Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

Phew... can't afford to eat 10 a day anyway, something to do with the drought in QLD driving up banana prices; can't have mangoes either - they goes for $50 a box couple weeks ago.

Saw headline today saying climate change, or changes in the weather pattern , will dislocate 100 million people within next decade or two... they can't farm or live where they used to due to rising salt water and unpredictable weather patterns.

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...

http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...

Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere

Don't know about anti-matter, or matter for that matter; but yes, agree with you that Man is polluting the planet and we should try to solve it beyond the fortnightly cycling... But as they have it at the local AA, the first step is to admit you got a problem right?

When we pump all the inorganic pollution into the air or into the ocean, it will affect and kill something or someone who's not used to having pollution ingested with each breathe or each sip; When you frack for gas then due to the drought find it cheaper to refill the cracks with barely cooked sewage (they're actually doing this in some states in the US), it cant be good to some unknown water sources that might be connected to somewhere by one of those cracks..

Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564

And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:

You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...

So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.

I'm sure the air is fresh where you live, not so fresh for the other Aussies whose house line the freeways and main streets man. And forget about the India or China of the world.

Air pollution from burning of fossil fuel alone ought to make us think that maybe, in the best case scenario where the climate change freight train won't be coming straight at our grandkids and no sea level will rise more than normal... that maybe we ought to seriously incentivise and encourage alternatives so that the couple of million families along major roads won't breathe smog everyday, and billions around the world can see blue skies once a while... and along that road we'd make a few bucks from the innovations... and if that also help the environment and abate the non-existent potential of CC, then that's a bonus.

Who knows, maybe with the cash and clearer lungs and savings from medical conditions from smog... we could then also afford to clean up the ocean and provide enough margin in case Indonesia burns again.

 

[basilio]

IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect. TS

TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing ?

 

[basilio]

Nothing can compete with renewable energy, says top climate scientist

Prof John Schellnhuber says that if countries implement their pledges made for Paris climate summit it will give huge boost to wind, tidal and solar power


Tuesday 10 November 2015 00.06 AEDT
Last modified on Tuesday 10 November 2015 02.26 AEDT

Catastrophic global warming can be avoided with a deal at a crunch UN climate change summit in Paris this December because “ultimately nothing can compete with renewables”, according to one of the world’s most influential climate scientists.

Most countries have already made voluntary pledges to roll out clean energy and cut carbon emissions, and Prof John Schellnhuber said the best hope of making nations keep their promises was moral pressure.

Schellnhuber is a key member of the German delegation attending the Paris summit and has advised Angela Merkel and Pope Francis on climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sful-climate-deal-in-paris-says-top-scientist

Strip away the arguments about climate change and it just makes complete sense to go 100% renewable ASAP.

 

[Tisme]

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...

Can you expand on this?

 

[basilio]

Quote Originally Posted by trainspotter View Post
E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...

Can you expand on this?

You really need to go to the url TS offered. This is indeed another quite different view of the world of quantum physics. I'm not going there...

 

[trainspotter]

TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing ?

The party of the third part is what I was meaning. Both sides make ridiculous claims basilio. IPCC glacier melt by 2035 and sea levels rising 25 metres is another. On the flip side are morons claiming Co2 is better for the climate as the plants will have more to photosynthesise and storm severity has become infrequent.

A few coal fired power stations and millions of cars running around is not my concern. Try these on for size ...

The forest fires blanketing Malaysia, Singapore and large parts of Indonesia in choking haze are on track to become among the worst on record, NASA warns.

Scientists predict the current outbreak could surpass 1997 levels when out-of-control forest fires sent pollution soaring to record highs in an environmental disaster that cost an estimated $US9 billion

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...uld-become-worst-on-record-nasa-warns/6824460

See what the media has done here? Out of control forest fire is a "pollutant" and no mention of Co2

India is not proposing to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, but instead to reduce the intensity of its carbon dioxide emissions by 33 percent to 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. India also says that it will produce 40 percent of its electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources (nuclear, hydropower, wind, and solar power) by 2030[2] if it receives assistance from Western countries.[3] This reduction means that its carbon dioxide emissions would still triple by 2030. According to the BP Statistical Review, India emits the third most carbon dioxide emissions in the world—after China and the United States.

See what the media has done here? How is it a reduction if the Co2 emissions are going to triple

We’ve got to preserve this beautiful planet of ours for our kids and grandkids. And that means taking serious steps to address climate change once and for all. Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home, and we're leading the world to take action as well. But we’ve got to do more. In a few weeks, I’m heading to Paris to meet with world leaders about a global agreement to meet this challenge.

https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

What Barack Obama says and what the USA does are poles apart ...

EIA estimates that emissions of CO2 grew by 1.0% in 2014. Emissions are projected to fall by 0.7% in 2015 and then increase by 0.2% in 2016. These forecasts are sensitive to assumptions about weather and economic growth.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm

Meanwhile back in the real world ...

Nuclear provides nearly 20 percent of the electricity in the U.S., but the average plant is about 34 years old, and prospects for the future of many of these plants are murky, at best. While five new reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., the World Nuclear Association estimates that more than 10 older ones are currently at risk of closure.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...utting-emissions-will-become-more-costly.html

So they are shutting down ageing nuclear power plants that provide 20% of the USA electricity right? Where do you think they will get the electricity to make up for the demand in the grid lost by the closure of the nuclear plants? Burn more guzzaline and fire up the coal stations

A reduction my eye !! It will be a 7 - 10 % increase at least

 

[trainspotter]

I'm sure the air is fresh where you live, not so fresh for the other Aussies whose house line the freeways and main streets man. And forget about the India or China of the world.

Who knows, maybe with the cash and clearer lungs and savings from medical conditions from smog... we could then also afford to clean up the ocean and provide enough margin in case Indonesia burns again.

You do realise that India, China and the USA are the 3 largest polluters globally right? And you want me to forget about them because a family lives near a freeway?

Errrmmmm the smog from the Indonesian fires has shut down parts of Singapore !!!

Singapore has slammed statements from Indonesian officials who made light of the South-East Asian haze crisis as "shocking" as the air pollution index soared to hazardous levels.

The city state closed all schools and distributed protective face masks in emergency measures on Friday.

Singapore, as well as neighbouring Malaysia, has been cloaked in smoke blown-in from tinder-dry Sumatra island for about three weeks ”” the worst such episode since mid-2013 in a crisis that grips the region annually during the burning-off season.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nesia-as-hazardous-haze-shuts-schools/6805322

Health risks?? Ya gotta be kidding me right??

 

[luutzu]

You do realise that India, China and the USA are the 3 largest polluters globally right? And you want me to forget about them because a family lives near a freeway?

Errrmmmm the smog from the Indonesian fires has shut down parts of Singapore !!!



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nesia-as-hazardous-haze-shuts-schools/6805322

Health risks?? Ya gotta be kidding me right??

 

[basilio]

I don't get it TS. Ok so you say you were not suggesting the IPCC was the bodgy party in the climate projections but rather the groups that created the misleading graphs.

I'm still surprised that you even reference these sources because the they are almost always misleading at the best or just dishonest otherwise.

With regard to the other huge problems we face - smog, smoke from Indonesian forest fires (deliberately lit)

Totally agree and in fact they are another key element of the reasons we need to move to a renewable energy economy ASAP. The smog in India and China is largely coal driven. They know it . They recognise the issue. Both countries are moving quickly to renewable energy.

But the way to make this happen with serious intent is to put a tax on carbon and switch any energy subsidies to renewable.

Having countries like Australia attempting to sell more coal under the guise of humanity is just rubbish. There is an excellent article that outlines just how disingenuous this line is.

With regard to outlandlish claims re CC.

Do not attempt to compare the mistaken claim that the glaciers will melt in the Himalayas in 35 years with projections of serious sea level rises as the world warms. The first comment was an acknowledged mistake. When you produce thousands of pages of report as the IPCC does there will be mistakes. End of story.

The projections of large sea level rises caused by melting icecaps if global temperatures continue to rise is at the very high levels of confidence in scientific research. How high and how quickly is still to be decided. The scary part about the research is that there is evidence of some very swift sea level rises in the past as ice sheets became rapidly unstable.

The science is evolving. 10-15 years glaciologists thought that the icecaps would melt from the top down. No probs there they said. This would take thousands of years.

Then they discovered that melt water was running through cracks in the glaciers , pooling at the bottom and lubricating the movement of glaciers to the sea at an ever increasing rate.

And then they discovered that warm sea water was undercutting the glaciers and further increasing the instability of what were previously believed to be very solid ice features!

These are the recent research studies that underpin the concern glaciologists have about the stability of West Antarctica. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing/

There is a precedent for this sudden collapse of ice sheets and rapid sea level rises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

 

[trainspotter]

The graphs were not bodgy. IPCC make predictions and they rarely are accurate. Get over it.

Can you comprehend what has been written or are you always this bent out of shape? I am eluding to the FACT that both sides make redonkolous claims about warming/weather/ice melts/cooling/sea rising/whatever but you seem to be able to misconstrue this to your slant or opines.

I am over it basilio ... you live in a Utopian world that is totally UNREALISTIC as to what is actually occurring in the real world. You dismiss rational debate as it was a furphy like how I EVIDENCED how the media manipulates the truth. India for example ..

This reduction means that its carbon dioxide emissions would still triple by 2030.

Yep they are moving to renewables but will treble the amount of Co2 output

As to what is actually misleading and dishonest you might want to have a look in your own back yard before sprouting HYSTERIA !!

End of story

Yep let's tax the **** out of Carbon and see where we end up eh?

This tax, if applied only in Australia or in conjunction with other OECD countries, would mean the end of the steel and aluminium smelting industries in Australia by 2005, they said. Even a global tax of this order would see the end of the aluminium industry in Australia by 2005 and the steel industry some years later, unless every country applied the same level of tax ('Reducing carbon dioxide: All options would have profound effects' 1992).

A carbon or fuel tax would eventually cost householders more in direct costs of fuels such as petrol, and indirectly in the prices they pay for goods which require the use of fuel in their production and transport. The impact of these rising prices would vary regionally and within any one city. For example, states that use hydro-electric power to generate electricity (for example, Tasmania) rather than coal would be less affected by carbon taxes. Low-income families tend to spend a higher proportion of their total incomes on petrol. Consequently, those who need to use a motor vehicle to get to work, to take children to school and to go shopping will be worse off than more affluent families or those who live in areas that are well serviced by public transport.

People in rural areas and on the outskirts of cities will be worse off because of the longer distances they have to travel. And rural industries will also be badly hit because of the longer distances and the heavy fuel requirements of agricultural machinery. Similarly, increased energy costs aimed at encouraging people to use less energy by buying more energy-efficient appliances such as fridges, cars and light-globes may impact hardest on those who can least afford to replace such goods.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/equity/greenhouse/carbontax.html

Still waiting for your Mount Pinatubo response.

In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth’s surface for a period of almost two years. Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510

 

[basilio]

kkkk

 

[basilio]

TS. A few observations

1) Your statement about the IPCCs predictions re climate temperatures is a distinction without a difference. The science and the evidence is telling us we are cooking our planet and us with it. The rate at which we are doing it is "not quite exactly predictable".. But it's bloody frightening and deadly serious.

Meanwhile your trying to trash them for not being exactly right according to the dodged up figures of a bunch of lying charlatans. Would you like to see just how accurate the predictions of the various contrarian scientists has been with regard to their predictions of the future temperatures ? It's so far off it doesn't matter.

2) India and it's efforts to go renewable - but still increasing it's Co2 emissions. India is still a HUGELY underpowered society. It doesn't have a fraction of the energy infrastructure we take for granted as our sovereign right.
India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy When the world is talking about reductions in CO2 emissions part of the equation in negotiations is acknowledging that developing countries need to increase their energy supply just to meet the realistic needs of their people. On that basis cuts in energy use will fall more heavily on developed countries that have a capacity to be more efficient and a further capacity to retire fossil fuel energy sources and replace them with renewables.

The conversation with India is trying to support as much new renewable energy as possible and discourage as much fossil fuel energy as possible.

3) The effects of a carbon tax Wow !! you take a 20 year old reference and excise a a few paragraphs from it (most from Industry sources) and want to use that to damn a Carbon Tax as an economic tool?

That is so thin if you turned the argument sideways you couldn't see it TS.

Some form of price on carbon is the simplest, most effective free market way to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage the production of clean energy. It is the language of the market. This now costs more. Use less. This is now more competitive. Let's go to it.

Clearly if a carbon tax is bought in governments need to try and have protections of some sort for people for poorer people who may be hurt. That was the point of the Labour Governments actions.

But the result on carbon use is immediate and effective. It works.

4) The Mt Pinatarbo volcano and it's effect on the world's temperature.
Yep. A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newsletter/htm_format_articles/climate_corner/yearwithoutsummer_lf.htm

And your point is exactly... what ?

Volcanoes are a source of dust and sulphates which in extreme circumstances will have a significant effect on the climate. for a short time. So obviously when the dust settles and the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere the climate returns to normal.

In our current case "normal" is humanity pumping an extra 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere which largely accumulates and holds more and more energy increasing the world heat load to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.

You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate in both heating and cooling effects but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)

 

[sptrawler]

TS. A few observations

1) Your statement about the IPCCs predictions re climate temperatures is a distinction without a difference. The science and the evidence is telling us we are cooking our planet and us with it. The rate at which we are doing it is "not quite exactly predictable".. But it's bloody frightening and deadly serious.

Meanwhile your trying to trash them for not being exactly right according to the dodged up figures of a bunch of lying charlatans. Would you like to see just how accurate the predictions of the various contrarian scientists has been with regard to their predictions of the future temperatures ? It's so far off it doesn't matter.

2) India and it's efforts to go renewable - but still increasing it's Co2 emissions. India is still a HUGELY underpowered society. It doesn't have a fraction of the energy infrastructure we take for granted as our sovereign right.
India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy When the world is talking about reductions in CO2 emissions part of the equation in negotiations is acknowledging that developing countries need to increase their energy supply just to meet the realistic needs of their people. On that basis cuts in energy use will fall more heavily on developed countries that have a capacity to be more efficient and a further capacity to retire fossil fuel energy sources and replace them with renewables.

The conversation with India is trying to support as much new renewable energy as possible and discourage as much fossil fuel energy as possible.

3) The effects of a carbon tax Wow !! you take a 20 year old reference and excise a a few paragraphs from it (most from Industry sources) and want to use that to damn a Carbon Tax as an economic tool?

That is so thin if you turned the argument sideways you couldn't see it TS.

Some form of price on carbon is the simplest, most effective free market way to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage the production of clean energy. It is the language of the market. This now costs more. Use less. This is now more competitive. Let's go to it.

Clearly if a carbon tax is bought in governments need to try and have protections of some sort for people for poorer people who may be hurt. That was the point of the Labour Governments actions.

But the result on carbon use is immediate and effective. It works.

4) The Mt Pinatarbo volcano and it's effect on the world's temperature.
Yep. A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newsletter/htm_format_articles/climate_corner/yearwithoutsummer_lf.htm

And your point is exactly... what ?

Volcanoes are a source of dust and sulphates which in extreme circumstances will have a significant effect on the climate. for a short time. So obviously when the dust settles and the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere the climate returns to normal.

In our current case "normal" is humanity pumping an extra 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere which largely accumulates and holds more and more energy increasing the world heat load to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.

You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate in both heating and cooling effects but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)

Jeez I'm over this thread basilio, our economy and lifestyle is going down the drain and you are still harping on.

In W.A we have shut down the second biggest coal fired power station, electricity costs have doubled.

I'm sure the remaining coal fired stations will close in the foreseeable future, then electricity cost will double again.

The problem is, it will not change the global temperature one iota, but it will make some happy, lots more unhappy.

Hopefully it will just bring foreward the adoption of nuclear energy in Australia.

There is no other viable reasonably priced energy source, other than gas, which will run out pretty quickly.

We are pushing Australia into a nuclear future, which will probably include waste storage. Just my opinion, for what it is worth.lol (it's free)

 

[trainspotter]

kkkk

LLLL ... any good?

Taking this is a faux pas of fat fingers?

 

[trainspotter]

basilio

Yep. A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newslett...tsummer_lf.htm

And your point is exactly... what ?

https://youtu.be/VGD2w33PWV0

About 3.10 it gets interesting .. Hey lady get back here ... where is my money ? .. where is the RED?

Yet you produce the Co2 man made diatribe over and over again. One decent volcanic eruption and game over? Your thoughts? The globe is evolving ... subsidence, weather, sink holes, erosion and you want to call it one specific thing?? Really??

 

[trainspotter]

You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate in both heating and cooling effects but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)

Your observations "rich tapestry ring a bell?" Takes one volcanic reaction and your whole thesis is stuffed. Now you are clutching at models pre industrial revolution, hard work ...... no?

India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy

And yet they pollute the most and you are fine with that? For the greater good and all that !!

 

[basilio]

Your right TS. One super volcanic eruption and we are toast. And in fact there is one brewing at Yellowstone Park if you want to be specific.

But we can't do anything about that can we ? It is out of our hands.

Allowing the continual production of GG is in our control.

 

[basilio]

The research from glaciologists on the condition of Greenlands glaciers continues to evolve. This report is particularly troubling when you read it to the end.

Greenland glacier sliding rapidly into ocean, raising sea levels: scientists

Date
November 13, 2015 - 1:20PM


As the world prepares for the most important global climate summit yet - in Paris this month - news from Greenland could add urgency to the negotiations.

A glacier in north-east Greenland with enough ice to raise world ocean levels by half a metre has begun to slide more quickly towards the sea, extending ice losses to all corners of the vast remote island, a US study shows.
Landsat-8 image of Greenland's Zachariae Isstrom and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glaciers, acquired on August 30, 2014.

Because of warmer water temperatures, the end of the Zachariae Isstrom glacier floated free from a ridge of bedrock below sea level on which it had rested until 2012, the study, which was reported in the journal Science on Thursday, said.

Without that natural brake, the glacier in the cold north was now sliding more quickly and more icebergs were snapping off, adding a net five billion tonnes of ice a year to the oceans, according to the study based on satellite and aerial surveys.

"Similar changes - even larger - are under way in the south," Jeremie Mouginot of the University of California-Irvine and his colleagues said.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ng-sea-levels-scientists-20151112-gkxy8c.html

 

[basilio]

The world wide temperature figures are also showing just how much hotter 2015 is than any previous year.

The graphic that shows why 2015 global temperatures are off the charts

Date
October 22, 2015


NASA has released animation based on satellite data showing this year's El Nino is likely to be just as devastating as the strongest on record.

If there is one chart that might finally put to rest debate of a pause or "hiatus" in global warming, this chart created by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just supplied it.



For years, climate change sceptics relied on a spike in global temperatures that occurred during the monster 1997-98 El Nino to say the world had stopped warming because later years struggled to set a higher mark even as greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise.

The intensifying El Nino has helped drive global temperatures to yet another record monthly high.

Never mind that US government scientists found the hiatus was an illusion because the oceans had absorbed most of the extra heat that satellites could tell the Earth was trapping.

Nor that 2005, 2010 and 2014 all set subsequent records for annual heat.Those record years were too incrementally warmer compared with the 1997 mark to satisfy those who wanted to believe climate change was a hoax.

But it is 2015, which is packing an El Nino that is on track to match the record 1997-98, that looks set to blow away previous years of abnormal warmth.

"This one could end the hiatus," said Wenju Cai, a principal research scientist specialising in El Nino modelling at the CSIRO.

"Whether it beats [the 1997-98 El Nino] will be academic - it's already very big."

NOAA data released overnight backs up how exceptional this year is in terms of warming, with September alone a full quarter of a degree above the corresponding month in 1997.

As the chart above shows, for the first nine months, 2015 has easily been the hottest year on record, with sunlight second.

Monster El Nino

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was now on course to challenge the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.

This would suggest that, short of a major disruptive event such as a huge volcanic eruption, 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.

The projection looks likely to be affirmed further before the global climate talks in Paris, which are scheduled to begin on November 30.

Almost 200 nations will be negotiating on a new treaty to stem the emissions of greenhouse gases that are driving temperatures higher and disrupting climate patterns around which humans have built their civilisation.

Mostly anomalous in past 1629 months

September was not only the seventh month so far this year to set a new record for heat, it was also the most anomalously hot month in 135 years of data, NOAA said.

"This marks the fifth consecutive month a monthly high temperature record has been set and is the highest departure from average for any month among all 1629 months in the record that began in January 1880," NOAA said in a statement.

Average sea- and land-surface temperatures last month were 0.9 degrees above the 20th-century average, pipping the previous hottest September - set only a year ago - by 0.12 degrees.

The abnormal warmth was particularly notable in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, where the El Nino weather event continues to intensify.

For the first nine months of 2015, average surface temperatures are running at 0.85 degrees above the 20th-century average, exceeding the previous equal warm stints in 2010 and 2014 by 0.12 degrees, NOAA said.

During El Nino years, the Pacific Ocean tends to absorb less heat or release some back to the atmosphere as a result of changing easterly wind patterns. One consequence of those reversed or stalled winds is that the western Pacific tends to be drier and hotter, while nations on the eastern Pacific fringe usually receive above-average rain.

Australia was not exceptionally warm last month, with mean temperatures 0.2 degrees above the 1961-90 average. However, it was the third driest September in records going back to 1910 with little more than one-third of the average rainfall nationwide, the bureau said in its monthly report.

October got off to a record hot start for southern Australia, with many records falling for early-season heat, lifting concerns about an active fire season ahead.

Temperatures topped up

El Ninos typically add 0.1-0.2 degrees to the background global warming. US climate expert John Abraham has estimated how year-to-date temperatures are adding another step-up to temperatures, as seen in this chart published by Think Progress.


Climate change sceptics will probably not concede in their battle to avoid action to curb emissions.

Satellite or meteorological data must have been manipulated, the oceans might be producing chemical compounds never detected before that counter carbon dioxide, or perhaps the sun is about to burn a lot less brightly.

Still, they now have one more inconvenient chart they have to find a reason to ignore.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...tures-are-off-the-charts-20151021-gkf8b0.html

 

[wayneL]

....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.