OT: \\\"Global Warming\\\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally the evidence!...

[Peeler]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 14:59:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
David Plowman about senile Rodent Speed\'s trolling:
\"Wodney is doing a lot of morphing these days. Must be even more desperate
than usual for attention.\"
MID: <59a60da1d9dave@davenoise.co.uk>

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 20/02/2022 03:25, David Eather wrote:

Which pattern does that match? You have your answer to if global warming
is real.

Even if global warming is real - and it probably is, a little - now
link the trends to rise in CO2, and find that really there is no
correlation at all.
In o0ther words the best description of the last 5- years of climate is
that it may have warmed slightly, but it\'s not linked to CO2.


--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 9:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

But the \'record\' temps are only certified for the cross-checked network stations that
are standardized and certified. There\'s no number-of-sensors exreme effect for these
stations, because the ones that don\'t agree are decertified.

Once before when you made that claim, it was specific to a station in Portland with about 80 years
in service.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

Which is why we quote percentages on testing. You seem to be making up possible
confusions, but not real ones.

The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.

The \'LIA\' was not global. The nonspecific \'gently\' sounds good, but \'good\' doesn\'t reflect
increased hurricane/tornado/fire/drought/crop-failure events.

> More CO2 is good too.
More than what? Where\'s the optimal level, and why is it optimal?
CO2 acidifies rain; have you no investment in concrete
foundations, or mortared brickwork?

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

That\'s innumerate. You need to quote the percentages.

That innumeracy is surprising in an engineer. None of
the explanations for it are complementary.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 9:47:22 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.

FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.
That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.
It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

That\'s innumerate. You need to quote the percentages.

That innumeracy is surprising in an engineer. None of
the explanations for it are complementary.

Complimentary. The complementary explanation would be that John Larkin isn\'t an engineer - he does have an engineering degree from Tulane, but what he has said about his course work there does make it sound rather like a diploma mill.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

You need to insult so badly it warps your thinking.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

That\'s innumerate. You need to quote the percentages.

Case counts - positive tests - are a big public deal that swing
policy. I don\'t need to do anything that you require.

That innumeracy is surprising in an engineer. None of
the explanations for it are complementary.

You? Be complementary? Or complimentary? As if.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Steve Walker]

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points out in
the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities, around
runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due to local heat
generation and solar effects on structures and a non-proportionate
increase could skew the data when comparing to existing records.

It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been made
for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:23:28 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

Not so. Maximum-reading thermometers are not a new invention, the older
stations were completely capable of noting peaks and troughs as well
as periodic status. The \'hundred years\' figure does predate airport
readings, but not those of other facilities which were also widespread.

Temperatures aren\'t volatile; except for windshifts, they move predictably up
during the day, down at night, and the peaks and troughs WERE representative
of the entire diurnal excursion.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

That\'s innumerate. You need to quote the percentages.

Case counts - positive tests - are a big public deal that swing
policy. I don\'t need to do anything that you require.

It\'s a big public deal? So? The decisions we make aren\'t informed
by those raw numbers, if we can digest those and increase the significance.
I can do so. Can\'t you? Trump, if we can believe some of the things
he said, couldn\'t.

 

[server]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:25:05 +0000, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points out in
the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities, around
runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due to local heat
generation and solar effects on structures and a non-proportionate
increase could skew the data when comparing to existing records.

High sample rates anywhere will catch extremes.

It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been made
for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.

Records will increase as measurements increase, and sitings change.
Records aren\'t a good reflection of global trends.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 4:02:45 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Records will increase as measurements increase, and sitings change.
Records aren\'t a good reflection of global trends.

Meaning, that record highs (peaks) are less important than averages? So what?
The averages are climbing alarmingly, also. The \'reflection of global trends\' is
completely accessible, and there\'s cute color-coded visuals for the innumerate...

Here\'s the world: <https://showyourstripes.info/s/globe>
.... and it has no particular measurement-multiplicity skew.

As to \'sitings change\', that\'s what weather models are for; a model that fits the world can
be fitted to old station observations or new ones, and gets consistent results, so it FILLS IN THE GAPS.
Direct measurement of all points on earth, and centuries-of-data for single points, are amusing but
hardly important.

