OT: Now we're terrified of nice weather!

There are three maybe approaches to the whole climate change EcoBollocks. One is to examine the evidence, and come quickly to the conclusions that CO2 is a bit player in climate, and we don't need to do anything. This is what governments have actually done as evinced by the fact that no attempt to reduce emissions has been made, only expensive solutions that don't work have been mandated. E.g. Germany now is in the position of having to admit that it runs on oil gas nuclear power and brown coal. Not windymills and solar panels., which just cost lots and placate the Green Party.

Another is to recognise that oil and gas are getting harder and harder to find, and harder and more expensive to extract, and that's why Russia wants the Donbas, for example. So its pointless to engage in mandatory solutions to a problem that may not exist, when the free market will in the end switch to whatever technology works best for the least money. I.e. nuclear power.

The third is to scare the population so shitless that people glue themselves to roads, whilst you destroy the technological infrastructure of a nation now too stupid from Blairs education and foreign immigration, to actually maintain a post industrial infrastructure. Neo feudalism.

That is what is really happening.

Of course it is. Because I am self-aware enough to know that I can speak with pretty much no authority on the topic of anthropogenic climate change.

No, these are academics.

And my options are . . . ? ;-)

It's not bigoted - anecdotally, that is is ideological stance of the vast majority of sources you cite.

Only you know what that really means.

There will doubtless be scams. Doesn't make the science wrong.

CO2 is is one variable, certainly. But it's also how the increase has come to pass, and a host of other man-induced variables, that drives change.

There's coincidence and cause. I would have some time for your conspiracy narrative - that climate change is a 'convenient truth' - were it not for the weight of scientific consensus.

Well, that's a start.

Have you ever been in an academic environment? IME, nobody's career depended on maintaining a line (at least in post-92s).

Of course.

I have several CDs (from the 1980s) where needle drop and groove noise can be heard. This on premium-price EMI releases as well as on cheap-as-chips market stall items. The EMI discs were made and published in South Africa, from where a friend sent me them.

Tape hiss is never as straightforward as it might seem. The semi-legendary multi-track recordings of USA guitarist Les Paul - even the earliest where he was using a single-deck Ampex machine with the whole recording being shifted by a few inches (from the replay head to a recording head) for every additional layer - display no obvious tape hiss, even when transferred to digital for CD. But the 1975 recording "I'm Not In Love" by 10cc (famous for its multi-layered voices on multi-track) has intrusive tape hiss, clearly audible on compact disc.

Only because you choose to label them as such.

Such as?

One should not be impressed by a consensus, nor by statements by anyone saying that "the science is settled"; science is never settled and that is how we advance. Remember, the "alarm" aspect is not driven by science; it's driven by modelling. And models never "tell" you anything; they make predictions.

AIUI, the skeptics' position, in part, seems to be that for the predictions to fit the actual data on CO2, requires some positive feedback mechanism. They also seem to say that this mechanism is unexplained and has been arbitrarily added to the models.

Anyone care to expand on this, as to what this mechanism might be, and why it hasn't been a problem at previous times when CO2 was this high or worse?

That is just plain wrong. Plenty of it is. The earth does indeed orbit around the sun, evolution is what happened, not creation, climate always has changed etc etc etc.

and that is how

The issue is simple to anyone who bothers to examine the data. What the

Then the data in the 1980s seemed to show that for the last ten years temperatures had been rising I think 3 times faster than that. How accurate these measurements were is moot, but they were the ones on offer.,

In order to explain this, the academic climate scientists who have zero understanding of system theory, generated a positive feedback term that was applied to the CO2 increase to match the observed rise.

There was no agreement as to what was causing this feedback. Methane? water vapour? but it was agreed by all that the feedback would apply to any temperature rise, or fall - not just CO2 generated feedback.

At which point some palaeoclimatologists rose up in unison and declared 'can't be so, makes the climate completely unstable'. And lost their jobs and were declared 'right wing bigots' etc etc. Or like my Phd BIL nearing retirement, simply kept their mouths shut.

Analysis of this supposed positive feedback showed that it should result in a hot spot in the lower stratosphere in tropical regions. Balloons were sent up. There was no hot spot.

Other studies were done. One is a classic example of double think. Emissions from Mt Pinatubo were analysed and it was shown that the increased albedo due to dust emissions was a close match with the temperature fall that year. No mention of positive feedback. In the same paper they then showed this 'proved' the co2 climate models *with feedback* !

