant for your centre to prove that CO2 causes global
>>>>>>> warming". "Thanks, we're on it right away". Believers are cheap, they
>>>>>>> come free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a
>>>>>> grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150
>>>>>> years!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> And it predicts that global warming will be at best minimal, and at
>>>>> worst virtually nonexistent.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what literature you're reading but the majority of
>>>> scientific opinion believe otherwise.
>>>
>>> That's certainly true for the majority of opinion that is allowed to express
>>> itself.
>>>
>> Look at exactly what Fredxx said:
>>
>> "The majority of scientific *opinion*"? And what has an opinion, or a
>> majority got to do with science?
>
> of consensuses in the past, which have turned out to be wrong [1]. As Galileo
> could confirm.
>
>> At once we see that the theory is not *scientific*, but political and
>> commercial *marketing*.
>
> Then it's not a theory; it is, at best, a hypothesis.
>> At once we see that the theory is not *scientific*, but political and
>> commercial *marketing*.
>
>
>> "believe otherwise".
>>
>> And again, its not a matter of fact, or data, its a matter of religious
>> *faith*.
>
> [1] My use of the word "wrong" here relates to whether a hypothesis does a
>> "believe otherwise".
>>
>> And again, its not a matter of fact, or data, its a matter of religious
>> *faith*.
>
> better or worse job of making correct predictions about the future. A
> sun-centric Solar System works better than an Earth-centric one, and Newton
> does even better.
>
Er, no, it just makes the maths easier...With modern computation we
could transform the axes from heliocentric to Earth centric and get
identical results.
Heliocentrism isn't a *fact*, it's a *point of view*. Relativity
assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.
That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points of
view that
- make the maths simpler
- give the 'right' answers.
Climate change does neither, really.
--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
John Brown
Nov 13, 2021, 3:22:44 AM11/13/21
to
> Heliocentrism isn't a *fact*, it's a *point of view*.
Relativity
> assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.
> That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points of
> view that
> - make the maths simpler
> - give the 'right' answers.
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 13, 2021, 3:30:06 AM11/13/21
to
>
> Relativity
>> assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points
>> of view that
>> - make the maths simpler
>> - give the 'right' answers.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
Do you even know what metaphysics is?
What he see s from his POV is the one truth, and the only truth, and is
the facts !
Bless.
--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain
Martin Brown
Nov 13, 2021, 4:30:35 AM11/13/21
to
atmosphere will add about 3K to the global average temperature. It might
still be uncertain to within a factor of two but there is no doubt that
as the CO2 concentration increases so will global average temperatures.
It gets really hairy when the oceans warm to the point where they can no
longer act as a net CO2 sink by dissolving it and start releasing it
into the atmosphere. Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
Only the most extreme rightard science deniers dispute this.
I am surprised that TNP is prepared to throw his lot in with them.
It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out a
lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
I doubt that there is the political will to do anything much about it.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Peeler
Nov 13, 2021, 4:43:36 AM11/13/21
to
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 19:22:36 +1100, John Brown, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Spike
Nov 13, 2021, 4:46:20 AM11/13/21
to
On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
> It is clear already that each doubling of the CO2 content of the
> atmosphere will add about 3K to the global average temperature. It might
> still be uncertain to within a factor of two but there is no doubt that
> as the CO2 concentration increases so will global average temperatures.
Does this clarity mean that the amount of the feedback is now known
> It is clear already that each doubling of the CO2 content of the
> atmosphere will add about 3K to the global average temperature. It might
> still be uncertain to within a factor of two but there is no doubt that
> as the CO2 concentration increases so will global average temperatures.
accurately?
In any case, 3K is about how much lower temperatures currently are at
this point in this interglacial than the three that preceded it, so
there's nothing unusual in that figure.
--
Spike
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 13, 2021, 5:30:54 AM11/13/21
to
wouldn't have shown up on any proxy in the last ten thousand years if it
had happened then..
And the forests now being exposed by retreating glaciers showing the
world was a lot warmer than now, a few hundred or thousand years ago...
It's odd to believe in a 'science' you don't understand, rather than
understanding a 'science' that you then don't need to believe in.
--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."
Mark Twain
Bernie
Nov 13, 2021, 5:44:53 AM11/13/21
to
On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 09:28:32 +0000
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 14:36, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:35:19 AM UTC, TimW wrote:
> >>> planet is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. We're
> >>> currently half way through a warm period.
>
> >>> Can you mention, or have you heard of, a mechanism by which
> >>> governments. money, curbing CO2, or COP can control this
> >>> CO2-unrelated, non-human-activity-related cyclic behaviour?
> > settled the science some years ago now, Tim. People like spikey are
> > just neanderthals in that respect, trying to re-hash old arguments,
> > long since demolished, on their own cave walls.
>
> I can see why your interminable posts in uk.sci.weather reporting GISS
> and how hot each month is, are never answered. They just laugh at you.
> It's all you're worth,
>
But you answer them every month, Burt.
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 14:36, Paul from Dawlish wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:35:19 AM UTC, TimW wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2021 15:07, Spike wrote:
> >>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>
> >>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will
> >>>> require governments to act.
>
> >>> The Vostok ice-core data shows 100,000-years cycles in which the
> >>> On 04/11/2021 13:11, TimW wrote:
>
> >>>> If there is to be action to prevent climate change it will
> >>>> require governments to act.
>
> >>> planet is glaciated for 80,000 years, and warm for 20,000. We're
> >>> currently half way through a warm period.
>
> >>> Can you mention, or have you heard of, a mechanism by which
> >>> governments. money, curbing CO2, or COP can control this
> >>> CO2-unrelated, non-human-activity-related cyclic behaviour?
>
> >>>> We need the government to build infrastructure to
> >>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out
> >>>> yet? Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make
> >>>> everybody poor on the back of climate change?
>
> >>>> We need the government to build infrastructure to
> >>>> allow us to reduce carbon outputs. Have you not figured that out
> >>>> yet? Are you one of these mad socialist greens who want to make
> >>>> everybody poor on the back of climate change?
>
> >>> We are half way through an interglacial (i.e. warm) period. So
> >>> far, Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were
> >>> 3degC warmer than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag*
> >>> temperature changes by several thousand years. There's plenty of
> >>> global warming to come, according to Vostok, and it's nothing to
> >>> do with gas boilers, ICE cars, or farting cows.
>
> >> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>
> > I just laugh at them. It's all they are worth. The scientists
> >>> far, Vostok shows us that the previous three interglacials were
> >>> 3degC warmer than this one and also that CO2 changes *lag*
> >>> temperature changes by several thousand years. There's plenty of
> >>> global warming to come, according to Vostok, and it's nothing to
> >>> do with gas boilers, ICE cars, or farting cows.
>
> >> I don't waste my time with idiots any more
>
> > settled the science some years ago now, Tim. People like spikey are
> > just neanderthals in that respect, trying to re-hash old arguments,
> > long since demolished, on their own cave walls.
>
> I can see why your interminable posts in uk.sci.weather reporting GISS
> and how hot each month is, are never answered. They just laugh at you.
> It's all you're worth,
>
But you answer them every month, Burt.
Richard
Nov 13, 2021, 6:12:22 AM11/13/21
to
On 13/11/2021 08:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 08:22, John Brown wrote:
<snip>
> On 13/11/2021 08:22, John Brown wrote:
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>
> Ah, a dyed in the wool Materialist.
>
> Do you even know what metaphysics is?
>
> What he see s from his POV is the one truth, and the only truth, and is
> the facts !
John Brown
Nov 13, 2021, 1:22:16 PM11/13/21
to
>> Relativity
>>> assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points of
>>> view that
>>> - make the maths simpler
>>> - give the 'right' answers.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>
> Ah, a dyed in the wool Materialist.
> Do you even know what metaphysics is?
