The day it rained forever.

No, people with acuity and common sense. And a healthy scepticism about matters that make certain groups huge amounts of taxpayers money, for no discernible results.

Let's say the alarmists are right: What are we going to do about it? Without China, and India, we are pissing in the wind.

Any sane person who was actually concerned would develop reliable cost effective nuclear technology and sell it to those countries. They wouldn't piss around with 'renewables' or heat pumps or electric cars without actually doing some serious studies as to how effective these would be and at what cost to the nation, and if the cost exceeded the cost of slightly warmer summers and a fer inches of sea level rise, they would spend the money on sea defences and planting pineapples. None of the responses add up to politicians shaking in their boots for fear of climate change.

Greta got that one right, but wasn't smart enough to come to the correct conclusions when she asked 'why aren't you doing anything about it?'

For three simple reasons.

Firstly, there is no real crisis. Its a bit warmer maybe than it used to be, but not by much.

Secondly, climate has always changed and we have no way of telling whether this change is in any way something we can affect or not. The

Thirdly, the cost of doing something about stopping it massively exceeds the cost of adapting to it.

Politicians know this. So 'climate change' is just another convenient bogey man to justify more taxes, more power to the state, and more cash to cronies in the renewables business. Any intelligent person can work that out, and that's why nothing is being done about it.

Sadly Greta isn't very intelligent, although she seems at least to be reasonably honest.

Wikipedia is as infested with Marxists as the Guardian, when it comes to climate change.

And an in depth understanding of feedback systems and computer modelling helps a lot too.

Climate scientists don't have that knowledge. Only engineers and physicists do really.

So how can the climate change protagonists claim that we're in a crisis?

In proper English, that should be "autumn", not "fall".

Common sense suggests we shouldn't play with fire. For those who have children and a family it makes sense to maximise their chance of having a good life. For those without children or estranged from their children, I can see why they simply don't care, and see measures to reduce global warming as a hit on their way of life.

That will always happen. There are both winners and losers to change.

By setting an example. Much of India's issues are from exporting manufacture to those countries. There are also talks about associating imports with CO2 release.

Nuclear technology doesn't matter to those who deny climate change. People like you are damaging the prospect of nuclear technology when it's so more convenient to burn fossil fuels.

The smart money is on anthropomorphic climate change. It's not a risk some of us want to take on behalf of our children, and our children's children. See above for deniers.

You're now talking crap. It's a concern to more than politicians.

To compare articles like the quoted Wikipedia article with Marxism is a good indication you've lost your argument.

Most climate models say man made climate warming is real.

You're not coming across very well. Next you'll be saying art students have a better understanding of engineering.

Engineers rarely perform scientific research, and most climate scientists are physicist or experts in similar a relevant field.

This is just waffle.

Of course it does. Fossil will get harder and more expensive to extract, whatever the truth of AGW. Which is why we should be pushing nuclear.

Models don't tell you anything. They make predictions. I'd like to know how these models are validated, how boundary conditions are set, and how the models are initialised and what with.

QUOTE An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.

The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert models predicted. From the paper:

Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations during the same period. UNQUOTE

Satellite temperature rise = 0.5x model-predicted rise.

Data from thousands of balloon flights agrees with the satellite data.

Only the ground thermometers agree with the models.

As the source explains . . .

That's what climate scientists figure out. Or at least I would hope they do. They don't need to set out the detail in a newspaper article.

The simple message is that something's happening and they don't know *fully* why. You, though, do . . .

Your source below goes on to say that volcanos contribute a small, temporary, amount ('a few hundredths of a degree') to the overall heating effect - and much les sthan human activity. El Nino isn't mentioned - good luck trying to use that phenomena to explain climate change.

Why do you bother citing sources that don't support what you're saying?

Doesn't get you even that in the UK.

Okey-dokey.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. I feel somewhat sad for you

The opening paragraph

"The surface temperature of the world’s oceans has hit its highest ever level as climate breakdown from burning fossil fuels causes the oceans to heat."

Absolutely no doubt in the writers mind as to the cause!

I find it odd, to say the least, that satellites are used to measure sea level rises but land and sea based devices are used to measure temperatures. Both methods have their pros and cons, but could it be that the satellite temperatures are 'off message' so are quietly ignored.

Oh dear. You think they do, do you?

You simply haven't looked at the reality of climate science at all, you take it all on trust.

Just like the Germans took it all on trust in the 1930s.

Not all. Just looking at the balance of probabilities. Who's right? You? Or them?

Not that hard :-)

That didn't take long.

The fact of the matter is that most sea and land thermometers are where the people are.

