.
‘The higher global warming, the more rainfall’, say climate alarmists — then complain about droughts causing wildfires. Confused? Yes they are. Here, Ben Pile looks at the case of the UK .
Ben Pile writes at Spiked Climate policy, not climate change, poses the biggest risk to our daily lives. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Firstly, Ben provides evidence for a reasonable person to conclude the weather and climate is doing nothing out of the ordinary. Drawing on this year’s UK State of the Climate report:
But how significant are these changes really? Take, for example, the claim that the UK’s temperatures have increased. Leaving aside the possibility that land-use change thanks to the UK’s economic development might influence temperatures, the report offers this chart depicting 140 years of anomalies in UK and global annual temperatures:
Though the chart clearly shows that UK temperatures have risen, there is substantial year-to-year variability – far greater in the UK than for the world as a whole – that might make us wonder how impactful this extra warmth really is.
The point is…
View original post 701 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Only have to read some history: In 1665 the Thames at Oxford dried up to a trickle: 1666 drought and the Great Fire of London: 1684 the Thames was frozen solid for 2 months. That is extreme! CO2 must have been a bigger problem in the past then?
Who was it said “figures never lie, but liars sure can figure”?
Why do they start the graph in 1880 when they claim they have figures back to 1855? Could it have something to do with the rapid melting of glaciers in Europe noted (at the time) from 1855 to 1880?
And then there is the question about the underlying temperature measurements.
And the trend lines show a ‘world’ rise about 1.2℃ whereas in the UK, after years of reducing CO2 emissions, the trend is about 1.6℃. Obviously the UK should burn more coal (like China, India etc.) and cool the place down.
Speaking of confusion…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/12/sicily-records-europes-highest-ever-temperature-deadly-flash/
That’s not a drought 🙄
It’s paranoia, of the collective type.
It’s gone over a tipping point where, now, any weather event of any kind, anywhere, provokes a reaction of alarm and fear.
What will it take to cure this paranoia? The monstrous fiasco that will accompany the self-destructive over-reaction to the CO2 non-problem.
Eventually Nonqawuse’s prophecy will be seen to have been false.
[…] Punishing Climate Policies to Fix What’s Not Broken […]
Call me when there are hippos in the Thames, again.
@OB
Maybe it will be cooler? An increase in the trace gas CO2 concentration causes cooling.
Proof: Imagine the atmosphere of Earth as 100% N2 (no oceans, no water) and compare it to an alternative atmosphere of 100% CO2 (again no oceans, no water). CO2 absorbs/radiates energy more effectively than N2. CO2 absorbs/blocks incoming solar energy thereby reducing energy reaching the surface. CO2 is more effective than N2 at radiating energy to space from the top of the atmosphere. Starting with the 100% N2 atmosphere, if we were to gradually substitute our N2 molecules for CO2 molecules, we would get reduced insolation of the surface and increased radiation to space. Less heat in and more heat out is a cooling process.
An increase in the trace gas CO2 concentration causes cooling.
Not effective on 96% CO2 Venusian atmosphere? 🤔
@OB
You know very well the 93 times Earth atmospheric mass of Venus produces the hot surface conditions. The same mass of N2 would produce an even higher higher temperature?
BTW I have also put together some alternative proofs of increase CO2 cooling. One involves adiabatic lapse rate empirical measurements (I’d like Stephen Wilde opinion here).Others using Cp, partial pressures and another starting from Kramm et al Moon/Earth comparison no atmosphere Earth. All leading to the same result.
I wouldn’t expect much effect in any direction from 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s why the whole emissions hysteria is so hollow IMO.
@OB
Hey, you are preaching to the converted. AGW is nonsense. Anybody who has studied engineering at degree or post grad level is in despair that eco-goons can control the minds of plebs. We (engineers) obviously can’t communicate with the masses in a convincing way. We are the stupid who fail to present facts better than religious zealots. Give up? Why should we?
10 AUG, 2021
Observations Concerning the Newest IPCC Report
By Patrick J. Michaels
The case made for catastrophic climate change in the new “Sixth Assessment Report” by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6; IPCC) is extremely weak, and would wither in cross-examination over the following points:
● The Sixth Assessment Report [AR6] from UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is internally inconsistent about our future. It gives several scenarios for future emissions, including the largely discredited, highest emissions one (popularly called RCP 8.5). In fact, the report concedes “the likelihood of high emissions scenarios such as RCP 8.5…is considered low.”
● While AR6 makes no statement about the relative probability of any of the scenarios it considered, and mentions consequences from RCP 8.5 far more than any other scenario.
● AR6 makes glib assertions about important aspects of climate change—such as increasing agricultural drought or changes in tropical cyclones—for which there is little robust evidence. For example, global food productivity continues the exponential increase that was established decades ago, while there is no systematic trend in long-term tropical cyclone energy and activity.
● As it has in each of its summary reports, AR6 makes the cardinal error of aggregating families of models (in this case CMIP-6) rather than using those that are more representative of reality. Using the more representative models is the “best scientific practice” in forecasting that the IPCC refuses to abide by. This practice is used virtually every day in composing the secular weather forecast. What’s good for 120 hours should be good for 120 years.
●Although the numbers in AR6 are a bit different, there’s been no real or significant change in the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity after 50 years of study and countless billions in model funding.
●AR6 completely minimizes the profound greening of the terrestrial surface that is occurring because of increasing carbon dioxide and the climate change induced by that increase. Over 90% of the greening is the direct result of human activity.
https://co2coalition.org/2021/08/10/observations-concerning-the-newest-ipcc-report/
The alarmist cult called the UN-IPCC plays down the Little Ice Age and all the people that suffered and died prematurely through it. The IPCC plays down the fabulous benefit that industrialization has brought mankind. Benefits that have allowed humans and animals and plants they depend on to survive cooler or warmer weather.
The UN-IPCC cultists only screech unfounded alarmism about the correlation of the slight rise in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 as if it is a big catastrophe. There is little evidence that this correlation is truly meaningful. It is not catastrophic for the planet to warm; to warm-up as the planet leaves the cold of the LIA. As many historical proxy climate records teased out from geological data, ice data, stalagmites’ data, etc., show — during warm periods (especially if atmospheric CO2 is higher than during the LIA) all vegetable and animal life flourish, during cooler or cold periods life in all it’s forms dies back.
Too many national government pay too much heed to this cultist’s organization. Too many government are led by fools who have surrounded themselves with UN-IPCC cult members.
What will Net Zero cost?
Extravagant plans for a greener country will provide cold comfort for ordinary people
By Craig Mackinlay (M.P.)
There is no technology to elegantly replace the gas boiler and I’m yet to find a constituent who would assent to pay out £20,000 to be colder and face higher bills.
. . .
The Government is fooling itself if it thinks we can go down the Net Zero path without instigating a social calamity for those in Britain least able to afford its cost.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/august-september-2021/what-will-net-zero-cost/
– – –
those in Britain least able to afford its cost — a high proportion of all householders by the sound of it.