> What he see s from his POV is the one truth,
Peeler
Nov 13, 2021, 2:05:25 PM11/13/21
to
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 05:22:11 +1100, John Brown, better known as cantankerous
"That’s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker."
Message-ID: <gm2h57...@mid.individual.net>
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"That’s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker."
Message-ID: <gm2h57...@mid.individual.net>
newshound
Nov 13, 2021, 4:14:05 PM11/13/21
to
On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>
> It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out a
> lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how
> lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in
trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete
and the money will relocate to higher ground.
Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one
time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than
10. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London
to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging
civil engineering project.
10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.
charles
Nov 13, 2021, 4:50:01 PM11/13/21
to
In article <7NGdnSCtDOsGtw38...@brightview.co.uk>,
but it might flood the London Underground tunnels
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 14, 2021, 1:58:41 AM11/14/21
to
we started measuring it.
So in 80 years time that is around 240mm.
Not even the height of a sandbag,
And, over the period, easy enough to build defences against, provided we
don't have to rely on renewable energy...
--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.
Richard Lindzen
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 14, 2021, 1:59:54 AM11/14/21
to
As is the channel tunnel.
Provided we still have electricity for pumps, it wont happen,
Richard
Nov 14, 2021, 4:15:18 AM11/14/21
to
On 13/11/2021 21:14, newshound wrote:
You should be running around in circles screaming.
Also, remember to use K instead of C as it is apparently an indicator of
intellectual superiority.
RJH
Nov 14, 2021, 4:48:44 AM11/14/21
to
On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_SeaLevel_Jan2021update.txt
> So in 80 years time that is around 240mm.
>
> Not even the height of a sandbag,
>
> And, over the period, easy enough to build defences against, provided we
> don't have to rely on renewable energy...
But still catastrophic in many parts of the world.
--
Cheers, Rob
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 21:14, newshound wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out
>>> a lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
>>> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
>>
>> Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how
>> long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in
>> trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete
>> and the money will relocate to higher ground.
>>
>> Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one
>> time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than
>> 10. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London
>> to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging
>> civil engineering project.
>>
>> 10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.
>
> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
> we started measuring it.
>
And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
> On 13/11/2021 21:14, newshound wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out
>>> a lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
>>> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
>>
>> Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how
>> long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in
>> trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete
>> and the money will relocate to higher ground.
>>
>> Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one
>> time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than
>> 10. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London
>> to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging
>> civil engineering project.
>>
>> 10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.
>
> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
> we started measuring it.
>
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_SeaLevel_Jan2021update.txt
> So in 80 years time that is around 240mm.
>
> Not even the height of a sandbag,
>
> And, over the period, easy enough to build defences against, provided we
> don't have to rely on renewable energy...
--
Cheers, Rob
The Natural Philosopher
Nov 14, 2021, 5:26:37 AM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 09:48, RJH wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/11/2021 21:14, newshound wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out
>>>> a lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
>>>> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
>>>
>>> Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how
>>> long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in
>>> trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete
>>> and the money will relocate to higher ground.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one
>>> time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than
>>> 10. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London
>>> to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging
>>> civil engineering project.
>>>
>>> 10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.
>>
>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>> we started measuring it.
>>
>
> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>
Except it isn't. Except where the land is sinking at in increasing rate.
> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/11/2021 21:14, newshound wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't going to end civilisation as such but it is going to wipe out
>>>> a lot of highly populated valuable real estate as the sea level rises.
>>>> London, Tokyo, New York to name just a few vulnerable major cities.
>>>
>>> Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how
>>> long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in
>>> trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete
>>> and the money will relocate to higher ground.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one
>>> time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than
>>> 10. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London
>>> to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging
>>> civil engineering project.
>>>
>>> 10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.
>>
>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>> we started measuring it.
>>
>
> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>
In fact according to those figures, it fell 5.5 mm between 2019 and 2020.