And people burn energy and make heat. Shipping lanes are full of warm surface water from ships cooling systems. Cities are heat islands because the normal ways of losing heat through vegetation are mostly missing.

I live in Suffolk. One winters night my car thermometer read 0°C in Surrey, 2°C in Central London, -2°C as I passed through Newmarket, and

-3°C when I arrived home in the countryside.

Now what was the 'real' temperature?

The satellites are good in that infra red sensors can measure huge swathes of sea and land, but they are bad in that they are measuring total heat loss effective temperatures from the upper atmosphere as well, not land or sea *surface* temperatures.

I read somewhere a report that (until it was replaced with a digital sensors, some remote lighthouse with an old mercury thermometer had recorded over 100 years with the same exact thermometer and showed

The whole thing is fiendishly complex. There is doubt about how temperatures are measured, there is doubt about the effects of clouds and convection to the upper air, there is doubt about the models and the assumptions that are built in, and there is doubt about the motives of many of the protagonists.

The only place that is completely doubt free is in the minds of those who believe without question what they read in the Guardian, or hear or see on the BBC etc.

Some if us who have lived abroad in countries where state corruption and propaganda is not so well disguised, recognise it in the output of the mass media in Europe. Those who have never lived outside of it, think it is the real thing. I am sad for them.

We are all being lied to all the time by almost everybody in a position of power or authority, because that is how they got there and are allowed to stay there.

Some of us accept that, shrug, and do our own research. Others believe they are being told the truth.

Oh well. You can only do what you can do.

Without knowing the circumstances of people whose salaries depend on them supporting a particular political position, you cannot arrive at the probabilities. Is the Pope a Catholic? Does that mean that all te experts in the Catholic church who believe in God, are, *on the balance of probabilities*, right?

Your logic is flawed.

I believe it was the climate alarmist who first linked 'climatet denial' to 'holocaust denial' It's been there all along.

Gaia's revenge for the UK govt wanting to make money out of licences for continued oil and gas extraction.

Crossing Brum - less than 7 miles - can often see a 2C shift in temperature.

And famously London used to cool during the day as tubes brought in colder air from the suburbs. I imagine that's less marked now they have a/ c ?

Let’s go to the fundamentals. The following is the derivation on the change in planetary temperature caused by a change in CO2 levels:

QUOTE

The equations can be expressed in a single equation to calculate the rise in temperature ΔT because of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:

dT= a0 * a * ln (C/C0) in degrees centigrade

with a0 = 0.266 degree centigrade/W/m^2 and a= 5.35 W/m^2

The constant will be a * a0 = 1.42 degree centigrade

Assuming doubling of the CO2 concentration, then ΔT for that doubling=0.984 degree centigrade.

So finally we have

One has to assume that the above equation remains linear in ln (C/C0)

This can be valid so long as the CO2 concentration is still small compared to the major air gases.

ENDQUOTE

Note that the term ln(C/C0) stems from a paper by Wigley of the Climatic Research Unit. It does not appear to derive from theory, and I understand that Wigley does not have a copy of the original paper.

The two constants mentioned also do not appear to be founded in theory.

The relationship appears in one of the addenda to one of the IPCC’s background papers, but not in publications intended for governments or the public.

Yet this is the foundation of the current thinking by climate scientists.

You will note that the relationship is logarithmic: the first doubling of CO2 adds 1 degree, but to get another degree CO2 will need to double again.

However, we can also use this equation to calculate the swings in CO2 levels necessary to bring about the temperature change between peaks of the interglacial periods and troughs of the ice age, easily available from the Vostok ice-core record. These swings in planetary temperature are some

So using this figure, and the IPCC’s equations, we see that

Taking antilogs e^7.74=2300

So to drive a temperature rise of +11degC from a CO2 level of 200ppm (at the trough of the glaciation), CO2 levels would need to rise to 200x2300ppm or almost equal to half the atmosphere’s constituents.

In fact, they rise from 200 to 280ppm.

So, something other than CO2 is driving planetary temperatures, and CO2 has very little indeed to do with it.

HTH

Regrettable snip of impressive-looking non-attributed quote - alas, nothing to do with the observation that sea surface temperatures are rising.

The fact that variables other than CO2 are at play has never (to my knowledge) been in dispute.

You disagree with scientific consensus that CO2 is a significant variable - that's up to you of course.

Not overly.

Apparently, satellites have been used to measure sea surface temperatures for the past 20 years.

As has been pointed out, if you can figure that out, I'm sure that most if not all climate scientists can.

Even I can FFS :-)