This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new

I don't understand how you could get your knickers in a knot over an innocuous remark I made about differing climatic conditions in Perth and S/E Qld. Your supercilious attitude is quite rude.


http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
 
Calliope said:
I don't understand how you could get your knickers in a knot over an innocuous remark I made about differing climatic conditions in Perth and S/E Qld. Your supercilious attitude is quite rude.



http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
Click to expand...

Okay lets step back a bit and look at what you have quoted Calliope. BOM says that climate is the typical weather conditions experienced at a location or area. It is saying that the total of a range of weather conditions make up the (total) climate. For example Perth has a Mediterranean climate because it has long hot dry summers and milder winters which produce its rain. North Queensland has more Tropical climate which means the weather is uniformly hot and fairly wet. (But your quite right to note the difference in overall climate between Perth and S E Queensland )

The climate is the sum of the weather events. The individual weather events are not the climate.

In the original exchange with Orr you might said something like "Oops I meant the weather " which would recognise that you were talking about the current weather events and not confusing them with longer terms changes in climate.

The trouble is that in the climate change debate many people bang on about day to day weather events as "proof" that climate change isn't (or sometimes is) occurring. Good ol GG for example waxes lyrical about the weather in Townsville as if that is the total required proof that Climate change is a fiction. How many times do we see someone saying how cold it is right now and just dissing the CC debate because of the current weather conditions ?

When the BOM and other meteorological organizations look at the bigger picture of the total changes in weather patterns which taken together define the climate it is absolutely clear climatic conditions around the world are changing and at an unprecedented rate. And the BOM website is a great source of information on the observed changes to our climate. But as far as I can see only a few forum members accept even these observations.

Any clearer ?

Cheers
 

Altered for accuracy.

I guess folks like their data raw and unadulterated basilio.
 
I see the alarmist have decided to slowly sneak back into this thread - hopefully with all the answers to the questions, the observed evidence and the proof that the 3% of total co2 (the bit from man) is solely responsible for the asserted "unprecedented" changes in temperatures. So unprecedented, that the global temps have been flat for over a decade.

So I guess Basilio, as for the last several years, more of the same from you in 2012 - climate nonsense, claims with no substance, bizarre assertions whilst unable to answer the most simple questions and still not answering if you have an agenda in this thread or are paid to post here. And yet you and the rest of the alarmists wont change your lifestyle to avoid the impending doom from killer co2 - yet pontificate all others need to change - will you be simply copying your posts from last year?
 
wayneL said:
Altered for accuracy.

I guess folks like their data raw and unadulterated basilio.
Click to expand...

" And so it was decreed on high that the seasons would return to their true paths, the ice mountains would refreeze and the trees stop their travels to the far north when the voice of the almighty pronounced the error of the non believers."

The Book of Waynus 3.28
 
Hey Basilio, you ever thought of posting on a Chinese, Indian, European and American forums and getting them to stuff up their manufacturing for us?
I only see us ,really pushing hard to drop our living standards for 'The greater cause'.
No doubt I will be sitting behind you in the centrelink queue.LOL
Bring the tamborine brother, I'll bring the plate. LOL
 
Actually while you are on there you might get them to stop buying our coal mines.
Tell them we don't want to use it because it will kill the planet.
So they shouldn't buy the mines and burn the coal thereby killing the planet.
That should work.
Hearing it from someone as well versed on climate change as yourself, should be winner.
They are sure to listen.
Thank god a break through at last.
 
basilio said:
Now, now that wasn't a sermon. That was just a friendly heads up on the difference between weather and climate.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I see you are now preaching on the "Risk" thread. Don't forget to tell them that if they don't heed your advice they will be cooked.
 
wayneL said:
Click to expand...

I bought one a few months ago and it exploded on first use. I thought the 185 degrees maximum allowed from the self sustaining heat generation was in centigrade. I should have know that it was Fahrenheit, being a US (NASA) manufactured product.
 

Attachments

  • acdczn.gif
    4.2 KB · Views: 5
bellenuit said:
I bought one a few months ago and it exploded on first use. I thought the 185 degrees maximum allowed from the self sustaining heat generation was in centigrade. I should have know that it was Fahrenheit, being a US (NASA) manufactured product.
Click to expand...

Well the same company did make the Challenger....
 
I like this bit;

Chicken must be above absolute zero when initially inserted

I guess it would be

Absolute zero equates to −459.67 on the Fahrenheit scale.
 
basilio said:
The trouble is that in the climate change debate many people bang on about day to day weather events as "proof" that climate change isn't (or sometimes is) occurring.
Click to expand...
To a very large extent I think this comes down to tit for tat retaliation between the two opposing sides.

One will say that the dams will never fill up as proof of climate change. The other side then brings up the weather as the very same dams overflow as proof of no climate change. Etc.

There's little or no actual science in any of the "predictions" popular with either side. Dams will never fill? Oh really.... We have "proof" that the climate isn't changing? How can you prove that in such a short time?

Both sides are simply playing politics in order to further their own objectives. And of course, the first casualty of politics as with any war is the truth.

The only things we can have any real certainty about is that yes, we are burning a lot of coal and this does emit CO2 and heat. Likewise we can be certain about the current weather at any given location, and we can be certain about runoff over the past century or so into established water catchments.

But that's about all we can be certain of - and a quick look at the number of air-conditioners producing heat / cold air exhaust within a short distance of the BOM's official monitoring location here in Hobart shows that whilst we can be certain of the weather at that location, it may not represent what is happening anywhere other than there. I'd be surprised if this was the only situation like that.
 
I wonder if these 16 scientists fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists? The continuous assertion from the alarmist with an agenda is that all scientists agree global warming is unprecedented and is a result of man's 3% contribution to the world's total CO2.

"The lack of warming for more than a decade””indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections””suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."​

Basilio - still waiting for your answers on the fundamental questions you've been dodging. Shall we assume that you cannot answer them and your climate assertions are based on a religious belief and not one of fact?
 

sweet post ozzie! i havnt been bothered posting here for awhile as it seemed a waste of time, those that believe in AGW do so with religious zeal and those that are sceptical demand irrefutable observed proof NOT computer generated model predections....

its been a stalemate that had become uninteresting ,and to tell the truth quite boring, to me but the fact some high profile scientific fellows from eminent institutions all over the globe have now come out and broken the silence is very interesting and may even be a game-changer and could possibly open the floodgate for like minded ppl, who were previously too scared of retribution, to now speak up!

i personally know a csiro researcher who privately thinks AGW is complete BS but maintains the "company line" for fear of retribution from 'above'

whats even more astonishing i the fact that it was printed in the wall street journal!!!!! an 'establishment' rag if ever there was one! the big boys must have already creamed all the cash they could have from their AGW scare-mongering scams before it was all discovered to be a fraud so now its back to business as usual with total deniability!
 
bandicoot76 said:
whats even more astonishing i the fact that it was printed in the wall street journal!!!!! an 'establishment' rag if ever there was one!
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is the establishment aims being promoted in the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...