> https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_SeaLevel_Jan2021update.txt
>
>> So in 80 years time that is around 240mm.
>>
>> Not even the height of a sandbag,
>>
>> And, over the period, easy enough to build defences against, provided we
>> don't have to rely on renewable energy...
>
> But still catastrophic in many parts of the world.
size.
Due to various sorts of deposition
>
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."
Josef Stalin
newshound
Nov 14, 2021, 7:05:17 AM11/14/21
to
On 13/11/2021 21:47, charles wrote:
might be an engineering solution?
newshound
Nov 14, 2021, 7:07:26 AM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 09:48, RJH wrote:
wiped out all of the Pacific coral atolls. So now, 13,000 years later,
there aren't any?
newshound
Nov 14, 2021, 7:08:36 AM11/14/21
to
charles
Nov 14, 2021, 7:26:07 AM11/14/21
to
In article <g7KdnZJTNczmZg38...@brightview.co.uk>, newshound
Build coffer dams round some of the station entrances, some aren't much
above the current river level.. Difficult with the new one for the
Elizabeth line at Canary Wharf, though.
above the current river level.. Difficult with the new one for the
Elizabeth line at Canary Wharf, though.
Algernon Goss-Custard
Dec 7, 2021, 5:19:48 AM12/7/21
to
RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
similar blip.
And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
consistent way over the whole period.
--
Algernon
>On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
><t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>> we started measuring it.
>>
>
>And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>
>https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
But the (very slightly) steeper gradient of more recent years (from
><t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>> we started measuring it.
>>
>
>And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>
>https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
similar blip.
And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
consistent way over the whole period.
--
Algernon
RJH
Dec 7, 2021, 8:46:20 AM12/7/21
to
On 7 Dec 2021 at 10:18:35 GMT, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
>> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>>> we started measuring it.
>>>
>>
>> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>>
>> https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>> aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
>
> But the (very slightly) steeper gradient of more recent years (from
> about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
> exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
> suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
> actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
> The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
> similar blip.
>
Are you sure you're reading it correctly - values are a 'change in sea level
in millimeters compared to the 1993-2008 average'.
So levels to my untrained eye have been rising fairly consistently since the
records started. Here's the text/graphics:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels.
> And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
> consistent way over the whole period.
I think that's why they've used 2 measures - again, they look to be reasonably
consistent between eachother.
--
Cheers, Rob
wrote:
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
>> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>>> we started measuring it.
>>>
>>
>> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>>
>> https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>> aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
>
> But the (very slightly) steeper gradient of more recent years (from
> about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
> exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
> suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
> actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
> The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
> similar blip.
>
in millimeters compared to the 1993-2008 average'.
So levels to my untrained eye have been rising fairly consistently since the
records started. Here's the text/graphics:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels.
> And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
> consistent way over the whole period.
consistent between eachother.
--
Cheers, Rob
Ubique
Dec 7, 2021, 12:20:00 PM12/7/21
to
"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:sonoh0$a0h$1...@dont-email.me...
Algernon Goss-Custard
Dec 7, 2021, 12:21:56 PM12/7/21
to
RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
have been many reverses, recoveries and accelerations on the way. The
recent one looks exactly like several previous accelerations.
>
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
April 2019 you will see an interesting thing. That line is pretty close
to a best-fit trend line for the data until about April 1961. Then
suddenly the sea level plummets rapidly by about 25mm, and remains well
below that trend line for another fifty years. Only then does the sea
level recover to the number that would have been predicted by the
1928-1961 trend line.
What this means in geophysics terms, I have no idea. But in terms of
mathematics, it shows that in 1928 the historical records did not
predict actual sea levels with any accuracy for the next eighty years.
The same is very probably true today.
>
>> And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
>> consistent way over the whole period.
>
>I think that's why they've used 2 measures - again, they look to be reasonably
>consistent between eachother.
Yes, agreed.
--
Algernon
>On 7 Dec 2021 at 10:18:35 GMT, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
>>> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>>>> we started measuring it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>>>
>>> https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>>> aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
>>
>> But the (very slightly) steeper gradient of more recent years (from
>> about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
>> exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
>> suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
>> actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
>> The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
>> similar blip.
>>
>
>Are you sure you're reading it correctly - values are a 'change in sea level
>in millimeters compared to the 1993-2008 average'.
>
>So levels to my untrained eye have been rising fairly consistently since the
>records started. Here's the text/graphics:
As TNP said, the broad trend is upwards at about 3mm a year. But there
>wrote:
>
>> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> posted
>>> On 14 Nov 2021 at 06:58:39 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IIRC sea level has been going up 3mm a year broadly speaking ever since
>>>> we started measuring it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it's increasing at an increasing rate, apparently. Data:
>>>
>>> https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_dot_gov_dashboard_Se
>>> aLevel_Jan2021update.txt
>>
>> But the (very slightly) steeper gradient of more recent years (from
>> about 2006 to about 2010) is well within the range of variation
>> exhibited over the whole period. For example, in 1929 the gradient quite
>> suddenly became much steeper, until about 1961 when average sea level
>> actually *fell*, and took a long time to recover to its previous value.
>> The slightly steeper gradient of the early 2000s could easily be a
>> similar blip.
>>
>
>Are you sure you're reading it correctly - values are a 'change in sea level
>in millimeters compared to the 1993-2008 average'.
>
>So levels to my untrained eye have been rising fairly consistently since the
>records started. Here's the text/graphics:
have been many reverses, recoveries and accelerations on the way. The
recent one looks exactly like several previous accelerations.
>
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>ge-global-sea-level
>
>But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
>and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels
If you draw a straight line through the datapoints at April 1928 and
>
>But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
>and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels
April 2019 you will see an interesting thing. That line is pretty close
to a best-fit trend line for the data until about April 1961. Then
suddenly the sea level plummets rapidly by about 25mm, and remains well
below that trend line for another fifty years. Only then does the sea
level recover to the number that would have been predicted by the
1928-1961 trend line.
What this means in geophysics terms, I have no idea. But in terms of
mathematics, it shows that in 1928 the historical records did not
predict actual sea levels with any accuracy for the next eighty years.
The same is very probably true today.
>
>> And that's assuming that the data is accurate and has been measured in a
>> consistent way over the whole period.
>
>I think that's why they've used 2 measures - again, they look to be reasonably
>consistent between eachother.
--
Algernon
Algernon Goss-Custard
Dec 7, 2021, 12:31:00 PM12/7/21
to
RJH
Dec 7, 2021, 3:08:42 PM12/7/21
to
On 7 Dec 2021 at 17:20:39 GMT, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
Yes, that's the trend over the past 20 years or so. Overall, over the 140 year
period, it's about 1.8mm.
marked dips (1962, 1978, 1994), but peaks over the line (1950, 1992). By eye,
yes, it does look like a fairly predictable rise over the period, that goes
wrong around 2002, with a steep rise way above predicted. It does look to me
like the post 2002 data is showing a significant acceleration in levels
rising.
But even by my standards that's a pretty sloppy interpretation. I can't see
how the statistical significance of the various dips and peaks can be
estimated, or why they're relatively severe in the first 40 years.
> What this means in geophysics terms, I have no idea. But in terms of
> mathematics, it shows that in 1928 the historical records did not
> predict actual sea levels with any accuracy for the next eighty years.
> The same is very probably true today.
I'll have to defer to your grasp of maths. It looks to me as though it would,
with the deviation starting around 2002. But I'm way outside my comfort level
:-)
--
Cheers, Rob
period, it's about 1.8mm.
>
>>
>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>> ge-global-sea-level
>>
>> But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
>> and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels
>
> If you draw a straight line through the datapoints at April 1928 and
> April 2019 you will see an interesting thing. That line is pretty close
> to a best-fit trend line for the data until about April 1961. Then
> suddenly the sea level plummets rapidly by about 25mm, and remains well
> below that trend line for another fifty years. Only then does the sea
> level recover to the number that would have been predicted by the
> 1928-1961 trend line.
