onetrack

Octave, I don't see how this statement can be scientifically correct, simply because of the major difference in the accuracy of temperature-measuring instruments, and measuring methods, between 1880 and 2026. Now, even NASA admit the old instruments and methods were inaccurate - but they only go into how good their current measuring systems are! They totally fail to address the possible discrepancies by utilising the old records! https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/ QUESTION: What were the temperature measuring accuracy differences between 1880 and 2026? Major differences in temperature-measuring instruments between 1880 and 2026 center on the shift from manual, liquid-in-glass (LiG) technology to automated, electronic sensors, and a massive increase in spatial coverage and calibration precision. While 19th-century mercury thermometers were inherently accurate to within roughly 0.1°C–0.2°C, modern systems (2026) offer higher resolution, near-instantaneous logging, and lower uncertainty through digital, satellite, and AI-integrated networks. Key Differences in Accuracy and Technology (1880 vs. 2026) Instrument Type (Manual vs. Digital): In 1880, measurements were primarily taken with mercury-in-glass thermometers housed in early Stevenson screens. In 2026, the standard is electronic, using thermistors, resistance temperature detectors (RTDs), or infrared sensors. Measurement Frequency and Consistency: 1880s thermometers required manual reading and resetting of maximum/minimum markers, which could introduce human error and bias. By 2026, AI-integrated digital systems provide continuous, automatic, and remote logging, eliminating manual reading errors. Calibration and Stability: Well-maintained 1880s mercury thermometers were highly accurate, sometimes reported as being accurate to 0.1°C. However, modern Platinum Resistance Thermometers (PRTs) and digital sensors (2026) allow for higher stability and more frequent, standardized calibration, reducing drift. Data Coverage and Spatial Uncertainty: While individual instruments in 1880 were accurate, the density of weather stations was low, leading to high spatial sampling error. By 2026, thousands of stations, along with satellite data and AI, significantly reduce this uncertainty. Key Factors Influencing Historical vs. Modern Data Environmental Bias (Urban Heat Island): A significant difference is not the thermometer itself, but its surroundings. 1880s stations were often rural. By 2026, many stations are located in developed urban areas, requiring complex adjustments for the "urban heat island" effect. Methodology Changes: The shift from measuring sea surface temperatures via wooden buckets to engine intake sensors on ships (post-1950s) required significant, complex data adjustments. "Accuracy Paradox": Some analyses suggest that properly maintained 19th-century thermometers were more accurate in absolute terms than some modern, cheaply made electronic sensors that may have higher, wider margins of error (e.g., ±2°F). However, the modern ability to network and calibrate thousands of sensors yields better global accuracy. In summary, 1880s instruments were reliable but sparse and manually operated, while 2026 instruments are automated, dense, and digitally integrated, providing far greater, though constantly adjusted, accuracy for global averages

Living alone makes you a lot more self-absorbed. I lived alone for too long, I much prefer having someone to share things with as I get older - from chores, right through to exciting "wins" and other joyful experiences. You must experience joyful events together. Despite the occasional arguments and head-butting, we don't indulge in abuse of each other, which many couples seem to degenerate into.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the 99 year leases on the British naval and air bases end in 2039. That could mean a major shift in American domination of foreign regions, if Britain insists on getting them back. Of course, the U.S. will demand payment for the infrastructure and development of those bases, and Britain may not be able to pay for that. I may or may not not be around to see it, I'll be 90 then, if I can make it that far.

Take the measurements over a much longer period than our puny lifespans, Nev, and you'll see the variations you claim don't exist. I respect your strong opinions, but point out where my opinions are "rubbish". I too, have studied weather all my life. My former businesses depended greatly on good weather, just as aviation does. I know I've endured some "climate extremes" by way of high temperatures and severe floods. The "wet years" of the early 1960's in W.A. set a lot of records. In the last 30 years, we have endured a substantial downturn in rainfall levels locally. But my experiences and lifetime are but a blip on the radar of "climate". I simply believe the IPCC is a very good breeder of bureaucrats and proponents of schemes, all designed to ensure those utterances and statements and charts keep their cushy 300,000 Euro annual salaries coming. I mean to say, how did the world survive prior to the existence of the IPCC?