In short positive feedback only works when its needed to fudge the numbers for scary climate change. Otherwise you leave it out

Then came 2000, the ice stopped melting and temperatures stopped rising.

At which point any genuine science mindful of the philosophy of science would say 'the theory is refuted: Climate may be changing, but CO2 is not the main reason and the feedback required to make it fit 1980-2000 stops it fitting 2000-2022

The only logical scientific conclusion is that whatever is 'causing' modern climate change, it *certainly isn't CO2*.

Tjhios is broadly Judih Curry, the esteemed climate scientist's, position. Co2 ,makes a small and pretty insignificant difference only.

And it gets worse.

Half the loss of temperature from the earths surface roughly is not via radiation which CO2 affects, but by turbulent convection. Hot sweaty air rises, radiates to space from a height far above at least half the CO2, and falls as cold rain or stays as a sun screen (clouds).

None of this can be even *partially* modelled in the 'climate models'. Which assume a global partial cloudiness that is not affected by global temperature!

Neither are any of the other feedbacks that really do exist - oscillations of ocean currents between la Niña and El Nino states, modelled. Nor the NAO, or the polar vortices.

What the real science says, is that these are significant, and highly chaotic. And what the paleological evidence suggests is that there are at least two attractors - one representing interglacials, like now, and the other a new ice age.

And what any systems engineer or decent physicist understands by all this, is that no climate model printout is worth wiping your bottom with. Better to use a clean blank sheet of paper. No climate scientist, so called, *can* know *at all*, what the future climate will be. That is in essence Professor Robert Browns position 'the problem is, with current maths and computers, insoluble, even if we knew the actuall effects of all these feedback paths, which we don't'

If you didn't understand that, it means the problem is trebly insoluble. We don't know all the feedback paths, we don't know the *value* of all the feedback paths and even if we did, the chaotic nature means that even if we had 100% accurate records of what the global temperature is at every 100m point on the earths surface, and we knew exactly all the feedback mechanisms, and their exact values, and even if we had a computer big enough to do the calculations we still wouldn't be able to predict something that a random event like a butterfly flapping its wings might be enough to tip the whole system into an ice age rather than a benign mild warming.

In short anyone who tells you that climate models are accurate, doesnt understand chaotic system modelling. And that is every singe so called 'climate scientist' there is. Its a very soft science. If you fail at maths and physics and engineering, there is a good career ion 'climate science'.

So the real situations of the real science is that no one really knows the future of the climate at all. Governments would be prudent, if they cared, to reserve contingencies for more rain, less rain, hotter, colder, snowier, drier, conditions as there is no chance - CO2 not being responsible in the first place - of affecting the future climate by limiting it. Net Zero is just pissing in the wind. Pure virtue signalling.

And the governments know this. But they are paid billions to legislate in favour of prayer wheels for Gaia - other wise known as windmills - and roof top indulgences, so that cronies get rich and the public plebs pay. And the left wing press can carry on being funded to print a scare story every day about 'climate change'

Can't last tho. We need energy to run a civilised world, and windymills and other ecoBullshit™ won't cut the mustard.

Fortunately the *real* solution to global energy (but not climate change) is the easiest one to sell to ecoIdiots™ and other assorted ArtStudents™ and that is nuclear power.

And we will need a lot of cheap energy to deal with the *natural* climate change as. when. and if it happens.

The end of the Mediaeval warm period (which was warmer than today by a degree or two: still no vineyards in Sweden or crops being grown in Greenland) was marked with famine and disease - the Black Death - and massive population loss. Up to 60% and maybe as much as 70%..

CO2 didn't make that happen or stop happening. It happened all by itself.

+1 to all of that. Well said, and nicely put.

PS: you forgot the 'hockey stick', where data that 'went the wrong way' and cast significant doubt on the whole analysis, was ignored and swept under the carpet. It set the tone for all that followed.

The hockey stick has been widely and totally debunked by the whole scientific community who have distanced themselves from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Michael Mann's professional career is essentially over - I don't think anyone regards him as a serious climate scientist any more. And if his lawsuit ever goes to trial he will lose everything he owns, because he is demonstrably a liar. But the game has moved on - its years past the end to the 'hockey stick' and the data doesn't support it any more.

I notice that the latest HADCRUT data has been massaged to entirely eliminate the 'pause' and swing the data neatly in line with the on-message narrative.

Whereas the raw IR satellite data shows a completely different picture.

I have a copy of the very expensive Capstan cleanup software that erases ticks, plops, hiss and rumble, it works very well.