>
Mmm. I've just plotted the data as best as I can. My 1928-2019 line shows some
>>
>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>> ge-global-sea-level
>>
>> But yes, of course, in the scheme of things the measurements could be a blip,
>> and we're about to enter a phase of falling sea levels
>
> If you draw a straight line through the datapoints at April 1928 and
> April 2019 you will see an interesting thing. That line is pretty close
> to a best-fit trend line for the data until about April 1961. Then
> suddenly the sea level plummets rapidly by about 25mm, and remains well
> below that trend line for another fifty years. Only then does the sea
> level recover to the number that would have been predicted by the
> 1928-1961 trend line.
>
marked dips (1962, 1978, 1994), but peaks over the line (1950, 1992). By eye,
yes, it does look like a fairly predictable rise over the period, that goes
wrong around 2002, with a steep rise way above predicted. It does look to me
like the post 2002 data is showing a significant acceleration in levels
rising.
But even by my standards that's a pretty sloppy interpretation. I can't see
how the statistical significance of the various dips and peaks can be
estimated, or why they're relatively severe in the first 40 years.
> What this means in geophysics terms, I have no idea. But in terms of
> mathematics, it shows that in 1928 the historical records did not
> predict actual sea levels with any accuracy for the next eighty years.
> The same is very probably true today.
with the deviation starting around 2002. But I'm way outside my comfort level
:-)
--
Cheers, Rob
newshound
Dec 7, 2021, 5:54:51 PM12/7/21
to
On 07/12/2021 20:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>>>> ge-global-sea-level
>>>>
> What are the error bars on these data points?
>
Well this bit, taken from the link above, wasn't written by a scientist.
"Since the early 1990s, sea level has been measured from space using
radar altimeters, which determine the height of the sea surface by
measuring the return speed and intensity of a radar pulse directed at
the ocean. The higher the sea level, the faster and stronger the return
signal is."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>>>> ge-global-sea-level
>>>>
> What are the error bars on these data points?
>
Well this bit, taken from the link above, wasn't written by a scientist.
"Since the early 1990s, sea level has been measured from space using
radar altimeters, which determine the height of the sea surface by
measuring the return speed and intensity of a radar pulse directed at
the ocean. The higher the sea level, the faster and stronger the return
signal is."
Martin Brown
Dec 8, 2021, 8:32:10 AM12/8/21
to
On 07/12/2021 22:54, newshound wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 20:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>>>>>
>>>>> ge-global-sea-level
>>>>>
>> What are the error bars on these data points?
A rough heuristic valid for almost any noisy dataset is that the highest
> On 07/12/2021 20:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan
>>>>>
>>>>> ge-global-sea-level
>>>>>
>> What are the error bars on these data points?
and lowest excursions from the trend line span about 6 std deviations.
By eye that looks to be about 10 on whatever their vertical scale is.
I fitted the quadratic and found that the residuals were interestingly
asymmetric with an enhanced high tail out to +32 and nothing below -17.
I only analysed 1900-2020 since MickeySoft Excel doesn't understand
dates prior to that. These are the histogram of those residuals:
Bin Frequency Gaussian Fit
-17 1 2.129109766
-16 1 2.836116599
-15 1 3.712813028
-14 0 4.776777854
-13 1 6.039764124
-12 3 7.505124126
-11 5 9.16534355
-10 11 10.99999748
-9 21 12.97446296
-8 9 15.03969965
-7 21 17.13333491
-6 14 19.18216458
-5 22 21.10601728
-4 27 22.82274794
-3 21 24.25395381
-2 29 25.33087118
-1 26 25.99983995
0 19 26.22673274
1 23 25.99983995
2 26 25.33087118
3 24 24.25395381
4 25 22.82274794
5 12 21.10601728
6 16 19.18216458
7 17 17.13333491
8 23 15.03969965
9 13 12.97446296
10 14 10.99999748
11 13 9.16534355
12 12 7.505124126
13 11 6.039764124
14 8 4.776777854
15 3 3.712813028
16 5 2.836116599
17 3 2.129109766
18 1 1.570814821
19 0 1.138950623
20 1 0.811592024
21 1 0.56836014
22 0 0.391167192
23 0 0.264578287
24 0 0.175872908
25 0 0.114893817
26 0 0.073764489
27 0 0.046542637
28 0 0.02886075
29 0 0.01758803
30 0 0.010533671
31 0 0.006200051
32 1 0.003586442
The local gradient averaged over 10k days has almost doubled since 1900.
+25 /10k days in 1900
+50 /10k days in 2000
> Well this bit, taken from the link above, wasn't written by a scientist.
>
> "Since the early 1990s, sea level has been measured from space using
> radar altimeters, which determine the height of the sea surface by
> measuring the return speed and intensity of a radar pulse directed at
> the ocean. The higher the sea level, the faster and stronger the return
> signal is."
*strength* actually tells you how flat or otherwise the sea surface is.
This intensity information is helpful for the survey since a reflection
from a 10m swell is much less reliable as a measurement of ocean level
one than from a flat calm sea with just a few small ripples on it. I
expect they do use it to put error bars on the mean sea surface.
Averaged over the entire sea surface they can get remarkable high
precision measurements from these radar survey satellites. Same
technology is used to image near Earth asteroids using higher power
ground based radar.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
newshound
Dec 8, 2021, 8:52:56 AM12/8/21
to
On 08/12/2021 12:12, Tim Streater wrote:
> The return signal travels at the speed of light, like all EM radiation. What
> the fathead probably means is that if the sealevel is higher, the signal will
> return sooner. Well, duh!
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. ISTM that taking such measurements
> requires a number of things to be known with great accuracy, including (but
> probably not limited to) where the satellite is, what the air pressure is at
> the target point on the ocean, what ocean currents there are at that point,
> ...
>
Sure, but my point is an article written by a press officer is unlikely
to contain useful statistics. Also mildly amusing that the idea a few
centimetres of sea level rise would give a usefully stronger signal 100
miles up. (As Martin says, signal strength does tell you something about
the roughness).
> the fathead probably means is that if the sealevel is higher, the signal will
> return sooner. Well, duh!
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. ISTM that taking such measurements
> requires a number of things to be known with great accuracy, including (but
> probably not limited to) where the satellite is, what the air pressure is at
> the target point on the ocean, what ocean currents there are at that point,
> ...
>
Sure, but my point is an article written by a press officer is unlikely
to contain useful statistics. Also mildly amusing that the idea a few
centimetres of sea level rise would give a usefully stronger signal 100
miles up. (As Martin says, signal strength does tell you something about
the roughness).
The Natural Philosopher
Dec 8, 2021, 12:01:17 PM12/8/21
to
On 08/12/2021 12:12, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 07 Dec 2021 at 22:54:49 GMT, newshound <sradcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07 Dec 2021 at 22:54:49 GMT, newshound <sradcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The return signal travels at the speed of light, like all EM radiation. What
> the fathead probably means is that if the sealevel is higher, the signal will
> return sooner. Well, duh!
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. ISTM that taking such measurements
> requires a number of things to be known with great accuracy, including (but
> probably not limited to) where the satellite is, what the air pressure is at
> the target point on the ocean, what ocean currents there are at that point,
> ...
>
Well no, essentially you average out millions of readings to get 'mean
> the fathead probably means is that if the sealevel is higher, the signal will
> return sooner. Well, duh!
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. ISTM that taking such measurements
> requires a number of things to be known with great accuracy, including (but
> probably not limited to) where the satellite is, what the air pressure is at
> the target point on the ocean, what ocean currents there are at that point,
> ...
>
sea level'
The real problem is locating the satellites altitude to the nearest mm.
--
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
0 new messages