ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Here's some more enlightenment for you:
IQ tests are culture-related and very poor indicators of innate intelligence. If you took an IQ test devised for Africans by an African, who had never been outside Africa, you would fare a lot worse than a native of that country.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to try and understand the truth.
I remember an employee many years ago saying 'just tell me what I have to do to get paid' He had no interest whatsoever beyond that, and he is not alone.
Loads of people who work in big organisations are simply not interested...in the truth or anything. Just in keeping the job to pay the mortgage and keeping the family in death burgers.
They are in reality, simple slaves. And willing with it.
They are not paid to think, but to obey.
They make ideal climate scientists.
ConSensus EveRyone
Consensus
No - they will say 'the measures we took worked'
I am already an engineer, but it's no excuse for not using a spell checker
...as long as you are talking about the same variety of crop in the same soil with the same water and CO2 supply - and many other variables.
A thermograph would be even better, as long as it was correctly deployed.
A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air. That's fine to give guidance to airline operations, not so good for declaring national high temp records.
The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
"As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
Check Google Earth.
That's a fair point. Cultural differences count for a lot. So let's take a look at some up to date figures which take account of that.
As of 1952 the highest temperature recorded in the UK was 37.8C (100F) on August 9, 1911 in Greenwich. 40.3C is 104.5F for comparison purposes.
Just an old book I picked up - CLW_1952.pdf
John ;-#)#
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has increased at all because some antique book he has claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic, Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated. And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one has to ask just how alarming that really is.
- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.
I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar Logic. As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case.
We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes in CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.
The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on the subject, he uses work previously published by Lambert, who found an empirical relationship between the two. This empirical relationship has never been proved, it was merely a convenience employed by Lambert.
You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted in documents published for either decision makers or the general public.
In fact it has been proved to be a dud with the change in temperature nothing like the change in atmospheric CO2 level.
Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet. Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?
There's a demo available on Venus.
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has min −220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change on Earth."
Paul
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Maybe a thousand times as many recording thermometers, saving data maybe 100x as often.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.