Friday 26th of February 2021

when the weather influenced the course of history...

napoleon   We know that the results of some historical events were greatly influenced by the weather of the day.
From the battle of Trafalgar to the bombing of Nagasaki instead of Kokura —and beyond — the weather and climate have been an integral part of the direction of history… 

I think this is why my father took me and my brother, as toddlers, to the weather station to see the chart of the day as well as teach me how to observe the sky from day to day. When war came along, he became an artillery instructor… The wind, the rain, the triangulation, the hyperboles and the calculations of gun powder were his forte apart from making uniforms. His German weather books for professional pilots were my bedside reading for quite a few years...

We know that Napoleon got defeated by the cold far more than by the Russians, in his Moscow campaign… 

If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.



By Andrew Roberts

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE


JUNE 2015


Read more:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/

—————————

So, why did Napoleon loose Waterloo? 

Less than an hour earlier, Napoleon had sent eight battalions of his elite Imperial Guard into the attack up the main Charleroi-to-Brussels road in a desperate attempt to break the line of the Anglo-Allied army commanded by the Duke of Wellington. But Wellington had repulsed the assault with a massive concentration of firepower. "Bullets and grapeshot left the road strewn with dead and wounded," recalled a French eyewitness. The guard stopped, staggered and fell back. A shocked—indeed, astounded—cry went up from the rest of the French Army, one unheard on any European battlefield in the unit's 16-year history: "La Garde recule!" ("The Guard retreats!”)

But some historians blame the weather far more than the grape-shots…

A double battle took place on June 16 in Quatre-Bras and Ligny; both were French victories, although neither was a fatal blow to Napoleon’s enemies. On June 17, heavy rains soaked the ground and the French soldiers. The wet fields and muddy roads became a swampy mess.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2018/01-02/why-napoleon-lost-battle-waterloo/


So why would it rain in June, 1815?… Usually a dry month? 1815 was BEFORE the year with no summer. From then on, we have to know a few things about weather and climate. We have already mentioned the fiery sunsets painted by Turner a few years later… These sunsets were not “imagined” but seen by all. 

The History Guy makes the connection between Waterloo and another event…

Mount Tambora, also called Mount Tamboro, Indonesian Gunung Tambora, volcanic mountain on the northern coast of Sumbawa island, Indonesia, that in April 1815 exploded in the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history. It is now 2,851 metres (9,354 feet) high, having lost much of its top in the 1815 eruption.

Many volcanologists regard the Mount Tambora eruption as the largest and most-destructive volcanic event in recorded history, expelling as much as 150 cubic km (roughly 36 cubic miles) of ash, pumice and other rock, and aerosols—including an estimated 60 megatons of sulphur—into the atmosphere. As that material mixed with atmospheric gases, it prevented substantial amounts of sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface, eventually reducing the average global temperature by as much as 3 °C (5.4 °F). The immediate effects were most profound on Sumbawa and surrounding islands. Some 80,000 people perished from disease and famine, since crops could not grow. In 1816, parts of the world as far away as western Europe and eastern North America experienced sporadic periods of heavy snow and killing frost through June, July, and August. Such cold weather events led to crop failures and starvation in those regions, and the year 1816 was called the “year without a summer.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Tambora

This wasn’t the first year known to historians as being without a summer…

1258. (http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/27224)

... in 1258, some historical chronicles of Europe tell us that the summer was crap. Worse than crap... The year went pass as if winter never left. Crops were delayed and then rotted as they never dried, due to non-stop rain and fog. Trees barely fruited...


By a strange coincidence, scientists studying the ice cores of Greenland and of Antarctica started to hone in on what was that year 's "problem"…

A large amount of atmospheric particles seems to have happened during that year — 1258... and the scientists had to find the source of such amount of dust. Of course someone added two and two after having read the crap summer chronicles… 


It would seem to be simple enough to trace the origin of these particles but it took a scientific team quite a few years to find the culprit. 


Basically a LARGE volcano erupted in Lombok — Rinjani. MASSIVE... The site of the volcano is known but its association with the dreadful summer was not. Nor was the volcano full history... 
The volcano eruption was more than twenty times that of mount Vesuvius that engulfed Pompei in 79 AD. Hence the global effect
.


So, could the eruption of Tambora have influenced the 1815 European spring (barely two months later after its big blow up) and create the quagmire for Napoleon’s soldiers? This is an impossible conjecture to confirm or deny…

Can such a volcanic eruption send “semi-instant” weather shockwaves and electrostatic variations in the atmosphere, like invisible mini-atmospheric tsunamis? Can the dust particles of the eruption, travelling slower into the air, then interfere some more with the weather, the year after? For a few years to come? Were there OTHER climatic influences?

Was this an act of god or just bad luck? Was Wellington a better strategist than Napoleon? Did Wellington acknowledge that the battle could have gone “either way”?

———————

Was Waterloo a fitting name for a rainy day ruining Napoleon’s come back? Was it a defeat for the French people or just a defeat for Napoleon? 

At the conclusion of the battle, France signed the Treaty of Paris, with some hefty penalties… But France wasn’t invaded by the English nor the Prussians, though some of their armies stayed on French soil for a few years and not inteferring with politics. For most of the French populace, this defeat was only a change of leadership and the loss of a bit of cash (700 million Francs).

Apart from the year without a summer, French life resumed as before especially for the nobility… The dead were dead. For the wounded, lost glory and shame were the PTSD of the days, not much else was lost but pride, or an eye, a leg and an arm… 

Meanwhile the ideological bickering of the revolution still hanging about led to various kings, a couple of republics and an Emperor. 

Creating a social structure that benefits all was as painful as eating a rotten camembert. Still is… 

Despite the efforts of Léon Gambetta, and the combativeness of the populace who resisted without wavering, the long siege of Paris by the Prussians, the lack of commitment by the governmental "National Defense" led to the defeat in January 1871. With the peace treaty of Frankfurt, France loses Alsace and Lorraine and must pay another heavy price to Germany. Bloody Napoleons…

Just before the complete loss to the Prussians, the French set up the  third “democratic” republic (1870 - 1914)


Yet, an assembly with a monarchist majority gets elected in February 1871. Adolphe Thiers' government establishes its seat in Versailles. This government has reactionary restrictive policies which pushes the Parisians to revolt on March 18, 1871. The Parisians elect their own municipality with a revolutionary, patriotic and social regime. This Paris Commune lasts ten days. The government of Thiers, from Versailles besieges Paris. By the end of May its army crush the Communards in a bloodbath: about 30,000 dead.

Rid of this annoying "social problem", the monarchists of the Assembly are divided between the Orléanists (supporters of the descent of Louis Philippe d'Orléans) and the legitimists (supporters of the Bourbons). They cannot agree on which way to reestablish the monarchy. By a slim margin in the Assembly, this allows the formation of another republic through a series of new constitutional laws in 1875. The royalists fail to prevent the advent of this Republic...


Gradually, from election to election, the republicans become the majority and conquer all the public powers. Moderate republicans organise the republic from 1879. They establish fundamental freedoms: freedom of the press, of assembly, of professional association and more. Jules Ferry establishes the secular school system to be free and compulsory for children, six to thirteen years of age. The secular school is the means of consolidating the republican ideals against the conservative clergy. The republic becomes sufficiently solid to withstand some crises, such as the attempted coup d'état by General Boulanger in 1888-89, the anarchist attacks in 1893-94 and the Dreyfus affair of 1898 which divided opinion and shook republican institutions.

These radicals will dominate French political life until 1940. 

Petty bourgeois and the peasants are their main voters. The radicals are in favour of moderate social reforms. They are hostile to any revolution, but they are strongly anticlerical — that is to say opposed to the intervention of the clergy in political life and institutions. They vote for the separation of Church and State in 1905. Social reforms of work are adopted, such as the weekly rest-day in 1906 and the first pensions in 1911. Trade unionists and socialists still find these measures too limited.

In 1905, the socialist parties unite in the S.F.I.O. Under Jean Jaurès, the S.F.I.O. makes gains in politics. Socialists challenge capitalism. It cannot be stressed enough that capitalism was born of the English “Enlightenment” while socialism was born of the European “Enlightenment"….

Meanwhile, unionism grew stronger with the creation of the C.G.T. in 1895. Strikes become common, but radical leader Georges Clémenceau — President of the council from 1906 to 1909 — calls on the army to break the strikes.

Great social contrasts are maintained though… 

“La belle Epoque" is beautiful only for the bourgeoisie.

From 1905, the threat of war against Germany grows. Nationalism is growing as well, fed by the media. Radicals and socialists unite and obtain a majority in the elections in May 1914. Shortly after the war broke out and to defend the country against Germany all the political forces agreed to form the "sacred union”.  

Meanwhile, arts, especially visual arts, become a fractured stylistic search and extrapolation of abstracted ideas, with Paris as the art capital of the Western world at the beginning of the 20th century, like it had been, in music, with the reign of the Romantics during the 19th century...

Not winning much at war, the French had become a bunch of philosophers.

See also:
WW1 Conspiracy (http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35884)

The rest is history… Much hidden history...

Is the US pseudo-Trumpoleon going to loose? Is war looming? Will the weather influence the result of the US Presidential elections far more than the Chinese, the Russians or even Uncle Rupe?


Gus Leonisky
The weather guy…


when history influenced the weather...

 

It is important to remember that from the time of the “baby boomers” to beyond the epoch of the millennials, these generations have not been called to war. We won’t mention the Vietnam War which was one of the last conscription-war for the West, because it was area-limited, despite having dropped more bombs on Indochina than all the bombs used during WW2 by the allies…

 

 

So the youth of today may have too much time on their hands to think about “problems"… Global warming aside.



Since the Roman Empire, despite the Pax Romana — a settled illusion running for about 500 years — every generation before1946 had to be prepared to go to war. This is why we need to revisit history very carefully and understand the dynamics that have placed the pieces of the war “game” on hold where they are on the board. 

At present, young people would not have a clue about the reasons for war. Professional soldiers and brassy generals follow orders from the masterminds of the Pentagon, including the president Who does not have a clue either about the potential of death and mangle that modern wars can unleash, even using the best of moral pretexts.

So, war has been forgotten in the mind of the youth for good reasons. No point being called to defend your country when there is nothing left to defend but a desolate nuclear landscape… This is the boomers’ territory. Most of today's youth don’t even know this. They have been raised in the cocoon of a peaceful word for most of last 75 years, where now the most catastrophic event is the loss of home WiFi for five minutes. 
We live in a secure dumb era, in which one can elect a stupid Trump or a devious Biden/Hillary (yes I know, it's the wrong team), and whatever choice is made, it won’t interfere with the climb of China — though it might annoy its leaders for a while. China does not want war nor conquests apart from “rightfully” owning Hong Kong in full, for which the West is humming dangerous tunes of freedom to please ourselves — and Taiwan (Formosa) in which the China Sea plays a vital role. We blame China for our own sabre-rattling like we have blamed the USSR for the cold war — despite the USSR awarding the win of this “cold war” to the USA in 1959. But "we" wanted more than an admission of capitulation. We wanted to rape that country for its richnesses and destroy it, because this is what we do and we hate socialism. 

Despite, or possibly because of, the biggest arsenal the human species ever saw, the idea of war has somehow become extinct. It is at least moribund...

A few skirmishes like those in the Middle East and in Afghanistan, still make us sharpen our deluded moral compass, based on liberty, freedom and the American flushing toilets called crappers…

Don’t laugh. This is serious. We, the peaceful plebs, have forgotten the concept of warfare — despite having profited from it — because whether we do or not, we think we own the planet. Simple. We don’t. The planet owns us. We can't escape en masse. A few astronauts here and there is not an escape plan — and we are reminded of this, daily, including by us, here on this site and on the ABC, by programs leading us to cherish Planet A — the only one we have.

Meanwhile the weather and the climate are a-changing. Our industrialisation of our activities including the industry of armaments have influenced the climate. We know that cities are warmer than the countryside around them... The signs of change are observable, but most of our farting-about baby-booming-pollies and some “libertine” websites tend to still push for the burning business as usual, because this has worked since 1946, to make us comfortable. Thus "man-made global warming is crap"...

According to serious surveys, the island of Manhattan is starting to get “regularly flooded” in places… The measurable rise of sea level, is having an “under-reported” impact. Combined with tidal surge this can become slightly catastrophic, like during the Sandy Storm, which flooded a lot of subterranean New York… But we pumped and improved our defences until next time when things can get slightly more annoying. The recent Laura hurricane brought a few home truths to the people living on the southern coast. 

Sure weather has always had extremes.

But because there were catastrophic weather events before, we tend to dismiss the general increase of temperature of the planet in which Antarctica and the Arctic are melting away, so far without much fanfare apart from a few of us, nutcases like committed scientists, Greta and Gus, clarioning that the climate is going to get a massive make-over… 

It’s like your index finger touching your nose or not. Even very close, you do not feel your finger. Your finger has to touch your nose to be felt. There is not much leeway in between, but we can measure how far away our finger is from our nose, as it’s coming closer and closer… 

We would live in a cave or be a starved kid in a third world country trying to get out of poverty not to have heard about the “climate change” issue. Trying to feed ourselves and have a decent life is paramount first. Meanwhile people like Elon Musk work hard at saving the planet by selling us electric cars to be fed from the “renewable grid” to be really green, while at the same time, he's burning vast amount of carbon-based fuels to send rockets to Mars where we might have to live one day because of our burning too much of the said-carbon…

We are in a bind if we understand the problem. If we don’t, our arse will be slowly cooked on the altar of the carbon equation. Is this true?

What does this mean? 

We have explained many times on this site what global warming is about, till we went blue in the face. We also have exposed the strong possibility of fast climatic deterioration passed a certain point of warming. Are we wrong? is burning fossil fuel a sustainable option? 

Then the climate sceptic politicians arrived… 

On the first day of the new Abbott government, Australia’s climate scientists got a pretty clear message. It was September 18, 2013, and within 24 hours of the swearing-in ceremony at Government House in Yarralumla, the new environment minister, Greg Hunt, had called the head of the Climate Commission and sacked him.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/you-bastards-sacked-me-when-the-climate-sceptics-arrived-20200626-p556nn.html


The major question is how does one becomes such a sceptic in front of hard scientific evidence? Is the scientific evidence strong enough? How do we link carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning to the notion of global warming? This is the major question that we need to investigate and it started way before the BB (baby boomers). It started even before the first railway was ever built — then the railway was transcribed into an amazing 176 year old musical piece that should send amazing shivers down your spine…

So, how can we make an irrefutable case to show that global warming is coming? Or is already here? We can’t? Why not? Because it demands a computation that is beyond a one person observation. Or it demands the acceptance that we can be poisoned by 0.05 milligrams of Novichok. We accept that taking a small dose of aspirin or such will eliminate our headache — even knowing that 90 per cent of this medicine will go straight to the pee-house. A funnel-web spider bite will kill us. Yet the amount of poison is tiny compared to our size… Global warming is far more possible in these proportions of cause to effect. 

As Bertolt Brecht indicated science is not there to give us infinite wisdom but to make sure we avoid making an infinite error. What are sciences? Good question… Sciences are our ways to interpret observations with a certain degree of repeatable precision. Sciences are in complete opposition to metaphysics which use infinite error as a way to explain what we don’t know. 

And sciences tell us that ignoring global warming would be making an infinite error. 

How come? Gus and Gus can repeat ourselves ad infinitum. You either trust the planet is spherical or that it’s a plate with a gaseous dome. You know the answer to this one, I hope. If you don’t you have no hope to grasp the nettle. From then on, you need to study each part of the atmosphere and see that the caper is very thin — and it is subjected to convolutions, sometimes dangerous to us. This is not knew. We call this the weather. The dangerous aspects of weather are monsoons, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, downdrafts… These have been with us since we fell of our tree. Even so, we know that between 14,000 and 10,000 years ago there was a big melt. The planet warmed up for "whatever reasons*" by about 6 degrees Celsius. We know that dinosaurs bombed out of the surface of the planet about 65 million years ago. Sciences can't tell us what was the weather on June 17, 1246, though there could be some farmer’s records that would not be calibrated, but sciences can give us a fair idea of the trends then and now — and what affect these trends. 

CO2 is a warming gas that is involved in keeping the planet warm. Water vapour is the main component of the planet's heat, yet without CO2, the atmosphere temperature would plummet by 35 degrees Celsius. This is calculable within a rabbit’s fart. 

The weather observations from the ships involved in Trafalgar were precise enough to give us an idea of the wind and cloud conditions of the battle. Luck went with the English as it always seems to in naval warfare. The commander of the French/Spanish fleet should have known that the conditions were not favourable to them — and avoid battle with ships barely doing one or two knots. But this is hindsight versus foresight…

When Darwin was wiped of the map on Christmas day 1974, The Met bureau knew something was coming. The cyclone had been tracked. The climatic trends had also been surveyed. See ENSO...

Only 1974, dominated by one of the strongest La Niña events on record, was wetter with 760 mm. 2010 was also the wettest year on record for the Murray–Darling Basin and Queensland, while 2011 was the wettest year on record for Western Australia.

———————————

In 1974, the tornado “super outbreak” flattened towns and killed and injured thousands, all with little warning and in the space of 24 hours

Forty-three years later, this event still holds the record. 

On this day in 1974, 148 tornadoes known together as the Super Outbreak wreaked havoc across 13 states. Three hundred thirty five people died and more than 6,000 were injured, according to the National Weather Service. The storms destroyed or damaged
thousands of homes.


Tornadoes are deadly, and they’re hard to predict even today, writes Brian Clark Howard for National Geographic. They form when a column of air gets caught in the space between a cloud and the ground, often in association with a thunderstorm. and begins spinning violently.


Scientists aren’t totally sure what causes a tornado to form, or what sets the column of air spinning, or even how to predict when it will end. They do know when conditions are right for it to happen, which is when they call a tornado watch.


A tornado outbreak is when the same weather system spawns multiple tornadoes. What happened in 1974 was a “super outbreak” because three different weather patterns collided, writes John Galvin for Popular Mechanics, causing an unprecedented number 
of tornadoes to happen near each other in a short period of time.

Although it was terrible, he writes, the super outbreak “brought about the modern tornado measurement system—and lots of cash for cyclone preparedness.”


In 1974, National Weather Service forecasters were still using 1950s-era equipment to detect potential extreme weather. Even with those, he writes, they knew something was up:


A sprawling mass of cold, dry air dropped down from Canada towards the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, and an opposite mass of warm, moist air pushed northwards from the Gulf of Mexico. They were set to converge beneath an intense jet stream with 140-mph winds at an altitude of 40,000 ft.


The forecasters knew these conditions made for extreme storms, but they had no idea exactly how strong they would be, how widespread, or even precisely where they would erupt.


As three different weather patterns collided, tornadoes tore across the states, the worst one in the area of Xenia, Ohio. That tornado alone caused an estimated $100 million in damage and the loss of 33 lives, which was only a fraction of the total damage caused by the Super Outbreak.


But two important things happened because of the 1974 outbreak, research meteorologist Howard Brooks told Galvin. “First, the National Weather Service adopted the Fujita Scale. And second, support and money for tornado-intercept operations greatly increased.”


