Canberra set for Hotter Summers with more Severe Fire Weather days

dungfungus said :

Hey everybody, I found a photo comparing past an present sea levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/
I think the warmists will find this a bit hard to gargle and swallow.

Closer to home, you can do a similar thing with the present day and 1943 imagery for Sydney from https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

I see the same rocks I remember jumping off at the beach in the sixties are still there, above water, as they were in 1943. Over 200mm (8 inches oldspeak) of sea level rise would be apparent by now…

dungfungus said :

Hey everybody, I found a photo comparing past an present sea levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/
I think the warmists will find this a bit hard to gargle and swallow.

OK, so you get your info from an ex-TV-weatherman who runs a blog.

Other may prefer to rely on CSIRO:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_about_intro.html

Or the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

A photograph IS a visual representation of sensor data. That’s how a camera works. They have plenty of visual representations of the sensor data coming off the satellite platform.

Oh, and 1992 was somewhat longer than 13 years ago, you may want to multiply those numbers again.

I note you state the data comes from JPL.
Doesn’t that stand for “Jet Propulsion Laboratory” in which case what are they doing gathering information about sea levels? Shouldn’t they be researching better ways to reduce greenhouse gases from jumbo jets?
Your definition of a camera is the greatest load of nonsense I have ever read but it is nevertheless typical of the spin that is generated to defend the claims of the climate change crusaders.
I am aware that you said “since 1992” – I deliberately use 13 years as the number 13 is accepted as being superstitious which is the way I view your claims and outcomes, still unsupported by something as simple as a photo to prove something that isn’t happening.

They’re not my claims and outcomes, they are NASA’s. The sea levels are clearly rising. What impact that will have on the world in general, I don’t know; and I don’t claim to know.

I pointed you to a vast number of datasets, visual and otherwise, that conclusively show that the global average sea level has risen by an average of 3mm per year. It seems, however, that you discount the pre-eminent orbital research platforms in which governments and research organisations have invested billions of dollars, and would prefer evidence to be gathered using a $33 consumer device. I think at this point, the ‘spin’ is certainly only going one way.

3mm not sound like much. I haven’t done the calculation, but I guesstimate that a 3mm rise in ocean levels would equate in the teralitres of volume… every year.

Hey everybody, I found a photo comparing past an present sea levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/
I think the warmists will find this a bit hard to gargle and swallow.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

Now you really are being ridiculous. How do you propose a mobile phone camera would do that?

There certainly is plenty of photographic evidence of the results of rising sea level available, the only difficulty would be getting you to look at it.

The Greenland Icecap is steadily melting and will eventually collapse, that’s when you might just get the Hollywood style visuals you demand but will still ignore. You’ll just find some other reason that it “isn’t real”.

Similarly when the western Antartica icesheets become dislodged from their current land bound positions and enter the Southern Ocean is when the sea levels will take a real jump.

There is no lack of science and data as to what is happening, just the lack of either comprehension or willingness to examine that data from people such as yourself.

The climate IS changing due to human activity. The denialism is not.

If the Gulf Stream and the Monsoon are substantially, altered that will have an enormous impact on virtually all of humanity.

We know that all you think of is money, so what do you think the collapse of world agriculture, destruction of many low lying cities (most of the world’s major cities are by the sea) and most of the fertile land will cost?

“There certainly is plenty of photographic evidence of the results of rising sea level available, the only difficulty would be getting you to look at it.”
Where?
You mentioned Hollywood scenarios and then you create a few more. I am trying to deal with reality and this is the essential difference between my stance and your argument (which is getting tinges with fanatical-ism).

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

A photograph IS a visual representation of sensor data. That’s how a camera works. They have plenty of visual representations of the sensor data coming off the satellite platform.

Oh, and 1992 was somewhat longer than 13 years ago, you may want to multiply those numbers again.

I note you state the data comes from JPL.
Doesn’t that stand for “Jet Propulsion Laboratory” in which case what are they doing gathering information about sea levels? Shouldn’t they be researching better ways to reduce greenhouse gases from jumbo jets?
Your definition of a camera is the greatest load of nonsense I have ever read but it is nevertheless typical of the spin that is generated to defend the claims of the climate change crusaders.
I am aware that you said “since 1992” – I deliberately use 13 years as the number 13 is accepted as being superstitious which is the way I view your claims and outcomes, still unsupported by something as simple as a photo to prove something that isn’t happening.

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

A photograph IS a visual representation of sensor data. That’s how a camera works. They have plenty of visual representations of the sensor data coming off the satellite platform.

Oh, and 1992 was somewhat longer than 13 years ago, you may want to multiply those numbers again.

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

I notice the NOAA are being investigated a little. ‘Dodgy figures ” some say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

The Chinese aren’t worried about this apparent sea level rise, their islands in the disputed region are growing in height every year.
History also tells us about coastline cities built well before this century’s cataclysm. Heraclion, Phanagoria, Cleopatra’s palace, Olous, Mulifanua and more. It is assumed that earthquakes have let them slide into the ocean. Could not the same be true for any area on that meets the water today? Why must it be climate change and not geology that is causing these places to rise and fall with time, as it has done since creation?
In Japan, in relation to a large ruin of pyramid structures the following is said – “The last time that these areas were not covered by the ocean was between approximately 8 to 12 thousand years ago, during the last ice age when much of the sea was caught up in the ice caps.”
There you go, not climate change but the ending of the ice-age, as stated by, wait for it….scientists!!
But to sensationalize an issue that we so desperately must have, for whatever economic, political or other reason, our present day scientists just keep harping on about greenhouse gasses as if our lives depend on it. I have the feeling that people across the globe are starting to see through the lies, or are just getting sick and tired of hearing about it and just don’t care any more.
But despite the evidence to the contrary, feel free to keep on bashing coal, petrol and all the other evils in the world like some obscure religion.

dungfungus said :

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

Now you really are being ridiculous. How do you propose a mobile phone camera would do that?

There certainly is plenty of photographic evidence of the results of rising sea level available, the only difficulty would be getting you to look at it.

The Greenland Icecap is steadily melting and will eventually collapse, that’s when you might just get the Hollywood style visuals you demand but will still ignore. You’ll just find some other reason that it “isn’t real”.

Similarly when the western Antartica icesheets become dislodged from their current land bound positions and enter the Southern Ocean is when the sea levels will take a real jump.

