The coming temperature record…

ROFL

I don't

TW

ISTR a couple of months ago - you said you had empirical proof, with primary data, to prove that the climate was not affected by humans. You chose not to share that finding - I'm not sure why, you decided not to explain.

I did make an assumption that you were a climate scientists - think I asked you at the time but you didn't reply.

Are you saying now you're not a climate scientist?

NOBODY describes any Met Office stations as JUNK except for lying right wing politically motivated clever dick bloggers.

The CET Record was put together by Gordon Manley. He died in 1980 and you are lying about him because you regurgitate factoids from junk blogs that you don't even understand

I think it's the other way round.

The ice age was caused by the lack of caloric . The influx of caloric caused its demise . July 19th I think

Brian

Wow! Could we end climate change by taxing caloric?

Who’da thunk it?

You forgot to mention lying left-wing politically motivated thick-as-a-brick bloggers.

You might find this of interest:

Quote

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy..."

Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more..."

Unquote.

Not only is research expensive, but currently research grants are only going to studies that are going to confirm that CO2 causes global warming. It is the only greenhouse gas that can be blamed on humanity and is therefore taxable, which is why it has to be the culprit.

As far as the scientists seeking research grants are concerned, that means that they have to say it, whether or not it is true, because otherwise it isn't going to pass a peer review by scientists who have already collected their 30 pieces of silver for similar misinformation. That is why there is such a high consensus in peer reviewed studies. This has led to investigations into what these peer reviewed studies discover. 30 pairs of diametrically opposite findings have been found so far. For instance there is a published, reviewed study that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to dry up creating widespread drought problems. There is also a published, reviewed study that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to be far wetter in the future, causing widespread flooding catastrophes. They can't possibly both be true, but they did both get peer reviewed as being sound outcomes.

The other thing that colours the information the public are being offered is the lack of scale. For instance, global warming being caused by CO2 misses the scale of the increase. First of all, the measurements quoted for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere all come from a single measurement station, which is close to the emissions of one of the world's most active volcanos. Then there is the scaling omission. The contribution of CO2 to global warming is actually going to be one tenth of a degree Celsius if that already inflated figure of CO2 is multiplied by 4 or more. CO2 is an "also ran" in the hierarchy of greenhouse gases. Likewise, the oceans are rising. That is true, because the tidal gauges say so. The tidal gauges also indicate the measured rate of rise, which is 1.5mm a year globally. At that rate it will take more than 7 centuries to get to a 1 metre increase in the world's water levels. In some locations, the difference between low tide and high tide is already greater than that.

I picked these examples because they are based on raw measurements, and it short-circuits the assumption that my findings will be the result of oil company funding.

Not really. The WMO classifications allow some consistency on comparisons made now.

The assessment of climate change is different. It compares past readings with present readings and examines the differences. There was a comparison made on how past and current temperatures have been measured. The observation made was that weather stations were originally placed in the open countryside, and for many of them urban expansion has now surrounded them and the temperatures measured are higher from the urban heat island. An exercise to just use the temperature readings from the weather stations still in open countryside showed little or no temperature increase.

I have just found an interview that reveals the tidal gauge information.

OoI - do you know this for a fact, or is it some sort of rehashed opinion piece you've read on X?

I believe there was one on a lighthouse station or somesuch that showed absolutely f*ck all.

The IR satellites also dont show any, but they measure the upper atmosphere radiation

Today was a glorious summer day. Out of the sun my outside thermo has settled at about 28°C,

Well I had someone actually admit this to me a few years ago.

Cambridge engineer wanted a PhD project so they (he and tutor) set up to investigate metal oxide iron coal burning

You blow rust into a furnace, and you get out red hot metal and pure CO2.

You blow air through the red hot metal and you get rust again all nice and hot...ready to go back in.

Not nitrogen oxides, just pure CO2,

And more heat.

They sold the project as 'being suitable for efficient carbon capture from coal power stations'

No-one believed it - even the people assigning the grant. But it allowed them to show that the money was being responsibly used for the benefit of society and the planet etc etc..

No.

There are many independent CO2 monitoring stations around the world, though the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is the most famous and longest-running one, and it is true that it sits on the slopes of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. A few key points on this:

Mauna Loa's record is special because of its length, not its uniqueness

The Mauna Loa station, run by Scripps Institution of Oceanography and NOAA, has been taking continuous measurements since 1958 (started by Charles David Keeling). That's what makes the "Keeling Curve" so famous — it's the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 in the world. But it's far from the only station.

Volcanic contamination is a real issue, but it's well-handled. You (and the other person on this group - Spike?) don't seem to understand the notion of 'weighting'.

Mauna Loa is indeed an active volcano, and occasional volcanic outgassing (CO2 venting from the ground) does affect some readings. However:

• NOAA and Scripps run separate, parallel measurement systems at the site
• Researchers use well-established protocols to detect and remove samples affected by local volcanic venting (these show up as anomalous spikes against wind direction patterns)
• This filtering process is transparent and published

Other stations confirm the trend independently.

NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network includes dozens of background air-sampling sites worldwide — including Barrow (Alaska), American Samoa, the South Pole, Cape Grim (Tasmania), and many others, often in locations specifically chosen to be far from local sources of contamination (volcanic or industrial). There are also satellite measurements (like NASA's OCO-2) that independently confirm global CO2 trends from orbit.

All of these independent sources — different locations, different institutions, different methods (ground stations vs. satellites) — show the same global upward trend in CO2 concentration, which is why the Mauna Loa volcano issue, while a fair question to ask, doesn't undermine the broader scientific picture.

Utter gibberish. Quite why you waste your time on it all . . .

As he admits - he's extrapolated from one anecdote. How he remains employed defeats me.

Which Met Office weather stations' readings should we ignore over the next few days, please?

Asking for a friend.