Climate change another name for Weather

[Aussiejeff]

The climate prediction for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier. One predicted effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those predictions together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger.

Ghoti

And the same CSIRO "climate" prediction for NW WA is for cooler & wetter "weather" in coming years.

The media (hooked on the Global Warming by CO2 mantra) seems to overlook the fact that LOCALISED climate change is what people on the ground are very much going to experience in the near and medium term foreseeable future. Some will ON AVERAGE experience wetter, cooler conditions while others will experience ON AVERAGE drier, hotter conditions.

Naturally, those folk who will be experiencing wetter, cooler conditions are going to be mighty suspicious of Global Warming pundits, whereas those experiencing drier, hotter conditions might be more inclined to believe that line.

In any case, over a MUCH longer time frame, overall climate trends (both localised and worldwide) will become obvious to all.

Unfortunately, since I'm already approaching 60, I won't be around to gloat or fume at the results.

Could someone kindly pass them on to my elderly grand-daughter in 2050?

Thanks.

Ye Olde Farte.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

One extreme weather event cannot prove or disprove that the climate is changing. Short-term for climate is 10 years. It's a trend thing, and it beats me why trend traders find that so hard to understand. We're not all day traders after all.

That is correct. But since we had extreme temperatures back over 100 years ago, over 150 to be exact it is hardly a new thing associated with CC or GW. And it suggests that trend we are following is much like the Japanese market. No? But we will call it climate.

The climate prediction for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier. One predicted effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those predictions together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger.

You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted, as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I suggest you read the link I posted yesterday, Snake.

Thanks Knobby. Interesting that Adelaide has extreme temperatures much like most of the country. I enjoyed reading the link you posted. But the trouble with it is it used words like "on record" or "recorded temperature" exposing its limitations. Climate and weather conditions are cyclicle. So heat waves do happen from time to time. The heat doesn't come from the planet, it comes from the sun. The sun's conditions are cyclicle too which affect the Earth's climate.

Cheers..

 

[rederob]

You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted, as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.

Everything is "predictable".
The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
Weather is certainly predictable.
The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
Weather predictions in the short term would be quite accurate if full information was continuously available at hundreds of locations within a local area. But that's costly, and still wouldn't tell you much of value a week out.

"Extreme" temperatures result whenever a confuence of factors are simultanously present and, of themselves, have nothing to do with climate change. However "extremes" are predicated on "averages", so as it gets hotter what today may be considered extreme may become commonplace.

I find it amusing that climate change deniers continue to disbelieve evidence before their eyes. The tactics of denial are equally funny, as proven by Bolt's online debate last week after a 4 Corners show on the Barrier Reef.

Then there's always the Aussiejeff factor, which points to some local climates actually cooling. It epitomises the ignorance of the common person. Seen in perspctive, the NW WA " predicted cooling" is no different to the local climate of Brisbane being cooler than that of southern Australia during the recent heatwave: High humidity prevents high temperatures being reached.

 

[So_Cynical]

http://www.chig.asn.au/black_thursday_bushfires_1851.htm
From the above link on the 1851fires:

If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
Thanks.

So snake your seriously comfortable quoting scientific measurements form 1851.

Seriously....u cant be serious.

Unfortunately this thread has moved to the totally ridiculous end of the spectrum, where
scientific measurements from last century are taken seriously....that's it for me.

Just to silly now.

 

[Julia]

Everything is "predictable".
The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
Weather is certainly predictable.
The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
Weather predictions in the short term would be quite accurate if full information was continuously available at hundreds of locations within a local area. But that's costly, and still wouldn't tell you much of value a week out.

"Extreme" temperatures result whenever a confuence of factors are simultanously present and, of themselves, have nothing to do with climate change. However "extremes" are predicated on "averages", so as it gets hotter what today may be considered extreme may become commonplace.

I find it amusing that climate change deniers continue to disbelieve evidence before their eyes. The tactics of denial are equally funny, as proven by Bolt's online debate last week after a 4 Corners show on the Barrier Reef.

Then there's always the Aussiejeff factor, which points to some local climates actually cooling. It epitomises the ignorance of the common person. Seen in perspctive, the NW WA " predicted cooling" is no different to the local climate of Brisbane being cooler than that of southern Australia during the recent heatwave: High humidity prevents high temperatures being reached.

Rederob, it must be terrific to be so absolutely sure of yourself and your superior opinions, to be able to so categorically dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as representing "the ignorance of the common person".

Truly awesome.

 

[rederob]

Rederob, it must be terrific to be so absolutely sure of yourself and your superior opinions, to be able to so categorically dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as representing "the ignorance of the common person".

Truly awesome.

You are welcome to provide constructive commentary relating to the thread title.
Or, you might prefer to keep your social commentary to yourself.
I tend to post on topics I have some idea about. This is one of them.
Unfortunately there are many in the skeptics camp that latch on to media nonsense and hype that has no basis in the science that underpins climate change.
There are also many that can't reconcile record low temperatures in a world confronting global warming. Or hot areas getting cooler, and vice versa
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and if they can show their view has merit, good on them. But too few here have any substantive argument to put and clearly are out of their depth in what can be a confronting and complex topic. Your contributions reflect that sentiment ideally.

 

[wayneL]

But too few here have any substantive argument to put and clearly are out of their depth in what can be a confronting and complex topic. Your contributions reflect that sentiment ideally.

Incorrect.

You just refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, and then claim there is none, adding an obnoxious dose of ad hominem slur along the way.

 

[Julia]

You are welcome to provide constructive commentary relating to the thread title.
Or, you might prefer to keep your social commentary to yourself.
I tend to post on topics I have some idea about. This is one of them.
Unfortunately there are many in the skeptics camp that latch on to media nonsense and hype that has no basis in the science that underpins climate change.
There are also many that can't reconcile record low temperatures in a world confronting global warming. Or hot areas getting cooler, and vice versa
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and if they can show their view has merit, good on them. But too few here have any substantive argument to put and clearly are out of their depth in what can be a confronting and complex topic. Your contributions reflect that sentiment ideally.

And many would say the same about you. I'm still, however, in complete awe of such total authority. I'd love to have just a tiny percentage of such certainty about anything at all. I really mean that. Unfortunately, I simply don't know who is right or wrong about this whole matter.

 

[rederob]

Incorrect.
You just refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, and then claim there is none, adding an obnoxious dose of ad hominem slur along the way.

Not only do I consider, but I comment on contrary views, as evidenced in my challenges to you on numerous issues.
I welcome a reasoned debate.

 

[rederob]

Unfortunately, I simply don't know who is right or wrong about this whole matter.

This is not a matter of right and wrong.
It's about being informed on what is happening, and choosing to prefer information that is most credible.
The rights or wrongs reveal themselves in time.

 

[wayneL]

Not only do I consider, but I comment on contrary views, as evidenced in my challenges to you on numerous issues.
I welcome a reasoned debate.

No you don't.

Those challenges entailed disregarding substantive evidence contained in links provided by myself. In the end I decided it's not worth debating with irrational zealots... which makes me wonder why I'm doing it again.

Over and out.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

So snake your seriously comfortable quoting scientific measurements form 1851.

Seriously....u cant be serious.

Unfortunately this thread has moved to the totally ridiculous end of the spectrum, where
scientific measurements from last century are taken seriously....that's it for me.

Just to silly now.

Seriously......... .....u cant be serious.

Unfortunately this thread has moved to the totally ridiculous peanut brigade.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Everything is "predictable".
The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
Weather is certainly predictable.
The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
Weather predictions in the short term would be quite accurate if full information was continuously available at hundreds of locations within a local area. But that's costly, and still wouldn't tell you much of value a week out.

"Extreme" temperatures result whenever a confuence of factors are simultanously present and, of themselves, have nothing to do with climate change. However "extremes" are predicated on "averages", so as it gets hotter what today may be considered extreme may become commonplace.

I find it amusing that climate change deniers continue to disbelieve evidence before their eyes. The tactics of denial are equally funny, as proven by Bolt's online debate last week after a 4 Corners show on the Barrier Reef.

Then there's always the Aussiejeff factor, which points to some local climates actually cooling. It epitomises the ignorance of the common person. Seen in perspctive, the NW WA " predicted cooling" is no different to the local climate of Brisbane being cooler than that of southern Australia during the recent heatwave: High humidity prevents high temperatures being reached.

Thanks for the commentary. Anything novel to add?

 

[Julia]

This is not a matter of right and wrong.
It's about being informed on what is happening, and choosing to prefer information that is most credible.
The rights or wrongs reveal themselves in time.

Oh, I see. I'll avoid a discussion about individual assessments of what is or is not credible.
Whatever you say, Rederob.
Thank you.

 

[ghotib]

That is correct. But since we had extreme temperatures back over 100 years ago, over 150 to be exact it is hardly a new thing associated with CC or GW. And it suggests that trend we are following is much like the Japanese market. No? But we will call it climate.


You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted, as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.

You're right of course, but we all live by prediction. I predict the sun will rise tomorrow. I predict the trains will be crowded on Monday morning. I predict that the stock market will recover some time... hmmm

The analogy between stock charts and climate charts seems quite strong to me. Daily weather records are equivalent to individual trades; climate graphs are equivalent to trend lines. And people interpret the charts differently. To me, the climate record shows higher highs and has begun to show higher lows. I see a Breakout Alert, and not in a good way.

Ghoti

 

[rederob]

No you don't.
Those challenges entailed disregarding substantive evidence contained in links provided by myself. In the end I decided it's not worth debating with irrational zealots... which makes me wonder why I'm doing it again.
Over and out.

You had a habit of posting numerous links, without commentary.
I read most of your links.
Some contained useful information.
Many had little scientific merit, although first impressions might have suggested otherwise.
Your biggest problem seems to be that of not wanting to see the big picture. Lots of little pictures in isolation of overriding trends, influences, or factors does not disprove AGW.
Another point, focusing on Al Gore as you did hardly constituted the basis of robust discussion.
Nor was it handy to keep linking to scientists who time and again had their work trashed by peers, if ever it was considered by them in the first place.
The web is full of links to the pro-CC and anti-CC camps, and their respective musings. I visit them occasionally, but mostly read the actual work of climate scientists rather than media/web commentaries. Better still are some blogs where the scientists discuss/debate with each other and Joe Public.
Perhaps my biggest gripe with your postings relate to those carrying the notion that the anti-CC camp is growing in number all the time. There are no reputable polls that support this view. What is tending to happen is a greater polarisation of views at each end of spectrum. Amongst the scientific community a continuing trend towards agreement about climate change and its influences is apparent.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It has rained all night here in Townsville, the creeks are rising and some bridges are going over. 430 points in all. We planted some Cape Thatch in a wetter part of the gumnut demesne yesterday.

Is it weather or climate change?

http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR213.loop.shtml#skip

gg

 

[Julia]

gg is the 430 points = 430 mls? That's a lot of rain!
Had the previous water drained away?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

gg is the 430 points = 430 mls? That's a lot of rain!
Had the previous water drained away?

Mrs Gumnut and I had a similar conversation over breakfast just an hour ago.

A point is one hundredth ( 1/100 ) of an inch, so that is 4.3 inches.

It is such a beautiful steady rain now but has been heavier through the night.

The previous floods had drained away, we took the Rolls down to Giru last weekend and the town, though drenched the previous 3 weeks , was dry. I'd say its up again, down there, this morning.

gg