My take on it, is this. The variability of climate is substantial. Study old newspapers for stories on massive weather events, and you'll find plenty. You'll also find lengthy serious periods of temperature variations. Bitter Winters where sizeable numbers of people, stock and plants died. Heatwaves that did the same. Droughts and dust storms of previously unknown intensity (the U.S. "dust bowl" of the 1930's. The Federation Drought in Australia). Much weather recording equipment of the earlier eras was inaccurate or poorly recorded (lots of gaps due to the individual recording the event dying, becoming ill, or other types of interference with recording). The researchers are still going back and trying to correct those records to meet current standards, especially where they know the inaccuracy level of particular instruments. There's no argument that the last 30 years in particular, we have seen an increase in average temperatures, and in many cases, reduced rainfall over certain previously wetter regions. There can be dozens of different reasons for those changes. Deforestation is one factor. Carry out excessive clearing, build lots of dark-coloured housing, and the area become hotter due to lack of shade cover, and dark colours drawing heat. The major increase in the burning of fossil fuels in the last 60-80 years has no doubt had a major impact on the climate. The very worst "climate deniers" say the fossil-fuel emissions have little effect on the climate. This cannot be correct. By the same token, one volcanic event pumps vast amounts of products into the atmosphere that all affect the atmosphere detrimentally. Sulphur and other dangerous gases, minute particles of dust, and water vapour get propelled into the atmosphere to great heights by volcanic eruptions. Old records describe volcanic events that affected the climate, the level of light, the growing of crops, and temperature variations that were measurable by anyones standards. The 2022 Hunga Tongan eruption effectively shook the world. The eruption propelled vast amounts of water, dust and chemicals into the atmosphere. The scientists have calculated there was an increase in the amount of water in the atmosphere by at least 10%, some say 15%. The dust and chemical levels have never been accurately recorded. But there's little doubt the eruption affected Earths climate adversely. The Hunga Tonga eruption materials were propelled into the mesosphere, stunning research scientists. There are plenty of records of civilisations disappearing without trace, after becoming sizeable. Researchers seem to agree that extended droughts and a resultant lack of water meant those civilisations couldn't continue, so they moved elsewhere or simply died out. Climate researchers and scientists today continually find new things that affect our climate. They recently discovered that average wave heights have been increasing, and the wave heights affect Earths climate. They have recently found convection effects in deep ice fields - which seems to defy physics. They have found thermal convection waves upwelling through deep ice, making the ice soft and increasing the deep movement of ice. We live in a world full of strange things happening. But the bottom line to me, is that todays scientists are closely examining "climate" in the scenario of just the fossil fuel age - around 120 years - and in some cases, only the last 50 years. However, climate has been in existence for millions of years, so looking at the last 50 or even 120 years of climate is like looking at the cells in a single hair of a fossilised animal and projecting its exact build and structure, from those few cells. Even today, scientists still argue over what dinosaurs were actually covered in - hair, scales or feathers? - because so much information is missing to them. The climate figures, calculations and examinations are in a similar vein. We're looking through a crack in a fence with a poor quality lens, to see the whole distant picture beyond - and we're not getting the full, accurate picture. I personally believe, "net zero" is an unachievable, stupid target, a "potential sales market" figure drawn up by bureaucrats, that has somehow become a golden calf to worship. I believe we should continue to exert ourselves to lower emissions, and to work towards less polluting methods of transport, energy production, manufacturing, etc - but to try and achieve impossible targets produced by well-paid bureaucrats, who have little experience of the real world, is simply not something we should ascribe to.