The Fujita scale created a standard language for the scientific community to talk about tornadoes, Galvin writes. Intercept operations, which send scientists out to actually chase tornadoes, have allowed them to observe what was happening firsthand, improving future warnings.


These innovations, combined with the money and political will to update detection gear, mean that the National Weather Service now has more weather stations and better forecasting technology, he writes. Research, more weather stations, and Doppler radar
combined have increased the average tornado warning time from "about zero," as one meteorologist put it, to 12 to 14 minutes.


"It doesn't seem like a lot," he told Galvin, "but when you need to take shelter every minute counts.” Even with all that, writes Howard, it’s not always possible to predict when—or where—a tornado will strike.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-148-tornadoes-one-day-1974-changed-emergency-preparedness-180962706/
———————————

So was there a correlation between these tornadoes and Darwin cyclone? La Nina?… Was there also some massive monsoons in the same year? There was as well...
————————

The devastating flood damage wreaked by Tropical Cyclone Debbie has left many residents in northern New South Wales facing an enormous cleanup that could take months.

Any Lismore local will tell you that flooding is a fact of life in the Northern Rivers. In the floods of 1954 and 1974, the Wilsons River rose to a record 12.17 metres. This time around, the river peaked at 11.59 metres, breaching the flood levee built in 2005 for the first time.

So what are the conditions that caused those historic floods? And are they any different to the conditions of 2017?

Like the current flood, cyclonic rains also caused the 1954 and 1974 events. But unlike those past events, both of which were preceded by prolonged wet weather, almost all of the extreme rainfall from ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie fell within 24 hours
.
https://theconversation.com/northern-nsw-is-no-stranger-to-floods-but-this-one-was-different-75701
—————————

CYCLONE WANDA 1974-01-24
Wanda was a weak cyclone when it crossed the coast near Maryborough. The winds were strongest in the night after landfall when a high strengthened in the Tasman Sea. Tewantin and Caloundra then had average 50 knot easterlies and Cape Moreton had average 56 knot easterlies. Torrential rain followed and in the 5 days to 9am 29 Jan falls reached 900 mm in the Brisbane area. Mt Glorious had 1318 mm.

The Bureau in Brisbane recorded 314 mm in the 24 hours to 9am 26 Jan and the 1931 flood was exceeded at 9am 27 Jan. Heavy rain in the 24 hours to 3pm 27 Jan caused the major flood. In the Brisbane Ipswich region 6007 houses were flooded. 56 of these were destroyed or condemned. Damage on a large scale was 200 million 1974 dollars. 12 People were drowned in Brisbane and Ipswich. Additionally several elderly people suffered fatal heart attacks while being evacuated and a 2yr old child drowned in a Brisbane creek
.

http://hardenup.org/be-aware/weather-events/events/1970-1979/cyclone-wanda-1974-01-24.aspx


2016 was an El Niño year. Scientists know that El Niño years tend to be warmer than normal, and that events can produce unusual and dramatic weather patterns around the world. But as the year progressed, alarm bells started going off for coral researchers across the Pacific. Temperature readings for oceans around the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and at islands from Fiji to Hawaii were sky-high—hotter, in many cases, than ever before recorded.


Corals, which aren’t great at dealing with either extreme heat or extreme cold, languished in the tepid waters. Stressed by the heat, they started to sicken and bleach, and in some cases die. By the end of the season, before scientists’ distressed eyes, vast swaths of the Pacific’s reefs were bleached bone white.


Oceans have been warming up quickly and steadily because of climate change. But in 2016, that warming was bolstered by a particularly strong El Niño event, which helped push the planet into the warmest 12-month stretch ever recorded.


The effects of El Niño events ripple across the planet, changing weather patterns from Dakar to Delhi to Boston and beyond. These powerful events happen naturally, but climate change may tweak their strength and ferocity in the future
.

During some of the most famous El Niños of the past, the deluges have been so strong that entire villages have slid down mountainsides. In the 1972 to 1973 event, ocean temperatures skyrocketed off the Peruvian coast, nearly wiping out the anchoveta fishing industry, a critical one for the country. During the 1997 to 1998 El Niño, the country sustained over $3.5 billion in damage to buildings, agricultural lands, and other infrastructure. And in 2016, corals bleached across the Pacific, floods ravaged South America, and drought-fueled fires ripped across Australia.


The events can last for as long as a year, though the warming tends to be strongest during the Northern Hemisphere’s fall and winter months—October through February. In fact, that timing is the source of the name: “El Niño” means “male child” in Spanish, and also refers to the baby Jesus. Fishermen in South America, who have long known and described the phenomenon, called it “El Niño” because the some of the biggest effects spin up around Christmas—and the name stuck.


...

It’s also not yet clear whether the cycle has intensified since humans started warming the planet by pumping the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases.


What scientists can say is that 
[the] ENSO [phenomenon] has existed for thousands of years and is likely to persist far into the future. And whether or not the actual cycle changes, we’ll likely feel its effects more strongly in the future.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/weather/reference/el-nino-la-nina/


Now these are observation of weather events. What is clear is that there is some temperature increase overall, as measured by all our instrumentation since the 1950s.

Can we dismiss this? When record temperature above the arctic circle goes over 38 degrees Celsius, should we start to panic? But how much panic? When all our scientific indicators show records, should we ignore the sciences? The sum-total of events, glacier melts, coral bleaching and rising sea level should tell us something… Are we game to listen? Are our gauges accurate enough? Are we prepared to see the next event that could destroy our (not someone else’s) hard earned comforts? 

Miranda Devine told us once it was not carbon but the sun that was warming up the planet… She is correct… It’s the sun warming up the CO2 in the atmosphere that is creating the present warming. It is measurable: CO2 absorbs particular frequencies of infrareds, like water molecules reacts to specific frequencies of microwaves in a microwave oven. Cooking in the sunlight, CO2 then warms up quickly. We are lucky there is not more of it in the atmosphere, like on Venus, the surface of which is burnt at 450 degrees Celsius, by its CO2… How much CO2 can we have up there before it becomes uncomfortable? Sciences can make some dire bracketed predictions but are we game enough to listen?

Have we destroyed enough of the forest by controlled burn offs to avoid a repeat of the 2019-20 bushfires? For how long?...

Did WW2 influence the spike in warming records, 1940-1946?...
Scientific predictions can tell us that in 80 years, the sea level will have risen a minimum of 45 centimetres up to a metre. The temperature average on the planet will have risen from a minimum 3 degrees Celsius to a possible average of 4.5 degrees Celsius with a high of 6 degrees Celsius...

Are we prepare to listen to the avoidance of infinite error?

Gus Leonisky
Q and A midget...


Read from top.

trump, the dead and the weather...

A new report details multiple instances of President Donald Trump making disparaging remarks about members of the US military who have been captured or killed.

The remarks allegedly include referring to the American war dead at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France in 2018 as “losers” and “suckers”.

The allegations were first reported in The Atlantic. A senior Defence Department official with firsthand knowledge of events confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments.

The defence official said Mr Trump made the comments as he begged off visiting the cemetery outside Paris during a meeting following his presidential daily briefing on the morning of November 10, 2018.

Staffers from the National Security Council and the Secret Service told Mr Trump that rainy weather made helicopter travel to the cemetery risky, but they could drive there.

Mr Trump responded by saying he didn’t want to visit the cemetery because it was “filled with losers,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss it publicly.

The White House blamed the cancelled visit on poor weather at the time.

In another conversation on the trip, The Atlantic said, Mr Trump referred to the 1800 Marines who died in the World War I battle of Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

“This report is patently false,” White House strategic communications director Alyssa Farah said.

“President Trump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to them at every turn … These nameless anecdotes have no basis in fact and are offensive fiction.”

 

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/us-news/trump-news/2020/09/04/donald-trump-ward-dead-losers/

 

 

Read from top.

of cheese and climate change...

As Napoleon may have lost Waterloo because of unseasonal rain on the previous day — bogging down his cannons and horses as mentioned at top — we should indulge in some historical mischief as seen by Captain Mainwaring of Walmington-on-the-Sea. Here the romantic role of the female of the species is split between Josephine in the filum, the ticket-selling lady on the bus, back from the movie house — and Mainwaring’s wife who is never seen but seems to weigh half-a-ton, according to the shape of the bunk above, in the bomb shelter… After a dinner with hard cheese he bought from black marketeer Walker, some stout from Sergeant Wilson also bought from Walker — and something unmentionable supplied by butcher Jones, at the Home-Guard’s office — the vicarage — Mainwaring, the leader of Dad’s Army, has indigestion and by 2 AM takes a sleeping pill… He thus dreams off to a time of lost Napoleonic glory when defeat was glorious and the surrender sweetly romantic, like defending the honour of the lovely bus conductress. 

Before Napoleon, others had lost battles because of the weather. Not only this, entire civilisations could have gone bust because of climate change. Quite a few historians have put their brains on the why and therefore, from the East, north of China, to the Americas, there was a sudden cluster of civilisation collapse in the sixth century AD... 

The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its aftermath (872)

"In the fall season of A.D. 536 Cassiodorus sat at his writing table....." So Joel D. Gunn begins this interesting and unusual topic of study. Fifteen further papers discuss the climatic events and ramifications of that year, when the absence of sunlight turned the grapes bitter and gaunt faces walked the streets of Rome and all of Europe. This book examines the first millennium A.D. worldwide context of Cassiodorus and the situation he and his contemporaries experienced. Can we draw any comparisons with today's global changes?


Read more:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Years-without-Summer-D-aftermath/dp/


This six century event was “catastrophic”… a bit like the "dinosaurian" extinction of 65 million years ago — but humans are more adaptable than a Tyrannosaurus Rex because we're smart...

So, there was a climatic change in 536 AD. Another investigator, in the book “Catastrophe", David Keys, explains that the same culprit of more recent times could have been the instigator of the “Catastrophe” by exploding like a million atomic bombs in 535. KRAKATOA.

The story is similar to 1258 AD, another year without summer. Yet at the time, the influence of this Krakatoa eruption changed the dynamic of human civilisations. This was followed by the birth and expansion of Islam, fought by Christianity up to the Battle of Poitiers on 10 October 732, now a serious problem in Europe again after recent migration, due to various reasons — from climate change and wars — and like of humour. 

But the climate change due to the Krakatoa explosion was temporary. By now, we all are (we should be) aware that a small change in climatic conditions will change crop production and personal comfort zone. And we also should know that these new climatic conditions can be induced by small changes in temperature of the atmosphere, leading to desertification, cold, heat and diminishing herds due to natural grasses depletion. Say for example in Mongolia, from 536 onwards, horses were in trouble, while cattle managed to survive well enough. Horses, used as war machine and transport, the Mongolian hordes had to “migrate” and invaded Europe, right to the edge of the Roman Empire...

This is why presently, the serious scientists who study present “global warming” — the effect of infrared radiation on ANTHROPOGENIC increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — are freaking out BECAUSE, unlike a Krakatoa explosion, IT HAS A SOMEWHAT PERMANENT EFFECT, a long lasting effect for thousands of years. They know that this will have a serious impact on our civilisations, East and West. And due to the vagaries of such, this isn’t going to create uniform “impacts”. Some people will suffer more from climate change, including from the rise of sea level.

Some people can be horses, others can be cattle… By this I mean the ability to adapt to a change in food supply and resistance to plagues is variable, to a point of no-return extinction. Has climate change (aka global warming) induced the present pandemic? It’s a long shot, but it is a question to be investigated as to why in the 21st century, humans are still fighting “a pandemic” like Covid-19, in a manner that to say the least is a threat to our "advanced" civilisations... Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JBdedLx-GI


GL.


Read from top.