There is no lack of science and data as to what is happening, just the lack of either comprehension or willingness to examine that data from people such as yourself.

The climate IS changing due to human activity. The denialism is not.

If the Gulf Stream and the Monsoon are substantially, altered that will have an enormous impact on virtually all of humanity.

We know that all you think of is money, so what do you think the collapse of world agriculture, destruction of many low lying cities (most of the world’s major cities are by the sea) and most of the fertile land will cost?

Dreadnaught1905 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

Wow! 3mm a year for the last 13 years! Thats a whole 39mm! We are doomed!
I grow zuchinnis bigger than that in my backyard!
I am not interested in sensor data – I want visual evidence. Where are the photos? Everyone has a phone camera (look at the crap that gets on Facebook) so how is it that no one has been able to capture this 39mm sea rise on camera?

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

[
Here are a couple of “abstracts” for you to digest.
So what are the “scientists” doing about population control?
If the “scientists” are so concerned about the impact of “climate change” why aren’t they demanding air travel (which contributes 3% of greenhouse gases alone) be banned?

So ‘the scientists’ should get together at their next meeting and ban air travel and reduce population?

C’mon Dungers, you can do better than that.

I consistently do better than that but you started the abstract thing, not me.

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

So what are the “scientists” doing about population control?

Researching and developing birth control methods, providing data to governments, mapping population growth. Exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

dungfungus said :

If the “scientists” are so concerned about the impact of “climate change” why aren’t they demanding air travel (which contributes 3% of greenhouse gases alone) be banned?

Some are, some are developing less polluting methods of travel, some are just presenting the data. Once again, exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

It is up to governments to act on the advice.

Most western countries are controlling their populations so which governments are not?
Are the scientists presenting the results of their research to Muslim counties for example or do they only deal with countries that fund their research.
By the way, I don’t think condoms were developed by scientists.
And for you to suggest that climate scientists only deliver the data is totally misleading. Everyone knows that their speculative “doom” messages are included in every piece of climate date they generate. That is not data.

dungfungus said :

[
Here are a couple of “abstracts” for you to digest.
So what are the “scientists” doing about population control?
If the “scientists” are so concerned about the impact of “climate change” why aren’t they demanding air travel (which contributes 3% of greenhouse gases alone) be banned?

So ‘the scientists’ should get together at their next meeting and ban air travel and reduce population?

C’mon Dungers, you can do better than that.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

The JPL at NASA has a vast amount of sensor data showing sea level rise, with a reported average of 3mm per year since 1992. The data they collect come from a range of sensors including radar altimeters, Orbitography systems, Radiometers and a Light Particle Telescope.

As for peer review, NASA collect the information which is then analysed and reviewed by the NOAA. The information is then reviewed by a range of universities. For example, the university of Colorado has had a long running programme examining this data. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

If that peer review isn’t enough, however, they make 100% of the sensor data publicly available. Have a look here:

http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/JASON-1_SGDR_NETCDF

You can download their data in netcdf, binary or ASCII formats. That will let you build visual representations from sensor data to your hearts content…

dungfungus said :

So what are the “scientists” doing about population control?

Researching and developing birth control methods, providing data to governments, mapping population growth. Exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

dungfungus said :

If the “scientists” are so concerned about the impact of “climate change” why aren’t they demanding air travel (which contributes 3% of greenhouse gases alone) be banned?

Some are, some are developing less polluting methods of travel, some are just presenting the data. Once again, exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

It is up to governments to act on the advice.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

All the ocean atolls, Venice, London, Netherlands, Bangladesh, New York, Byron Bay, etc etc

In fact anywhere that there is sea.

We’ll have to start calling you denyfungus.

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

Yes, it is a joke that no such evidence exists isn’t’ it?

justin heywood said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Maybe we need a major catastrophe so the planet can balance itself out again.

Yes, a major catastrophe, reducing the planet’s population by about two thirds, is exactly what we need. Easy to say that as an abstract idea; devastating reality though.

But maybe we can avoid the catastrophe, or reduce the impact.
We certainly won’t do it without trusting the science.

Here are a couple of “abstracts” for you to digest.
So what are the “scientists” doing about population control?
If the “scientists” are so concerned about the impact of “climate change” why aren’t they demanding air travel (which contributes 3% of greenhouse gases alone) be banned?

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

I think historians and geographers have written more generally about ice ages etc. than scientists have.

Not too many historians were around during the last ice age, I suspect they are relying on *science* to tell them what happened in our climate history.

My point is that we’re all quite happy to accept what the scientists tell us about earth’s climate history, as well as the fact that smoking might kill you; we’re even happy to trust them when they tell us how our computer works, even though we can’t see, let alone understand, the science behind it.

But on the issue of global warming, deniers are suddenly experts and scientists are either idiots or shills.

I really hope they (the scientists) are all wrong. But I’m not fool enough to think that they are, just because I want them to be.

For whatever message your statement about no historians being around at the time of the last ice age was meant to convey, there wouldn’t have been any scientists around either.
The science behind climate is academic as whatever happens will and man’s interference with it won’t make any difference just as what happened during the last ice age when man really wasn’t around.
I think you have conceded that historical climate shifts have happened without the permission of scientists but let’s not forget the threat of “global warming”.which may or may not be happening depending on all the information that is now available to everyone (not just scientists).
For you to say “deniers are suddenly experts and scientists are either idiots or shills” is puerile to say the least. I think you can do a lot better than that.

justin heywood said :

My point is that we’re all quite happy to accept what the scientists tell us about earth’s climate history, as well as the fact that smoking might kill you; we’re even happy to trust them when they tell us how our computer works, even though we can’t see, let alone understand, the science behind it.

But on the issue of global warming, deniers are suddenly experts and scientists are either idiots or shills.

I really hope they (the scientists) are all wrong. But I’m not fool enough to think that they are, just because I want them to be.

The climate change deniers have taken their strategy directly from the playbook of that other science denier group…the anti-vaccination crowd.

They both realise that the first battle to win is to keep alive the myth that there is actually some sort of ‘debate’ on the issue.

By continually using ‘debate’, it implies that there are two sides to the argument, both of roughly equal validity.

In regard to climate change and anti-vaccination there is no ‘debate’. In both of these situations it comes down to this:

On one side there is easily verifiable science which is peer-reviewed and tested. This is accepted by around 98% of the experts in the field and confirmed by their own independent studies. There are mountains of easily accessible data that can be viewed by anyone.

On the other side there are a couple of people with access to a blog who use dubious anecdotes and out of context quotes as evidence.

That is not a ‘debate’.

justin heywood said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Maybe we need a major catastrophe so the planet can balance itself out again.

Yes, a major catastrophe, reducing the planet’s population by about two thirds, is exactly what we need. Easy to say that as an abstract idea; devastating reality though.

But maybe we can avoid the catastrophe, or reduce the impact.
We certainly won’t do it without trusting the science.

Sadly we will go down fighting.

All the other species and the environment will just be massive collateral damage.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Maybe we need a major catastrophe so the planet can balance itself out again.

Yes, a major catastrophe, reducing the planet’s population by about two thirds, is exactly what we need. Easy to say that as an abstract idea; devastating reality though.

But maybe we can avoid the catastrophe, or reduce the impact.
We certainly won’t do it without trusting the science.

dungfungus said :

I think historians and geographers have written more generally about ice ages etc. than scientists have.

Not too many historians were around during the last ice age, I suspect they are relying on *science* to tell them what happened in our climate history.

My point is that we’re all quite happy to accept what the scientists tell us about earth’s climate history, as well as the fact that smoking might kill you; we’re even happy to trust them when they tell us how our computer works, even though we can’t see, let alone understand, the science behind it.

But on the issue of global warming, deniers are suddenly experts and scientists are either idiots or shills.

I really hope they (the scientists) are all wrong. But I’m not fool enough to think that they are, just because I want them to be.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

All the ocean atolls, Venice, London, Netherlands, Bangladesh, New York, Byron Bay, etc etc

In fact anywhere that there is sea.

We’ll have to start calling you denyfungus.

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

After you. 😀

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep. And how we know about ‘naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon’ such as ice ages and interglacials? From SCIENTISTS.

The exact same group of people who say that what is happening now is not ‘naturally occurring’

And yes, we could ‘live with it’, but the world is bursting at the seams, population-wise. It will only take small changes in our climate to create a major catastrophe for many people.

I think historians and geographers have written more generally about ice ages etc. than scientists have. At least the former group don’t relate it to wild predictions.
You seem to think scientists are the keepers of all knowledge.
Do you by any chance heat your house with greenhouse gas emitting Bunsen burners?

It was Jens Esmark, a geologist (that sounds a lot like a scientist) who first postulated worldwide Ice Ages and proceeded to gather the evidence to substantiate his theory. He actually went and looked at the data, unlike all those who “Don’ like it!”.

The “historians and geographers” such as yourself (with your magical secret book) are of course writing from First Hand knowledge of the ice ages? None of that dubious carefully gathered and cross checked scientific research!

You are very much of the school of those who ascribe everything they see to Biblical (magic book) events, because belief trumps actual research.

justin heywood said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep. And how we know about ‘naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon’ such as ice ages and interglacials? From SCIENTISTS.

The exact same group of people who say that what is happening now is not ‘naturally occurring’

And yes, we could ‘live with it’, but the world is bursting at the seams, population-wise. It will only take small changes in our climate to create a major catastrophe for many people.

I think historians and geographers have written more generally about ice ages etc. than scientists have. At least the former group don’t relate it to wild predictions.
You seem to think scientists are the keepers of all knowledge.
Do you by any chance heat your house with greenhouse gas emitting Bunsen burners?

justin heywood said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep. And how we know about ‘naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon’ such as ice ages and interglacials? From SCIENTISTS.

The exact same group of people who say that what is happening now is not ‘naturally occurring’

And yes, we could ‘live with it’, but the world is bursting at the seams, population-wise. It will only take small changes in our climate to create a major catastrophe for many people.

Maybe we need a major catastrophe so the planet can balance itself out again.

justin heywood said :

And yes, we could ‘live with it’, but the world is bursting at the seams, population-wise. It will only take small changes in our climate to create a major catastrophe for many people.

This is the “safety in numbers” approach to living with it. Which is actually pretty successful on the real world.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

All the ocean atolls, Venice, London, Netherlands, Bangladesh, New York, Byron Bay, etc etc

In fact anywhere that there is sea.

We’ll have to start calling you denyfungus.

Call me what you like but also send me some photos (peer reviewed) of evidence sea levels are rising now, due to man made climate change.

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Probably the wisest words ever said on this blog.

So basically what you are saying is that 98% of the worlds leading scientists in the field are wrong, and wildturkeycanoe is right?

Wow, I’d like to see his pool-room. He must have multiple doctorates and a few Nobel prizes on the wall there!

The variations in climate that have been recorded by scientists in recent times are correct but they have happened before. Remember a phenomena called the ice age? Are you denying that ever happened?
The issue I have is that scientists would have us believe they have discovered something new and use all their public funded computer sophistry to maintain a very prosperous scare industry and they also use fee seeking celebrities to spread the word. Just look at the huge industry that has been created to “fight” climate change.
Their research (which is what they are qualified for) is credible but the conclusions they draw and the ridiculous predictions they make are not.
PS I don’t have a pool room. Only climate scientists can afford those.

http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/31/29/695526186-full-35430-52182-tumblr_mt6nbuts0l1sgedlyo1_400.gif

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep. And how we know about ‘naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon’ such as ice ages and interglacials? From SCIENTISTS.

The exact same group of people who say that what is happening now is not ‘naturally occurring’

And yes, we could ‘live with it’, but the world is bursting at the seams, population-wise. It will only take small changes in our climate to create a major catastrophe for many people.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Probably the wisest words ever said on this blog.

So basically what you are saying is that 98% of the worlds leading scientists in the field are wrong, and wildturkeycanoe is right?

Wow, I’d like to see his pool-room. He must have multiple doctorates and a few Nobel prizes on the wall there!

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

In the sea.

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

All the ocean atolls, Venice, London, Netherlands, Bangladesh, New York, Byron Bay, etc etc

In fact anywhere that there is sea.

We’ll have to start calling you denyfungus.

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

I assume the Alan Jones you are referring to is a Sydney radio journalist. I never listen to him but obviously you do, regularly.
If you are talking about trends then please explain the following about Canberra’s maximum temperatures in recent consecutive days:
Thursday 37.0C
Friday 30.5C
Saturday 24.2C
I am not a scientist but I think that is a downward trend.My wife agrees with me so that is as good a peer review as one can get.

Either you are intentionally misinterpeting my comment to suit your world view, or you are not capable of understanding a simple argument. Neither conclusion strengthens your credibility on this issue.

I have no idea what Alan Jones said – I was just saying I don’t listen to him. You do (or have) so please tell us all what it was that comprised “he said so”.
As so “simple arguments”, I quoted some records from the BOM website about a temperature decline trend over 3 consecutive days – how much more simpler do you want it to be?
Credibility is a very subjective thing so let’s test yours by you explaining why your trends are more meaningful than yours (or the ones you have borrowed from the “infallible” climate science lobby).

The Alan Jones part was a joke. Ignore it 🙂

It sounds like you’re suggesting climate change is a hoax unless the temperature increases every three days. That’s absurd.

Leaving that aside, the thing about temperatures is there they change semi-randomly from day to day (and, of course, less randomly with the changing seasons). 3 days is not a sufficiently large sample to draw any meaningful conclusions. When you look at the bigger picture, like annual averages, the small variables that cause weather (note: this is NOT the same as climate) to fluctuate on a day-to-day basis are less prominent. Unusually warm days cancel out unusually cold days, and vice versa. As a result, long-term observations provide a far more meaningful picture of climate than the next three days.

Typical.
Smear the guy (Alan Jones) and then say “ignore it, it was all a joke”.

If three days isn’t worthy of revealing a trend, how about a time span of 50 years?
Canberra’s hottest day was 50 years ago and since that the temperature recorded that day hasn’t been eclipsed so using your logic we have to accept that there is a downward trend, right?

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

” rising sea levels”?
Where?.

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

And it will create blackouts (as is happening in South Australia) which will lead to power shedding.
This how Green policies threaten civilisation.

Yep. All eyes on SA. This is the first state where the install base of renewables has lead (in part) to the closure of coal base load. Unfortunately the generation profile of wind (night time) is very different to the demand profile, couple that to no storage and you get rolling blackouts and the highest prices in the country.

I have never had so many blackouts as when I moved to Canberra. In the end we just gave up on resetting our clocks. None of which seem to get the attention of the Denialist Blame Seekers here.

The SA blackouts had nothing to do with the renewables, which kept up local power supply, but the very coal fired powered industry that jumped at the chance to blame the renewables for the problem of their own creation.

The cross border power transfer (from Victoria’s dirty brown coal generators) is something the Coal Fired Industry created and has been in place for many decades and THAT was what failed. If SA had not had its own renewables the blackout would have been total. In fact if it had relied more on its own renewable generation the problem would not have happened. So far from being a problem, MORE renewables will ultimately free SA from the problems of the non-renewables.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/renewable-energy-witch-hunt-continues-after-south-australia-outage-43717

The ultimate goal of the renewable movement is self reliance. No hauling and losing large amounts of energy from distant dirty sources.

Typically this is the Anti-Environmentalists blaming good ploicy for their own failures. But what’s new?

Where is the outrage at the fires in the brown coal seams in Victoria which are not just a massive environmental disaster but is affecting the health of huge numbers of people who have to live with it?

Sadly we are back into the fray with the science deniers.

We have entered the Homocene, the sixth greatest, and one of the fastest extinction epochs in the world’s history.

The nonsense of the deniers is already being shown for what it is, but the appallingly stupid obstruction they are creating makes dealing with an existential threat enormously difficult and costly. We will sort it out but the result will not be a happy one.

Most of the damage is done and there is plenty more in the pipeline.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Probably the wisest words ever said on this blog.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

Yep, it’s like taking a drink of water from the pacific each day to prevent rising sea levels.

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

And it will create blackouts (as is happening in South Australia) which will lead to power shedding.
This how Green policies threaten civilisation.

Yep. All eyes on SA. This is the first state where the install base of renewables has lead (in part) to the closure of coal base load. Unfortunately the generation profile of wind (night time) is very different to the demand profile, couple that to no storage and you get rolling blackouts and the highest prices in the country.

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

These measures will have as much impact on our globe as any pitiful efforts man would try to prevent the earth cooling during the next ice age. It is a naturally occurring, repeating phenomenon folks. Get over it and live with it.

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

I assume the Alan Jones you are referring to is a Sydney radio journalist. I never listen to him but obviously you do, regularly.
If you are talking about trends then please explain the following about Canberra’s maximum temperatures in recent consecutive days:
Thursday 37.0C
Friday 30.5C
Saturday 24.2C
I am not a scientist but I think that is a downward trend.My wife agrees with me so that is as good a peer review as one can get.

Either you are intentionally misinterpeting my comment to suit your world view, or you are not capable of understanding a simple argument. Neither conclusion strengthens your credibility on this issue.

I have no idea what Alan Jones said – I was just saying I don’t listen to him. You do (or have) so please tell us all what it was that comprised “he said so”.
As so “simple arguments”, I quoted some records from the BOM website about a temperature decline trend over 3 consecutive days – how much more simpler do you want it to be?
Credibility is a very subjective thing so let’s test yours by you explaining why your trends are more meaningful than yours (or the ones you have borrowed from the “infallible” climate science lobby).

The Alan Jones part was a joke. Ignore it 🙂

It sounds like you’re suggesting climate change is a hoax unless the temperature increases every three days. That’s absurd.

Leaving that aside, the thing about temperatures is there they change semi-randomly from day to day (and, of course, less randomly with the changing seasons). 3 days is not a sufficiently large sample to draw any meaningful conclusions. When you look at the bigger picture, like annual averages, the small variables that cause weather (note: this is NOT the same as climate) to fluctuate on a day-to-day basis are less prominent. Unusually warm days cancel out unusually cold days, and vice versa. As a result, long-term observations provide a far more meaningful picture of climate than the next three days.

gooterz said :

Unlimited clean power.

Apart from those incredibly irradiated, neutron embrittled reactor chambers… I suppose we can always bury them somewhere in the outback.

Fusion is the Great White Hope for mankind. But don’t kid yourself it is totally clean.

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

And it will create blackouts (as is happening in South Australia) which will lead to power shedding.
This how Green policies threaten civilisation.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

Whether future summers are similar to, or more severe than, the present and the past, it’s reassuring to know that we will have ‘climate-wise’ buildings to cope with torrid conditions –

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2016/consultation-on-strategy-to-help-canberrans-adapt-to-climate-change

Presumably these buildings will have even higher energy efficiency ratings than so many of the recently constructed apartment buildings which, in spite of dazzlingly impressive EERs, still seem to require one or more split system air-conditioning units to make them tolerable.

But still no mandatory double glazing?

Not all double glazing is the same. Some is no better than single glazed, wooden frames. I agree double glazing should be mandatory, but it needs to be of a reasonable standard, not the cheapest builders can get away with, which can be, as is likely now, no better than wooden framed single glazing.

Good point, however there is an expectation that certain standards would be specified.
Then again, this government trusts its builders to regulate themselves doesn’t it so you are totally correct.

gooterz said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Unless of course fusion takes off.

Few weeks ago china set a record for hydrogen gas plasma sustained for 102 seconds. Temperate was 50 million degrees. (3 times hotter than the hottest parts of our own sun).
The previous record was about 2 seconds.

Nuclear power fission reactors have been around since 1948. Fission being demonstrated in 1919 30 years beforehand.
We currently have working Fusion reactors. NIF and others. However we just haven’t got it just right yet for power generation.

Unlimited clean power. Oceans are full of fuel. You could power Canberra for a year on a single glass of water.

Is that the same China who is closing down coal fired power stations in Beijing to improve visbilty? (and rebuilding more coal fired power stations in remote places to replace them).

gooterz said :

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Unless of course fusion takes off.

Few weeks ago china set a record for hydrogen gas plasma sustained for 102 seconds. Temperate was 50 million degrees. (3 times hotter than the hottest parts of our own sun).
The previous record was about 2 seconds.

Nuclear power fission reactors have been around since 1948. Fission being demonstrated in 1919 30 years beforehand.
We currently have working Fusion reactors. NIF and others. However we just haven’t got it just right yet for power generation.

Unlimited clean power. Oceans are full of fuel. You could power Canberra for a year on a single glass of water.

Well, i do agree that the long term solution will be some technology that we haven’t got quite right yet but the reality is that there is a 10 year lag to build technologies that are ready now, so it’s going to be gas i’m afraid

Southmouth said :

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Unless of course fusion takes off.

Few weeks ago china set a record for hydrogen gas plasma sustained for 102 seconds. Temperate was 50 million degrees. (3 times hotter than the hottest parts of our own sun).
The previous record was about 2 seconds.

Nuclear power fission reactors have been around since 1948. Fission being demonstrated in 1919 30 years beforehand.
We currently have working Fusion reactors. NIF and others. However we just haven’t got it just right yet for power generation.

Unlimited clean power. Oceans are full of fuel. You could power Canberra for a year on a single glass of water.

Whether it is justified or not, the demonisation of coal has been sufficient to encourage pretty much everyone who owns a coal power station to start planning for them to be decommissioned. This will result in a decade of gas base load and the associated price increases, while batteries and solar reach critical mass. The sad thing is that none of this will make any difference to the rate of warming, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

Whether future summers are similar to, or more severe than, the present and the past, it’s reassuring to know that we will have ‘climate-wise’ buildings to cope with torrid conditions –

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2016/consultation-on-strategy-to-help-canberrans-adapt-to-climate-change

Presumably these buildings will have even higher energy efficiency ratings than so many of the recently constructed apartment buildings which, in spite of dazzlingly impressive EERs, still seem to require one or more split system air-conditioning units to make them tolerable.

But still no mandatory double glazing?

Not all double glazing is the same. Some is no better than single glazed, wooden frames. I agree double glazing should be mandatory, but it needs to be of a reasonable standard, not the cheapest builders can get away with, which can be, as is likely now, no better than wooden framed single glazing.

Good point, however there is an expectation that certain standards would be specified.
Then again, this government trusts its builders to regulate themselves doesn’t it so you are totally correct.

MERC600 said :

rubaiyat said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

Not true. Not one bit true.

We got one lot of cold days due to a cold stream that came up from the Antarctic that wasn’t even the coldest days on record, then went onto a shocker of a ski season that finished weeks early despite the best efforts of the immensely expensive snow making equipment which still needs cold nights to operate, but didn’t get them.

You and many others may be steadfastly refusing to believe any of the research and science but the Ski-Fields operators are not that delusional, they sold out to the only buyer they could find, a US corporation that uses the Australian ski-field tickets to draw over Aussies to ski on their better snow.

We were thinking about taking them up on their offer but checked to find out they too are having dud seasons, you can fly all the way to Utah or Colorado and be left dry.

An American friend of mine said this winter was practically a no-show. He only got his snow shovel out once and he is usually well and truly buried under the snow where he is in the Midwest.

Your “Not true. Not one bit true”. I know I should have given a source. ere it is
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-life/canberras-coldest-winter-in-15-years-and-wettest-in-10-years-finally-ending-20150828-gj9zym.html

I suspect you didn’t manage to read that article. The headline is a bit misleading, so it’s understandable you got confused about minimum temperatures and missed this bit:

‘Maximum day-time temperatures during winter were actually warmer than average of 12.3 degrees by 0.7 degrees.

“Because the overnight temperatures have been 0.8 degrees below average and the day-time temperatures have been 0.7 degrees above, [the overall temperature] comes out at very close to average but it is still coldest winter in 15 years at Canberra airport,” Mr Duke said.’

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

Whether future summers are similar to, or more severe than, the present and the past, it’s reassuring to know that we will have ‘climate-wise’ buildings to cope with torrid conditions –

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2016/consultation-on-strategy-to-help-canberrans-adapt-to-climate-change

Presumably these buildings will have even higher energy efficiency ratings than so many of the recently constructed apartment buildings which, in spite of dazzlingly impressive EERs, still seem to require one or more split system air-conditioning units to make them tolerable.

But still no mandatory double glazing?

Not all double glazing is the same. Some is no better than single glazed, wooden frames. I agree double glazing should be mandatory, but it needs to be of a reasonable standard, not the cheapest builders can get away with, which can be, as is likely now, no better than wooden framed single glazing.

Charlotte Harper said :

There was a big backlog of comments to moderate when I signed on Monday morning but we caught up eventually. Sorry again for the delay.

Understood and I will try to be more patient.
But it is hard to understand why some comments go through and others don’t.

rubaiyat said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

Not true. Not one bit true.

We got one lot of cold days due to a cold stream that came up from the Antarctic that wasn’t even the coldest days on record, then went onto a shocker of a ski season that finished weeks early despite the best efforts of the immensely expensive snow making equipment which still needs cold nights to operate, but didn’t get them.

You and many others may be steadfastly refusing to believe any of the research and science but the Ski-Fields operators are not that delusional, they sold out to the only buyer they could find, a US corporation that uses the Australian ski-field tickets to draw over Aussies to ski on their better snow.

We were thinking about taking them up on their offer but checked to find out they too are having dud seasons, you can fly all the way to Utah or Colorado and be left dry.

An American friend of mine said this winter was practically a no-show. He only got his snow shovel out once and he is usually well and truly buried under the snow where he is in the Midwest.

Your “Not true. Not one bit true”. I know I should have given a source. ere it is
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-life/canberras-coldest-winter-in-15-years-and-wettest-in-10-years-finally-ending-20150828-gj9zym.html

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Which facts did we refuse to allow on this thread?

Read comment #12 (which was held for 3 days).

Pretty sure mine was held too. However there is no indicator as to when they are released.

bobzed57 said :

I think the UN manufactured calamity du jour – climate change – has run its course and should be consigned to the dust bin along. Time for a new calamity. As an aside, UN Agenda 21 is getting a bit of thrashing in Canberra as evidence by the plan to have 9,000,000 people living on Northbourne Ave. It’s desperate times for the UN struggling for relevance and hoping to be the world government. Donning tin foil hat right now I am.

You were starting to make sense until you mentioned the tin foil hat.

HiddenDragon said :

Whether future summers are similar to, or more severe than, the present and the past, it’s reassuring to know that we will have ‘climate-wise’ buildings to cope with torrid conditions –

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2016/consultation-on-strategy-to-help-canberrans-adapt-to-climate-change

Presumably these buildings will have even higher energy efficiency ratings than so many of the recently constructed apartment buildings which, in spite of dazzlingly impressive EERs, still seem to require one or more split system air-conditioning units to make them tolerable.

But still no mandatory double glazing?

Charlotte Harper said :

Which facts did we refuse to allow on this thread?

Read comment #12 (which was held for 3 days).

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

I assume the Alan Jones you are referring to is a Sydney radio journalist. I never listen to him but obviously you do, regularly.
If you are talking about trends then please explain the following about Canberra’s maximum temperatures in recent consecutive days:
Thursday 37.0C
Friday 30.5C
Saturday 24.2C
I am not a scientist but I think that is a downward trend.My wife agrees with me so that is as good a peer review as one can get.

Either you are intentionally misinterpeting my comment to suit your world view, or you are not capable of understanding a simple argument. Neither conclusion strengthens your credibility on this issue.

I have no idea what Alan Jones said – I was just saying I don’t listen to him. You do (or have) so please tell us all what it was that comprised “he said so”.
As so “simple arguments”, I quoted some records from the BOM website about a temperature decline trend over 3 consecutive days – how much more simpler do you want it to be?
Credibility is a very subjective thing so let’s test yours by you explaining why your trends are more meaningful than yours (or the ones you have borrowed from the “infallible” climate science lobby).

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

I assume the Alan Jones you are referring to is a Sydney radio journalist. I never listen to him but obviously you do, regularly.
If you are talking about trends then please explain the following about Canberra’s maximum temperatures in recent consecutive days:
Thursday 37.0C
Friday 30.5C
Saturday 24.2C
I am not a scientist but I think that is a downward trend.My wife agrees with me so that is as good a peer review as one can get.

Either you are intentionally misinterpeting my comment to suit your world view, or you are not capable of understanding a simple argument. Neither conclusion strengthens your credibility on this issue.

rubaiyat said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

Not true. Not one bit true.

We got one lot of cold days due to a cold stream that came up from the Antarctic that wasn’t even the coldest days on record, then went onto a shocker of a ski season that finished weeks early despite the best efforts of the immensely expensive snow making equipment which still needs cold nights to operate, but didn’t get them.

You and many others may be steadfastly refusing to believe any of the research and science but the Ski-Fields operators are not that delusional, they sold out to the only buyer they could find, a US corporation that uses the Australian ski-field tickets to draw over Aussies to ski on their better snow.

We were thinking about taking them up on their offer but checked to find out they too are having dud seasons, you can fly all the way to Utah or Colorado and be left dry.

An American friend of mine said this winter was practically a no-show. He only got his snow shovel out once and he is usually well and truly buried under the snow where he is in the Midwest.

I feel sorry for all those deniers who went ahead and purchased ski chalets.

On another website had an American assert that the climate science was bunk because “no hurricanes had landed in the USA in the last 10 years”.

That was so clearly not true but no-one challenged or even questioned it. When I pointed out it was clearly untrue with just 2 notable hurricanes; Katrina and Sandy obviously contradicting these “facts” it unleashed a tirade of hate and amazingly detailed further “facts”, most without references you could check. Some on the face of it total nonsense or when I searched on the words used, coming from a narrow band of misinformation factories.

Some is clearly direct misinformation but most is by dupes who have bought “climate conspiracy” hook line and sinker. They all use the same reasoning, the cherry picked data (my cat is black, therefore all cats are black), refusal to look at anything that contradicts their beliefs, and the same evasive evidence (if you can actually get any), that slips into a constant pop up of other “evidence” that breeds like rabbits and all check out as brazenly concocted. In many cases mini samples picked from larger graphs, one even tilted the graph to suit, often totally spurious connections like the Hurricanes.

They perpetually DEMAND references all the time, references that they won’t supply themselves. They all instantly reject any evidence you link to, often faster than it is possible to read and digest the links. Obviously they just check who it is from, any reputable scientific body or scientistsa and then refuse to read further. They usually become quite agitated if you hunt down their Lord Haw Haw material.

The clear overview is of older, arch conservative men who hold their beliefs as a basket of other equally unreliable strong prejudices. Anti-Obama, gun obsessions, jingoism, historic revisionism and economic theories plucked from post midnight “you too can get rich like me” (start your own scams) television.

watto23 said :

When you have to fight arguments with people who believe things based on how they feel or whether they think there was that many hot days you may as well not bother. You can present all the facts and figures you want, but when it comes down to it, they confirm their bias however they can and ignore anything to the contrary.

Which is code for “the science is settled”.

watto23 said :

When you have to fight arguments with people who believe things based on how they feel or whether they think there was that many hot days you may as well not bother. You can present all the facts and figures you want, but when it comes down to it, they confirm their bias however they can and ignore anything to the contrary.

The moderators refuse to allow facts on this thread.

When you have to fight arguments with people who believe things based on how they feel or whether they think there was that many hot days you may as well not bother. You can present all the facts and figures you want, but when it comes down to it, they confirm their bias however they can and ignore anything to the contrary.

MERC600 said :

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

Not true. Not one bit true.

We got one lot of cold days due to a cold stream that came up from the Antarctic that wasn’t even the coldest days on record, then went onto a shocker of a ski season that finished weeks early despite the best efforts of the immensely expensive snow making equipment which still needs cold nights to operate, but didn’t get them.

You and many others may be steadfastly refusing to believe any of the research and science but the Ski-Fields operators are not that delusional, they sold out to the only buyer they could find, a US corporation that uses the Australian ski-field tickets to draw over Aussies to ski on their better snow.

We were thinking about taking them up on their offer but checked to find out they too are having dud seasons, you can fly all the way to Utah or Colorado and be left dry.

An American friend of mine said this winter was practically a no-show. He only got his snow shovel out once and he is usually well and truly buried under the snow where he is in the Midwest.

Things are getting hotter due to another man made phenomenon, microwaves. Have a bit of read and you will see it is more plausible that the same radiowaves our food is reheated with, have been nuking the moisture in our atmosphere and oceans. Btw, a mw oven uses 2.45GHz, bluetooth and wi fi 2.4GHz. Put on your tin foil hats if you don’t want ur brain fried.

MERC600 said :

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

I think he meant to say “the best paid minds….”

Aragornerama said :

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

I assume the Alan Jones you are referring to is a Sydney radio journalist. I never listen to him but obviously you do, regularly.
If you are talking about trends then please explain the following about Canberra’s maximum temperatures in recent consecutive days:
Thursday 37.0C
Friday 30.5C
Saturday 24.2C
I am not a scientist but I think that is a downward trend.My wife agrees with me so that is as good a peer review as one can get.

Interesting going back to Mr Corbells announcement above .
His “The best minds in the field of climate change science were brought together etc etc” “using the most advanced projection techniques,”. then went on “the territory can expect hotter summers, warmer winters, drier springs and an increase in the number of days with severe fire weather”
As we know we did not go on to have a warmer winter as projected.. We didn’t even have a winter with a few more bleak days, or a few very cold days with temps that statisticians would call outlier figures. What we had was 3 months of winter, the entire season, that was the coldest for 15 years.
One imagines these ‘best minds ‘ used a stack of BOM statics to arrive at their conclusions, including a hell of a lot more BOM figures that some rioters mention from time to time. But alas …

I’d like to hear what evidence you all have that convinces you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and clear historical trends.

‘Alan Jones said so’ is not evidence. ‘Day x was quite chilly’ is not evidence either. What matters is the general trend.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

The dire predictions made in 2014 have not materialised.

What dire predictions?
Please give us a specific quote or link so we can check whether you are inventing “failed predictions” once again, as you have been caught out doing before.

dungfungus said :

There have been a few hot days and to emphasise this the BOM is now selecting the “hottest days early in the month” and the “hottest days so far this summer” etc.
Yesterday, we had 37.5C which was the “hottest latest day in a February month” so far recorded.
This has not eclipsed the hottest day recorded in March 1998 which was also 37.5C.
The all time record high (BOM records) was 42.2C on 1st February, 1968. That’s almost 50 years ago.
Talk about looking for the fifth leg on the cat.

The BoM keeps a myriad of statistics. Just like Cricket stats, there are numbers for everything, and those of us who like numbers, and those of us whose world-view isn’t so challenged by the facts that we have to deny the data, quite enjoy the myriad stats that are avilable.

Here are some of the basic ones:
Here is a trend map for temperature:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting hotter.

Here is the trend for rainfall:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows rainfall is decreasing.

Here is the trend in pan evaporation:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=evap&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting drier.

Now – if we contrast
– the understanding you have gained from your selection of a very small number of individual data points (eg, record temperature in 1968), with
– the understanding that can be gained from viewing the *whole* picture,
we can see that your understanding conflicts with the statements by the BoM.

What does it say down the bottom of that graph? From here it looks like “Based on a 30 year climatology”.
So historically a place like Canberra would have been selected for its prime location and shade and temperatures. Likewise for Sydney and others.
Back in 1900 those best sites would have been the only ones taking temperate data.
Fast forward to 2016 and we now have temperature sensors everywhere recording 100 times as much data. When you sample more your range goes up wildly. When you build western Sydney expect the average Sydney temperature to rise.

I would love to see the methodology of these massively rising temperatures and over a period of 200 years.

Its the same as the ice cores that give temperature. Sure they give a averaged temperature, but an ice core isn’t going to pick up on a random 10 year heatwave.

The other issue I have is that they don’t take into account heat islands. 100 years ago Canberra had no lakes and used to snow!!!
It doesn’t snow anymore and the building keep in the heat, doesn’t mean there is a runaway greenhouse effect.

dungfungus said :

The dire predictions made in 2014 have not materialised.
There have been a few hot days and to emphasise this the BOM is now selecting the “hottest days early in the month” and the “hottest days so far this summer” etc.
Yesterday, we had 37.5C which was the “hottest latest day in a February month” so far recorded.
This has not eclipsed the hottest day recorded in March 1998 which was also 37.5C.
The all time record high (BOM records) was 42.2C on 1st February, 1968. That’s almost 50 years ago.
Talk about looking for the fifth leg on the cat.

I felt cold today, therefore climate change isn’t happening.

Admittedly I was inside with air conditioning but that’s irrelevant, the cold was getting in.

Whether future summers are similar to, or more severe than, the present and the past, it’s reassuring to know that we will have ‘climate-wise’ buildings to cope with torrid conditions –

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2016/consultation-on-strategy-to-help-canberrans-adapt-to-climate-change

Presumably these buildings will have even higher energy efficiency ratings than so many of the recently constructed apartment buildings which, in spite of dazzlingly impressive EERs, still seem to require one or more split system air-conditioning units to make them tolerable.

I think the UN manufactured calamity du jour – climate change – has run its course and should be consigned to the dust bin along. Time for a new calamity. As an aside, UN Agenda 21 is getting a bit of thrashing in Canberra as evidence by the plan to have 9,000,000 people living on Northbourne Ave. It’s desperate times for the UN struggling for relevance and hoping to be the world government. Donning tin foil hat right now I am.

If we look at “data” from the last few thousand years, the trend has been that it is getting warmer. Now all of a sudden, the warming trend is something horrifying that we must act upon. Does the back end of an ice age mean anything to these climatologists?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

The dire predictions made in 2014 have not materialised.

What dire predictions?
Please give us a specific quote or link so we can check whether you are inventing “failed predictions” once again, as you have been caught out doing before.

dungfungus said :

There have been a few hot days and to emphasise this the BOM is now selecting the “hottest days early in the month” and the “hottest days so far this summer” etc.
Yesterday, we had 37.5C which was the “hottest latest day in a February month” so far recorded.
This has not eclipsed the hottest day recorded in March 1998 which was also 37.5C.
The all time record high (BOM records) was 42.2C on 1st February, 1968. That’s almost 50 years ago.
Talk about looking for the fifth leg on the cat.

The BoM keeps a myriad of statistics. Just like Cricket stats, there are numbers for everything, and those of us who like numbers, and those of us whose world-view isn’t so challenged by the facts that we have to deny the data, quite enjoy the myriad stats that are avilable.

Here are some of the basic ones:
Here is a trend map for temperature:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting hotter.

Here is the trend for rainfall:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows rainfall is decreasing.

Here is the trend in pan evaporation:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=evap&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting drier.

Now – if we contrast
– the understanding you have gained from your selection of a very small number of individual data points (eg, record temperature in 1968), with
– the understanding that can be gained from viewing the *whole* picture,
we can see that your understanding conflicts with the statements by the BoM.

Given that all the examples I gave are factual and are easily obtainable from BOM records, I don’t know why you have gone off on the tangent you have chosen but the dire predictions are in the headline of the article subject of the thread if you would care to read it again.
I really shouldn’t have to explain past that point but you are doing exactly what the BOM is doing by “over analysing” the weather data. I mean, what is reason the BOM is now grading days of the month as part of their temperature reporting?
No wonder they can’t get it right – there was a shower forecast today along with many other days so far this year but it’s hard to spot a cloud let alone a raindrop.

OMG, here we go again. For the record, this summer has been the first for more than ten years where there have been *no* days over 40 degrees.

Good lord, can we have a weather thread without the industry shills getting on their pedestals? Human induced climate change is undisputed within the scientific community and is widely acknowledged as incontrovertible. Even oil/gas companies admitted (internally) their activities were negativity affecting the climate as early as the 1980’s….

LOL, I love climate deniers. Bless you and thanks for the laughs.

we can see that your understanding conflicts with the statements by the BoM…..

tish tosh. Surely being louder and more strident counts for something. I mean, anyone can do anything quietly with facts. The real arguments are FRANTIC MAN!

wildturkeycanoe said :

If these long term predictions are anything like the long, hot summer we are experiencing right now [cough, cough] I am not at all surprised by the current government’s denial of climate change. Predicting tomorrow is just as inaccurate as predicting next year, judging by current data.

Actually, it’s not.

Somebody with more statistical knowledge than I might explain this better, but here is a basic illustration:
You are told there are 5 people in a room and to guess their individual heights.
You are told there are 5,000,000 people in a room and to guess their individual heights.

A quick google will give you a frequency distribution for the height of Australians. You fit your 5,000,000 data points to that frequency distribution and you will most likely correctly identify the frequency distribution inside the room.
Fitting the frequency distribution to the 5 people, on the other hand, means you will have very large margins of error.

Similarly, weather is quite different from climate.

They haven’t figured out how to correctly predict the time and extent of El Nino events though, which has a large influence on our weather and affects our visibility of the climate in the short term.

Here’s the thing though – if you graphically illustrate the El Nino/La Nina years within an annual temperature anomaly graph, you can much better see the (very large) El Nino variability around the steady warming trend:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/2015_gistemp_graph.png

dungfungus said :

The dire predictions made in 2014 have not materialised.

What dire predictions?
Please give us a specific quote or link so we can check whether you are inventing “failed predictions” once again, as you have been caught out doing before.

dungfungus said :

There have been a few hot days and to emphasise this the BOM is now selecting the “hottest days early in the month” and the “hottest days so far this summer” etc.
Yesterday, we had 37.5C which was the “hottest latest day in a February month” so far recorded.
This has not eclipsed the hottest day recorded in March 1998 which was also 37.5C.
The all time record high (BOM records) was 42.2C on 1st February, 1968. That’s almost 50 years ago.
Talk about looking for the fifth leg on the cat.

The BoM keeps a myriad of statistics. Just like Cricket stats, there are numbers for everything, and those of us who like numbers, and those of us whose world-view isn’t so challenged by the facts that we have to deny the data, quite enjoy the myriad stats that are avilable.

Here are some of the basic ones:
Here is a trend map for temperature:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting hotter.

Here is the trend for rainfall:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows rainfall is decreasing.

Here is the trend in pan evaporation:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=evap&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
As you can see, the trend shows it is getting drier.

Now – if we contrast
– the understanding you have gained from your selection of a very small number of individual data points (eg, record temperature in 1968), with
– the understanding that can be gained from viewing the *whole* picture,
we can see that your understanding conflicts with the statements by the BoM.

The dire predictions made in 2014 have not materialised.
There have been a few hot days and to emphasise this the BOM is now selecting the “hottest days early in the month” and the “hottest days so far this summer” etc.
Yesterday, we had 37.5C which was the “hottest latest day in a February month” so far recorded.
This has not eclipsed the hottest day recorded in March 1998 which was also 37.5C.
The all time record high (BOM records) was 42.2C on 1st February, 1968. That’s almost 50 years ago.
Talk about looking for the fifth leg on the cat.

If these long term predictions are anything like the long, hot summer we are experiencing right now [cough, cough] I am not at all surprised by the current government’s denial of climate change. Predicting tomorrow is just as inaccurate as predicting next year, judging by current data.

MERC600 said :

Hells bells,, Corbs is telling us weather predictions of what may be happening in 2079.. some 65 years away.
Geez are these the same people doing Mr Corbells tram predictions.

But if we were to open our wallets today, we could make a sizable impact upon these predictions of climate doom and gloom!

How Canberran

Are we going to compensated for all the stress that will shorten our lives when none of these crazy predictions materialise?

Hells bells,, Corbs is telling us weather predictions of what may be happening in 2079.. some 65 years away.
Geez are these the same people doing Mr Corbells tram predictions.