Ops-Normal.org

Ignore him then John.

Also, stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'flubaflubaluba' whenever you hear something you think you might not like.

You are another brain dead fanny.

A very interesting talk AK. If nothing else I believe in money bias.
There is lots of Co2 generated by the likes of COP26; it is an industry but how many people understand about that which they speak.
What is Boris Johnson's degree? A BA.
What degree does Prince Charles have? Archaeplogy, anthropology then history. A 2.2 BA
Prince William, Art History and Geography.
Alok Sharma, Applied Physics with Electronics.
They are all influencers. Greta Thunberg.

Then we have the influenced; the majority who are informed of climate change. Nearer home we have JH, AK, TGG, PN.

Looking at the evidence, NASA showed how the permanent snow cap on Mt Killimanjaro was receding only to withdraw the claim as the evidence was based on different months of the year.

NASA who initially denied an ozone hole in Antarctica putting the evidence down to data anomalies. British meteorologists proved NASA was wrong.

Evidence of Urban heat island effect showing the cooling effect of vegetation but ignoring numerous cold spots on the imagery and the 'molten' flow of the Chattahoochee River through Atlanta. The evidence was there but misrepresented. The cold spots were shopping malls; concrete car parks hit spots by day, the malls cold spots by night. The river was a continuous source of heat far greater than the city. The imagery was attributed to satellite imagery when it was actually a high altitude image from 32,000 feet at night.

As preasants we rarely have access to all the facts, nor do we have the capability to process the facts. We don't even have enough knowledge to even weight the evidence.

A slightly different slant. Many of us will remember having to stop our cars on long journeys to clean midge strikes off our windscreens. Clarkson mentioned this too on his farm series. Clearly this is evidence of climate change with fewer midges about for us to kill.

Is that true?

If there is a constant number of midges over time, but the number of cars killing them has doubled over time, surely the number killed per car will be less?

If car aerodynamics has improved to improve efficiency surely the number killed per car will be less?

I remember also having to stop and wash the windscreen on a journey. At a filling station, before self service, you got your screen washed. Now it is rare to even see a wash bucket.

My car still suffers from some midge strikes but much less road dirt on the front. The back gathers dirt like a magnet.

The evidence is clear there are fewer midges. The evidence is equally clear that more cars and better aerodynamics reduces midge strikes. Is either true?

You are definitely correct about how much knowledge the believers have.

Usually just anecdotes about Polar bears or pollution.

The most ardent supporters actually know next to nothing about it. It's become a religion for them, a cause. These loonies at insulate Britain are a prime example, well off middle class, Guardian reading lefties to a man, quite untroubled by facts.

I've got an 1965 car and it certainly gets less bugs than it used to- but I don't know if that means it's warmer or cooler. Frankly, I couldn't give a f.

I hope we have a really cold winter for the next few years- that might cool the 'Golbal warmers' a bit, but no doubt they'll say it's colder because it's getting warmer, or some similar idiocy.

AtomKraft wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:05 pm

I hope we have a really cold winter for the next few years- that might cool the 'Golbal warmers' a bit, but no doubt they'll say it's colder because it's getting warmer, or some similar idiocy.

Yes, getting colder because it is getting warmer is totally in accord with the theory. More heat in the environment means a more active weather system so winds get stronger, heavier rains, more frequent droughts, water levels change, hotter times get hotter and colder times get colder.

If there is any idiocy I know who is the ignorant idiot.

One theory is that the melting ice cap could push the Gulf Stream further south, leaving the UK exposed to a much cooler climate. North West France also but who gives a sh*t.

That effect on the Gulf Stream has been known about since before Titanic.

It's not a 'theory'.

Ok.
So when it's hotter- That's Global Warming?
And when it's colder- That's Global Warming too.

And I suppose when it stays the same, that'll also be Global Warming.

Can anyone see the trouble with this sort of thinking?

We used to have a kerosene refrigerator on a boat. When the little flame was lit the inside of the fridge got colder, do you have trouble understanding that?

Our first fridge (in 1971) was gas-fired.

Nobody can beat you John, when it comes to missing the point.

I thought you might have trouble understanding the kerosene fridge.

I suppose understanding this might be too hard for some people....

Well John, Thanks for the link to the vid- I enjoyed it.

How about this for common sense?



From a fellow Scot.

AtomKraft wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:13 am

Well John, Thanks for the link to the vid- I enjoyed it.

Good, did you get the message that cold weather does not disprove Global Warming?

That effect on the Gulf Stream has been known about since before Titanic.

Unlike your goodself somewhat before my time !

The White Star fleet knew that bergs were going further South than usual because it had been a rather warmer summer than usual. The Marconi radio ops discussed it several times over the previous couple of days.

Nothing new here. Move along.

The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events is to be expected as a result of increase energy input into weather systems. Those weather events can involve either hot or cold events and can include unusually calm spells as well as unusually windy events.

This year in the UK there was unusually little wind. A bit of a bugger for wind generation of electricity!

Good, did you get the message that cold weather does not disprove Global Warming?

No, I did not, what I did get was no single weather 'event' (When did they become events?), can prove or disprove Global warming / climate change / insert next term here.

insert next term here.

Fliegs; I believe I heard former Prime Minister K Rudd use both the terms 'catastrophic climate change' and 'catastrophic global warming' on several occasions.

He did also describe these as the 'greatest moral challenge of our times' as well!

As far as I'm aware no-one else has ever used those somewhat emotive terms....yet!