I have several audio-restoration packages, dating back to the first one I bought (by snail mail) from the USA: "D.C. Art". That one worked best with very damaged shellac and vinyl.

The noise reduction routines within Adobe Audition are pretty good, though they take a fair amount of practice!

The Wiki page seems to suggest otherwise.

You see, this is an example of a problem I have with anything you write on this subject. Why on earth don't you just insert a line or two in this page:

There was a big rush to acquire them one year, so you could get your car on the road. Imagine a car equipped with four baldy snow tyres so you could suit the law :-) That's what people had to do, because the supply of tyres did not match the demand.

As for the degree of traction difference with those, it's significant. I had a car once, with all-seasons on, I would get out on the local highway, and at 80km/hr the back end of the car was skating around. None of the other cars on the road were skating around like I was. I could not raise the speed of the car, without endangering stability (going into a spin and risking a crash with other traffic). And in that case, I was only attempting to drive in a straight line. When I put snow tyres on the car, the car easily drove at 100km/hr with no further weirdness.

The quality of the snow tyres makes a big difference. The Michelin and the Toyo both have sipes, but the Michelins might be a "5" and the Toyo a "3". You can get "sticky" cheap snow tyres (Blizzack), which are functionally worn out after one year, but still have rubber on them. They are not sticky in the second year, about Toyo quality at that point. Hakkapeliitta tyres would be a premium brand for winter use, but first you have to find some, and the price is probably on the high side.

Winter tyres can only be driven up to 7C. The rubber wears more rapidly above 7C.

One day, we had maybe 14 inches of snow on my local street (40km speed limit road). To get the car out to the main road (which was already plowed and prepared), I had to floor the accelerator, make a 90 degree turn at the end of the driveway (that was hard to do), and keep the accelerator depressed until getting to the end of my unplowed street. The car was "surfing" on the snow (you could see my tow fitting compressed into the snow), so there was a lot of friction from the unplowed road. That's why it takes full accelerator to only go 20km/hr. But I made it and drove off to work. It took several attempts in my drive, to swing the car through the 90 degree turn and have sufficient momentum to keep going. You have to have a degree of speed built up, to keep the car surfing nicely.

While there are road systems out West, which consist of compressed snow, and we have "ice roads" across lakes, these are not intended for fast driving. Imagine the feeling in the pit of your stomach, if you drove for *20 minutes* on a lake, because the lake district happened to have no road :-) That is about as unnerving as speilunking is. You know that if the car goes through the ice, there is no one to rescue you or give aid. The locals drive that road every day, and if water pools in a section, they would arrange to have it closed. The surface is prepared by plowing, once a minimum ice depth is detected (auger drill).

We practice "steering in the direction of the slide", in large grocery store parking lots. This is something to practice, to have even a bit of proficiency. There are always sections of road surface with "black ice" on them, and even if Mario was driving that section, he could still manage to run headlong into traffic coming in the other direction.

The roads department changes from salt to sand at -18C, in an attempt to acquire some sort of traction from the road. In the province of Quebec, so much sand is applied to the road, that if you drive at night, you cannot even figure out where the shoulder of the road is. Even the snow banks on the side of the road are coated in sand. Makes for a freaky drive.

In slush conditions, the slush applies enough force to the wheels, it can steer the car. You *must* pay attention to the road then. I looked down once, to change the tape in the tape player or something, and when I looked up a split second later, I was already into a spin :-) Driving in slush, is just as much of an issue on the road, as skiing in elephant-snot during spring skiing at a ski resort. One mistake, and you could tear your ACL. But we ski in everything :-) Just like our driving in fact.

I don't think you guys know what you're missing.

Paul

You should read Montford's 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' for a detailed exposé of the whole sorry tale. Available from several on-line bookshops here for a few quid.

How can Mann "lose everything he owns" in the case he brought? The general rule in civil cases in the US is that each side pays its own legals costs - win or lose.

The rule in the UK is of course different but uk.d-i-y is probably not on his radar so I doubt you'll get his solicitor's letter anytime soon.

On vinyl?

There is no point writing or correcting anything in wiki with respect to climate change. Many have tried, the changes just get undone by the people who have taken it over for the purposes of political agendas

Mann has lost two lawsuits - summarily dismissed in both cases, with prejudice. He is legally a liar.

his legal costs are not insignificant, and would have risen if the cases hadn't been thrown out 'with prejudice' I thought the last one was still ongoing.

From what I can see, he seems to maintain a semblence of objectivity. I'll put it on my list - thanks.