 

[server]

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in
news:suuikh$dc0$1@dont-email.me:

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a
local library, or a decent enough library within reach, or
those like Dave Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to
one, despite living a mere tube ride from one of the finest
ones in the world. Here is the evidence for all those who for
whatever reason prefer to simply click on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the
shit from conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high
temperatures set every year would be rapidly dropping every
year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp
sensors everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per
year than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In
high-rise cities and on airport runways. Of course we get
records. That\'s not innumerate.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points
out in the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities,
around runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due
to local heat generation and solar effects on structures and a
non-proportionate increase could skew the data when comparing to
existing records.

It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been
made for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.

Hmmm____________________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This part, you got spot on. The rest is gibberish.

Readings are not skewed by local fixtures.

 

[Steve Walker]

On 21/02/2022 00:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:25:05 +0000, Steve Walker
steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points out in
the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities, around
runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due to local heat
generation and solar effects on structures and a non-proportionate
increase could skew the data when comparing to existing records.

High sample rates anywhere will catch extremes.


It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been made
for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.

Records will increase as measurements increase, and sitings change.
Records aren\'t a good reflection of global trends.

But the whole point is that we are basing our knowledge of climate
change on comparison of current measurements and historic records -
without that we cannot tell how much things have changed.

If the current measurements are skewed by increased measurements in
known hot spots, then the comparison is also skewed, unless it is
corrected for.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:02:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:25:05 +0000, Steve Walker
st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.

FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per year
than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In high-rise
cities and on airport runways. Of course we get records. That\'s not
innumerate.

But the tails of the distribution are improbable.

You have to add a lot more sensors to push the tail of the distribution even one more standard deviation away from the mean.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points out in
the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities, around
runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due to local heat
generation and solar effects on structures and a non-proportionate
increase could skew the data when comparing to existing records.

That\'s Anthony Watts\' particular obsession. It\'s nuts but the climate change denial propaganda machine finds his lunacy convenient.

> High sample rates anywhere will catch extremes.

But nothing all that far way from the mean.

It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been made
for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.

Records will increase as measurements increase, and sitings change.
Records aren\'t a good reflection of global trends.

True, but they make for great newspaper headlines.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 12:08:46 PM UTC+11, Steve Walker wrote:

On 21/02/2022 00:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:25:05 +0000, Steve Walker <st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2022 15:23, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/22 05:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather <eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

Records will increase as measurements increase, and sitings change.
Records aren\'t a good reflection of global trends.

But the whole point is that we are basing our knowledge of climate
change on comparison of current measurements and historic records -
without that we cannot tell how much things have changed.

If the current measurements are skewed by increased measurements in
known hot spots, then the comparison is also skewed, unless it is
corrected for.

As it is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in news:suuomk$e5o$1
@dont-email.me:

If the current measurements are skewed by increased measurements in
known hot spots, then the comparison is also skewed, unless it is
corrected for.

This is the stupid part of your \"argument\". More like flat Earth
idiot physics. You grasp of this is skewed by the local cold spots
between your ears.

 

[Steve Walker]

On 21/02/2022 01:34, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in news:suuomk$e5o$1
@dont-email.me:

If the current measurements are skewed by increased measurements in
known hot spots, then the comparison is also skewed, unless it is
corrected for.


This is the stupid part of your \"argument\". More like flat Earth
idiot physics. You grasp of this is skewed by the local cold spots
between your ears.

It is not stupid. It is simple maths. If you have 90 sensors out in the
countryside and 10 in the city and the city ones are known to show
higher temperatures (a Heat Island effect), then adding 10 more in the
city and 10 more in the countryside will cause the average to rise, even
if the temperatures don\'t change.

Start with 10 in the city (reading an average of 22°C and 90 in the
countryside (reading an average of 20°C) and you have an average of 22.2°C.

Add 10 in the city and 10 in the countryside and the average (assuming
nothing else changes) becomes 20.33 °C

As I\'ve said, the figures may be corrected for this, but do we know? How
certain are we that the correction is itself correct?

Similarly, we are told that satellite temperature mapping is highly
accurate, but again we are comparing to figures from before such
accuracy was available. Can we be sure that the period that such
detailed mapping has been available for is long enough to cover any
normal fluctuations that were there, but not noticeable in pre-satellite
figures? To what level of certainty?

I\'m not arguing that the figures and comparisons are wrong, only that
there is scope for skewing of the figures ... in either direction.

 

[Steve Walker]

On 21/02/2022 01:06, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in
news:suuikh$dc0$1@dont-email.me:

On 20/02/2022 15:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:47:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/02/22 05:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a
local library, or a decent enough library within reach, or
those like Dave Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to
one, despite living a mere tube ride from one of the finest
ones in the world. Here is the evidence for all those who for
whatever reason prefer to simply click on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the
shit from conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high
temperatures set every year would be rapidly dropping every
year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp
sensors everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

That\'s innumerate. You also need to quote the probability
of higher temperatures, and that is highly non-linear.

We are taking roughly a million more temperature data points per
year than we did a hundred years ago. In a lot more places. In
high-rise cities and on airport runways. Of course we get
records. That\'s not innumerate.

The only question there is, have the number of temperature points
out in the countryside increased in proportion to those in cities,
around runways, etc.? All of which are known to be hot spots due
to local heat generation and solar effects on structures and a
non-proportionate increase could skew the data when comparing to
existing records.

It may well be that there is no problem and that either the points
distribution has increased in proportion or corrections have been
made for a disproportionate increase, but I have no idea.
Hmmm____________________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This part, you got spot on. The rest is gibberish.

Readings are not skewed by local fixtures.

Have you never heard of Heat Islands? Towns and cities are known to be
typically 2 to 3 °C warmer than the countryside. The readings of sensors
will therefore be affected by their location.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, Steve Walker wrote:

It is not stupid. It is simple maths. If you have 90 sensors out in the
countryside and 10 in the city and the city ones are known to show
higher temperatures (a Heat Island effect), then adding 10 more in the
city and 10 more in the countryside will cause the average to rise, even
if the temperatures don\'t change.

Yes, of course that IS stupid. Averages are weighted. No matter how many
stations are in a square mile, that square mile gets ONE vote, just like every other
square mile. Maybe the precision of a city\'s \'heat island\' gets better because
of the multiple samples, but its weight in the average is less than the one
sensor in a hundred square miles of tundra: that one sensor in the tundra gets
a hundred votes, effectively.

Heat island or not, the city deserves its vote. Leaving out the city for some
frivolous reason, would not be consistent with a true average.

Average of measurements is not done by arbitrary list-of-numbers processing
like one learns in elementary school.

As I\'ve said, the figures may be corrected for this, but do we know? How
certain are we that the correction is itself correct?

We can be uninformed, true. The climate warming effect has been an
active topic since the 1970s, well-studied and confirmed in the early 1990s,
and no one doing weather/climate modeling and averages is uninformed today.

 

[David Eather]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: OT: \"Global Warming\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally
the evidence!
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:40:38 -0800
From: jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,uk.legal,sci.electronics.design
References: <gcup0h1snntabuj4866mt84mtopojl153p@4ax.com>
<16d560ab5c12b50a$1$3266748$c2465acb@news.newsdemon.com>

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
<eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.

More CO2 is good too.


Don\'t be thick! I am talking about using records that exist for long
periods of time (relative to human log keeping of course), collected by
professional meterolical services and I mentioned that specifcally (old
records), and they show temperatures are rising.


--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:47:50 +1000, David Eather
<eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: OT: \"Global Warming\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally
the evidence!
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:40:38 -0800
From: jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,uk.legal,sci.electronics.design
References: <gcup0h1snntabuj4866mt84mtopojl153p@4ax.com
16d560ab5c12b50a$1$3266748$c2465acb@news.newsdemon.com

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:



https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.

More CO2 is good too.


Don\'t be thick!

Don\'t be obnoxious!



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye