Emission Trading and climate change

Page 241 of 377 FirstFirst ... 141 191 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 291 341 ... LastLast
Results 12,001 to 12,050 of 18819
  1. #12001
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    __________________
    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
    __________________
    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
    They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
    __________________
    Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
    Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
    Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
    __________________
    Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
    “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
    __________________
    Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
    __________________
    Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
    __________________
    Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
    “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”

    __________________
    The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  2. #12002
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    __________________
    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
    __________________
    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
    They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
    __________________
    Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
    Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
    Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
    __________________
    Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
    “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
    __________________
    Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
    __________________
    Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
    __________________
    Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
    “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”

    __________________
    The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes
    What hiatus Mark??

    The world is warming at an unprecedented rate, and its only getting worse............ isn't it?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  3. #12003
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    no-upward-trend-u00253f.jpg
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  4. #12004
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    __________________
    Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
    “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
    __________________
    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
    “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
    __________________
    Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
    __________________
    Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
    __________________
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t untilrecently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
    __________________
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    [A] “Yes, but only just”.
    __________________
    Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
    __________________
    Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
    “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
    __________________
    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
    __________________
    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September2011
    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
    __________________
    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
    Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  5. #12005
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
    __________________
    Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
    “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
    [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
    __________________
    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
    __________________
    Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
    ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
    __________________
    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
    __________________
    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
    __________________
    Met Office – July 2013
    The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
    ………..
    Executive summary
    The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”

    Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
    __________________
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  6. #12006
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    OF course there is a solution to this. Build a graphic with an X scale divided into 100ths of a degree and you will be able to show massive temperature increases in the order of fractions of a degree.
    WOW! we all are going to die tomorrow!
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  7. #12007
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  8. #12008
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
    “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson

    Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/p/hall-of-shame-aka-bastards.html
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  9. #12009
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

    • Open Letter – 4th March 2014


    Q1. Could the Bureau explain why it uses 1910 as the start date for the official temperature record rather than a year such as 1860, given there was a large amount of reliable temperature data available from the mid 1800s?

    Q2. Further to 1, if the pre-1910 data is not suitable for official domestic use, can the Bureau explain why it finds it suitable enough to provide this data for generation of a global annual mean temperature anomaly back to 1850?

    Q3. Could the Bureau please provide a list of the actual stations used to calculate the 2013 average mean temperature anomaly, the specific databases and time intervals applied to each of these stations, as well as the adjustments that have been made to the raw data?

    Q4. Given potential and actual conflicts of interest, could the Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) rather than the Bureau of Meteorology, be tasked with the job of leading the high quality and objective interpretation of the historical temperature record for Australia?

    Q.5. What is the explanation for the discrepancy between allocated funding for salary and actual salary of climate change modelers employed under the Climate Change Science Program?

    Q6. Is the reliance by the Bureau on a General Circulation Model (GCM) to provide monthly and seasonal forecasts justified when methods that use historical patterns have proven to be more accurate?

    Q7. Could the Bureau explain why it doesn’t publish the actual quantity of rain forecast by the GCM when issuing its monthly and seasonal forecasts, and why it shouldn’t establish a publicly available archive showing quantities of rainfall forecast in the past?

    See answers and comments here:
    Questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology | Jennifer Marohasy

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  10. #12010
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Jennifer Marohasy

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology takes a revisionist approach to history, changing the historical temperature record so that it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This process of homogenisation is explained in ‘Modelling Australian and global temperatures: what’s wrong? Bourke and Amberley as case studies’, recently presented at a meeting of the Sydney Institute by Jennifer Marohasy, and published in Issue 26 of the Sydney Papers Online.


    Stop Press. Recent articles from News Ltd regarding corruption of the raw temperature data for Australia:
    August 23 – Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ & Heat is on over weather bureau revising records (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 26 – ‘Amateurs’ challenging Bureau of Meteorology climate figures (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 27 – Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 29 – Bureau of Meteorology told to be more transparent (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 29 – Groupthink reigns in climate change research(Maurice Newman, The Australian). August 30 – Weatherman’s records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen’ (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 30 – Distorting the data on our changeable climate (Adelaide Advertiser, The Australian’s Chris Kenny). September 2 –Bureau of Meteorology defended over temperature records by climate scientists (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). September 3 – Heat off Bourke after Bureau of Meteorology revision (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). September 4 – ‘More time’ to find Rutherglen temperature record (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). September 5 – Bureau of Meteorology ‘adding mistakes’ with data modelling (Graham Lloyd, The Australian)

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  11. #12011
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Marc, all those scientists quoted are obviously wrong according to our resident armchair experts, so we should stop thinking with our brains & follow them blindly propagating the fear propaganda further away from reality!
    Regards inter

  12. #12012
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Or, alternatively: Marc has demonstrated that cherry picking propaganda is an art form on his side of the fence.

    Pick less than climatological time scale, pick a single temperature series and claim it represents all temperature series, then pick selected out of context comments from a mix of sources to support your cherry pick.

    These are cherry picks on cherry picks.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  13. #12013
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what “record” temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in The Weekend Australian.
    The odd case of Amberley minima. If you live nearby the local thermometer would say that mornings now are slightly cooler for you than they were in 1941. The BOM says otherwise.
    Both Jennifer Marohasy and Graham Lloyd are both doing great work here:
    The Australian
    Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’

    THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.
    Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
    After a description of some of the problems, the BOM responds to explain the adjustments. Most of it the usual argument from authority, and handwaving about how they are experts and a very complicated technique (that produces odd results) is “likely” right:
    “‘BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
    The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian « JoNova
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  14. #12014
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology takes a revisionist approach to history, changing the historical temperature record so that it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This process of homogenisation is explained in ‘Modelling Australian and global temperatures: what’s wrong? Bourke and Amberley as case studies’, recently presented at a meeting of the Sydney Institute by Jennifer Marohasy, and published in Issue 26 of the Sydney Papers Online.
    You must be so disappointed you didn't check your facts before you posted, Marc. You would be screaming that the BOM is hiding rising temperatures in Australia, because the net effect of all of the BOM adjustments combined was downwards, not upwards like the idiot you have quoted implied.

    “Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia,"

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-defended-over-temperature-records-by-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227044313807

    Never one to let the facts get in the way of prothletising your ideology, eh Marc?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  15. #12015
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is a pity you didn't check your facts before you posted, Marc. You should be screaming that the BOM is hiding rising temperatures in Australia, because the net effect of all of the the adjustments combined was downwards, not upwards like the idiot you have quoted implied.

    “Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia,"

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-defended-over-temperature-records-by-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227044313807

    Never one to let the facts get in the way of prothletising your ideology, eh Marc?
    that at has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month & what fool would believe it? Other than the blind followers of propaganda. The BOM has been caught out fudging raw data with statistical manipulation, yet fails to be open to independent statistical analysis.
    regards inter

  16. #12016
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    that at has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month & what fool would believe it? Other than the blind followers of propaganda.
    You must be busting to share the data you have to support your claim. Let's have it Inter. Don't hold back now...

    For reference, below is the effect of the BOM homogenisation showing clearly how it has reduced the rate of warming (blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment):

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  17. #12017
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You must be busting to share the data you have to support your claim. Let's have it Inter. Don't hold back now...

    For reference, below is the effect of the BOM homogenisation showing clearly how it has reduced the rate of warming (blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment):

    how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes. I would normally say " should have gone to specsavers!" But it's obvious what is lacking is at the end of the optic nerves.
    regards inter

  18. #12018
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    The BOM has been caught out fudging raw data with statistical manipulation, yet fails to be open to independent statistical analysis.
    That has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month (to quote a phrase). BOM's data is freely available on their website. Anybody can do their own statistical analysis and many people do.

    The methodology of data homogenisation is provided here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change.../#tabs=Methods.

    Claims that the BOM is not open or is secretive are at best fallacious or otherwise simply malicious.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  19. #12019
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    how bright is somebody to put a graph like that ... it's obvious what is lacking is at the end of the optic nerves.
    So will you share your data or data source for the benefit of all? Otherwise people may be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #12020
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So will you share your data or data source for the benefit of all? Otherwise people may be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up.
    like don't you know when your being shown up? Or are your neurons just not transmitting?

    "how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes."
    You supplied the data too! I rest my case!
    regards inter

  21. #12021
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    like don't you know when your being shown up?
    I would love to be shown up. Have you got something to post? Don't hold back, share it with everyone. Dispense with the name calling and innuendoes and post the evidence to support your position!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  22. #12022
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    like don't you know when your being shown up? Or are your neurons just not transmitting?

    "how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes."
    You supplied the data too! I rest my case!
    Sorry inter, I gave you the benefit of having some intelligence. Now I realise that you have got it ass-about. The 32 changes LOWER the RATE of temperature increase and the 6 changes RAISE it (your counts, not mine). You may need glasses, you may need to turn your computer screen the right way up, or you may need to stop standing on your head - I really don't know which.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  23. #12023
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Sorry inter, I gave you the benefit of having some intelligence. Now I realise that you have got it ass-about. The 32 changes LOWER the homogenised data set and the 6 changes RAISE it (your counts, not mine). You may need glasses, you may need to turn your computer screen the right way up, or you may need to stop standing on your head - I really don't know which.
    Really? "(blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment)": the 32 points above are in blue! just like anybodies face colour when they are in over their depth. Keep digging your hole this is entertaining!
    regards inter

  24. #12024
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Really? "(blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment)": the 32 points above are in blue!
    Yes that's absolutely correct, Inter. Most of those adjustments were in the distant past, which means the RATE of warming from THEN until NOW is effectively lowered. The BOM's adjustments have lowered the rate of warming. Glad you spotted it!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  25. #12025
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Yes that's absolutely correct, Inter. Most of those adjustments were in the distant past, which means the RATE of warming from THEN until NOW is effectively lowered. The BOM's adjustments have lowered the rate of warming. Glad you spotted it!
    Really?
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...djustments.jpg
    the point is homogenisation has artificially raised the temperature records past or present & false impressions are being discovered which need to be fully explained, your biased ideology is clouding clear thinking & explanations.
    regards inter

  26. #12026
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Really?
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...djustments.jpg
    the point is homogenisation has artificially raised the temperature records past or present & false impressions are being discovered which need to be fully explained, your biased ideology is clouding clear thinking & explanations.
    regards inter
    You've still got nothing!

    Homogenisation is a necessary step in climate data sets. It is done to clean a data set as much as possible from changes in the location, type, breaks in data and changes to the surroundings of the instrumentation etc. Homogenization (climate) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You claim John2b is biassed, but you quote one of the most extreme anti-science blogs for your information. Look in the mirror!

    Read and weep: ACTION COST-ES0601

    The action is over, the main conclusions are:
    1. Homogenisation improves climate data and does not cause artificial trends. Because the test was blind and because of the realism of the data, this can now be stated with confidence.
    2. Modern algorithms, which are designed to also work with an inhomogeneous reference, are clearly better than traditional ones. It needed a realistic benchmark dataset with surrogate climate networks to see this difference clearly.
    3. Two new software packages containing some of the methods recommended by HOME are now avalible. The code has been produced by Olivier Mestre, École Nationale de la Météorologie, Météo France, Tolouse". HOMER (for monthly data) and HOM/SPLIDHOM (for daily data)

    Benchmarking homogenization algorithms for monthly data
    V. K. C. Venema1, O. Mestre2, E. Aguilar3, I. Auer4, J. A. Guijarro5, P. Domonkos3, G. Vertacnik6, T. Szentimrey7, P. Stepanek8,9, P. Zahradnicek8,9, J. Viarre3, G. Müller-Westermeier10, M. Lakatos7, C. N. Williams11, M. J. Menne11, R. Lindau1, D. Rasol12, E. Rustemeier1, K. Kolokythas13, T. Marinova14, L. Andresen15, F. Acquaotta16, S. Fratianni16, S. Cheval17,18, M. Klancar6, M. Brunetti19, C. Gruber4, M. Prohom Duran20,21, T. Likso12, P. Esteban20,22, and T. Brandsma23
    1Meteorological institute of the University of Bonn, Germany
    2Meteo France, Ecole Nationale de la Meteorologie, Toulouse, France
    3Center on Climate Change (C3), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
    4Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, Wien, Austria
    5Agencia Estatal de Meteorologia, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
    6Slovenian Environment Agency, Ljubljana, Slovenia
    7Hungarian Meteorological Service, Budapest, Hungary
    8Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
    9Czechglobe-Global Change Research Centre AS CR, v.v.i., Brno, Czech Republic
    10Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany
    11NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, USA
    12Meteorological and hydrological service, Zagreb, Croatia
    13Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, University of Patras, Greece
    14National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology – BAS, Sofia, Bulgaria
    15Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
    16Department of Earth Science, University of Turin, Italy
    17National Meteorological Administration, Bucharest, Romania
    18National Institute for R&D in Environmental Protection, Bucharest, Romania
    19Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC-CNR), Bologna, Italy
    20Grup de Climatologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
    21Meteorological Service of Catalonia, Area of Climatology, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
    22Centre d'Estudis de la Neu i de la Muntanya d'Andorra (CENMA-IEA), Andorra
    23Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands
    You don't get valid scientific information from climate change denier blogs. You get stupid information set to attack the science with no valid scientific review.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  27. #12027
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    You don't get valid scientific information from climate change denier blogs. You get stupid information set to attack the science with no valid scientific review.
    In your opinion!! And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  28. #12028
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    In your opinion!! And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!
    No, they just create mountains of fraudulent pseudoscientific claptrap to create obfuscation and fodder for unthinking minions.

    (Nice attempt to move the gaol posts again Rod, BTW.)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #12029
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No, they just create mountains of fraudulent pseudoscientific claptrap to create obfuscation and fodder for unthinking minions.

    (Nice attempt to move the gaol posts again Rod, BTW.)
    no moving goal posts nothing has changed. All the above is also just your opinion as it suit your thinking.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #12030
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    no moving goal posts nothing has changed. All the above is also just your opinion as it suit your thinking.
    I'll ask you again, Rod: If your "side's" bloggers are right, why do they need to continually and fraudulently publish claims that are so easily shown to be false, out of context, misinterpretations or just plain wrong?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #12031
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    In your opinion!! And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!
    Back at you.. In your own opinion!! We're talking AGW here, not natural forcings.

    Have you heard of WUWT?, it routinely denies the impact of humankind on the climate, not to mention Jonova, or Marc's right wing repertoire of blogs, etc, etc. There are masses of them and very little based on real published science, and those that do usually quote well out of context or cherry pick. Read back a few pages of this thread and there are plenty of examples.

    Just come up with published peer reviewed science that knocks the accepted science out of the park. Anything else is just more claptrap to support an ideology.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  32. #12032
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I'll ask you again, Rod: If your "side's" bloggers are right, why do they need to continually and fraudulently publish claims that are so easily shown to be false, out of context, misinterpretations or just plain wrong?

    I cant speak for them all there are good and bad on both sides but it is again only your opinion. I really think the fraudulent claims are by far more prevalent on your side of the argument. You just cant see it. All the scare mongering that is preceded with "may" "could" and the like are all presented as facts to whip up support by scaring people. This is by far more fraudulent and a misrepresentation of facts.

    Yet it will be excused as a justifiable means to get the message across.

    Your side has relied on so much on these fraudulent and misrepresentative claims that HAVE NOT eventuated, so much so that no one believes anything the warmists say anymore. They have shot themselves in the foot and you know it.

    The only fraud being conducted here is the bullchet claims that AGW is the dominant factor in climate change, supported by climate models that are pre-fed feedback loops that don't exist. The global warming movement may have started out with all good intentions, but it has been hijacked by anyone that can find a way to profit from the scare.

    It is only a matter of time before it is a dead issue. Nothing absolutely nothing has been presented here that could change my view of this. But by all means knock yourself out trying to come up with some thing to change my mind.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  33. #12033
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Back at you.. In your own opinion!! We're talking AGW here, not natural forcings.

    Have you heard of WUWT?, it routinely denies the impact of humankind on the climate, not to mention Jonova, or Marc's right wing repertoire of blogs, etc, etc. There are masses of them and very little based on real published science, and those that do usually quote well out of context or cherry pick. Read back a few pages of this thread and there are plenty of examples.

    Just come up with published peer reviewed science that knocks the accepted science out of the park. Anything else is just more claptrap to support an ideology.
    Oh boy. The claptrap comes from the warmists. If your case for runaway dangerous AGW that will burn up the world is so strong, you would not have any skeptics. The facts are that it is rubbish. A few truths which most of us all agree even most at WUNT, Jonova etc. have been embellished to represent a catastrophic future.

    It is the embellishments that we all disagree on.

    A warmer climate is better for humans than a colder climate in any case. More C02 is better than less as far as plants are concerned.

    The scare tactics have come around and bit you on the butt. Most of these blogs delight in pointing out the failure of wild, false and fraudulent claims by warmists. Hell even I have great enjoyment from that!

    Any way it is going to take a long time yet for some to see this for what it is.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #12034
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Oh boy. The claptrap comes from the warmists. If your case for runaway dangerous AGW that will burn up the world is so strong, you would not have any skeptics. The facts are that it is rubbish. A few truths which most of us all agree even most at WUNT, Jonova etc. have been embellished to represent a catastrophic future.
    Who said I agree that there is a near term catastrophic future? Not I, and not most climate scientists. You're trying to peg me to a very small portion of warmists. What I do agree with is that we sould be actively doing something now about our effect on the climate because it will only get harder for future generations to undo the harm we create by continuing to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It is the embellishments that we all disagree on.

    A warmer climate is better for humans than a colder climate in any case. More C02 is better than less as far as plants are concerned.
    It's already warmer, Rod. The chances of it getting significantly colder are very slim. We have a lot of existing warming to lose before we get back to where we were before the industrial revolution and there is absolutely no sign that we are heading back. The most we hear is that there is no more warming in the last couple of decades. That's not cooling back to pre industrialisation! In any case, just wait for that to get blown out of the water in due course. What are you going to claim then? The ocean ate your cooling?

    The scare tactics have come around and bit you on the butt. Most of these blogs delight in pointing out the failure of wild, false and fraudulent claims by warmists. Hell even I have great enjoyment from that!
    The 'scare tactics' is the science telling us where we are at and what effects our actions will have. If you read the science, you would understand that the scary results are hundreds of years in the future, not next year. We can ignore it, but unless there is science to prove otherwise, it will happen. Some people find that scary, others see it as a call for change. No surprise which side of the fence you and I are on.

    Any way it is going to take a long time yet for some to see this for what it is.
    Sure. Like the dry rot in a wall. By the time you realise it's there, the wall is toast. If you test the wall when you think there is no problem, you're going to find out you have some repairs to make. Much easier and much more economical to do it early than wait for it to collapse.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  35. #12035
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    The only fraud being conducted here is the bullchet claims that AGW is the dominant factor in climate change,
    There you go Rod, you have sprouted another easily disprovable claim. The radiation balance that has been altered by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is easily measurable. No models or climate change theories required. It's a fact that human emissions of CO2 have altered the energy balance of the planet that is causing warming the amount can be directly measured.

    NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  36. #12036
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate

    1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.


    2. The UN doesn’t care that global warming stopped 17 years ago. It doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead.
    3. The UN’s own climate models have grossly over-forecast warming. Doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead.
    4. Scientists and politicians have had to resort to blaming severe weather eventson climate change. Like, we never had severe weather before? Really? (Oh, BTW,severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.)
    5. The UN Climate Summit participants’ “carbon footprints” far exceed those of normal people…and they don’t care. Flying jets all over the world, traveling and dining in style, and telling a billion poor they can’t have inexpensive electricity? That’s the moral high ground?
    6. Leonardo DiCaprio, UN’s Messenger of Peace. Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize andcrony capitalist. ‘Nuff said.
    7. The leaders of Australia, China, India, Canada, and Germany are opting out of Tuesday’s meeting. They have real problems to attend to, not manufactured ones.
    8. A UN official admitted the climate goal was wealth redistribution. Naomi Klein has admitted what Obama, Kerry, and Clinton won’t admit: it’s about stopping Capitalism. Unless you are a crony capitalist friend getting green energy subsidies.
    9. What they can’t admit is that global greening and increasing global crop productivity is the result of us putting some of that CO2 back where it was in the first place – in the atmosphere. I’m still predicting some day we will realize more CO2 is a good thing.
    10. The UN’s climate reports exaggerate and misrepresent the science. For example, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

    Read more at Roy Spencer PHD
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  37. #12037
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #12038
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate

    1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.
    I'll take the first one

    Commenting on the report on RenewEconomy; pitt&sherry principal consultant Hugh Sherry said if solar PV was factored into South Australia's results, the shares would be: coal 15%, gas 43%, wind 26%, interconnector 12% and PV 4%; putting renewables at 30% overall.
    If SA can reach 30%, just about anyone can get above 15-20%. Of course, replacing fossil fuel plants requires capital expenditure, but the ongoing running costs are lower because fuel costs are zero. SA's goal is 33% by 2020, looks like we'll be spinning our wheels for a few years waiting for the rest of Australia to catch up!

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  39. #12039
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years.
    The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
    The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years.

    It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month.






    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  40. #12040
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.
    Nonsense!

    "With more than 40 per cent of the state’s power demand provided by wind energy for the entire month, it is clear that large amounts of renewable energy can be added to the system without the need for extra backup generation to be built."

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/south-australia-hits-43-wind-mark/story-e6frg90f-1227017985137
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #12041
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years.
    The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
    The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years.

    It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month.






    And who cares or would swallow that propaganda when the difference is less than 0.00 something of a degree.
    regards inter

  42. #12042
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    There you go Rod, you have sprouted another easily disprovable claim. The radiation balance that has been altered by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is easily measurable. No models or climate change theories required. It's a fact that human emissions of CO2 have altered the energy balance of the planet that is causing warming the amount can be directly measured.

    NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
    now all your ERBE do dad has to do is prove which one of the 20 or so factors that have an influence on the heating capacity of the atmosphere, we all know that it has warmed! But now all that extra energy is magically disappearing into space.
    regards inter

  43. #12043
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'll take the first one



    If SA can reach 30%, just about anyone can get above 15-20%. Of course, replacing fossil fuel plants requires capital expenditure, but the ongoing running costs are lower because fuel costs are zero. SA's goal is 33% by 2020, looks like we'll be spinning our wheels for a few years waiting for the rest of Australia to catch up!
    Do they have anymore than a domestic demand & manufacture anything of substance in SA now ? Soon it will be a welfare state.
    regards inter

  44. #12044
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    we all know that it has warmed! But now all that extra energy is magically disappearing into space.
    No it hasn't. That is exactly what the EREB studies prove is not happening. 90% of the heat transferred from the sun is absorbed by the oceans until weather cycles move the heat from the oceans to the surface. That's how it is, and how it has always been.

    Weather is variable, which is why climate science isn't determined by short term weather variations, but is the average of thirty year periods. The next El Nino event will see some of the excess heat in the oceans moved to the surface, and the surface temperature record will take the next step up the temperature escalator. It is the inevitable consequence of the laws of conservation of energy.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #12045
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Do they have anymore than a domestic demand & manufacture anything of substance in SA now ? Soon it will be a welfare state.
    The interstate electrical interconnect that was built to meet South Australia's peak electricity demand is now used to export electricity from South Australia to Victoria and NSW. South Australia provided 6% of Victoria's electricity from surplus South Australian wind generation in August. This had the effect of reducing wholesale electricity prices in Victoria for the period. No need for thanks - you're welcome. South Australian wind generated electricity has also been sold into the NSW market where it displaces dirty Victorian brown coal generated electricity.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  46. #12046
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    And who cares ... when the difference is less than 0.00 something of a degree.
    The actual magnitude of surface temperature change does not reveal the significance of slight shifts in temperature. One problem is that fruit trees fail to set fruit if they do not receive enough chill hours during winter. New varieties of fruit trees can be bred or developed, but trees take years to reach productive maturity.

    As a result of the loss of regional chill hours, there have been significant fruit crop failures in the order of 80-90% in specific regions around the world in recent years. Agricultural research is on steroids trying to find solutions quickly enough to keep up with the rate of climate change.

    The chilling requirement of a fruit is the minimum period of cold weather after which a fruit-bearing tree will blossom. It is often expressed in chill hours, which can be calculated in different ways, all of which essentially involve adding up the total amount of time in a winter spent at certain temperatures

    Chilling requirement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  47. #12047
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No it hasn't. That is exactly what the EREB studies prove is not happening. 90% of the heat transferred from the sun is absorbed by the oceans until weather cycles move the heat from the oceans to the surface. That's how it is, and how it has always been.

    Weather is variable, which is why climate science isn't determined by short term weather variations, but is the average of thirty year periods. The next El Nino event will see some of the excess heat in the oceans moved to the surface, and the surface temperature record will take the next step up the temperature escalator. It is the inevitable consequence of the laws of conservation of energy.
    riiiight, the oceans ate our warming.... and wait for it... they will throw it up for us!!

    We all know about El Nino. When the next one occurs you will be hoping like hell it will be bigger than the 98 one. But hey fudge a few numbers and it will be. There Global warming back dangerous as ever!!

    We could almost write your script for you. So sad.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  48. #12048
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    riiiight, the oceans ate our warming.... and wait for it... they will throw it up for us!!
    Correct. That is how climate and weather works on planet Earth. Always has been and always will be - the law of conservation of energy makes it so.

    Why do the oceans absorb 90% of the heat energy? Because the oceans cover ~70% of the planet and have a very low albedo. Land only covers ~30% of the planet and has a higher albedo.

    Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  49. #12049
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I propose a new "link" just as valid as the CO2 link to heating proposed by your friend Al Gore.
    I say that there is a link between the internet and radio and tv activity in relation to "climate change" and temperature.

    Clearly the large reduction in talk resulting in a substantial reduction of hot air emanating from this talks is depleting the atmosphere of the much needed energy to produce any relevant upward trend.
    Personally I would prefer them to be correct even in part since I have never used as much firewood as this year, and I don't remember a September as cold as this one. My aircon is running as I type and it will soon be October.
    When the bureau of meteorology embarks in falsifying data to protect what they perceive as a source of funds, our own logic and our own senses must kick in to make some sense out of this. Clearly there is widespread worldwide empiric data that we are not heating up but rather cooling. Heating is better than cooling for humans and last time I checked I am human.
    However this is academic and is not worth getting too excited about since the causes are natural and even if they were not natural there is no chance that we can do anything to change this.
    The proof is that the UN "climate change" is a dud and none of the leaders that count are attending. They have bigger fish to fry and have given up on this nonsense because it no longer produces interest and therefore votes. The fact that it is a fraud has been clear to them from day one. It just stopped being useful.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  50. #12050
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    We all know about El Nino. When the next one occurs you will be hoping like hell it will be bigger than the 98 one.
    It won't have to be bigger than '98 to be significant, but it probably will be. There is a lot of stored energy in the oceans.

    Look on the bright side, you'll have a new 'no warming since' year to spout about.


    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


Page 241 of 377 FirstFirst ... 141 191 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 291 341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •