Get used to record-breaking heat: bureau

THE heatwave that has scorched the nation since Christmas is a taste of things to come, with this week’s records set to tumble again and again in the coming years, climate scientists said.

The hottest average maximum temperature ever recorded across Australia – 40.33 degrees, set on Monday – may only stand for 24 hours and be eclipsed when all of Tuesday’s readings come in. Previously, that record had stood since December 21, 1972.

‘‘The current heatwave – in terms of its duration, its intensity and its extent – is now unprecedented in our records,’’  the Bureau of Meteorology’s manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones, said.

‘‘Clearly, the climate system is responding to the background warming trend. Everything that happens in the climate system now is taking place on a planet which is a degree hotter than it used to be.’’

As the warming trend increases over coming years, record-breaking heat will become more and more common, Dr Jones said.

‘‘We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.’’

Australia’s climate is based on an interplay of many factors including regional and local weather patterns, El Nino and La Nina climate cycles and the Indian Ocean dipole, all superimposed on the greenhouse gas-driven warming trend.

While temperatures vary on a local and regional scale, globally it has now been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.

The impacts of the rising heat on farming, food, water and human health have been studied closely for years, and the trends being played out now mirror those laid out years ago in projections by the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and the Garnaut climate change review.

They include heightened bushfire risk, rising sea levels affecting infrastructure and houses all along the coast and, by the end of the century, massive cuts in food production in the Murray-Darling Basin.

According to a peer-reviewed study by the Australian-based  Global Carbon Project, global average temperatures are on a trajectory to rise a further four to six degrees by the end of this century, with that rise felt most strongly over land areas. It would be enough to tip Tuesday’s over-40 temperatures over much of mainland Australia very close to 50 degrees in some parts.

“Those of us who spend our days trawling – and contributing to – the scientific literature on climate change are becoming increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilisation,’’ said Liz Hanna, convener of the human health division at the Australian National University’s Climate Change Adaptation Network.

‘‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the timescale is contracting.’’

Around the world, 2013 could be the hottest ever recorded by modern instrumentation, according to a recent study by Britain’s Met Office.

It said that, based on the rising background warming trend, 2013 will be 0.43 degrees to 0.71 degrees hotter globally than the average temperature between 1961 and 1990, with a ‘‘best fit’’ of 0.57 degrees warmer.

If that turns out to be accurate, 2013 would surpass the previous record, held jointly by 2005 and 2010.
The Met Office findings are considered telling in the climate science community, because 2013 is set to be a relatively ‘‘neutral’’ year, without a strong El Nino warming cycle to push temperatures up.

The Australian heatwave, which is exceptional, is a continuation of the record-breaking temperatures seen across much of Australia since September, according to the special climate statement issued by the bureau on Tuesday.

The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record, albeit by just 0.01 of a degree. ‘‘This event is ongoing with further significant records likely to be set,’’ the statement said.

Link -
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/get-used-to-recordbreaking-heat-bureau-20130108-2cet5.html
================================
This is not about who wins some BS argument, it's about following a standard business practice, of mitigating against likely/probable/possible adverse outcomes, by taking insurance against those adverse outcomes AND THESE CLIMATE CHANGE OUTCOMES ARE ABOUT AS ADVERSE AS YOU COULD THINK OF!

And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate.

Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat.

I told my 84 year old mother to go to the library for the day. She was going to drive around in her car with the aircon on. She lives in a place that is relatively cold. She doesnt even have a fan because she doesnt normally need one because it doesnt get this hot. Yesterdays 43C was the hottest she has ever experienced there.

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:24am:

And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat.

Yes, I even read an article that said that the ice wasn't actually melting in Greenland. It was just being held up in liquid form.   So much hype when it's really just ice in liquid form.  ;D

I'll try to find the original article. You would love it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:24am:

And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat.

Well that is a foolish statement.

Last night on the Teev, a BOM 'expert' explained why this heat was occurring,  and detailed why BOM has increased it's spread of temp increments ... and has added two additional colours, representing higher temperatures, in its visual modelling of the climate facts.

We now have -  above deep red...  Purple and Black... for temps 50.C and above.
He explained it really well,  and cleverly avoided being dragged into an unequivocal statement about the correlation with Climate Change.

Quite excellent actually.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:24am:

And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat.

You are so right.

It is as bad as those idiots who think Hitler murdered Jews.

It never happened, and all the evidence in the world will never make me believe it happened

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:23am:

I told my 84 year old mother to go to the library for the day. She was going to drive around in her car with the aircon on. She lives in a place that is relatively cold. She doesnt even have a fan because she doesnt normally need one because it doesnt get this hot. Yesterdays 43C was the hottest she has ever experienced there. SOB

Some librarys have crap air-con: some others are top-notch however!

Imagine being 84 and going to the library to cool down and experiencing the noise-fest that they allow these days!!

Librarys are no longer a place of peace and quiet....

muso wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:24am: And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat. Yes, I even read an article that said that the ice wasn't actually melting in Greenland. It was just being held up in liquid form.   So much hype when it's really just ice in liquid form.  ;D I'll try to find the original article. You would love it.

moulins... they gouge out BIGGER AND BIGGER CRACKS IN THE ICE SHEET(S) and this is how the ice breaks up! ALL IS A PROCESS....

PHASE CHANGE IS ON THE CARDS ALL THE TIME: ONCE AGAIN, IT IS [b]THE RATE OF CHANGE IT IS HAPPENING AT THAT IS CONCERNING!![/b]

Yes INDEED DRAY   :)

It IS the rate of change... that is quite frankly..... alarming. :'(

Emma wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

Yes INDEED DRAY   :) It IS the rate of change... that is quite frankly..... alarming. :'(

Don't worry.  Some idiot in the Daily Mail says it hasn't warmed for 16 years.

Gold Medal told me.  So it must be right.


Mind you, Gold Medal also told us that:
* glaciers are not receding
* the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today
* that an undersea volcano melted the arctic icecap
* That the UK MET announced that global warming had stopped
etc etc etc....

And if you ask for any evidence to support these - he will either run away like a little girl or post something completely irrelevant

Funny dude that Gold Medal

this is true...

other than the thread on democracy aka Newman!!Yuk...  i find his approach
bombastic  :)
and right of centre ... and not well -informed...or..blind to facts... 

I guess every one is likely to agree with SOMEONE at SOME TIME.  ;D
How does it go??

You can fool some of the people ALL the time , and
You fool all of the people SOME of the time,  but
You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. :) ;)


....   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 5:23am: I told my 84 year old mother to go to the library for the day. She was going to drive around in her car with the aircon on. She lives in a place that is relatively cold. She doesnt even have a fan because she doesnt normally need one because it doesnt get this hot. Yesterdays 43C was the hottest she has ever experienced there. SOB Some librarys have crap air-con: some others are top-notch however! Imagine being 84 and going to the library to cool down and experiencing the noise-fest that they allow these days!! Librarys are no longer a place of peace and quiet....

I have been to the one where she lives and it was pretty quiet. If you want to listen to noise you can use headphones. Its a small town so i guess the big city ways havent caught up with them yet. I dont know what their aircon is like though because it doesnt normally get so hot in that area - i just didnt notice or it was winter.

SOB

BOM = guess work

damien wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14am:

BOM = guess work

DAMIEN THE DOUBT RAISER LOVES TO SMOKE CRACK AND PRETEND HE IS HAVING A GOOD TIME!

DAMIEN USED TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS THAT DID THE SAME....  :D :D :D :D  ;D

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:24am: And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat. You are so right. It is as bad as those idiots who think Hitler murdered Jews. It never happened, and all the evidence in the world will never make me believe it happened

Oh dear, you've resorted to Hitler.

The AGW alarmist camp is really getting desperate now.

::)

I suppose we can't blame you though: you certainly don't have much reliable science on your side.

Hyperbole, data manipulation, lies, colourful graphs, fear-mongering, and now Godwin's Law.  The alarmists' "argument" gets weaker every day.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

damien wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 7:14am: BOM = guess work DAMIEN THE DOUBT RAISER LOVES TO SMOKE CRACK AND PRETEND HE IS HAVING A GOOD TIME! DAMIEN USED TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS THAT DID THE SAME....  :D :D :D :D  ;D

No need to shout bud!! But you normally do when you try to intimidate!! And I feel that if you aren't on some medication making you make these type of remarks, then you should be!!

look who's talking.

But seeing as we are being bombarded with stats and discussions on all media,
and actually ARE ( you know, here,, now?) going through unprecedented weather extremes,  your argument, GP, is looking more and more ridiculous....  hypothesis,shnipothesis,  you keep trying to make this about an unproven theory.....
realistic ?  linguistic irrelevancy....  IMO.

'ALARMISTS'  hahaha  oh no,, you can't win the argument so you call all your opponents ignorant alarmists.  You do it all the time.

you are a hypocrit.... ...   

I am typing this without any pants on.


THis is not actually a comment about weather.  I do this in winter too.

do you? really? 
either you're really  'hot'   ::)  or you live in FNQ.  ;D

Emma wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

do you? really?  either you're really  'hot'   ::)  or you live in FNQ.  ;D

Both baby,  Both.

:) ;) :-?

yeah baby yeah...  :)

oh Rabbitoh07

:)

anyhow  /!!

it is too late ...   :) ::)
we should have been paying attention 30 yrs ago, if we wanted to make a transition to a clean-energy, sustainable lifestyle, with minimal impacts.
Now ?  we can
cut out power through coal, introduce clean-air fuel for transport,  and we still won't make it better,  for a least another 75 yrs... in the intervening time, our industrial , meat-eating , forest -destroying way of life will continue to generate pollution ....and degrade and despoil our planet.

don't expect science to come to the rescue at the penultimate crisis ...
too many greedy people too much corruption, too much ignorance.  TOO MANY PEOPLE...!!!

guarantee the next 50 yrs  at least are going to continue the drastic decline...

AND there is NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME..
WE and our CHILDREN,  will  wear it.

I think its undeniable .... no matter what others might say... and ...
all the nay-sayers in the world will not change that...  :(

even looking forward 10 yrs is a daunting prospect... and sorry if that scares you GP, you can deny it all you like.... want change a frikking thing.!!!!

Cheers

While the US West Coast (Los Angeles) has just had its coldest day (34F) for some 22 years, the Australian West Coast (Perth) has just had its warmest January overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years & we recently had our warmest December overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years - Correlations ???
http://www.komonews.com/home/related/186866102.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15839035/hot-night-chases-a-temperature-record/

Btw, we have also had the heat, for a while -
date      minimum      maximum      °C      
Mon 24/12/2012      17.3            32.7      
Tue 25/12/2012      19.0            39.6      
Wed 26/12/2012      23.0            37.5      
Thu 27/12/2012      20.2            38.3      
Fri 28/12/2012      24.3            39.3      
Sat 29/12/2012      27.3            40.5      
Sun 30/12/2012      21.5            37.5      
Mon 31/12/2012      20.9            42.1
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=12&yyyy=2012&sub=go
Tue 01/01/2013      25.1            30.8            
Wed 02/01/2013      21.6            28.5            
Thu 03/01/2013      18.9            27.3      
Fri 04/01/2013      18.3            25.6            
Sat 05/01/2013      14.0            36.9      
Sun 06/01/2013      22.0            35.3      
Mon 07/01/2013      24.0            37.8            
Tue 08/01/2013      25.2            39.1            
Wed 09/01/2013      22.3            26.4            
Thu 10/01/2013      15.6            26.2            
Fri 11/01/2013      16.7            29.4            
Sat 12/01/2013      20.4            34.9            
Sun 13/01/2013      22.2            28.1      
Mon 14/01/2013      21.7            37.3      
Tue 15/01/2013      27.3            33      
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=01&yyyy=2013&sub=go

Of course, anyone looking for a decidedly hot place, should look no further than a couple of little towns called Marble Bar (N/West WA) &/or Oodnadatta (Northern SA) -
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/wa/pilbara/marble-bar
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa/ne-pastoral/oodnadatta

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 10:28pm:

While the US West Coast (Los Angeles) has just had its coldest day (34F) for some 22 years, the Australian West Coast (Perth) has just had its warmest January overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years & we recently had our warmest December overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years - Correlations ??? http://www.komonews.com/home/related/186866102.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15839035/hot-night-chases-a-temperature-record/ Btw, we have also had the heat, for a while - date      minimum      maximum      °C       Mon 24/12/2012      17.3            32.7       Tue 25/12/2012      19.0            39.6       Wed 26/12/2012      23.0            37.5       Thu 27/12/2012      20.2            38.3       Fri 28/12/2012      24.3            39.3       Sat 29/12/2012      27.3            40.5       Sun 30/12/2012      21.5            37.5       Mon 31/12/2012      20.9            42.1 http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=12&yyyy=2012&sub=go Tue 01/01/2013      25.1            30.8             Wed 02/01/2013      21.6            28.5             Thu 03/01/2013      18.9            27.3       Fri 04/01/2013      18.3            25.6             Sat 05/01/2013      14.0            36.9       Sun 06/01/2013      22.0            35.3       Mon 07/01/2013      24.0            37.8             Tue 08/01/2013      25.2            39.1             Wed 09/01/2013      22.3            26.4             Thu 10/01/2013      15.6            26.2             Fri 11/01/2013      16.7            29.4             Sat 12/01/2013      20.4            34.9             Sun 13/01/2013      22.2            28.1       Mon 14/01/2013      21.7            37.3       Tue 15/01/2013      27.3            33       http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=01&yyyy=2013&sub=go Of course, anyone looking for a decidedly hot place, should look no further than a couple of little towns called Marble Bar (N/West WA) &/or Oodnadatta (Northern SA) - http://www.weatherzone.com.au/wa/pilbara/marble-bar http://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa/ne-pastoral/oodnadatta

I like new records myself. Dont get me wrong here if I borrow some cultist logic.

Here I was today, just relaxing and all of a sudden, I had a new record for sitting in the strongest sunlight for this time of day.

You want to know how I did it. I dont like to brag, so keep it quiet.

I just ignored every past record. I made sure that nobody had ever tested the direct sunlight for that time of day. Go figure. I couldnt believe how easy it was. Once I just ignored everyting past a certain time in history, it was all for the taking.

Now think about that and come back with something half smart and stop being such dumbies.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 15th, 2013 at 10:28pm: While the US West Coast (Los Angeles) has just had its coldest day (34F) for some 22 years, the Australian West Coast (Perth) has just had its warmest January overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years & we recently had our warmest December overnight minimum (27.3C) for some 24 years - Correlations ??? http://www.komonews.com/home/related/186866102.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15839035/hot-night-chases-a-temperature-record/ Btw, we have also had the heat, for a while - date      minimum      maximum      °C       Mon 24/12/2012      17.3            32.7       Tue 25/12/2012      19.0            39.6       Wed 26/12/2012      23.0            37.5       Thu 27/12/2012      20.2            38.3       Fri 28/12/2012      24.3            39.3       Sat 29/12/2012      27.3            40.5       Sun 30/12/2012      21.5            37.5       Mon 31/12/2012      20.9            42.1 http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=12&yyyy=2012&sub=go Tue 01/01/2013      25.1            30.8             Wed 02/01/2013      21.6            28.5             Thu 03/01/2013      18.9            27.3       Fri 04/01/2013      18.3            25.6             Sat 05/01/2013      14.0            36.9       Sun 06/01/2013      22.0            35.3       Mon 07/01/2013      24.0            37.8             Tue 08/01/2013      25.2            39.1             Wed 09/01/2013      22.3            26.4             Thu 10/01/2013      15.6            26.2             Fri 11/01/2013      16.7            29.4             Sat 12/01/2013      20.4            34.9             Sun 13/01/2013      22.2            28.1       Mon 14/01/2013      21.7            37.3       Tue 15/01/2013      27.3            33       http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ds&of=of_a&ot=ot_a&mm=01&yyyy=2013&sub=go Of course, anyone looking for a decidedly hot place, should look no further than a couple of little towns called Marble Bar (N/West WA) &/or Oodnadatta (Northern SA) - http://www.weatherzone.com.au/wa/pilbara/marble-bar http://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa/ne-pastoral/oodnadatta I like new records myself. Dont get me wrong here if I borrow some cultist logic. Here I was today, just relaxing and all of a sudden, I had a new record for sitting in the strongest sunlight for this time of day. You want to know how I did it. I dont like to brag, so keep it quiet. I just ignored every past record. I made sure that nobody had ever tested the direct sunlight for that time of day. Go figure. I couldnt believe how easy it was. Once I just ignored everyting past a certain time in history, it was all for the taking. Now think about that and come back with something half smart and stop being such dumbies.

Ok, I just ignored your post, as it was irrelevant, to what was being discussed!

Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future.

What's new under the sun?

damien wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 7:00am:

Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun?

The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?"

---

muso wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?"

What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather?

damien wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:15am: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?" What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather?

damien wants to eat more children than mike tyson!

BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!!

I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C.

According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.   

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport

So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 9:12am: muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:15am: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?" What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather? damien wants to eat more children than mike tyson!

The schoolyard bully speaks again. Little person has to use a loud voice.
::)   ::)

damien wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:39pm: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 9:12am: muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:15am: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?" What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather? damien wants to eat more children than mike tyson! The schoolyard bully speaks again. Little person has to use a loud voice. ::)   ::)

Big print is cruise control for cool.....it's what you use when you don't have a clue..

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF!

I repost this here because it is more than relevant.

Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block.

We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy.

::) ::) ::)

I repost this here because it is more than relevant and sensitive to our ancestors

Lets have a moments silence for the people living with the temps in the image below shall we

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/maps/australia-map-heat-waves-5-web.gif

damien wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:39pm: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 9:12am: muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:15am: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?" What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather? damien wants to eat more children than mike tyson! The schoolyard bully speaks again. Little person has to use a loud voice. ::)   ::)

===>>damiens trick is to raise doubt, wow: CHECK OUT THE BIG SWINGING BUSINESS ACUMEN ON DAMIEN!

WHEN YOU SMOKE CRACK YOU MUST HAVE EVERYONE MESMERISED!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:50pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:39pm: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 9:12am: muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:15am: damien wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:00am: Going to be another hottie today. Then again we have had them in the past and no doubt will also have them in the future. What's new under the sun? The devil is in the detail.  The argument you use is the deconstructionist one. You can deny just about anything using that formula. eg "Jews have died in the past, what's so different about the fact that they died in Germany between 1939 and 1945?" What the heck has the holocust got to do with weather? damien wants to eat more children than mike tyson! The schoolyard bully speaks again. Little person has to use a loud voice. ::)   ::) ===>>damiens trick is to raise doubt, wow: CHECK OUT THE BIG SWINGING BUSINESS ACUMEN ON DAMIEN! WHEN YOU SMOKE CRACK YOU MUST HAVE EVERYONE MESMERISED!!

You leave no doubt deadhorse.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::)

Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area.

Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps!

Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c.

Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours.

Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times.

The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 3:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c. Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours. Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times. The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect.

So, are you trying to tell me that much of those same Sydney buildings, haven't been there, for decades?

Isn't that where the reading is taken, at the big park, at Observation Hill, right near the cooling waters?

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 4:08pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 3:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c. Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours. Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times. The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect. So, are you trying to tell me that much of those same Sydney buildings, haven't been there, for decades? Isn't that where the reading is taken, at the big park, at Observation Hill, right near the cooling waters?

Well if you are talking decades, then what with the use of the word RECORD or HIGHEST.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 4:08pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 3:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c. Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours. Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times. The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect. So, are you trying to tell me that much of those same Sydney buildings, haven't been there, for decades? Isn't that where the reading is taken, at the big park, at Observation Hill, right near the cooling waters? Well if you are talking decades, then what with the use of the word RECORD or HIGHEST.

Because the last 7-8 decades are when most movement has taken place?

Co2, Temperatures & Population gain.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 6:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 4:08pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 3:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c. Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours. Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times. The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect. So, are you trying to tell me that much of those same Sydney buildings, haven't been there, for decades? Isn't that where the reading is taken, at the big park, at Observation Hill, right near the cooling waters? Well if you are talking decades, then what with the use of the word RECORD or HIGHEST. Because the last 7-8 decades are when most movement has taken place? Co2, Temperatures & Population gain.

Recor/highest since movement, population/urbanisation. Not long is it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 6:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 4:08pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 3:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 1:49pm: BTW, for all those Sydneysiders, I say, STAY COOL!!! I  Just heard on the TV that the current “official” Sydney Temperature was 45.2c and they said, the “official”, Sydney highest ever temperature is 45.3C. According to the “Weatherzone” site, the current temperature at Sydney Airport is 45.5c.    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney-domestic-airport So, I hope wherever you are today, hopefully you are in a nice air conditioned building AND THE POWER DOESN'T GET CUT OFF! I repost this here because it is more than relevant. Its a shame they took the temperature next to such a small concrete and bitchumen block. We al know that they used to have big massive major concrete airports in the past. A bit of like for like please. But going hand in hand with deleting past records in order to create new records, creating new stations in order to create instant records, then I suppose we can let this through as well. Keeps the cult happy. ::) ::) ::) Much of those same buildings have been there, for decades and that station does seem to be in a fairly open area. Many other centres, in & around Sydney, also had record Temps! Usually, records are very minor increments. In the case of Temperatures something like 0.1c would be usual, BUT now we are seeing new records going up by 0.5c & 1.0c. Its called UHI Urban Heat Island effect. The heat from the roads, the building and especially at an airport, all ooz off the heat from the day and for a long period. Grass land would feel cooler immediately the sun goes away. City take hours. Try standing on a grass field compared to standing in the middle of the street (feeling the heat around the body, not burn at feet). The difference is the same difference you will get anywhere in a city compared to a grass land which is what it was mostly like in older times. The more concrete per square inch/mile/klm, the more UHI effect. So, are you trying to tell me that much of those same Sydney buildings, haven't been there, for decades? Isn't that where the reading is taken, at the big park, at Observation Hill, right near the cooling waters? Well if you are talking decades, then what with the use of the word RECORD or HIGHEST. Because the last 7-8 decades are when most movement has taken place? Co2, Temperatures & Population gain. Recor/highest since movement, population/urbanisation. Not long is it.

No, just a very small blip, which should tell us that unless we pay attention, we will go the same way as untold other extinct species!

Urban schmurban. Bl00dy big urban heat island if you ask me.

http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxave/daily/colour/latest.gif

that's a good one Muso...

urban schmurban   :)

around 10 yrs ago,  approx..  maybe 20  ::)

it was so hot here  for a couple of days that the spiders living in my eaves were dangling dead on their webs. Never seen that before, or since,  here in SEQ,,  but ... have no doubt I'll be seeing it again.

I pay little real attention to statistics,  they're too easily manipulated to reflect points of view.

That anyone could deny the reality of climate change eludes me. Well ..intelligent anyones anyway.

As for the snow in the UK etc...  the Earth must balance these things out... isn't that obvious??

The hotter it is in one hemisphere, the colder it'll get in the other.
That's obvious to me...  why is it hard to grasp>?

The Earth is still striving to mitigate the effects of our human growth....  and , as we are only just beginning to see the fruits (poisons) of our labors,
you can only expect it to get worse.
Emissions from human activities, right now,  won't come to fruition for many yrs to come.... in terms of ecological impact on our home. 

Seems we won't go out with a bang.....
more like ...dying of lymphoma.  :( 

Emma wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:

That anyone could deny the reality of climate change eludes me.

Who is denying climate change?

Seriously?

I've never heard of anyone denying climate change.

What on Earth are you talking about?

what am I talking about??

Can you read, and comprehend?
I'll say it again

The hotter it is in one hemisphere, the colder it'll get in the other.
That's obvious to me...  why is it hard to grasp>?

The Earth is still striving to mitigate the effects of our human growth....  and , as we are only just beginning to see the fruits (poisons) of our labors,
you can only expect it to get worse.
Emissions from human activities, right now,  won't come to fruition for many yrs to come.... in terms of ecological impact on our home. 

Just because you fail to acknowledge a correlation between human population, and climate change, matters not.

Thats what gets me about people like you.

Doh... how could the presence of billions upon billions of humans ...growing at an ever increasing rate over the last ,say, two hundred years have anything to do with the climate.??  DOH//  we did nuffin'.... not my fault... it is perfectly natural. !!

Well YES it is perfectly natural, given the burden of our pollution , for the consequences to be felt.... Do you honestly say,  that you believe that  WE have had no role ??

WHY? How could anyone truly believe that?? 
'Cos we're God's children???

Well look what we've done..

Emma wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:

around 10 yrs ago,  approx..  maybe 20  ::) it was so hot here  for a couple of days that the spiders living in my eaves were dangling dead on their webs. Never seen that before, or since,  here in SEQ,,  but ... have no doubt I'll be seeing it again. I pay little real attention to statistics,  they're too easily manipulated to reflect points of view. That anyone could deny the reality of climate change eludes me. Well ..intelligent anyones anyway. As for the snow in the UK etc...  the Earth must balance these things out... isn't that obvious?? The hotter it is in one hemisphere, the colder it'll get in the other. That's obvious to me...  why is it hard to grasp>? The Earth is still striving to mitigate the effects of our human growth....  and , as we are only just beginning to see the fruits (poisons) of our labors, you can only expect it to get worse. Emissions from human activities, right now,  won't come to fruition for many yrs to come.... in terms of ecological impact on our home.  Seems we won't go out with a bang..... more like ...dying of lymphoma.  :(

You want dead animals as proof to climate change. Here is a weather event in Australia in 1790's, but because weather is climate to the cult, we will just call it climate event.


Quote:

An account from Dawes journal extracted from Gergis et al 2009: By September 1790, the settlers were fast realising just how unpredictable Australia’s weather could be. Watkin Tench remarks ‘it is changeable beyond any other I ever heard of… clouds, storms and sunshine pass in rapid succession’. But by the middle of 1790, Tench (1793) describes the impact of dry conditions on the colony’s food supplies: ‘vegetables are scarce…owing to want of rain. I do not think that all the showers of the last four months put together, would make twenty-four hours rain. Our farms, what with this and a poor soil, are in wretched condition. My winter crop of potatoes, which I planted in days of despair (March and April last), turned out very badly when I dug them about two months back. Wheat returned so poorly last harvest’ (Tench 1793). It appears that the summer of 1790–91 was a hot and dry summer. Tench comments that, at times, it ‘felt like the blast of a heated oven’. He goes on to describe the heat endured during summer: ‘even [the] heat [of December 1790] was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February [1791], when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of [December 1790] but at Rose Hill [Parramatta], it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world…it must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes’, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats’ (Tench 1793).

must have been a frikkin' cold winter in the UK ... look that up for me.

More snow doesn't necessarily equate to "colder". Don't fall for that one. 

More snow is a consequence of more precipitation, if it's cold enough - and it doesn't have to be much colder than say 0 deg C for snow. I've seen it snow at +2 C.

In fact, it can sometimes be too cold to snow, as anybody who has spent some time in a cold climate would know.

Great to have the cool days back with some rain. And so it goes on as it has in the past.

Fair enough Muso...  that's understood..

I was using the term as shorthand to reference extreme cold.. 
not very accurate sorry about that.. it's poetic licence  :)

ah the rain the rain.... 

s'wonderful, s'marvellous  :)

over halfway thru Summer  and at last.!!! record-breaking RAIN....

well fancy that  -- :o ::)
like I said

it's all about BALANCE.

The scales are constantly being moved....
Hope the wind isn't too fierce, anything can and most likely will happen...

like the 6 (six) tornadoes so far experienced in coastal central QLD this afternoon.!!!
.  Hmmm ??  can I remember this happening before  ..?? 

NOPE  -- 

Emma wrote on Jan 26^th, 2013 at 11:24pm:

ah the rain the rain....  s'wonderful, s'marvellous  :) over halfway thru Summer  and at last.!!! record-breaking RAIN.... well fancy that  -- :o ::) like I said it's all about BALANCE. The scales are constantly being moved.... Hope the wind isn't too fierce, anything can and most likely will happen... like the 6 (six) tornadoes so far experienced in coastal central QLD this afternoon.!!! .  Hmmm ??  can I remember this happening before  ..??  NOPE  --

Then you must be very young...

2010, 2011 and twice ( 8 months apart) in 2012

don't think so Gizmoid...

you must live in an alternate reality.... 

I'm talking about now  -  2013.. 

yes it flooded in Bris and all over QLD in 2010 and 2011.... 

but I don't recall any tornadoes  reported... and what else are you referring to?  I mean  they've had RECORD-BREAKING rainfall totals up North...  whether thats

most rain in an hr
most rain in a day
most rain in 24 hrs in a particular area
most rain in an hr in a particular area...

why do you dispute these facts?? 

Emma wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 2:03am:

don't think so Gizmoid... you must live in an alternate reality....  I'm talking about now  -  2013..  yes it flooded in Bris and all over QLD in 2010 and 2011....  but I don't recall any tornadoes  reported... and what else are you referring to?  I mean  they've had RECORD-BREAKING rainfall totals up North...  whether thats most rain in an hr most rain in a day most rain in 24 hrs in a particular area most rain in an hr in a particular area... why do you dispute these facts??

Ok, then we'll try it this way.

1992:
Oakhurst tornado
Early in the afternoon, another supercell developed around the town of Maryborough, around 300 km north of Brisbane. It developed rapidly also, and at 2:30pm a number of reports sent to the Bureau of Meteorology reported a tornado had touched down in Oakhurst, a rural area 80 km south of Maryborough. However, due to the low population density in the area the reported damage was sparse, with one house destroyed, several others unroofed and hundreds of trees were snapped.
Upon investigation and analysis of measurements and the damage caused by the tornado, it was given a rating of 'F3' on the Fujita scale. This was one of the most powerful tornadoes ever recorded in Australia, and the scale indicated the tornado may have produced winds of between 252 and 300 kilometres per hour.

Bucca tornado
Only minutes after the Oakhurst tornado, another supercell developed to the south-west of Bundaberg, around 400 km north of Brisbane and 150 km north of the Oakhurst tornado. It strengthened and moved in a north-east direction, causing severe damage to Bullyard and Bucca areas with giant hailstones, described as the size of a "cricket ball".
The supercell then spawned a tornado in the Bucca and Kolan area. According to reports by meteorologists, the tornado was so strong and the effects caused on the area it hit were so extreme that household appliances were displaced, small objects were embedded in trees and house walls, and "a 3-tonne truck body was carried 300 metres across the ground". However, as with Oakhurst, the rural nature of the area affected limited the damage caused by the tornado.
Examination by a severe weather team from the Bureau of Meteorology examined the damage in the Bucca and Kolan region and recorded it as an 'F4' on the Fujita scale. This corresponds to the tornado being able to produce winds between 331 and 417 kilometres per hour and of 'devastating' intensity. This is the first tornado ever to be recorded as an F4 in Australian history

"A tornado passes near the far north Queensland town of Atherton
Posted Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:47am AEDT"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-17/a-tornado-passes-near-the-far-north-queensland/337020

"Townsville - Tornado EF2 March 20th 2012 Ch7News"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGhEjTiPtps

Darling Downs November 17th 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFeLkNtpF5c&feature=player_embedded

Is that enough, or would you like me to mention 1968, when the town of Killarney QLD was hit by a tornado???


Just because you can't remember tornadoes in QLD, doesn't mean they've never happened there..

Emma wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 2:03am:

don't think so Gizmoid... you must live in an alternate reality....  I'm talking about now  -  2013..  yes it flooded in Bris and all over QLD in 2010 and 2011....  but I don't recall any tornadoes  reported... and what else are you referring to?  I mean  they've had RECORD-BREAKING rainfall totals up North...  whether thats most rain in an hr most rain in a day most rain in 24 hrs in a particular area most rain in an hr in a particular area... why do you dispute these facts??

What records, and where? And why do we care if a record is broken? it doesn't mean anything more than the simple fact that a new record was written. So What?

What proof is there that its anything more than an isolated weather event? dispute that fact if you like.

Emma wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Fair enough Muso...  that's understood.. I was using the term as shorthand to reference extreme cold..  not very accurate sorry about that.. it's poetic licence  :)

Yeh, science has to be more careful tho: that's why there is something called NOMENCLATURE-->> NAMING SYSTEMS!

The free-market liars argue black is white by playing with definitions and repeating it until the poor victims of democracy turn away in disgust and confusion!

-->it's a totally natural process,... giving us Kubler Ross's curve to acceptance- over- time!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 8:55am:

Ok, then we'll try it this way. 1992: Oakhurst tornado Early in the afternoon, another supercell developed around the town of Maryborough, around 300 km north of Brisbane. It developed rapidly also, and at 2:30pm a number of reports sent to the Bureau of Meteorology reported a tornado had touched down in Oakhurst, a rural area 80 km south of Maryborough. However, due to the low population density in the area the reported damage was sparse, with one house destroyed, several others unroofed and hundreds of trees were snapped. Upon investigation and analysis of measurements and the damage caused by the tornado, it was given a rating of 'F3' on the Fujita scale. This was one of the most powerful tornadoes ever recorded in Australia, and the scale indicated the tornado may have produced winds of between 252 and 300 kilometres per hour. Bucca tornado Only minutes after the Oakhurst tornado, another supercell developed to the south-west of Bundaberg, around 400 km north of Brisbane and 150 km north of the Oakhurst tornado. It strengthened and moved in a north-east direction, causing severe damage to Bullyard and Bucca areas with giant hailstones, described as the size of a "cricket ball". The supercell then spawned a tornado in the Bucca and Kolan area. According to reports by meteorologists, the tornado was so strong and the effects caused on the area it hit were so extreme that household appliances were displaced, small objects were embedded in trees and house walls, and "a 3-tonne truck body was carried 300 metres across the ground". However, as with Oakhurst, the rural nature of the area affected limited the damage caused by the tornado. Examination by a severe weather team from the Bureau of Meteorology examined the damage in the Bucca and Kolan region and recorded it as an 'F4' on the Fujita scale. This corresponds to the tornado being able to produce winds between 331 and 417 kilometres per hour and of 'devastating' intensity. This is the first tornado ever to be recorded as an F4 in Australian history "A tornado passes near the far north Queensland town of Atherton Posted Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:47am AEDT" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-17/a-tornado-passes-near-the-far-north-queensland/337020 "Townsville - Tornado EF2 March 20th 2012 Ch7News" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGhEjTiPtps Darling Downs November 17th 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFeLkNtpF5c&feature=player_embedded Is that enough, or would you like me to mention 1968, when the town of Killarney QLD was hit by a tornado??? Just because you can't remember tornadoes in QLD, doesn't mean they've never happened there..

It's a question of frequency and intensity. Extreme weather events like tornados are becoming more frequent. All the examples you provided bar one, have been in comparatively recent times.  Before January 2011, when was the last severe flood in Brisbane? 1974. After 2011, when was the next one?
2013.

It wouldn't surprise me if the pattern of extreme weather events continues in the next few years.

yahoooooooo

got power back.... three days..no power, no tap water,  no power no water pumps no loo-flushing except by buckets of captured rain water, no showers..
No Computer, no TV... no cooling fans or air con.....


I'm with Muso

We have had three 1in 100 yr weather events in 3 yrs... !!!!

That is EXTREME... :o 8-)

oh deary...only thing EXTREME here is the dial on my BULLSHIT meter spinning out of control.

its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER.

Rider wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:20pm:

oh deary...only thing EXTREME here is the dial on my BULLSHIT meter spinning out of control. its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER.

The only thing extreme in your post is the dial on you denier-meter.

Rider wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:20pm:

its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER.

Yep.

However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global.

Oh Doctor..... is there no stopping the BS meter today??  ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:48pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:20pm: its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER. Yep. However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global.

You measure climate through weather.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:48pm: Rider wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:20pm: its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER. Yep. However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global. You measure climate through weather.

Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a large timeframe is climate. Unless you join a doomsday cult, then weather events (hot) are the new climate when it suites. When the weather event doesnt suit (cold), then you call it climate change induced weather event.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:48pm: Rider wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:20pm: its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER. Yep. However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global. You measure climate through weather. Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a timeframe is climate..

Thats what I said. You measure climate through weather.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 4:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:28pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:48pm: Rider wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:20pm: its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER. Yep. However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global. You measure climate through weather. Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a timeframe is climate.. Thats what I said. You measure climate through weather.

But you were referring to someone calling out weather events are not the new climate. Play with words, just like you are doing with flannery's words, but it by no means makes you correct.

Climate is weather over a long period of time. You are right. Just wrong to reply to the post you did.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a large timeframe is climate. Unless you join a doomsday cult, then weather events (hot) are the new climate when it suites. When the weather event doesnt suit (cold), then you call it climate change induced weather event.

That's the point. Nobody is claiming that the globe will heat totally uniformly. In some cases (for example melting sea ice) whole ocean currents will change causing local cooling effects.

Nobody is claiming anything different to that. The predicted changes in climate (temperature and precipitation) are highly variable on a global scale. You need to read Chapter 11 to find out what is actually being predicted and to find out what you're supposed to be disagreeing with. The problem is that you start to look foolish when you argue against something when you don't know the detail of what you claim to disagree with. 

Your claims that cold weather events are inconsistent with your highly simplified strawman of a worldwide conspiracy (that includes the BoM and CSIRO among others) are nothing short of laughable.

If you want to disagree, you'll need to do your homework to see exactly what you're supposed to disagree with, with due reference to the Gospel according to Watts.

Here. If there is something you don't understand, just ask.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11.html

I don't see the point of arguing with the faithful, so I'll leave it to Dr Jolly.

muso wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 9:25pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:28pm: Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a large timeframe is climate. Unless you join a doomsday cult, then weather events (hot) are the new climate when it suites. When the weather event doesnt suit (cold), then you call it climate change induced weather event. That's the point. Nobody is claiming that the globe will heat totally uniformly. In some cases (for example melting sea ice) whole ocean currents will change causing local cooling effects. Nobody is claiming anything different to that. The predicted changes in climate (temperature and precipitation) are highly variable on a global scale. You need to read Chapter 11 to find out what is actually being predicted and to find out what you're supposed to be disagreeing with. The problem is that you start to look foolish when you argue against something when you don't know the detail of what you claim to disagree with.  Your claims that cold weather events are inconsistent with your highly simplified strawman of a worldwide conspiracy (that includes the BoM and CSIRO among others) are nothing short of laughable. If you want to disagree, you'll need to do your homework to see exactly what you're supposed to disagree with, with due reference to the Gospel according to Watts. Here. If there is something you don't understand, just ask. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11.html I don't see the point of arguing with the faithful, so I'll leave it to Dr Jolly.

Oh the irony....

define irony Gizmoid.

oh I like this game..

define unmitigated alarmist claptrap or maybe swindling tax payer funded grant dependent science flunkies

I've got more  8-)

Emma wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 10:46pm:

define irony Gizmoid.

The irony of one of a believer in ACC( one of the 'faithful)', using the term 'faithful' (with all it's religious connotations) as a reason to not bother arguing with a skeptic...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Quote: I don't see the point of arguing with the faithful, so I'll leave it to Dr Jolly. Oh the irony....

There is no faith involved. I understand the science. It's my field.

Do you have faith when you believe that the earth orbits the sun?

It's a good theory, but it has not been proven by a long shot.

Maybe you believe that the Earth follows a straight line in distorted space time? That's another good theory, but it hasn't been proven either. 

Maybe you believe that two parallel lines never meet? This time, you'd be wrong. They meet at infinity. Now that can be proven because it's pure mathematics.   

In science, saying that something hasn't been proven is disingenuous. It's not really saying anything useful.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:28pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:48pm: Rider wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 3:20pm: its called isolated weather events, no pattern, no conspiracy theory, no need to deny it, just call it what it is, the WEATHER. Yep. However, the AGW alarmists have a tough time distinguishing between weather & climate, and local & global. You measure climate through weather. Weather events are never climate. Weather observed over a timeframe is climate.. Thats what I said. You measure climate through weather. But you were referring to someone calling out weather events are not the new climate. Play with words, just like you are doing with flannery's words, but it by no means makes you correct. Climate is weather over a long period of time. You are right. Just wrong to reply to the post you did.

No you are wrong.   

muso wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 4:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 10:37pm: Quote: I don't see the point of arguing with the faithful, so I'll leave it to Dr Jolly. Oh the irony.... There is no faith involved. I understand the science. It's my field. Do you have faith when you believe that the earth orbits the sun? It's a good theory, but it has not been proven by a long shot. Maybe you believe that the Earth follows a straight line in distorted space time? That's another good theory, but it hasn't been proven either.  Maybe you believe that two parallel lines never meet? This time, you'd be wrong. They meet at infinity. Now that can be proven because it's pure mathematics.    In science, saying that something hasn't been proven is disingenuous. It's not really saying anything useful.

HANG ON,I THOUGHT PARALLEL LINES MEETING AT INFINITY WAS CHI-GUNG!??!  8-) 8-) 8-)  :-?

Seems like there is no record-breaking heat after all....JoNova rips the BOM a new one.

But the headlines that reached around the world is what the alarmists want, and even if they did put an apology in the next week, it doesn't matter they have spread their BS.

It will be a great day when scientists can be respected again. Until these climate change charlotans are exposed and run out of town then sorry, we have every reason to take every press release with contempt and well deserved sceptism.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

HANG ON,I THOUGHT PARALLEL LINES MEETING AT INFINITY WAS CHI-GUNG!??!  8-) 8-) 8-)  :-?

It's also Projective Geometry (but not Euclidean Geometry). I wondered if anybody would bite.

Rider wrote on Feb 8^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Seems like there is no record-breaking heat after all....JoNova rips the BOM a new one. But the headlines that reached around the world is what the alarmists want, and even if they did put an apology in the next week, it doesn't matter they have spread their BS. It will be a great day when scientists can be respected again. Until these climate change charlotans are exposed and run out of town then sorry, we have every reason to take every press release with contempt and well deserved sceptism.

LOL, "fire"

we have every reason to take every press release with contempt and well deserved sceptism..LOL --- Ridden. ;D


ooh that sounds painful. ;D

Rider wrote on Feb 8^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Seems like there is no record-breaking heat after all....JoNova rips the BOM a new one. But the headlines that reached around the world is what the alarmists want, and even if they did put an apology in the next week, it doesn't matter they have spread their BS. It will be a great day when scientists can be respected again. Until these climate change charlotans are exposed and run out of town then sorry, we have every reason to take every press release with contempt and well deserved sceptism.

And the UAH satelites don't agree it was the hottest summer evah either... BOM FAIL!!!!

JoNova rocks!

what are the UAH satellites, again??

Do satellites have the ability to disagree??

:)

SO

THE STATS ARE IN..


all you anal retentives who want the facts...  the facts are in.

Hottest ever...!!  for simplification purposes. :)


And now you fearful deniers will say... BUT  BUT  BUT  what about before records were kept.?? What about it?
You have speculation only..  you'd rather rely on .. but.. maybe .. than on recorded history.

What a fanciful idea... that there was a similar time in the past.  ::) ::)  Er what civilisation WAS that??

It just doesn't make it as a reasonable argument, and you'll just have to admit that it has been the hottest ever yr...

tough , 
and times are going to get tougher again.  :P

and I am still waiting to hear what exactly UAH Satellites are,.. and why , how ,  they have some say.??? 

Emma wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 11:50pm:

SO THE STATS ARE IN.. all you anal retentives who want the facts...  the facts are in. Hottest ever...!!  for simplification purposes. :) And now you fearful deniers will say... BUT  BUT  BUT  what about before records were kept.?? What about it? You have speculation only..  you'd rather rely on .. but.. maybe .. than on recorded history. What a fanciful idea... that there was a similar time in the past.  ::) ::)  Er what civilisation WAS that?? It just doesn't make it as a reasonable argument, and you'll just have to admit that it has been the hottest ever yr... tough ,  and times are going to get tougher again.  :P and I am still waiting to hear what exactly UAH Satellites are,.. and why , how ,  they have some say.???

The record heat was cause by UHI and poor station location (for BOM). Satelite data says it was not the hottest and that is the most reliable consider there is no poor station location but still has the UHI signiture.

The satellite data shows that the summer of 2012-2013 was close to ordinary, compared with the entire satellite record going back to 1979. Not a record. Not even extreme?

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/2013-hot-summer/australia-uah-summers.jpg

The graph data comes thanks to John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science
University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama State Climatologist and Roy Spencer. It was graphed by Ken Stewart at KensKingdom, and inspired by Tom Quirk at Quadrant. I was very happy to connect them this weekend. The data cover “average lower troposphere temperature anomalies for land grids only for the region 10S-40S by 110E-155E.” UPDATE: The data in the graph above does include Tasmania as well, and does not include PNG or Timor.

was that supposed to answer my query??

now we have uhi data back to 1979 ..  ::) :-? UHI ??

what about UAH ?? 

OH  the University of Alabama....  but ..

I'm not actually specifically talking about Australia... 
excluding Timor or PNG. :) which is
Localised weather...  ::)  ..

Stats reflect actual data recorded, and it depends on who interprets those facts, and what the data is, and what it refers to.

P Lolly... ??? grasp as many straws as you can...  and hold on as tight as you can  ... because

you're still going to sink along with all the rest of us.  :)

Emma wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 1:54am:

was that supposed to answer my query?? now we have uhi data back to 1979 ..  ::) :-? UHI ?? what about UAH ??  OH  the University of Alabama....  but .. I'm not actually specifically talking about Australia...  excluding Timor or PNG. :) which is Localised weather...  ::)  .. Stats reflect actual data recorded, and it depends on who interprets those facts, and what the data is, and what it refers to. P Lolly... ??? grasp as many straws as you can...  and hold on as tight as you can  ... because you're still going to sink along with all the rest of us.  :)

You see the 79 temps are equal to 2013 temp. Shame on the AGW loons.

You see the lower temps for the 2012 summer. No spin, just the best data you can get apparently.

Emma only reads the warmist propaganda from BoM. All other sources are irrelevant Especially if they offer undoctored, non manipulated, un smoothed, un corrupted data which disputes the childish banter from a heavily politically organisation (a once proud and respected organisation).

The only extreme in Aust weather over summer was the all new metric developed by the BoM which created new records. Show us the methodology used BoM, let the light in and allow other scientists to peer review the science. A handful of hot days, a flood or two, and some bushfires does not make for extreme - quite normal actually - its a big open country not a laboratory.

Plenty of records breaking in Europe and UK at the moment.....global cooling anyone??

P Lolly

surely you can see,  in your OWN graph....

that
- the number of anomalies  ABOVE the line,  = 15 in total    between 1995  and 2013... 
whereas

- in the period 1979 to 1994   ....the number of anomalies  ABOVE the line,  =  4 in total.

An almost 400% increase in recorded anomalous Heat data.??

Is this not the case??? 

Is there another way to view this information
which supports ... your view... ???

Emma wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:08pm:

P Lolly surely you can see,  in your OWN graph.... that - the number of anomalies  ABOVE the line,  = 15 in total    between 1995  and 2013...  whereas - in the period 1979 to 1994   ....the number of anomalies  ABOVE the line,  =  4 in total. An almost 400% increase in recorded anomalous Heat data.?? Is this not the case???  Is there another way to view this information which supports ... your view... ???

Meaningless. 79 and 2013 are the same too. The inbetween is the way it has always been. Change. Now back to normal levels.

I'm sorry??  huh?? 

that is your reply...  ?

so  two yrs  ...1979 and 2013  are the same.??

and everything else is meaningless???

WTF?  I expected better from you than that piece of ...!

you choose not to acknowledge the near 400% increase in higher temperature recordings in the last half of the period of your graph.???

"Meaningless. 79 and 2013 are the same too. The inbetween is the way it has always been....... "

In reverse it is 12  Low Temp
in the first half
....and

and 3 Low Temp anomalies
in the second half... from 1995 to 2013.

This is meaningless to  you??

Emma wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:28pm:

I'm sorry??  huh??  that is your reply...  ? so  two yrs  ...1979 and 2013  are the same.?? and everything else is meaningless??? WTF?  I expected better from you than that piece of ...!

With the temps not going up as predicted by all AGW loons. Not just up, but up and up, not up then back to the same over many decades. All their failed model predictions wrong, then yes, the temps being the same now as it was in 79 is quite significant.

Emma wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:36pm:

you choose not to acknowledge the near 400% increase in higher temperature recordings in the last half of the period of your graph.??? "Meaningless. 79 and 2013 are the same too. The inbetween is the way it has always been....... " In reverse it is 12  Low Temp in the first half ....and and 3 Low Temp anomalies in the second half... from 1995 to 2013. This is meaningless to  you??

Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about.

a much earlier post....  listed temp data... going back centuries  ...  and from all that  said that one extreme heatwave back in ?1700 and something, or was that 1600 and something .. proved that our current heat increase  was nothing unusual..

It would be interesting indeed if some smart person in stats  could extrapolate all that data into your Graph format.....

now THAT would be interesting...


then of course... you'd have to develop a graph for an equal period of time, prior to the first graph, on the same baseline.

now THAT  would be VERY  interesting...

and then  based on scientific records relevant to the subject ,,, a prior graph  again... and so on....

Now that would BE REALLY REALLY  INTERESTING.

...

is there anybody out there.....???

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:53pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:28pm: I'm sorry??  huh??  that is your reply...  ? so  two yrs  ...1979 and 2013  are the same.?? and everything else is meaningless??? WTF?  I expected better from you than that piece of ...! With the temps not going up as predicted by all AGW loons. Not just up, but up and up, not up then back to the same over many decades. All their failed model predictions wrong, then yes, the temps being the same now as it was in 79 is quite significant.

Why are the oceans warming?
Why are glaciers melting?
Why is the arctic ice cap melting?
Why is sea level rising?

Why do you always run away like a little girl when asked these questions?

does seem to be the case Rabbitoh...

Go the mighty Rabbitohs..!!

Pity the folk after which the club is named,  no longer seem to exist..

Rabbits are nearly everywhere..  tho in QLD we have hares.. :).

Try buying one at a butchers, or somewhere... wtf?? mucho dinero
.. :(

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:53pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:28pm: I'm sorry??  huh??  that is your reply...  ? so  two yrs  ...1979 and 2013  are the same.?? and everything else is meaningless??? WTF?  I expected better from you than that piece of ...! With the temps not going up as predicted by all AGW loons. Not just up, but up and up, not up then back to the same over many decades. All their failed model predictions wrong, then yes, the temps being the same now as it was in 79 is quite significant.

It goes up and up with downswings but the ups are getting higher and longer and the lows are higher

SOB

England is knee-deep in snow in March. Some warming.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:53pm: Emma wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:28pm: I'm sorry??  huh??  that is your reply...  ? so  two yrs  ...1979 and 2013  are the same.?? and everything else is meaningless??? WTF?  I expected better from you than that piece of ...! With the temps not going up as predicted by all AGW loons. Not just up, but up and up, not up then back to the same over many decades. All their failed model predictions wrong, then yes, the temps being the same now as it was in 79 is quite significant. It goes up and up with downswings but the ups are getting higher and longer and the lows are higher SOB

So must the downs (as normal climate) because if it hasnt, then 79 wouldnt be the same as 2013. Use logic geez.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:20pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:24am: And there you have it. Latch onto a weather even and scaremonger a climate. Not even a climate scientist can read a weather map and figure out why there was so much heat. You are so right. It is as bad as those idiots who think Hitler murdered Jews. It never happened, and all the evidence in the world will never make me believe it happened Oh dear, you've resorted to Hitler. The AGW alarmist camp is really getting desperate now. ::) I suppose we can't blame you though: you certainly don't have much reliable science on your side. Hyperbole, data manipulation, lies, colourful graphs, fear-mongering, and now Godwin's Law.  The alarmists' "argument" gets weaker every day.

You do realise that Mr Andrew Bolt is not a scientist let alone a climatologist?

And I presume that you are aware that everything Andrew Bolt utters and puts down in written form is pre-purchased spin?

Just checking

Soren wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

England is knee-deep in snow in March. Some warming.

Let me summarise your argument- It's snowing in England right now, therefore no global warming?

Did I get it right?    ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:56pm:

Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about.

If you were bouncing up and down while driving up a rough mountain track, would you still know that you were travelling uphill, or would you say that you can't tell?

muso wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:56pm: Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about. If you were bouncing up and down while driving up a rough mountain track, would you still know that you were travelling uphill, or would you say that you can't tell?

Well if hypothetically you were Mr Andrew Bolt or Lord Monckton, you would pre-select a handful of bumps that felt like you were travelling down hill. Any data that supports an upward motion would be ignored on the basis that it doesn't fit EXXON's formal thesis and threatens their profit margins going forward

If you wanted to carry out a serious and honest investigation into the matter, you could consider looking at ALL the data you have, and any other indirect effects as well as compare this data to the latest scientific theories and established scientific principles.

I am sure Mr Bolt has done this.

You can trust Mr Bolt

He is paid to tell the truth

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one

miketrees wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one

...and what sort of device measures "cognitive dissonance levels" ?

What a good idea, I will make one.

Would probably need some similar workings of a lie detector.
BP, heart rate, perspiration meter, eye movement, brain wave monitor.

It can be done

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

muso wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:56pm: Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about. If you were bouncing up and down while driving up a rough mountain track, would you still know that you were travelling uphill, or would you say that you can't tell? Well if hypothetically you were Mr Andrew Bolt or Lord Monckton, you would pre-select a handful of bumps that felt like you were travelling down hill. Any data that supports an upward motion would be ignored on the basis that it doesn't fit EXXON's formal thesis and threatens their profit margins going forward If you wanted to carry out a serious and honest investigation into the matter, you could consider looking at ALL the data you have, and any other indirect effects as well as compare this data to the latest scientific theories and established scientific principles. I am sure Mr Bolt has done this. You can trust Mr Bolt He is paid to tell the truth

I suppose what we could do, is look at the hill that seems pretty flat in terms of my thought of what a hill should look like for my agenda.

What I would do is take some dirt from the beginning of the hill and slowly, through monthly updates, build up the hill to a higher level with the dirt taken from the bottom.

What I will end up with is a good incline.

At this point, we hand it over to climate scientists to get them to model their empirical data on.

Oh wait, they already do it like that.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:21pm: muso wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:56pm: Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about. If you were bouncing up and down while driving up a rough mountain track, would you still know that you were travelling uphill, or would you say that you can't tell? Well if hypothetically you were Mr Andrew Bolt or Lord Monckton, you would pre-select a handful of bumps that felt like you were travelling down hill. Any data that supports an upward motion would be ignored on the basis that it doesn't fit EXXON's formal thesis and threatens their profit margins going forward If you wanted to carry out a serious and honest investigation into the matter, you could consider looking at ALL the data you have, and any other indirect effects as well as compare this data to the latest scientific theories and established scientific principles. I am sure Mr Bolt has done this. You can trust Mr Bolt He is paid to tell the truth I suppose what we could do, is look at the hill that seems pretty flat in terms of my thought of what a hill should look like for my agenda. What I would do is take some dirt from the beginning of the hill and slowly, through monthly updates, build up the hill to a higher level with the dirt taken from the bottom. What I will end up with is a good incline. At this point, we hand it over to climate scientists to get them to model their empirical data on. Oh wait, they already do it like that.

Emma wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 10:08pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:21pm: muso wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:56pm: Not when it is all normal. Climate is not and has never been a constant, so nothing to get excited about. If you were bouncing up and down while driving up a rough mountain track, would you still know that you were travelling uphill, or would you say that you can't tell? Well if hypothetically you were Mr Andrew Bolt or Lord Monckton, you would pre-select a handful of bumps that felt like you were travelling down hill. Any data that supports an upward motion would be ignored on the basis that it doesn't fit EXXON's formal thesis and threatens their profit margins going forward If you wanted to carry out a serious and honest investigation into the matter, you could consider looking at ALL the data you have, and any other indirect effects as well as compare this data to the latest scientific theories and established scientific principles. I am sure Mr Bolt has done this. You can trust Mr Bolt He is paid to tell the truth I suppose what we could do, is look at the hill that seems pretty flat in terms of my thought of what a hill should look like for my agenda. What I would do is take some dirt from the beginning of the hill and slowly, through monthly updates, build up the hill to a higher level with the dirt taken from the bottom. What I will end up with is a good incline. At this point, we hand it over to climate scientists to get them to model their empirical data on. Oh wait, they already do it like that.

Why? I am comfortable.

this hill? 

:-?  an incline after lots of elbow greaassse??

Is it leading up-hill?/.. and does that mean warmer..??. or down hill,  and that means cooler??

or is it vice versa??   :)

sorry Muso.. but you make a valid point... 

none of us are likely to have  sufficient access to data,  and sufficient objectivity to look impasssionately at that data,  to arrive at the correct view..   :)

we shall have to wait and see .. won't we??

seeing as we seem to be basically incapable of recognising, acknowledging, and acting on that ... ::)

Emma wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

this hill?  :-?  an incline after lots of elbow greaassse?? Is it leading up-hill?/.. and does that mean warmer..??. or down hill,  and that means cooler?? or is it vice versa??   :) sorry Muso.. but you make a valid point...  none of us are likely to have  sufficient access to data,  and sufficient objectivity to look impasssionately at that data,  to arrive at the correct view..   :) we shall have to wait and see .. won't we?? seeing as we seem to be basically incapable of recognising, acknowledging, and acting on that ... ::)

Well, I didnt reveal, but I dont really ever finish the hill. So we have to keep our concentration toward the top of the hill, coming from your original position.

WELL

you cannot deny

what goes up must come down...  :)

Come on, love, don’t be like that.

'fraid so Karnal.

dems jus  de fax off lave..

Emma wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

WELL you cannot deny what goes up must come down...  :)

Good answer. We will just need to inform the climate science gatekeepers. They are in a bit of an unnecassary pickle it would seem. Their science seems to be indicating the opposite.

;)

Australian climate has shifted for good: scientists

TONY EASTLEY: The nation's top climate scientists and science bodies have for the first time endorsed a report that says the climate in Australia has already shifted.

The peer reviewed assessment says there is "strong consensus" around its central finding and it notes that in some cases the weather has "changed for good".

With the report warning of greater risks of more intense and severe weather, emergency services may have to rethink their strategies.

Here's environment reporter Sarah Clarke.

SARAH CLARKE: Last summer was by all means a record breaker. One-hundred and twenty-three were broken in 90 days. As well as heat waves and unprecedented temperatures there was heavy rainfall and major flooding.

But according to the Climate Commission this wasn't a one-off. In its most comprehensive assessment yet it says Australia has a future of records yet to be broken and "in some cases day-to-day weather has shifted for good".

Will Steffen is the report author.

WILL STEFFEN: Well what we see is a pattern emerging that the south-west of Western Australia and the south-east of Australia have become drier - the south-west since about the mid 1970s; the south-east since about the mid 1990s. And there's a similarity in pattern. They're both becoming drier in the cooler months of the year.

That tells us in the future we would expect to see dry conditions more often. And very importantly, we do not expect to see the previous pre-climate change weather conditions come back.

SARAH CLARKE: The planet's changing for good, to a certain extent.

WILL STEFFEN: Well for a long period of time. The best we can hope for I think - at least in the terms of our children and grandchildren - is to stabilise the climate.

But we will stabilise it at a temperature that probably is two degrees or more above the pre-industrial. That means some changes and patterns will lock in probably for centuries.

SARAH CLARKE: In this report the Climate Commission looks at droughts, tropical cyclones and sea level rise, as well as heatwaves, bushfires and heavy rainfall.

While it says the number of tropical cyclones won't increase, the influence of climate change means they will become more intense.

It also says one in 100 year flooding events are already becoming more common and sea level rise has already risen by 20 centimetres since 1880.

While there are still some questions raised about global warming and its influence, all the top climate scientists in Australia have backed this report - as well as the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the UN's chief science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Tim Flannery is a member of the Climate Commission.

TIM FLANNERY: I think it's really important that people understand where the debate is in climate science and where it isn't. And when you get a group like this that's endorsing or supporting this report in detail, I think that sends an important message that the scientific community is clear about these facts that we've laid out in the report.

SARAH CLARKE: With the report warning of greater risks of more intense and severe weather now, that has the emergency services bodies reassessing their plan of attack.

Paul Considine is from the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council.

PAUL CONSIDINE: We now need to sit down and have a think, not just in isolation but together with our governments and together with the communities that we serve, how we may need to react to these predicted future events.

TONY EASTLEY: Paul Considine from the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council; the report from Sarah Clarke.

Link -
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3728473.htm
================================
I would suggest that the phrase "the weather has "changed for good", should probably have read "the weather is "changing, end of story!"

Andrew Bolt will know what to do

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/andesign101/andesign1011011/andesign101101100143/8348004-earth-on-fire-in-hand-concept-image.jpg

no surprise no surprise

it.. the latest assessment has  hit the media.. and no surprise no surprise...   its bad...

and another... no surprise... is that some people are still clinging in desperation to the idea ... that it's all a conspiracy..!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

isn't that right  P Lolly??   :) :-? ::)

Emma wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 10:17pm:

no surprise no surprise it.. the latest assessment has  hit the media.. and no surprise no surprise...   its bad... and another... no surprise... is that some people are still clinging in desperation to the idea ... that it's all a conspiracy..!! ;D ;D ;D ;D isn't that right  P Lolly??   :) :-? ::)

Well what else could it be when the science is far from settled. It could be just bias and no conspiracy.

Is all this doom and gloom coming from the insurance angle, because it sure isnt coming from settled science.

doom and gloom...

human nature....

insurance???  P Lolly shows us again... ::)

Professor Murry Salby pours well deserved scorn on the ANGRY SUMMER bulltish from the BoM and the Climate Commission Clowns.

The gravy train is coming to end of its ride, time for these grant addicted data manipulating head line grabbing crap artists to get off. See the full version in The Australian.

Last summer was not actually angrier than other summers

by:MURRY SALBY
From:The Australian
April 04, 201312:00AM

Source: The Australian


CLAIMS from the latest report by the Climate Commission, titled The Angry Summer, have been widely circulated through international media. On the basis of a few sporadic episodes, which in any other era would have been regarded as marginal weather (infrequent but perennial), the Climate Commission has proclaimed that such events are now the norm - the signature of climate change come home to roost.

Follow the money trail.....

Insurance companies have already factored in global warming effects going forward and will not insure specific areas of Australia - ie certain coastal regions and areas probe to flood and fire etc.

And that internal risk assessment by the major Insurance corporations commenced in the 1980s

I wonder if Mr Andrew Bolt is insured?

http://wixxy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bolt-still-a-dickhead1.jpg

Rider wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Professor Murry Salby pours well deserved scorn on the ANGRY SUMMER bulltish from the BoM and the Climate Commission Clowns. The gravy train is coming to end of its ride, time for these grant addicted data manipulating head line grabbing crap artists to get off. See the full version in The Australian. Last summer was not actually angrier than other summers by:MURRY SALBY From:The Australian April 04, 201312:00AM Source: The Australian CLAIMS from the latest report by the Climate Commission, titled The Angry Summer, have been widely circulated through international media. On the basis of a few sporadic episodes, which in any other era would have been regarded as marginal weather (infrequent but perennial), the Climate Commission has proclaimed that such events are now the norm - the signature of climate change come home to roost.

2012 will turn out to be either the warmest or second warmest year on record

Its not about anger - its about truth. The Australian talks about gravy trains but considers the fossil fuel gansters as church groups devoted to the environment and social cohesion. EXXON for example is not on a gravy train of profit - it trains priests that focus on wisdom and compassion within social frameworks.

The Australian newspaper - lol - the worlds number one source of truth and compassion

NOT!

and so we have the teev ...

pointing out,  nay,  trumpeting the stats for 2013 ...

it really is real  guys...   :(

Emma wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

and so we have the teev ... pointing out,  nay,  trumpeting the stats for 2013 ... it really is real  guys...   :(

There will be coming out soon, of a completely different theory. Co2 will be put where it belongs. In an area of the brain where all the other non-issues go.

????

Perth is continuing to feel the effects of ongoing Climate Change!

Today's maximum reached 37.3, which is the second hottest April day on record.
Five hottest days in April
1910, 37.6 degrees
2013, 37.3 degrees (Today)
1971, 37.1 degrees
1906, 36.7 degrees
1899, 36.3 degrees
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-sweats-through-hottest-april-day-in-12-years-20130404-2h9j7.html

The average, so far this month is 32.3, which is 6.5 above the previous historical average.

Along with surging levels of heat, Perth has also be subject to a long term Decline in rainfall levels, since around 1970, which has greatly reduced Perth's Dam Capacity, as well as the capacity of our major  underground aquifer (the Gnangara Mound), which is putting a great deal of stress on Perth's drinking water.

But, we still have stupid Politicians, Business & Economists wanting to go with Growth, which is just madness given the likely Climate & Energy Scenario's.

yep...

I  have been  watching the temps in Perth...    and consequently,  often in SA and Vic...  they have been consistently higher than average,,  and rainfall, apart from pockets, has been reduced.

to me it is a logical part of the process.. 
nthn oz  ...wetter and wilder
sthn oz ... drier and wilder

wilder.....the new term for the scarey scarey global bulltish  ;D ;D

Just which weather event hasn't been seen before? Go on, name one if you can.

Rider wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

wilder.....the new term for the scarey scarey global bulltish  ;D ;D Just which weather event hasn't been seen before? Go on, name one if you can.

The wilder is a term for natural Australian weather. Emma, I thought, was speaking of nothing has changed.  ;) ;) ;)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:12am:

Rider wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:07am: wilder.....the new term for the scarey scarey global bulltish  ;D ;D Just which weather event hasn't been seen before? Go on, name one if you can. The wilder is a term for natural Australian weather. Emma, I thought, was speaking of nothing has changed.  ;) ;) ;)

Yeah  ;D, cause (as we all know) Australia has always been known for its benign, gentle, predictable and forgiving weather patterns  ;D ;D ;D

Rider wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:12am: Rider wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:07am: wilder.....the new term for the scarey scarey global bulltish  ;D ;D Just which weather event hasn't been seen before? Go on, name one if you can. The wilder is a term for natural Australian weather. Emma, I thought, was speaking of nothing has changed.  ;) ;) ;) Yeah  ;D, cause (as we all know) Australia has always been known for its benign, gentle, predictable and forgiving weather patterns  ;D ;D ;D

The sentiment, behind that is correct, Australia has a reputation, for Droughts & flooding rains!

However, the regularity & tenacity of events are now taking on new highs, as Southern Australia is Drying out & heating up, to all time records, whilst Northern Australia is getting more serious/regular Storm/cyclone events (at present) & is also warming up.

WA is unfortunately,a prime example, where Perth & the S/West areas have now been in a long term rainfall Decline for over 40 years & our heat is now increasing again.

So, if/WHEN we get another major El Niño event, we will have some serious problems & drinking water alone will present some enormous difficulties then, as we are already starting to run low, NOW! 

The everyday saying that's going around is "How many years until the next 1 in 200 year rainfall?" We've had people in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mackay affected by severe floods almost every year in recent times, and they have had major effects on infrastructure and the economy.

Sooner or later,we have to wake up and realise that we're "not in Kansas anymore".   

Blind Freddy can see that things are changing, unless they have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:25am:

The everyday saying that's going around is "How many years until the next 1 in 200 year rainfall?" We've had people in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mackay affected by severe floods almost every year in recent times, and they have had major effects on infrastructure and the economy. Sooner or later,we have to wake up and realise that we're "not in Kansas anymore".    Blind Freddy can see that things are changing, unless they have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

When you live in a cyclone prone area(the whole queensland coast) and wonder why you get monsoon flooding, then you need help from a shrink, not a climate scientist quack.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:25am:

The everyday saying that's going around is "How many years until the next 1 in 200 year rainfall?" We've had people in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mackay affected by severe floods almost every year in recent times, and they have had major effects on infrastructure and the economy. Sooner or later,we have to wake up and realise that we're "not in Kansas anymore".    Blind Freddy can see that things are changing, unless they have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that are blind, to too many things, primarily because they have their heads firmly buried in their own ass and that situation will not change as fast as the Global Climate is changing!

So, as the saying goes, Houston we have a problem!

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

muso wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:25am: The everyday saying that's going around is "How many years until the next 1 in 200 year rainfall?" We've had people in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mackay affected by severe floods almost every year in recent times, and they have had major effects on infrastructure and the economy. Sooner or later,we have to wake up and realise that we're "not in Kansas anymore".    Blind Freddy can see that things are changing, unless they have their heads firmly buried in the sand. When you live in a cyclone prone area(the whole queensland coast) and wonder why you get monsoon flooding, then you need help from a shrink, not a climate scientist quack.

It's not business as usual. I have lived in Queensland for years.  It's a statistically significant change, but I suppose you don't know what that means.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 7:05am: muso wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:25am: The everyday saying that's going around is "How many years until the next 1 in 200 year rainfall?" We've had people in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mackay affected by severe floods almost every year in recent times, and they have had major effects on infrastructure and the economy. Sooner or later,we have to wake up and realise that we're "not in Kansas anymore".    Blind Freddy can see that things are changing, unless they have their heads firmly buried in the sand. When you live in a cyclone prone area(the whole queensland coast) and wonder why you get monsoon flooding, then you need help from a shrink, not a climate scientist quack. It's not business as usual. I have lived in Queensland for years.  It's a statistically significant change, but I suppose you don't know what that means.

Nah of course not. Not the bogus type of stats anyway.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

Quote: It's not business as usual. I have lived in Queensland for years.  It's a statistically significant change, but I suppose you don't know what that means. Nah of course not. Not the bogus type of stats anyway.

I supposed correctly.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 7:44pm: Quote: It's not business as usual. I have lived in Queensland for years.  It's a statistically significant change, but I suppose you don't know what that means. Nah of course not. Not the bogus type of stats anyway. I supposed correctly.

Except for the stats, yeh you were spot on.   ::)

If you provided the stats you are going off, then maybe they arent the bogus stats. Until then, they can only be bogus.

Tracking Crazy April Extremes across the U.S.- Feels like July for some, February for others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ookDVZblcRk

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Tracking Crazy April Extremes across the U.S.- Feels like July for some, February for others

April, July and February are man made concepts.

The whole Gregorian Calendar is a man made concept.

Weather patterns (and climate) do not follow man made concepts.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 3:05pm: Tracking Crazy April Extremes across the U.S.- Feels like July for some, February for others April, July and February are man made concepts. The whole Gregorian Calendar is a man made concept. Weather patterns (and climate) do not follow man made concepts.

...but (they) do follow man made rising CO2 emissions

(I place they is parenthesis because it seems that the old trap has snared yet another clown - CLIMATE does not equal WEATHER - got it yet?)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 3:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 3:05pm: Tracking Crazy April Extremes across the U.S.- Feels like July for some, February for others April, July and February are man made concepts. The whole Gregorian Calendar is a man made concept. Weather patterns (and climate) do not follow man made concepts. ...but (they) do follow man made rising CO2 emissions (I place they is parenthesis because it seems that the old trap has snared yet another clown - CLIMATE does not equal WEATHER - got it yet?)

Didn't snare me.  That's why there's an "and" before climate.

That clearly shows that I'm talking about two completely different things.

I'm constantly highlighting the difference between weather and climate in this forum.

You're not too bright, are you monkey boy?   ::)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

...but (they) do follow man made rising CO2 emissions

No, we've always had weather (and climate) actually.

Not having a good day, are you   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 4:07pm: ...but (they) do follow man made rising CO2 emissions No, we've always had weather (and climate) actually. Not having a good day, are you   ::)

so that's your argument? WE have always had weather (AND climate) so we can do whatever we like to the environment without any consequences. You have an interesting personal psychosis - has it been documented by the Psychiatric society in Geneva?

I see that your illness has been worsening lately - have you run out of medication?

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/04/chimp_wideweb__430x315.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

so that's your argument? WE have always had weather (AND climate) so we can do whatever we like to the environment without any consequences.

Nope.

My argument is simple: AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 5:10pm: so that's your argument? WE have always had weather (AND climate) so we can do whatever we like to the environment without any consequences. Nope. My argument is simple: AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

hypothesis for what?

their is an accepted hypothesis for the origin of the moon

What troubles you about the causal link between rising CO2 levels and thermal retention rates of the Earth?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01733/chimp_1733648c.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

What troubles you about the causal link between rising CO2 levels and thermal retention rates of the Earth?

The lack of credible, reliable evidence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 5:25pm: What troubles you about the causal link between rising CO2 levels and thermal retention rates of the Earth? The lack of credible, reliable evidence.

And how have you arrived at this conclusion of Evidence lacking and Unreliability?

List the sources which you have consulted and researched that has enabled you stand behind that assessment of the evidence

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o-VkdI9vyHQ/T_IETtDzAZI/AAAAAAAAWGI/Jvzd6NS-cnM/s1600/Chimp%2Bturns%2Binto%2Bchain-smoking%252C%2Bbeer-swilling%2Bchump%2Bat%2Bzoo2.jpg

Let us see what our little GreggoryPeckory posts henceforth ladies and gentlemen

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2065980223_c53253c269_m.jpg

[quote author=Chimp_Logic link=1357653105/150#150 date=1365667883
List the sources which you have consulted and researched that has enabled you stand behind that assessment of the evidence[/quote]



Sorry old chum: it doesn't work like that.

If you want to put forward a hypothesis, you're the one who needs to provide some evidence.

I can provide a list for you, but you'll just say it's "BS" anyway.

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle out of your predicament that easily my friend.

I'm not supporting a hypothesis: you are.  Thus, you're the one who needs to come up with the goods.

The onus is on you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

[quote author=Chimp_Logic link=1357653105/150#150 date=1365667883 List the sources which you have consulted and researched that has enabled you stand behind that assessment of the evidence

Sorry old chum: it doesn't work like that.

If you want to put forward a hypothesis, you're the one who needs to provide some evidence.

I can provide a list for you, but you'll just say it's "BS" anyway.

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle out of your predicament that easily my friend.

I'm not supporting a hypothesis: you are.  Thus, you're the one who needs to come up with the goods.

The onus is on you.





[/quote]

I see

so you don't have any solid basis for dismissing the simple high school level science that underpins AGW??

Do you dismiss everything the scientific process generates on the same basis - ie your political bias and paranoia about taxes and secret societies and backroom deals?

DID YOU WITNESS THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN?

OUR SUPREME GREGORYPECKARY REQUIRES SCIENCE TO CONVINCE HIM EVEN THOUGH HE REFUSES TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

WHAT IS THAT CALLED AGAIN? YES THATS RIGHT - DENIALISM IN ITS PURIST FORM

http://rlv.zcache.com/doug_the_chimp_smoking_a_cigarette_mouse_pad-r85b38564aca544948f59ba411914fb7f_x74vi_8byvr_216.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

I see so you don't have any solid basis for dismissing the simple high school level science that underpins AGW??

I certainly do have a solid basis for being sceptical of the AGW hypothesis .

I've explained it to you already.

I'll type it slowly this time so you can keep up.

Ready ... ?

There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Once again, in case you missed it: no ... credible ... reliable ... evidence.

So, now the onus is on you to provide some.

Good luck.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:24pm: I see so you don't have any solid basis for dismissing the simple high school level science that underpins AGW?? I certainly do have a solid basis for being sceptical of the AGW hypothesis .

You are sceptical???? - I doubt whether you have comprehended the genuine meaning of the word "scepticism"

Science is founded upon scepticism - it drives science.

You're confusing scepticism with Denialism

Only one of these is a dogmatic crack pot cult religion

Can you guess which one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41124000/jpg/_41124952_chimp_ap.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:24pm: I see so you don't have any solid basis for dismissing the simple high school level science that underpins AGW?? I certainly do have a solid basis for being sceptical of the AGW hypothesis . I've explained it to you already. I'll type it slowly this time so you can keep up. Ready ... ? There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. Once again, in case you missed it: no ... credible ... reliable ... evidence. So, now the onus is on you to provide some. Good luck.

Still a denier Greggery?

You have been shown credible reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis on many occasions.

You simply deny it.

You can explain what is not credible or not reliable about it.

You simply deny it.

You are a denier.

Let's try again shall we?

Here is a paper which provides credible and reliable evidence that changes in the outgoing spectrum of radiation agrees with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period.
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

Could you explain to us what is not "credible" or "reliable" about this evidence Greggery?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

You are sceptical????

Yes.

And so should you be.

AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

And, there's no credible, reliable evidence to support it.

I'm denying nothing my friend.

Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that.

And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it.

That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject.

I'm an open-minded sceptic, monkey boy.

Hard for a closed-minded cult follower to understand, I know.  But there it is.

'Currently accepted hypothesis': nothing more.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

You have been shown credible reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis on many occasions.

Nope.

I've seen lots of evidence, for sure.

None of it credible or reliable.

I'll keep an open mind though (you should try that one day).

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:38pm: You are sceptical???? Yes. And so should you be. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. And, there's no credible, reliable evidence to support it. I'm denying nothing my friend. Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that. And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it. That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm an open-minded sceptic monkey boy. Hard for a closed-minded cult follower to understand, I know.  But there it is. 'Currently accepted hypothesis': nothing more.

The last 30 years of rapid global warming has not been seen since about 55 million years ago, when a mass clathratic methane and permafrost release occurred. And this event that occurred 55 million years ago produced global warming rates that were very much lower than what has been measured in the past 30 years.

You may need to venture even further back to see such rapid thermal retention rates - to the KT boundary event, that occurred about 65 million years - an asteroid impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs and about 95% of the earths species.

It seems as through you live in your little cosy ignorant religious cult of Denialism and need a massive asteroid to hurtle down from space and slam into your head before you open your eyes and pay attention to the facts.

What are scientists telling the world about what is driving this unprecedented warming rate the earth has undergone over the past half a dozen decades?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:38pm: You are sceptical???? Yes. And so should you be. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. And, there's no credible, reliable evidence to support it. I'm denying nothing my friend. Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that. And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it. That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm an open-minded sceptic monkey boy. Hard for a closed-minded cult follower to understand, I know.  But there it is. 'Currently accepted hypothesis': nothing more. The last 30 years of rapid global warming has not been seen since about 55 million years ago, when a mass clathratic methane and permafrost release occurred. And this event that occurred 55 million years ago produced global warming rates that were very much lower than what has been measured in the past 30 years. You may need to venture even further back to see such rapid thermal retention rates - to the KT boundary event, that occurred about 65 million years - an asteroid impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs and about 95% of the earths species. It seems as through you live in your little cosy ignorant religious cult of Denialism and need a massive asteroid to hurtle down from space and slam into your head before you open your eyes and pay attention to the facts. What are scientists telling the world about what is driving this unprecedented warming rate the earth has undergone over the past half a dozen decades?

What scientists? Where? Who? Show us the evidence it is your hypothesis after all..

As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

Looks like the bunny and a monkey deny reality.

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:38pm: You are sceptical???? Yes. And so should you be. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. And, there's no credible, reliable evidence to support it. I'm denying nothing my friend. Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that. And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it. That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm an open-minded sceptic monkey boy. Hard for a closed-minded cult follower to understand, I know.  But there it is. 'Currently accepted hypothesis': nothing more. The last 30 years of rapid global warming has not been seen since about 55 million years ago, when a mass clathratic methane and permafrost release occurred. And this event that occurred 55 million years ago produced global warming rates that were very much lower than what has been measured in the past 30 years. You may need to venture even further back to see such rapid thermal retention rates - to the KT boundary event, that occurred about 65 million years - an asteroid impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs and about 95% of the earths species. It seems as through you live in your little cosy ignorant religious cult of Denialism and need a massive asteroid to hurtle down from space and slam into your head before you open your eyes and pay attention to the facts. What are scientists telling the world about what is driving this unprecedented warming rate the earth has undergone over the past half a dozen decades? What scientists? Where? Who? Show us the evidence it is your hypothesis after all.. As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. Looks like the bunny and a monkey deny reality.

The MET office soon enough (after pushing and outing them) will have to admit that there has been no statistical unprecidented warming in the 20 to 21st century.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

It seems as through you live in your little cosy ignorant religious cult of Denialism and need a massive asteroid to hurtle down from space and slam into your head before you open your eyes and pay attention to the facts.

That's exactly what I do pay attention to: "facts".

And, as you and I both know, AGW is merely a hypothesis.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

Only one of these is a dogmatic crack pot cult religion Can you guess which one?

Too easy, chump.

http://euro-med.dk/billeder/billederclimatology-dees2.jpg

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:38pm: You are sceptical???? Yes. And so should you be. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. And, there's no credible, reliable evidence to support it. I'm denying nothing my friend. Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that. And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it. That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm an open-minded sceptic monkey boy. Hard for a closed-minded cult follower to understand, I know.  But there it is. 'Currently accepted hypothesis': nothing more. The last 30 years of rapid global warming has not been seen since about 55 million years ago, when a mass clathratic methane and permafrost release occurred. And this event that occurred 55 million years ago produced global warming rates that were very much lower than what has been measured in the past 30 years. You may need to venture even further back to see such rapid thermal retention rates - to the KT boundary event, that occurred about 65 million years - an asteroid impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs and about 95% of the earths species. It seems as through you live in your little cosy ignorant religious cult of Denialism and need a massive asteroid to hurtle down from space and slam into your head before you open your eyes and pay attention to the facts. What are scientists telling the world about what is driving this unprecedented warming rate the earth has undergone over the past half a dozen decades? What scientists? Where? Who? Show us the evidence it is your hypothesis after all.. As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. Looks like the bunny and a monkey deny reality.

You have been reading too much Bolt BS - not surprising from your posts in here

The greatest RATE of global thermal retention since the dinosaurs vanished in a mass extinction event 65 million years ago, is the past 35 years.

Very impressive little statistical fact don't you think? Care to explain this rate of global warming using natural mechanisms?

This should be good viewing ladies and gentlemen

THe Denialist Priests will attempt their EXXON BS spin in public - BUT fear to have their comments undergo rigorous scientific peer review and the ultimate standards of theoretical consistency and observational repeatability

I wonder why these denialist crap pots don't publish their concerns and theoretical supremeness in the scientific community? Why do they choose the internet? Why do they choose the corporately run mass media? Why do they choose the speakers circuit funded by vested corporate interests?

Nothing to prove monkey, no catestrophic warming recorded...evah!

Your hypothesis monkey, you prove it, with empirical evidence of HUMAN induced global warming

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 6:24pm: I see so you don't have any solid basis for dismissing the simple high school level science that underpins AGW?? I certainly do have a solid basis for being sceptical of the AGW hypothesis .

You have nothing but your innate devotion to your AGW denialist cult religion and temples of propaganda.

To refer yourself as a sceptic is an insult to the word sceptic.

Don't you remember the tobacco corporate CEOs and presidents that swore in a US congressional hearing that "as far as we know, there is no causal link between the smoking of their tobacco products and lung cancer and other health illnesses"

Do you care to explain why the major global fossil fuel corporations released a joint statement in 2003 to the effect "....anthropogenic global warming is a serious global matter and international efforts must focus on mitigating the release of Carbon into the atmosphere and the environment in order to avert catastrophic effects caused by Climate Change"

Now why would EXXON, BHP, RIO-TINTO, BP, SHELL, VALE...etc..etc, disagree with your religion and crack pot  priesthood?

You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies

Now begone from henceforth freak clown of deception and pathetic self delusional puppet of arrogance and ignorance.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/02/27/1225835/008898-smoking-chimp.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies

And what lies would they be, monkey boy?

Hmmm?

Can you please provide a link to any post where I have told a lie in regard to AGW?

If you want to make accusations like that, you're gonna have to grow a pair of balls and come up with the evidence.

Over to you ...

Talking about the UK Met Office....if you can't get the weather right how can you be trusted with public policy decision making and spending billions of tax payers hard earnts?? Clueless is too polite by far.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/09/foia-obtained-met-office-document-shows-them-to-be-clueless-about-what-affects-our-climate-and-in-particular-what-caused-the-unusual-weather-last-year/

FOIA obtained Met Office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year

Posted on April 9, 2013by Paul Homewood


Maybe all they need is a bigger computer

Guest post by by Paul Homewood


sorry monkey - no daft childish pictures, just reality

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

sorry monkey - no daft childish pictures, just reality

His cult doesn't really subscribe to that sort of thing.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies Over to you ...

I am still waiting for you to respond to the small task I set you earlier on....

obviously the sceptic has suddenly abandoned his supreme delusional devotion to scepticism and has been reborn into the mute of Hades.

HOW DARE YOU GALLOP IN HERE AND PARADE YOURSELF AS A HOLY WARRIOR OF SCEPTICISM WITHOUT EVEN THE JUVERNILE WEAPONRY TO DEFEND YOUR STENCHED CARCASS FROM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF BLOWS.

YOU HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN PUBLIC AS THE SUPREME CLOWN PUPPET PRIEST THAT YOU ARE

NOW RECEDE YOUR VACUUM OF FOUL FILTH STENCH AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM FROM THIS HOLY PLACE OF WORSHIP MORAL COWARD OF JACOB

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 10:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies Over to you ... I am still waiting for you to respond to the small task I set you earlier on.... obviously the sceptic has suddenly abandoned his supreme delusional devotion to scepticism and has been reborn into the mute of Hades. HOW DARE YOU GALLOP IN HERE AND PARADE YOURSELF AS A HOLY WARRIOR OF SCEPTICISM WITHOUT EVEN THE JUVERNILE WEAPONRY TO DEFEND YOUR STENCHED CARCASS FROM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF BLOWS. YOU HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN PUBLIC AS THE SUPREME CLOWN PUPPET PRIEST THAT YOU ARE NOW RECEDE YOUR VACUUM OF FOUL FILTH STENCH AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM FROM THIS HOLY PLACE OF WORSHIP MORAL COWARD OF JACOB

Yep, typical troll behaviour.

Won't answer questions.

Won't provide evidence to support their claims (lies).

And, when caught out, resort to caps locks.

Where are all the decent contributors in this forum?

Seriously?

Lately all I seem to do is expose frauds and trolls.

This one was easier than most though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 10:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies Over to you ... I am still waiting for you to respond to the small task I set you earlier on.... obviously the sceptic has suddenly abandoned his supreme delusional devotion to scepticism and has been reborn into the mute of Hades. HOW DARE YOU GALLOP IN HERE AND PARADE YOURSELF AS A HOLY WARRIOR OF SCEPTICISM WITHOUT EVEN THE JUVERNILE WEAPONRY TO DEFEND YOUR STENCHED CARCASS FROM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF BLOWS. YOU HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN PUBLIC AS THE SUPREME CLOWN PUPPET PRIEST THAT YOU ARE NOW RECEDE YOUR VACUUM OF FOUL FILTH STENCH AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM FROM THIS HOLY PLACE OF WORSHIP MORAL COWARD OF JACOB Yep, typical troll behaviour. Won't answer questions. Won't provide evidence to support their claims (lies). And, when caught out, resort to caps locks. Where are all the decent contributors in this forum? Seriously? Lately all I seem to do is expose frauds and trolls. This one was easier than most though.

In the end.... it boils down to continuing to respond. Believe me I have done the experiments.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 10:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies Over to you ... I am still waiting for you to respond to the small task I set you earlier on.... obviously the sceptic has suddenly abandoned his supreme delusional devotion to scepticism and has been reborn into the mute of Hades. HOW DARE YOU GALLOP IN HERE AND PARADE YOURSELF AS A HOLY WARRIOR OF SCEPTICISM WITHOUT EVEN THE JUVERNILE WEAPONRY TO DEFEND YOUR STENCHED CARCASS FROM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF BLOWS. YOU HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN PUBLIC AS THE SUPREME CLOWN PUPPET PRIEST THAT YOU ARE NOW RECEDE YOUR VACUUM OF FOUL FILTH STENCH AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM FROM THIS HOLY PLACE OF WORSHIP MORAL COWARD OF JACOB Yep, typical troll behaviour. Won't answer questions. Won't provide evidence to support their claims (lies). And, when caught out, resort to caps locks. Where are all the decent contributors in this forum? Seriously? Lately all I seem to do is expose frauds and trolls. This one was easier than most though.

don't be so hard on yourself pecky boy

be a man and deal with the truth

future generations depend on what we do now you freak clown puppet

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

future generations depend on what we do now you freak clown puppet

And once again, they fall into the same trap.

When did I say anything about "what we do now"?

Let me guess, you think I'm against the carbon tax.  Yes?  Is that what you think?

Why would you think that?  Because I'm open minded?  Because I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis?

Fools like you make the same assumption all the time.

You should have researched my previous posts on this subject before you made such an utter fool of yourself.

I've lost count of the amount of times I've said this, but I'll say it one more time for you:

I have absolutely no objections to taking precautionary action in regards to AGW.  Have as many carbon taxes as you like, I couldn't care less.

My argument, as I explained to you before, is quite simple: AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

Nothing to prove monkey, no catestrophic warming recorded...evah! Your hypothesis monkey, you prove it, with empirical evidence of HUMAN induced global warming

Your point is that there has been no catastrophic warming in the 20th century and 21st Century to date. Now obviously that was in response to a point that somebody made, otherwise why bother saying it?

Can you please tell me who made the point that there has been "catastrophic" warming so far? Did somebody say that?

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 6:36am:

Rider wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:28pm: Nothing to prove monkey, no catestrophic warming recorded...evah! Your hypothesis monkey, you prove it, with empirical evidence of HUMAN induced global warming Your point is that there has been no catastrophic warming in the 20th century and 21st Century to date. Now obviously that was in response to a point that somebody made, otherwise why bother saying it? Can you please tell me who made the point that there has been "catastrophic" warming so far? Did somebody say that?

My point (which was pretty uncomplicated) muso included the whole of this -

As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


So obviously we no evidence of catastrophic warming occuring in the past, but, ohhh scare me with all your dud predictions from heavily disputed climate models and try to smother empirical recorded, demonstrable science with the cult of AGW's own 'special' science.

(AGW 'special' science is the science of when the modelled predictions don't match the evidence the solution is to change the evidence)

Rider wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

muso wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 6:36am: Rider wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:28pm: Nothing to prove monkey, no catestrophic warming recorded...evah! Your hypothesis monkey, you prove it, with empirical evidence of HUMAN induced global warming Your point is that there has been no catastrophic warming in the 20th century and 21st Century to date. Now obviously that was in response to a point that somebody made, otherwise why bother saying it? Can you please tell me who made the point that there has been "catastrophic" warming so far? Did somebody say that? My point (which was pretty uncomplicated) muso included the whole of this - As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. So obviously we no evidence of catastrophic warming occuring in the past, but, ohhh scare me with all your dud predictions from heavily disputed climate models and try to smother empirical recorded, demonstrable science with the cult of AGW's own 'special' science. (AGW 'special' science is the science of when the modelled predictions don't match the evidence the solution is to change the evidence)

Ok, so what you're saying is that there has been no "catastrophic warming" in the last 30 years? How would you define catastrophic in that context?

I'm asking for clarification because it's obviously something that you've come up with yourself or seen somewhere. I don't know about any cults, but I do have a professional knowledge of Atmospheric Physics.

muso - look it up at www.dictionary.com - and see the last line of this little gem  ;D 

Gasp Horror Panic Run Screaming Thru Streets - climate models are firmly based in the land of Fantasia - alternatively - if the evidence contradict the models, change the evidence  ;D

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/11/climate-models-got-the-nao-all-wrong-climate-science-now-plagued-by-contradictory-explanations/

Climate Models Got The NAO All Wrong – Climate Science Now Plagued By Contradictory Explanations
By P Gosselin on 11. April 2013

Northern hemisphere winters in the big picture
by Juraj Vanovcan (Slovakia)

..............

Again, observations are in stark opposition to climate models. Claims, that warming basically causes negative AO period is nowhere to be found in “peer-reviewed” literature from those times when winters were mild and spring came in March as usual.

Be sure, that in case of mild winter, it should be exactly as scientists predicted because in today’s world of climate, everything is exactly “as models predicted”, even if it contradicts itself and none of the models had actually predicted it.

To sum it up:

1) It is obvious that winters, at least in NW Europe, are dominated by AO/NAO.
2) During the the last century, AO cycles bear no relation to CO2 level or “human influence”.
3) Since a 1990 positive AO spike, its trend has been negative, which is in agreement with the increasingly colder observed winters.
4) None of the models predicted negative phase of AO.
5) AGW theory is just riding on the warm period of the NAO (and AMO), which has already ended.

As Albert Einstein once said, a good theory predicts things in advance and a bad theory needs additional adjustments after each new discovery. The problem with the anthropogenic warming theory is: it cannot sustain anything new. For every new and unexpected climate or weather trend a special sub-theory must be developed, and it doesn’t matter if they often completely contradict each other.

“There are 3 roads to ruin yourself: women, gambling and scientists. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is following the advice of scientists.”

;D ;D 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

Only one of these is a dogmatic crack pot cult religion

Speaking of which ...


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k68qHUlbcw0/UWQJD8Ma4HI/AAAAAAACE2o/XxIab9Y9pG4/s1600/theo4.jpg

Who is this Alice Gore lady ?

I have searched the climate research and scientific literature and can't find any peer reviewed articles by this woman.

Is Alice Gore a scientist at least?

Wow gregorypeckary seems very confused and clearly hasn't read any of the peer reviewed literature on AGW.

perhaps this washed up clown actor can refer to the EARLY work of Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel Prize winning chemist? Arrhenius published an article in the 1890s that showed thermal retention rate predictions as CO2 levels increased. His global warming estimates were surprisingly accurate when compared to modern estimates and computer modeling.

Arrhenius had very little observational data and in the 1890s CO2 levels and global temperatures had not commenced rising significantly. What a brilliant man.

I wonder if the HYPOTHESIS that Arrhenius was puting forward was JUST AN ACCEPTED HYPOTHESIS?

Gee we better check with the AGW DENIALIST priest gregorrypeckary or Bolt - maybe even the supreme genius of our time lord Moncton?

(These AGW DENIERS must lie and evade any challenges to their deceptions and political biases - there is nothing else left for them to do but to deceive themselves and others)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Gee we better check with the AGW DENIALIST priest gregorrypeckary ...

Oh dear.

We've uncovered yet another little liar in the forum.

Just to refresh your memory, my fibbing little friend:

"I'm denying nothing my friend.

"Climate changes. Nobody I've seen in here denies that.

"And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct, however, currently there is no credible, reliable evidence to support it.

"That may change in the future though.  You see, unlike the AGW alarmists, I have an open mind on the subject.

"I'm an open-minded sceptic ... "

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357653105/158#158

Did you miss it?

I'll give it to you again, but I'll type slowly for you:

"And your little hypothesis may indeed be correct ... "

Next!

A shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation has been a postulated effect of global warming for the last ten years at least.  One  factor that influences the relatively mild winters of North West Europe has been the North Atlantic drift, which is driven by the thermohaline circulation.

The consequence of the slowdown of the NAD is a shift to more continental weather patterns, which means more severe winters. This pattern has been emerging for the last ten years at least.

It's not quite that tidy, because on one year at least, the West Greenland current joined up with the NAD resulting in even more extreme conditions.

Another factor has been the warmer summers in the Arctic. There is evidence that the increased melting of sea ice caused by the warmer summers have given rise to harsher winters:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193430.htm

Nobody is claiming a single mechanism, but what I just outlined was considered a likely consequence even back in 2000.

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

A shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation has been a postulated effect of global warming for the last ten years at least.  One  factor that influences the relatively mild winters of North West Europe has been the North Atlantic drift, which is driven by the thermohaline circulation. The consequence of the slowdown of the NAD is a shift to more continental weather patterns, which means more severe winters. This pattern has been emerging for the last ten years at least. It's not quite that tidy, because on one year at least, the West Greenland current joined up with the NAD resulting in even more extreme conditions. Another factor has been the warmer summers in the Arctic. There is evidence that the increased melting of sea ice caused by the warmer summers have given rise to harsher winters: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193430.htm Nobody is claiming a single mechanism, but what I just outlined was considered a likely consequence even back in 2000.

Muso, that sounds almost as vague as the ultimate hypothesis itself. Co2.