Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Brent in Qld said..
I like this. Your premise implies observations with one's own senses mandate the reality for all. I've never seen a God, therefore no Gods exist.
I've never seen the wind.....
You have so (roll of the eyes emoji). little arrows in the part of Seabreeze that actually matters and relies on sciencing.
Temperatures
The national mean temperature was 1.19 ?C above the 1961-1990 average for July, the ninth-warmest on record since national observations began in 1910. For Tasmania it was the warmest July on record, at 2.02 ?C above average. New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia were all in the top 10 warmest Julys on record.
www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
- George Orwell, 1984
Seems to me its about time Tequila you got on board with their narrative -global warming has now become global boiling.
The heat is now 'unbearable' according to the U.N Secretary General 
The party told you to reject the evidence from your eyes and ears - it was their most essential command.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Seems to me its about time Tequila you got on board with their narrative -global warming has now become global boiling.
The heat is now 'unbearable' according to the U.N Secretary General
The party told you to reject the evidence from your eyes and ears - it was their most essential command.
I am on your side dude
Friggin alarmist muppets painted red graph forecast w LOWER temps than the normal green graph w HIGHER temps of 6 yrs ago
"No, Weather Maps Aren't Scare-Mongering About Climate ChangeA NOAA spokesperson told Snopes that the point isn't to trick anyone or make the weather seem scarier ... the point is to make the maps more intuitive and easy to understand."
www.snopes.com/news/2022/07/29/weather-maps-climate-change/
Select to expand quoteremery said..
...and Tuvalu is sinking?
www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/101319846/pacific-nation-tuvalu-has-grown-by-73-hectares-over-40-years
Select to expand quote
Alarmist BS which would only appeal to the feeble minded.
"...record hottest day on earth...days altered by carbon pollution...?" The world has been much hotter than this in the last few thousand years, and it had nothing to do with carbon pollution.
You cant win a discussion with the Extinction Rebellion crowd.
Between the paid shills that the non government organisations employ and the dumb brainwashed masses that fall for their BS THEORY it is impossible - period.
I have read these NGO fund various groups to the tune of billions in total.
People mostly FOLLOW THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..
...and Tuvalu is sinking?
www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/101319846/pacific-nation-tuvalu-has-grown-by-73-hectares-over-40-years
I just had a read of the article quoted above. I have pasted the relevant bit here: (my emphasis)
"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive given that sea level has been rising in the region over the past half-century, co-author Paul Kench said. "But the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion." The study identified waves to be the main change driver for "island morphological adjustment". Waves, and in particular, storm waves influence the shape and size of islands. For example, Cyclone Bebe in 1972 delivered significant volumes of coarse sediment to the Funafuti reef flat, which expanded the footprint of the islands on their eastern rim over the next four decades. "We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," Professor Kench said.
TUVALU FACT FILE
- The country is comprised of 101 islands
- It is spread over nine atolls, scattered across nearly a million square kilometres of Pacific Ocean
- Its total land mass is only 26 square kms (just bigger than Auckland's Rangitoto Island)
- The country had a net increase in land area of 2.9 percent or 73 hectares over 40 years
- Sea level rise rates were over 3.5mm per year.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
I just had a read of the article quoted above. I have pasted the relevant bit here: (my emphasis)
"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive given that sea level has been rising in the region over the past half-century, co-author Paul Kench said. "But the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion." The study identified waves to be the main change driver for "island morphological adjustment". Waves, and in particular, storm waves influence the shape and size of islands. For example, Cyclone Bebe in 1972 delivered significant volumes of coarse sediment to the Funafuti reef flat, which expanded the footprint of the islands on their eastern rim over the next four decades. "We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," Professor Kench said.
TUVALU FACT FILE
- The country is comprised of 101 islands
- It is spread over nine atolls, scattered across nearly a million square kilometres of Pacific Ocean
- Its total land mass is only 26 square kms (just bigger than Auckland's Rangitoto Island)
- The country had a net increase in land area of 2.9 percent or 73 hectares over 40 years
- Sea level rise rates were over 3.5mm per year.
Vis-?-vis Boodalan Island.
News just in...
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
"NASA assembles its temperature record from surface air temperature data from tens of thousands of metrological stations, as well as sea surface temperature data acquired by ship- and buoy-based instruments. This raw data is analyzed using methods that account for the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and for urban heating effects that could skew the calculations. "This July was not just warmer than any previous July - it was the warmest month in our record, which goes back to 1880," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "The science is clear this isn't normal. Alarming warming around the world is driven primarily by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. And that rise in average temperatures is fueling dangerous extreme heat that people are experiencing here at home and worldwide. "High sea surface temperatures contributed to July's record warmth. NASA's analysis shows especially warm ocean temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, evidence of the El Ni?o that began developing in May 2023. Phenomena such as El Ni?o or La Ni?a, which warm or cool the tropical Pacific Ocean, can contribute a small amount of year-to-year variability in global temperatures. But these contributions are not typically felt when El Ni?o starts developing in Northern Hemisphere summer. NASA expects to see the biggest impacts of El Ni?o in February, March, and April 2024."
Select to expand quoteremery said..
News just in...
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
"NASA assembles its temperature record from surface air temperature data from tens of thousands of metrological stations, as well as sea surface temperature data acquired by ship- and buoy-based instruments. This raw data is analyzed using methods that account for the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and for urban heating effects that could skew the calculations. "This July was not just warmer than any previous July - it was the warmest month in our record, which goes back to 1880," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "The science is clear this isn't normal. Alarming warming around the world is driven primarily by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. And that rise in average temperatures is fueling dangerous extreme heat that people are experiencing here at home and worldwide. "High sea surface temperatures contributed to July's record warmth. NASA's analysis shows especially warm ocean temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, evidence of the El Ni?o that began developing in May 2023. Phenomena such as El Ni?o or La Ni?a, which warm or cool the tropical Pacific Ocean, can contribute a small amount of year-to-year variability in global temperatures. But these contributions are not typically felt when El Ni?o starts developing in Northern Hemisphere summer. NASA expects to see the biggest impacts of El Ni?o in February, March, and April 2024."
Support Nuclear energy, problem solved!
remery, you are incapable of critical thought, so your opinion is therefore not an informed one.
THEIR science is your idol, and you bow down to that false god.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
remery, you are incapable of critical thought, so your opinion is therefore not an informed one.
THEIR science is your idol, and you bow down to that false god.
I've made a career out of critical thinking... how about you? (payments from corporate America for acting as a fossil fuel stooge don't count).
I look at the physical evidence not THEIR DATA.
Data can and is being manipulated to paint a picture.
Censorship by the MSM of evidence from the other side, particularly over the last 3 years has resulted in many people washing their hands of the corporate media.
From Global boiling to the V word which we are not allowed to discuss anymore.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I look at the physical evidence not THEIR DATA.
Data can and is being manipulated to paint a picture.
Censorship by the MSM of evidence from the other side, particularly over the last 3 years has resulted in many people washing their hands of the corporate media.
From Global boiling to the V word which we are not allowed to discuss anymore.
A recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% agreed with the existence of anthropogenic climate change. A recent report by the International Panel on Climate Change, an agency with 195 member countries, concluded with 95% confidence that the climate is changing due to human activity. But you have all the answers.
Select to expand quoteThe 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.
Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed
.This public discussion was started by Oreskes' brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords "global climate change." The article says "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.
In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent "demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor." The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural''.
It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it.
On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.
Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day's news in your inbox every weekday.
Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change - YouTube
Apt comment...
When people won't answer a direct question and keep repeating the same thing over and over again like a robot to avoid the question, I have great difficulty taking them seriously. My image of the Sierra Club is blown. I used to think they were a credible organization, but not anymore. They appear to have an agenda that they are determined to drive home no matter what the temperature statistics may actually indicate. They're corrupt.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said..
I look at the physical evidence not THEIR DATA.
Data can and is being manipulated to paint a picture.
Censorship by the MSM of evidence from the other side, particularly over the last 3 years has resulted in many people washing their hands of the corporate media.
From Global boiling to the V word which we are not allowed to discuss anymore.
A recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% agreed with the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
What a surprising result, reminds me of a survey of 10000 IT experts in the late 90's , 98% of them agreed the millenium bug was going to crash computers at the turn of the century.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
What a surprising result, reminds me of a survey of 10000 IT experts in the late 90's , 98% of them agreed the millenium bug was going to crash computers at the turn of the century.
Well, given that lots of companies spent money resolving these issues and ugrading systems before the year 2000, I don't really understand what your point is.
It was a known issue. It was unknown for some things. People went to work and fixed or replaced.
Are you saying that with climate change we should sit back and do nothing as this seems to be what your post suggests about the Y2K issues.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..
What a surprising result, reminds me of a survey of 10000 IT experts in the late 90's , 98% of them agreed the millenium bug was going to crash computers at the turn of the century.
Well, given that lots of companies spent money resolving these issues and ugrading systems before the year 2000, I don't really understand what your point is.
It was a known issue. It was unknown for some things. People went to work and fixed or replaced.
Are you saying that with climate change we should sit back and do nothing as this seems to be what your post suggests about the Y2K issues.
I am suggesting that 98% of active climate scientists may have a vested interest in agreeing with the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
Anyone with any ability to think critically would take that into account when looking at the results of such a survey.
suckers
