1 September 2012

-7 overnight

| johnboy
Join the conversation
47

So the Bureau tells us it really was extremely cold last night hitting a ballcracking -6.8 at the airport at 6:17am.

We’re hearing it’s the coldest spring day on record, ever.

Enjoy!

Join the conversation

47
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Conan of Cooma said :

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

Conan of Cooma said :

I’ve never heard anyone argue either side successfully, mostly because none of them have a clue what they are on about.

I’m generally interested to know where you think my ignorance lies. Aside from one comment which implied that CO2 is the only reason for the difference in temperature between the Earth and the moon, when there are clearly a host of atmospheric gases that contribute to the planet’s ability to retain heat, I can’t see how my contribution to this debate has been based on anything but the basic facts behind climate change. Obviously I have not written explicitly detailed comments, but I was only ever attempting to provide a simple overview of the general lines of evidence that link human activities with global warming and climate change.

Are you implying that because my contributions are based on my readings of the scientific literature, as opposed to my own scientific experiments and observations that my contributions can only be based on ‘hearsay’ and are therefore irrelevant? This would suggest that no-one can lay claim to any knowledge or understanding that didn’t originate solely from them. That’s a strange way to look at the concept of knowledge, as it suggests that hardly anybody knows anything and the only contributions to all debates that are valid are those based on discovered knowledge; acquired or learned knowledge is seen as equivalent to ignorance.

Or are you suggesting that I simply have a limited ability to understand what I’ve read in the scientific literature? As I said, I’m interested to know where my ignorance lies, as the whole climate change issue is one that I’ve really endeavoured to learn about and one to which I have devoted a lot of time to studying. I don’t claim to be an expert but did think I had a fairly good general knowledge and understanding of the topic. So, if you can explain what I’ve got wrong, I would greatly appreciate it.

Conan of Cooma3:12 pm 03 Sep 12

HenryBG said :

If that’s your analysis of what’s going on it means you aren’t paying attention.

These guys have a good collection of informative articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

It’s my analysis of the climate change debate, and it’s 100% accurate. If you look closely my previous post mentioned nothing in relation to the science of the debate, simply the debaters themselves.

I’ve never heard anyone argue either side successfully, mostly because none of them have a clue what they are on about.

dismissing people based on their interest in conspiracy is a terrible thought pattern to fall into. There are clearly multitudinous actual conspiracies, as LIBOR and Trap wire demonstrate, indeed the very concept of government secrecy is in and of itself a conspiracy. Does merely being interested in the extent of one’s own deception automatically disqualify any other discussion or insight?

I for one am firmly convinced of the scientific reality of climate change, and am simultaneously deeply skeptical of carbon trading schemes thought up by the same financial geniuses who brought us the gfc.

The whole green washing of government and industry has been so insincere and ineffective, is it any wonder so much of the public doubts their sincerity? I mean, since when did Margret thatcher care about anyone? And yet we are meant to believe she cares about the environment?

The whole idea of greenhouse gas trading reeks of further capitalisation and ownership of our collective natural resources, it may help climate change to some small extent, but it also heralds an age where corporations own and sell the very air we breath and the rain before it ever hits the ground.

If governments actually cared about stopping climate change they wouldn’t keep logging and fracking. I put it to you that carbon trading schemes do almost nothing to actually stop climate change, and instead serve almost exclusively as a means to make money off our collective demise.

Bom records guru1:14 pm 03 Sep 12

davo101 said :

Bom records guru said :

we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set

How did you tie the maximum temperature series together? The overlapping period suggests that the relationship is not stationary. I was wondering if there was a better way than just ignoring this and carrying on anyway.

Full details of this are at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/ (both as a summary document and a detailed technical report).

Conan of Cooma said :

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

If that’s your analysis of what’s going on it means you aren’t paying attention.

These guys have a good collection of informative articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Conan of Cooma12:16 pm 03 Sep 12

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

Bom records guru said :

we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set

How did you tie the maximum temperature series together? The overlapping period suggests that the relationship is not stationary. I was wondering if there was a better way than just ignoring this and carrying on anyway.

Felix the Cat said :

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

Uh, cancer researchers *know* how to cure cancer but they would lose money if they revealed the cure publicly, don’t you know?

The mentality of the “global warming is a hoax” crowd is really quite interesting.
Some of them are complete morons with a ridiculously over-estimated confidence in their own abilities (eg Alan Jones, John McLean, Mr Gillespie).
Some of them are clever but apparently caught tight in a web of ego-driven self-delusion. (Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Tony Abbott)
And some of them are simply a bunch of “me-to”-ers who’ve for some reason picked an ideological tribe to belong to and believe they have to hold certain views in order to remain good members of that tribe (Anthony Cox, Nick Minchin, Dungfungus).
The rest are the serial conspiracy-theorists who are completely unable to conduct a balanced analysis of anything. (Snapperjack, Joanne Codling and other “nutjobs on the internet”).

You may have noticed they’ve all shut up about “cooling since 1998”.
In fact, I think the whole climate change denial thing has lost a lot of steam with a good few people realising they were backing the wrong horse and withdrawing their ill-informed commenting from the “debate”.

Bom records guru10:30 am 03 Sep 12

davo101 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

By the way, the disappointing lack of good minuses seen over the last decade were due to the UHI effect from the growing concrete jungle around the old obs site set up in 1939 and dismantled in 2008 and replaced by the new one further south well away from the RAAF base.

The move to the new site was at the end of 2010. The minimum temperatures at the new site are an average of 0.5°C cooler than the old site (comparing the two year overlap) and doesn’t appear to change with temperature. So I don’t think we can blame the rash of minuses on the station move (ie: we’re not just sneaking a few slightly plus days into just under under zero days).

It makes a difference at the margins but not a huge one. In addition to the raw numbers, we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set, Saturday ranks second lowest behind a day in September 1982.

OpenYourMind10:08 am 03 Sep 12

I know these arguments have gone around in the same way as the cyclist/car thing, but every time I hear someone state that Australia is only a minor contributor to greenhouse gases, I get annoyed. I immediately liken such arguments to – I only pissed in the pool a bit or well it’s just one chip packet I threw on the ground, the guy down the street dumped a trailer load of rubbish. Never mind that Australia has the ability to help set a better stand for reducing pollution for the rest of the world.

Mr Gillespie said :

By the way, the disappointing lack of good minuses seen over the last decade were due to the UHI effect from the growing concrete jungle around the old obs site set up in 1939 and dismantled in 2008 and replaced by the new one further south well away from the RAAF base.

The move to the new site was at the end of 2010. The minimum temperatures at the new site are an average of 0.5°C cooler than the old site (comparing the two year overlap) and doesn’t appear to change with temperature. So I don’t think we can blame the rash of minuses on the station move (ie: we’re not just sneaking a few slightly plus days into just under under zero days).

Felix the Cat said :

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

I’m also sure the government would much prefer climate change wasn’t real. It is a policy nightmare that has contributed to the downfall of 3 Prime Ministers.

Felix the Cat4:27 pm 02 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

Or, do you not accept that data that shows the amount of infrared heat radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere at the wavelengths captured by CO2 has decreased?

Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Jethro, there is no point asking them questions they have no chance if understanding. You are talking to people that use the logic of IT WAS COLD LAST NIGHT SO THAT MEANS GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX JUST ASK HADLEY OR JONES.

You have very little chance of convincing the dumb to believe in science.

Jethro – perhaps the reply might run like this …
It’s nature, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe, and,? uh … No, that’s it. It’s the vibe

Jethro said :

It boggles my mind how vastly stupid some humans are.

“Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein

Jethro said :

Actually, re-reading your answers you did answer them, in your own round-about way.

You don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it occurs naturally.

You don’t accept the Earth is warming despite the huge amount of data that says it is, because you were cold last night.

And you don’t accept the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, basically you are a moron.

Moron and Mr.G in the same sentence,surely not after all there is approximately a 5% chance he might be right.

Actually, re-reading your answers you did answer them, in your own round-about way.

You don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it occurs naturally.

You don’t accept the Earth is warming despite the huge amount of data that says it is, because you were cold last night.

And you don’t accept the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, basically you are a moron.

Mr Gillespie said :

Truthiness said :

Australia does not contribute a great percentage of overall emissions, but we do emit more than any other country per capita, and unlike most countries we are in a position where we can reduce our emissions. If anyone ought to be taking the lead on this, its us.

It’s the “per capita” bit you use in your argument that fails to justify why we have to join the Carbon Tax bandwagon and go along with the global warming/climate change/greenhouse gas bullshit. If you want to argue the “per capita” case in support of why we “have to cut back climate changing emissions in order to save the world”, then we should instead be cutting back on the number of “capita” not degrading or lowering the standard of our lifestyle down towards the second or third-world standards because we have it “too good” in the first world, spending other people’s money doing so.

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

(1) What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

CO? is also the stuff that we humans, as well as other animals, produce when we exhale air. It is the stuff that plants breathe, in order to make the oxygen that we breathe.

Jethro said :

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

How about we increase the number of CO?-breathing trees instead of the number of people there are in the world?

….Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

That’s why we’re having more of these frosts, so that argument is rather weak I’m afraid…..

Jethro said :

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Some of the theories are either bullshit, difficult to prove, or misguided. So far I have seen NO effort to arrest the world’s ever-increasing population. No schemes to reduce fertility. Instead, all we keep hearing about is how we need to cut back on fossil fuel use, while the increasing population continues to go unchecked.

You did not in any way respond to my questions.

SnapperJack said :

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

As pointed out to you a few times before, the Climate Change denialists who are intelligent and able to look at the facts as they are, have mostly now accepted climate change is real, happening now, and is human caused. The most notable are Richard Muller, Bjorn Lomborg, Dmitri Medvedev, and many others. Why are you still advocating your discredited position?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

http://theweek.com/article/index/206686/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-their-minds

SnapperJack said :

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

Wow so there’s more than one Kate Jackson out there.Well i never!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:41 am 02 Sep 12

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

Or, do you not accept that data that shows the amount of infrared heat radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere at the wavelengths captured by CO2 has decreased?

Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Jethro, there is no point asking them questions they have no chance if understanding. You are talking to people that use the logic of IT WAS COLD LAST NIGHT SO THAT MEANS GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX JUST ASK HADLEY OR JONES.

You have very little chance of convincing the dumb to believe in science.

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

Mr Gillespie1:35 am 02 Sep 12

Truthiness said :

Australia does not contribute a great percentage of overall emissions, but we do emit more than any other country per capita, and unlike most countries we are in a position where we can reduce our emissions. If anyone ought to be taking the lead on this, its us.

It’s the “per capita” bit you use in your argument that fails to justify why we have to join the Carbon Tax bandwagon and go along with the global warming/climate change/greenhouse gas bullshit. If you want to argue the “per capita” case in support of why we “have to cut back climate changing emissions in order to save the world”, then we should instead be cutting back on the number of “capita” not degrading or lowering the standard of our lifestyle down towards the second or third-world standards because we have it “too good” in the first world, spending other people’s money doing so.

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

(1) What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

CO? is also the stuff that we humans, as well as other animals, produce when we exhale air. It is the stuff that plants breathe, in order to make the oxygen that we breathe.

Jethro said :

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

How about we increase the number of CO?-breathing trees instead of the number of people there are in the world?

….Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?
That’s why we’re having more of these frosts, so that argument is rather weak I’m afraid…..

Jethro said :

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Some of the theories are either bullshit, difficult to prove, or misguided. So far I have seen NO effort to arrest the world’s ever-increasing population. No schemes to reduce fertility. Instead, all we keep hearing about is how we need to cut back on fossil fuel use, while the increasing population continues to go unchecked.

I have a few question for the denialists.

What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

Or, do you not accept that data that shows the amount of infrared heat radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere at the wavelengths captured by CO2 has decreased?

Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

First we had Global Warming

And we still have it, because that’s what it is.

We tried changing the name so muppets like you could understand that it can still snow in some places while the planet gets warmer overall, but it didn’t work.

Not quite. The two terms are used interchangeably but do describe slightly different concepts.

Global warming describes the scientific fact that the average temperature of the globe is warming (the term anthropogenic global warming describes the scientific fact that the average temperature of the globe is primarily warming due to human activities).

The term climate change refers to the effects of global warming. Global warming has myriad effects on the climate, not all of them of the same strength or even direction. For example, global warming can paradoxically lead to abnormally cold winters in Europe, due to changes in air circulation systems.

Some other halfwit on here claimed that we have now changed the concept to ‘extreme weather events’. Again, this is a linked concept but not exactly the same. One of the effects of a changing climate is that weather events can become more extreme. The heatwaves in America this year were so off the scale in terms of how much they broke previous records by, and how many records were broken, that this was clearly an extreme weather event caused by climate change.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:17 pm 01 Sep 12

God damn, why didn’t some one with brains do a IN B4?

Also the moronic comments could have been avoided.

Australia does not contribute a great percentage of overall emissions, but we do emit more than any other country per capita, and unlike most countries we are in a position where we can reduce our emissions. If anyone ought to be taking the lead on this, its us.

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

Thanks for the links. As a non-scientist, it’s useful to have something like this available when someone makes the ‘oh it’s just a myth’ statement. I had somone say to me that ‘belief’ in climate change is just the same as how people used to ‘believe’ in the Colgate ring of confidence. He couldn’t see the difference between advertising and science. Very worrying, and hard to address without being rude.

It boggles my mind how vastly stupid some humans are.

Mr Gillespie6:35 pm 01 Sep 12

Not quite –7°C but still –6.8°C is pretty impressive! Technically the coolest September morning on record.

By the way, the disappointing lack of good minuses seen over the last decade were due to the UHI effect from the growing concrete jungle around the old obs site set up in 1939 and dismantled in 2008 and replaced by the new one further south well away from the RAAF base.

On the flipside of this impressive record, sadly, is a spell of abnormally high temperatures including 21°C next Wednesday. Not quite as bad as the record 23°C shocker in early August last year.

As for the global warming thing, using NASA and the CSIRO to support their case, think about this: what percentage does Australia contribute to the “carbon emissions” allegedly causing the “dangerous” climate change we are supposed to face?

Cold, schmold. I’ve just loaded 7 large pieces of seasoned red box to my fan forced fireplace, and it’s warm as toast in here.

the ozone layer still has holes in it, with Antarctica taking the brunt of the increased radiation. The rate of ozone decay slowed after a concerted global effort to reduce flurocarbon emissions.

If the scope and science of climate research is beyond your interest or capacity, perhaps you might reconsider voicing an opinion on it. In the mean time I would direct you to the overwhelming body of evidence indicating anthropomorphic forcing has altered the preexisting cycles.

Humans chopped down all the trees, humans made grassland into desert and wetlands into carparks, strangely enough, that all adds up to changing climate.

Woody Mann-Caruso5:35 pm 01 Sep 12

First we had Global Warming

And we still have it, because that’s what it is.

We tried changing the name so muppets like you could understand that it can still snow in some places while the planet gets warmer overall, but it didn’t work. It’s our own fault, really. I mean, we knew you were stupid, but we should’ve known how stupid. So, you know, sorry.

That you’re so stupid.

So very, very sorry.

dungfungus said :

First we had Global Warming
Then it became Climate Change
Then it became Climate Variabilty
Now it is Extreme Weather Events
Please note that no one will accept your concept of Global Weirding. That’s what you may wish to call it but those of us who have been around a while know that is crap and what happens with the weather from day to day is a normal “event”.

Random louts with no qualifications and an irrational, emotionally driven need to pathologically deny accepted scientific evidence, you mean?

Seriously, your whole post can be summarised as “Pffft, what do scientists know?”.
Which would be funny if it weren’t just pathetic.

People are confusing weather and climate.

How_Canberran5:11 pm 01 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

Spot-on SnapperJack! ‘Global warming’ was too restrictive. There was a heap more money to be made out of ‘each way’ climate change…..you could even get a tax out of it!

By the way, can anyone tell me whatever happened to the good old ozone layer?

dungfungus said :

Truthiness said :

An average higher global temperature does not translate into constantly higher regional temperatures. A planet wide temperature increase actually results in the increased frequency and extremity of extreme weather events, both hot and cold. There are some who have taken to calling it “global weirding” because that is how it is experienced on the ground, the weather is getting weirder locally as a result of warming at a global level.

First we had Global Warming
Then it became Climate Change
Then it became Climate Variabilty
Now it is Extreme Weather Events
Please note that no one will accept your concept of Global Weirding. That’s what you may wish to call it but those of us who have been around a while know that is crap and what happens with the weather from day to day is a normal “event”.

So….huh? Can I polarize your online personality by asking if you are a believer or a denier?

Tony said :

Ah Ha, the carbon tax is working!
Suck it to all you enviro haters

I think you have got the science wrong on this one. Low temperatures like this are not caused by the carbon tax.

Studies have shown that they are caused by banning plastic bags.

Truthiness said :

An average higher global temperature does not translate into constantly higher regional temperatures. A planet wide temperature increase actually results in the increased frequency and extremity of extreme weather events, both hot and cold. There are some who have taken to calling it “global weirding” because that is how it is experienced on the ground, the weather is getting weirder locally as a result of warming at a global level.

First we had Global Warming
Then it became Climate Change
Then it became Climate Variabilty
Now it is Extreme Weather Events
Please note that no one will accept your concept of Global Weirding. That’s what you may wish to call it but those of us who have been around a while know that is crap and what happens with the weather from day to day is a normal “event”.

An average higher global temperature does not translate into constantly higher regional temperatures. A planet wide temperature increase actually results in the increased frequency and extremity of extreme weather events, both hot and cold. There are some who have taken to calling it “global weirding” because that is how it is experienced on the ground, the weather is getting weirder locally as a result of warming at a global level.

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

A membership requirement to join those who don’t.

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

Because it’s essential to you denialists that you eliminate anyone more intelligent than yourselves

Think about what you wrote you may see just where you went wrong

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

Tony said :

Ah Ha, the carbon tax is working!
Suck it to all you enviro haters

Ah the frost has brought out the troll.

Ah Ha, the carbon tax is working!
Suck it to all you enviro haters

Hells yeah! Man I love winter!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.