Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 8^th, 2025 at 11:14am:


"Punjab is facing its worst floods since 1988, with over 1,300 villages submerged. Rough estimates suggest the scale of agricultural damage could be staggering — approximately 3 lakh acres (120,000 hectares) of paddy and other crops submerged just before harvest."

...

"Northwest India, including Punjab, reported 265 mm of rainfall in August — the highest for the region since 2001 and the 13th highest since 1901. Between June 1 and August 30, Punjab received 443 mm—already exceeding the total average for the entire monsoon season (June–September), which is around 440 mm."

https://www.news18.com/explainers/why-punjab-is-facing-its-worst-floods-since-19...

Oh only since 1998, but less than 1901. I guess AGW was rampant in 1901 also.

Punjab population 1988 - 19,100,000
Punjab population  2023 - 31,700,000

More hard surfaces - houses, roads - cause more run-off. more run-off causes floods.

AGW? seems unlikely.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 8^th, 2025 at 6:15pm:


1. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. The technology is not fite for purpose. The satellite era measuring instruments have a native accuracy of of about 2.5cm. No way to calculate, accurately, the SLR.

2. The top layer of the sea water that is warmed is about 1-2mm.

"The sea-surface microlayer (SML) is the boundary interface between the atmosphere and ocean, covering about 70% of the Earth’s surface. Gases, heat, and particles entering (or leaving) the ocean need to pass the microlayer. Its thickness is equivalent to a human hair, but can grow to a thicker biofilm in the presence of surface-blooming cyanobacteria."

https://schmidtocean.org/cruise-log-post/skimming-the-surface/

3. The fires that are mentioned are largely arson attacks. not AGW.
NASA says that less land is being burned overall.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-detect-a-global-drop-...

4. Agricultural yields have been increasing, although some years are better than others, and always have been. Statista, FAO, World review etc.

5. Methane is measured in dry air in a lab, nowhere else. Its effect is compared to CO2 on an equal weight ratio. However the methane is measured in ppb (parts per billion) and CO2 in PPM (parts per Million) ], nowhere even near the same weight.

6. The IPCC says there is mixed evidence of more rainfall and fiercer storms, floods etc.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

Page 90

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 9^th, 2025 at 10:28am:


So from the linked paper -

"Reality is more mundane: we’ve changed the way we’ve measured temperatures a number of times over the past 250 years, scientists are trying to account for these changes, and the corrections we make to the record only have a modest impact on global temperatures."

HMM, trying to account over different systems. That can only mean thet don't know, otherwise it would be "have accounted for". Of course we don't know the accuracy of all those early temperature instruments, handmade, each with their own biases.

"Let's dive into how ocean temperature measurements have changed over time as an example. Prior to the early-to-mid 1900s, sailors used to toss buckets over the side of wooden ships, pull those buckets up, and stick a thermometer in to measure sea surface temperature. But it turns out that evaporation cools water as the bucket is being pulled up, so the deck height of the ship and whether the bucket was made of wood or canvas could change the resulting temperature measurements by a few tenths of a degree C."

Actually it is woese than that. The SST is a few mm thick, how did a sailor know when the bucket got to the correct depth?

"Once wooden ships with sails were replaced by modern vessels, temperature measurements were taken in the engine room intakes (where water is pulled in to cool the engine). These were more accurate than bucket-based measurements but – engine rooms being warm – tended to be slightly warmer than actual sea surface temperatures. In recent decades, ship-based measurements have largely been replaced by autonomous buoys that float around the ocean taking measurements, and send their data up to satellites."

The first part is true, the second about satellites not so much. The accuracy of the senso=rs is about 2.5C, good enough for government work. Multiple readings will still have the same inaccuracies +/-, you can't average them out.


"If you ignore changes in instrumentation and just slap everything together into a single record, you end up with a biased result: spurious warming when we switched from buckets to ship engine room measurements in the mid-20th century, and spurious cooling over the last few decades as we transitioned to buoy measurements. It's easy to prove this, as records from just one type of instrument show broad agreement with each other (and other independent data from satellites or Argo floats)"

Broad agreement doesn't give certainty and the ARGO floats only came into being about 1998, they are floating - so they are not measuring the same water, they measure in degrees C, and yet the likes of Zeke then do a lot of computation to get to zettajoules, which is only a small fraction of One degree C.

"A shift from liquid in glass thermometers to electronic thermistors in the 1980s-2000s introduced a cooling bias of about 0.5C in max temperature readings due differences in instrumentation that shows up clearly in side-by-side comparisons, as well as a slight warming bias (~0.1C to 0.2C) in minimum temperatures likely associated with a move closer to buildings in some cases for power hookups."

Not quite true. The electronic thermistors have a much faster response time than liquid-in-glass. They try to overcome that by dampening the readings and according to the WMO handbook should only be read a limited number of times per minute. Of course, many of these at airports are located near taxiways etc. And people who have walked across the tarmac to or from the terminal can attest to the warmth of a turning jet hundreds of metres away.


"One of the most effective ways that researchers have used to detect and correct for biases in land stations (which, unlike ocean records, have the advantage of being stationary) is through neighbor comparisons."

Sometimes up to 100's of kilometres away. And anybody who has driven in Australia can attest to the differing temperatures much closer than that. But again good enough for government work.

Well I am going to call it quits there, there are too many uncertainties to believe this tripe.

lee wrote on Sep 9^th, 2025 at 2:43pm:



Monk doesn't know.   

I offer to undo his ban in this Environment MRB if
he does the same for me with his Cats and Critters MRB and his Polanimal forum.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 9^th, 2025 at 11:38pm:



Form the "paper"

"To do so, Cui Guo, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong, and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 24,000 adults in Taiwan, over a period of 15 years (2008–2022). They obtained results of various medical tests, such as inflammation, cholesterol, diverse organ functions, and blood pressure, among others, to calculate each individual’s biological age. They compared this to the adults’ chronological age to obtain their biological age acceleration. The team also acquired a history of heat wave exposures in the two years before a person’s medical screening visit, which included measures such as sum of temperatures across all heat wave days, total number of heat wave events, and duration of each spell.

Guo and her colleagues observed that people who experienced higher cumulative temperatures also displayed a corresponding increase in biological age acceleration. With each interquartile range increase in the cumulative heat exposure, aging accelerated by 0.023–0.031 years. "

So they looked at a period of 15 years of people naturally growing older, and found people could have a biological age 11 days more. Strangely they did not report more deaths,

Does that mean that people can live longer with higher temperatures?

But we saw with COVID how accurate epidemiologists were.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 10^th, 2025 at 3:20pm:



Poor JM considers NYT, BBC, ABC The Guardian etc as scientific papers.

Any scientific papers he does look at, he does not scrutinise. Merely accepts them as true.  A scientist is a sceptic.

Good to see him reading me.

Still bleating about the guardian and the ABC.

But he explains it as I don't read the papers. Strange, when I point out their deficiencies, apparently without reading. I must be way smarter than I assumed.

Quote:


So it would take -
1. A severe cyclone has to go through that site, not impossible, and
2. It has to go through that one site, also not impossible, and
3.It has to fell "a whole lot" of important trees, becoming less likely, and
4. It has to blow all the bats off their roosts, leaving no breeding pairs, now into the region of hyperbole.

But from the Guardian, one of JM's "authoritative" sources, which seems to accept anything that might be regarded as science. No plea about AGW though,