America was a better place in the 1930's and 1940's, but there was an overwhelming desire by Americans even back then, to not become involved in "foreign wars", in that period. But, yes, Americans have always been willing to supply armaments to combatants in "foreign wars". It has been said, "the U.S. economy runs on the manufacture of War equipment". "The Neutrality Acts were a series of U.S. Congressional acts passed between 1935 and 1939, driven by 1930s isolationist sentiment to prevent involvement in escalating foreign wars. They banned arms sales, loans, and credit to belligerent nations, and restricted American travel on ships owned by warring nations, specifically following the 1935, 1936, and 1937 legislation. Key Aspects of the Neutrality Acts: 1935 Act: Initiated by the threat of war, it prohibited exporting "arms, ammunition, and implements of war" to foreign nations at war and allowed for travel restrictions on belligerent ships. 1936 Act: Extended the 1935 restrictions and further prohibited extending loans or credit to belligerent nations. 1937 Act: Included a "cash-and-carry" provision, allowing warring nations to purchase non-military goods if they paid upfront and transported them on their own ships. It also restricted U.S. citizens from traveling on belligerent ships. 1939 Act: Passed after the invasion of Poland, this Act repealed the 1935 arms embargo, allowing the "cash and carry" of war materials, which primarily aided Britain and France. Impact and Legacy While designed to keep the U.S. out of World War II, these acts were ultimately considered ineffective, because they failed to distinguish between aggressor and victim, limiting support for allied nations. They were largely repealed in 1941 by the "Lend-Lease Act". The Lend Lease Act was initiated on 11th March 1941, and US$7B in free war goods was supplied immediately to Britain, Russia and China on that date. The aim of the L-L Act was to help those three countries repel war attacks on them, with ownership of the war goods remaining with the U.S. at all times, until the U.S. decided what it would then do with it. The original intention was the L-L equipment would be returned to America at the end of the War. The reality turned into a battle between the politicians who wanted the war goods returned and the industrialists who DIDN'T want the equipment returned to the U.S., because those industrialists feared the equipment (especially equipment with civilian use capabilities, such as trucks and jeeps) would seriously depress future sales and production from the industrialists manufacturing facilities. Of course, the industrialists won and very little of the L-L equipment was returned to the U.S. A lot of it was either dumped at sea, or abandoned (due to major damage and remote locations that meant the cost of transport exceeded the residual value of the equipment) - but a lot was sold off to scrap dealers, the Allied countries and individuals. All Allied countries benefited substantially from the cheap purchase of surplus U.S. war equipment and supplies (both L-L equipment, and equipment still owned by U.S. Forces) - which equipment and supplies was purchased at prices around 5% to 10% of its original manufacturing cost. "QUESTION: When did the U.S. start supplying free war equipment to Britain during WW2? The United States began supplying significant amounts of war equipment to Britain through two primary phases: an initial "paid" phase and the eventual "free" (or credit-based) phase known as Lend-Lease. 1. The Turning Point: Lend-Lease (March 1941) While the U.S. had been selling equipment to Britain since 1939, the transition to providing equipment without immediate payment—effectively "free" in the short term—began with the Lend-Lease Act, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 11 March 1941. By late 1940, Britain was nearly bankrupt and could no longer afford to pay gold or cash for supplies. Lend-Lease allowed the U.S. to "lend" or "lease" war materials to any nation deemed vital to U.S. defense, with the understanding that the equipment would be returned or settled after the war. 2. The Timeline of Support Before the "free" era of Lend-Lease, there were several critical steps in the supply chain: September 1939 (Neutrality Acts): The U.S. initially had an arms embargo. This was quickly changed to "Cash and Carry," meaning Britain could buy supplies but had to pay upfront in gold and transport the goods on their own ships. September 1940 (Destroyers for Bases Agreement): This was a precursor to Lend-Lease. The U.S. gave Britain 50 aging destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on British naval and air bases in the Western Hemisphere. While not "free" (it was a trade), it was the first time equipment moved without a cash payment. March 1941 (Lend-Lease Act): This ended the "Cash and Carry" requirement. Massive shipments of food, oil, tanks, and aircraft began flowing to Britain (and later the USSR and China) on credit. 3. Was it actually free? Technically, it was a loan of goods, but in practice, much of it was never returned or fully paid for in cash. Reverse Lend-Lease: Britain "paid back" some of the debt by providing land, services, and supplies to U.S. troops stationed in Europe and the UK. Final Settlement: After the war, the U.S. sold the remaining "in-place" equipment to Britain at a massive discount (about 10 cents on the dollar), financed by low-interest loans. Britain made its final payment on these WWII loans in December 2006. Key Data at a Glance Program ........................ Start Date ....... Payment Method Cash and Carry ............ Nov 1939 ........ Immediate Cash/Gold Destroyers for Bases ... Sept 1940 ....... Land Leases (Trade) Lend-Lease ................. March 1941 ..... Credit / Deferred Payment Note: Between 1941 and 1945, the U.S. sent approximately $31.4 billion (equivalent to over $600 billion today) worth of supplies to Britain alone." To Summarise - WW2 did cost the U.S. a vast sum of money. That cost was born by U.S. taxpayers, though, the industrialists lost very little, but gained very substantial wealth via the production of war equipment. The U.S. Govt did impose a maximum allowable profit level of 10% on suppliers of war equipment during WW2, but that 10% made them a lot of money, thanks to the vast amounts of equipment produced. Some industrialists that had manufacturing facilities in Europe (such as Henry Ford and GM), had to endure serious damage to their overseas assets, such as bombed factories. In the same vein, those factories were previously supplying equipment to the Nazis at a profit, until those factories were taken over forcibly by the Nazis.

Climate change denier? We're developing a vaccine for that! 😄

On April 20, 1945, during an air battle over Germany, Eduard Schallmoser's Messerschmitt Me.262 collided with an American Martin B-26 Marauder medium bomber. Schallmoser managed to bail out and open his parachute. He landed in the back garden of his parents house, right in front of his amazed mother!

Your Mum's SIL wants to know why you put such huge bags under her eyes! 😄

Come and live in W.A.! - we don't have toll roads of any kind! - and no W.A. Govt of any persuasion will ever allow a toll road to be built, anywhere in W.A.

I think Jerry might be getting confused with the Holden Camira or the Holden Captiva. The Camira was bad enough, but the Captiva was worse! (if that's possible!). A mates sister bought a new Camira and on the first week of ownership, the entire dash fell out, into her lap! The Captiva was built by Daewoo, and promptly got nicknamed the Craptiva. But the Holden Nova was simply a rebadged Toyota Corolla, and those little Corollas were one of the best cars ever built. I've seen many of them with 300,000kms on the clock, untouched, and never a stoppage of any kind.

Money spent on improving a property for sale is rarely wasted.

Yep, the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially stated that Trumps claims that there's a major economic "emergency" that must be corrected by the application of his random and erratic and constantly-changing tariffs, is totally unbelievable BS. Just like most of what comes out of his mouth. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/#:~:text=IEEPA—'regulate' and ',Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Did you know that Chinese lanterns are banned in many U.S. States, because they're deemed an unacceptable fire hazard? They have caused a substantial number of house fires in the U.S. I guess oil lanterns are just a tiny bit safer - but fires started by kerosene lanterns were quite common before electric lighting, and they're still common in developing/third world countries, where they're still used.