New climate study raises alarm for Asian Megacities

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

My belief is in the effectiveness of the scientific method which must include experimentation which has to be replicable if the theory is correct, and falsifiable if the theory is wrong, so of course any interpretation of data which contradicts my belief (in the methodology of science) causes me to be skeptical.

 

The evidence that the Earth, overall, has been in a slight warming trend during the past 100-150 years is probably correct and I don't dispute that, although I am aware of the enormous difficulty of getting a continuous and accurate, average, temperature of the entire planet, including land, sea and atmosphere, over that 150 year period.

 

Since I'm relatively unbiased, unlike alarmists, I consider both the positive and negative aspects of the current warming trend. I haven't yet seen any reliable evidence that shows the claimed 1.1 C rise in average global temperature during a 150 year period is anything to worry about. If the temperature in my house were to rise by only 1.1 degrees C during the course of just one day, I wouldn't even notice it.
 

So much for the science of geology. Oh and astrophysics too. And evolutionary theory.

 

And if it were simply a matter of the temperature increasing., ou might have half a point. But in fact the rising temperature has accelerated in conjunction with the accelerated increase in the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As predicted.

[Yellowtail]

I know that one of the things people selling finance models to is build different models generate make stock picks every day. 

 

Then, in a few years they pick whichever prediction panned out to sell their service. 

 

 

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I know that one of the things people selling finance models to is build different models generate make stock picks every day. 

 

Then, in a few years they pick whichever prediction panned out to sell their service. 

 

 

And this has what relevance to climate change theory? The predictions of global warming have stood the test of time. It's the naysayers who have repeatedly been proven wrong.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And this has what relevance to climate change theory? The predictions of global warming have stood the test of time. It's the naysayers who have repeatedly been proven wrong.

What predictions and by whom? Can you answer that?

 

Here's one example, that I've personally experienced.
During the Millennium Drought in Queensland, Australia, from 1997 to 2009, there were a number of proposed projects to build more dams to prepare for the future flooding, because Australia has a well-known history of droughts and floods.

 

However, during this drought, a major advisor to the Australian government, who was a so-called climate expert, named Tim Flannery, advised that such droughts would become more prominent and extended due to Climate Change, and that there would be little purpose in building new dams because they would never fill.

 

As a result of this advice, desalination plants were built instead. Then in 2010-11, massive flooding events occurred, causing billions of dollars of damage, and the desalination plants were placed in hibernation. If the proposed dams had been built, there would have been much less damage to homes and properties, and perhaps none at all.

 

The flood, of course, was described by the media as unprecedented, and the worst on record. Curious, as I usually am, I checked the BOM records, and was amazed to discover that the flood was not the worst on record, but the 7th worst. In other words, there were 6 previous, worse, floods going back to the worst flood that occurred in 1841.

 

Of course, the degree of flooding was not the same throughout the state of Queensland. In some areas the flooding was only the 5th worst.
Here's a detailed record of the history of flooding in the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, if you're interested.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
 

[placeholder]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

What predictions and by whom? Can you answer that?

 

Here's one example, that I've personally experienced.
During the Millennium Drought in Queensland, Australia, from 1997 to 2009, there were a number of proposed projects to build more dams to prepare for the future flooding, because Australia has a well-known history of droughts and floods.

 

However, during this drought, a major advisor to the Australian government, who was a so-called climate expert, named Tim Flannery, advised that such droughts would become more prominent and extended due to Climate Change, and that there would be little purpose in building new dams because they would never fill.

 

As a result of this advice, desalination plants were built instead. Then in 2010-11, massive flooding events occurred, causing billions of dollars of damage, and the desalination plants were placed in hibernation. If the proposed dams had been built, there would have been much less damage to homes and properties, and perhaps none at all.

 

The flood, of course, was described by the media as unprecedented, and the worst on record. Curious, as I usually am, I checked the BOM records, and was amazed to discover that the flood was not the worst on record, but the 7th worst. In other words, there were 6 previous, worse, floods going back to the worst flood that occurred in 1841.

 

Of course, the degree of flooding was not the same throughout the state of Queensland. In some areas the flooding was only the 5th worst.
Here's a detailed record of the history of flooding in the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, if you're interested.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
 

And this has what to do with the fact that the early the scientific formulations that predicted global warning in the mid 70's continue to be born out?

 

And why should any serious person cite what the media claim about record floods as some sort of disproof of the science?

 

And what is rationally indisputable is that Australia's mean temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Celsius over the past 110 years.

 

And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas  What about, say, Western Australia?

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

And this has what to do with the fact that the early the scientific formulations that predicted global warning in the mid 70's continue to be born out?

Nothing. I wasn't addressing temperature predictions. I was addressing the claimed consequences of a gradual warming trend which is causing great alarm, especially amongst children and the scientifically illiterate.

 

Scientists who are political activists are promoting an existential threat, and the media latches on to that, claiming that every extreme weather event is caused by anthropogenic climate change.

 

The IPCC, for example, have stated in their previous reports, that climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system and that predictions are very 'challenging'. They now use the term 'projection' instead of 'prediction', as a consequence.

 

They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale.

 

"And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas  What about, say, Western Australia?"

 

I've just checked the history of floods in WA, and the first  government site that came up, begins with the following statement:

 

"Since the mid-1960s Western Australia has been experiencing below average annual rainfall and has had relatively little major flooding especially in the more populated areas of the south-west." 
 

https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5313/11445.pdf

 

However, this report is dated July 2000, so it doesn't include the most recent flood that has occurred during this triple La Nina event. This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

 

Got it?

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What predictions and by whom? Can you answer that?

 

Here's one example, that I've personally experienced.
During the Millennium Drought in Queensland, Australia, from 1997 to 2009, there were a number of proposed projects to build more dams to prepare for the future flooding, because Australia has a well-known history of droughts and floods.

 

However, during this drought, a major advisor to the Australian government, who was a so-called climate expert, named Tim Flannery, advised that such droughts would become more prominent and extended due to Climate Change, and that there would be little purpose in building new dams because they would never fill.

 

As a result of this advice, desalination plants were built instead. Then in 2010-11, massive flooding events occurred, causing billions of dollars of damage, and the desalination plants were placed in hibernation. If the proposed dams had been built, there would have been much less damage to homes and properties, and perhaps none at all.

 

The flood, of course, was described by the media as unprecedented, and the worst on record. Curious, as I usually am, I checked the BOM records, and was amazed to discover that the flood was not the worst on record, but the 7th worst. In other words, there were 6 previous, worse, floods going back to the worst flood that occurred in 1841.

 

Of course, the degree of flooding was not the same throughout the state of Queensland. In some areas the flooding was only the 5th worst.
Here's a detailed record of the history of flooding in the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, if you're interested.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
 

What Flannery said was that there'd be more droughts and floods. This has proved to be true and what he said about droughts and dams was correct. The advice to build desalination plants is sound. There are other reasons for this policy being sound and that it national security. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that deranged nutcase affiliated with or in adulation of some anti government organisation might poison a dam or two. It's always good policy to have diverse supplies of water. 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

"And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas  What about, say, Western Australia?"

 

I've just checked the history of floods in WA, and the first  government site that came up, begins with the following statement:

 

"Since the mid-1960s Western Australia has been experiencing below average annual rainfall and has had relatively little major flooding especially in the more populated areas of the south-west." 
 

https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5313/11445.pdf

 

However, this report is dated July 2000, so it doesn't include the most recent flood that has occurred during this triple La Nina event. This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

 

Got it?

Once again, I'm going to show that you got it wrong and let's see if, once again, you're going to ignore my correction.

Here is the definition of a hundred year flood:

"A 100-year flood is a flood event that has a 1 in 100 chance (1% probability) of being equaled or exceeded in any given year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood

 

The US Geological Survey also offers an explanation:

"Instead of the term "100-year flood" a hydrologist would rather describe this extreme hydrologic event as a flood having a 100-year recurrence interval. What this means is described in detail below, but a short explanation is that, according to historical data about rainfall and stream stage, the probability of Soandso River reaching a stage of 20 feet is once in 100 years. In other words, a flood of that magnitude has a 1 percent chance of happening in any year."

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/100-year-flood

 

Got it?

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

 

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

"And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas  What about, say, Western Australia?"

 

I've just checked the history of floods in WA, and the first  government site that came up, begins with the following statement:

 

"Since the mid-1960s Western Australia has been experiencing below average annual rainfall and has had relatively little major flooding especially in the more populated areas of the south-west." 
 

https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5313/11445.pdf

 

However, this report is dated July 2000, so it doesn't include the most recent flood that has occurred during this triple La Nina event. This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

 

Got it?

As I noted previously, two can play the cherry picking game.

 

Kimberley floods: 'the worst flooding Western Australia has ever seen' – video

Communities in the Kimberley in Western Australia are reeling from the largest flooding event in the state's history, which has wreaked havoc in the region. The Fitzroy River peaked at 15.81 metres, about 1.8 metres above the previous record. Emergency evacuations continued on Thursday as the Fitzroy's flood peak bore down on tiny Noonkanbah.

https://tvpworld.com/65537026/western-australia-struggles-amid-worst-flooding-in-its-history

 

Got it?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Nothing. I wasn't addressing temperature predictions. I was addressing the claimed consequences of a gradual warming trend which is causing great alarm, especially amongst children and the scientifically illiterate.

 

Scientists who are political activists are promoting an existential threat, and the media latches on to that, claiming that every extreme weather event is caused by anthropogenic climate change.

 

The IPCC, for example, have stated in their previous reports, that climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system and that predictions are very 'challenging'. They now use the term 'projection' instead of 'prediction', as a consequence.

 

They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale.

Actually, the IPCC has a record of being overly conservative in its projections which consistently get revised upwards as each report is issued. In fact, your information is way out of date. I suspect that's because you get your information, or rather your misinformation, from denialist websites.

 

At any rate here are a few quotes from Chapter 11 of the latest IPCC report which addresses the issues of climate and weather extremes. Because of the rules limiting quotes, for a more thorough examination follow the link at the bottom:

 

"It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes."

 

"Human influence, in particular greenhouse gas emissions, is likely the main driver of the observed global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions"

 

"Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions due to evapotranspiration increases (medium confidence)"

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

 

Got it?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by placeholder

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

At any rate here are a few quotes from Chapter 11 of the latest IPCC report which addresses the issues of climate and weather extremes. Because of the rules limiting quotes, for a more thorough examination follow the link at the bottom:

 

"It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes."

 

Good quote, which highlights the problem. "It's an established fact...'', in other words 'the science is settled'. Many people believe that. It's the new religion.

 

The continued existence of the IPCC organization is based upon an assumption that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions  are bad for the climate, so claiming it is an established fact is understandable, and is required for continued funding, or increased funding.

 

However, you should also pay attention the the following part of the quote; '..have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes'.

 

I checked the details in the AR6 report which you linked, to find what those 'some weather and climate extremes' are.

 

Here are a few quotes from the report.
Temperatures Extremes
"The additional observational records, along with a stronger warming signal, show very clearly that changes observed at the time of AR5 (IPCC, 2014) continued, providing strengthened evidence of an increase in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes and decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes."

 

Now that does seem very worrying. Since the previous report (AR5), the evidence that shows an increase in hot extremes, has strengthened.

 

My Gosh! That is alarming. But wait! The strengthened evidence also shows that there has been a decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes.

 

There is so much evidence available on the internet which shows that a far greater number of people die from extreme cold than from extreme heat, globally. If this is true, then an increase in heat waves, linked to a decrease in cold waves, should be beneficial. Wouldn't you agree?

 

"Floods
There is low confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale , but there are regions experiencing increases, including parts of Asia, Southern South America, north-east USA, north-western Europe, and the Amazon, and regions experiencing decreases, including parts of the Mediterranean, Australia, Africa, and south-western USA."

 

Droughts
"Some AR6 regions show a decrease in meteorological drought, including Northern Australia, Central Australia, Northern Europe and Central North America (Section 11.9). Other regions either do not show substantial trends in long-term meteorological drought, or they display mixed signals depending on the considered time frame and sub-regions, such as in Southern Australia (Gallant et al., 2013; Delworth and Zeng, 2014; Alexander and Arblaster, 2017; Spinoni et al., 2019; Dunn et al., 2020;"

 

If you read the details in the linked AR6 report, you should see that there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the trends and the degree of changes in extreme weather events, globally, so I would suggest that this uncertainty contradicts the beginning of the quote, 'It is an established fact..."

 

This will be my last post in this thread because it feels like I'm trying to convince a person who believes in a Creator God, that there is no sound scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator God. Such discussions can be endless, so what's the point?

 

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Nothing. I wasn't addressing temperature predictions. I was addressing the claimed consequences of a gradual warming trend which is causing great alarm, especially amongst children and the scientifically illiterate.

 

Scientists who are political activists are promoting an existential threat, and the media latches on to that, claiming that every extreme weather event is caused by anthropogenic climate change.

 

The IPCC, for example, have stated in their previous reports, that climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system and that predictions are very 'challenging'. They now use the term 'projection' instead of 'prediction', as a consequence.

 

They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale.

 

"And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas  What about, say, Western Australia?"

 

I've just checked the history of floods in WA, and the first  government site that came up, begins with the following statement:

 

"Since the mid-1960s Western Australia has been experiencing below average annual rainfall and has had relatively little major flooding especially in the more populated areas of the south-west." 
 

https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5313/11445.pdf

 

However, this report is dated July 2000, so it doesn't include the most recent flood that has occurred during this triple La Nina event. This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

 

Got it?

Before I go on to address your latest reply,  I think it's time to point out your intellectual dishonesty. Honoroble people admit their mistakes, When yours are pointed out, you simply ignore that.

Here's the first one I showed was false:

 

"They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale."

The IPCC report I linked to shows that to be another falsehood.

 

I also showed your claim about flooding in Western Australia to be false. Namely this one

 

"This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions."

 

In fact, the worst flood in WA history was the one that took place in early 2023.

 

It really makes for an exercise in futility when one of the parties in a disagreement refuse to acknowledge their errors.

 

 

[KhunLA]

31 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Good quote, which highlights the problem. "It's an established fact...'', in other words 'the science is settled'. Many people believe that. It's the new religion.

 

The continued existence of the IPCC organization is based upon an assumption that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions  are bad for the climate, so claiming it is an established fact is understandable, and is required for continued funding, or increased funding.

 

However, you should also pay attention the the following part of the quote; '..have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes'.

 

I checked the details in the AR6 report which you linked, to find what those 'some weather and climate extremes' are.

 

Here are a few quotes from the report.
Temperatures Extremes
"The additional observational records, along with a stronger warming signal, show very clearly that changes observed at the time of AR5 (IPCC, 2014) continued, providing strengthened evidence of an increase in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes and decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes."

 

Now that does seem very worrying. Since the previous report (AR5), the evidence that shows an increase in hot extremes, has strengthened.

 

My Gosh! That is alarming. But wait! The strengthened evidence also shows that there has been a decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes.

 

There is so much evidence available on the internet which shows that a far greater number of people die from extreme cold than from extreme heat, globally. If this is true, then an increase in heat waves, linked to a decrease in cold waves, should be beneficial. Wouldn't you agree?

 

"Floods
There is low confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale , but there are regions experiencing increases, including parts of Asia, Southern South America, north-east USA, north-western Europe, and the Amazon, and regions experiencing decreases, including parts of the Mediterranean, Australia, Africa, and south-western USA."

 

Droughts
"Some AR6 regions show a decrease in meteorological drought, including Northern Australia, Central Australia, Northern Europe and Central North America (Section 11.9). Other regions either do not show substantial trends in long-term meteorological drought, or they display mixed signals depending on the considered time frame and sub-regions, such as in Southern Australia (Gallant et al., 2013; Delworth and Zeng, 2014; Alexander and Arblaster, 2017; Spinoni et al., 2019; Dunn et al., 2020;"

 

If you read the details in the linked AR6 report, you should see that there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the trends and the degree of changes in extreme weather events, globally, so I would suggest that this uncertainty contradicts the beginning of the quote, 'It is an established fact..."

 

This will be my last post in this thread because it feels like I'm trying to convince a person who believes in a Creator God, that there is no sound scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator God. Such discussions can be endless, so what's the point?

I'd call that old dated news, as from 2015 onward, temps have leveled off, on average. actually dipped, though not enough worth mentioning.  Leveling off, on average is though.  NOAA data, and we'll see what the future holds.

 

Stay tuned, if you really care, and plan on living another 1 or 200 yrs.  That 1.5 ish C seems to be on hold for now.

Edited March 13, 2023 by KhunLA

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

I'd call that old date, as from 2015 onward, temps have leveled of, on average. actually dipped, though not worth mentioning.  Leveling off, on average is though.  NOAA data, and we'll see what the future holds.

 

Stay tuned, if you really care, and plan on living another 1 or 200 yrs.  That 1.5 ish C seems to be on hold for now.

Here's why your comment is  incorrect. There's a climate affecting phenomenon called El Nino, It occurs irregularly but when it does, an immense amount of heat is released from the Pacific and it boosts worldwide temperatures. In 2015-16 there was a massive El Nino. So naturally that year the temperature was greater than it otherwise would have been. And why in succeeding years the temperature was mostly less. By the way, he year 2020 was statistically tied with 2016 despite the fact that there was no El Nino. So the increases continue. 

The last time there was such powerful El Nino was in 1997-98. Again there was an anomalously high temperature followed by years when the temperature was less. ACC denialists claimed this was proof that the temperature rise had peaked. Yet in 2022, that average temperature for 1997, wouldn't even make it among the top ten. And this despite the fact that many of those top ten temperatures occurred during years when the La Nina phenomenon occurred. This phenomenon has the effect of lowering the average global temperature.

There's also a thing called regression analysis which is used to determine trends that also disqualifies your assertion.  But that's for another time.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Here's why your comment is  incorrect. There's a climate affecting phenomenon called El Nino, It occurs irregularly but when it does, an immense amount of heat is released from the Pacific and it boosts worldwide temperatures. In 2015-16 there was a massive El Nino. So naturally that year the temperature was greater than it otherwise would have been. And why in succeeding years the temperature was mostly less. By the way, he year 2020 was statistically tied with 2016 despite the fact that there was no El Nino. So the increases continue. 

The last time there was such powerful El Nino was in 1997-98. Again there was an anomalously high temperature followed by years when the temperature was less. ACC denialists claimed this was proof that the temperature rise had peaked. Yet in 2022, that average temperature for 1997, wouldn't even make it among the top ten. And this despite the fact that many of those top ten temperatures occurred during years when the La Nina phenomenon occurred. This phenomenon has the effect of lowering the average global temperature.

There's also a thing called regression analysis which is used to determine trends that also disqualifies your assertion.  But that's for another time.

Yes, I know.  I wish people would stop trying to explain common sense things to me.  It's the weather and the el nino & la nina are part of the ever change weather.   Comes in waves, some long, some not so long.

 

Just as there was a steady rise in NOAA data, and now leveling off.  What's next ???? 

NOBDOY KNOW 

 

But the doom & gloom crowd always stop and quote the negative, forget to add, since 2014....2015 temps have leveled.

 

And the extreme negative forecast is:

... 3.4mm ... that is so scary, don't build surfside if you plan on living more than 100 years more

... 1.5C next 100 yrs... maybe ... I don't even need to buy sunscreen for that one

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yes, I know.  I wish people would stop trying to explain common sense things to me.  It's the weather and the el nino & la nina are part of the ever change weather.   Comes in waves, some long, some not so long.

 

Just as there was a steady rise in NOAA data, and now leveling off.  What's next ???? 

NOBDOY KNOW 

 

But the doom & gloom crowd always stop and quote the negative, forget to add, since 2014....2015 temps have leveled.

 

As I pointed out, that's exactly the same claim that the denialists made in the wake of the 1997 record setting El Nino and consequent record setting average global temperature.  . Now that temperature doesn't even make it into the top 10. Not even as high as years when a La Nina put downward pressures on temperature. In fact, despite a La Nina that lasted from 2020-2022, 2020 was virtually tied with 2016 as the hottest year ever.

 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

As I pointed out, that's exactly the same claim that the denialists made in the wake of the 1997 record setting El Nino and consequent record setting average global temperature.  . Now that temperature doesn't even make it into the top 10. Not even as high as years when a La Nina put downward pressures on temperature. In fact, despite a La Nina that lasted from 2020-2022, 2020 was virtually tied with 2016 as the hottest year ever.

 

I fished that El Nino in '97, it was epic! 

[placeholder]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:54 AM, VincentRJ said:

Good quote, which highlights the problem. "It's an established fact...'', in other words 'the science is settled'. Many people believe that. It's the new religion.

 

The continued existence of the IPCC organization is based upon an assumption that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions  are bad for the climate, so claiming it is an established fact is understandable, and is required for continued funding, or increased funding.

Resorting to conspiracy theories is a sure-fire indicator of intellectual bankruptcy. 

[BritScot]

On 3/9/2023 at 7:59 AM, jacko45k said:

We will resort to science, if the Dutch can do it, so can London. 

I can't afford a London mortgage!

Not many can even afford a parking space in London. London built the barrier (more to do with high tides). My point is: people should start opening their eyes. The fact is Insurance companies and Banks who use Risk Assesment are still lending money for 50 year mortgages and longer in areas which the climate cult say will be under meters of water in the next 7 years sorry its now 4 years. The other fact that as far as I'm aware no government has started emergency flood defences even started or plans to start.

Edited March 14, 2023 by BritScot

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, BritScot said:

Not many can even afford a parking space in London. London built the barrier (more to do with high tides). My point is: people should start opening their eyes. The fact is Insurance companies and Banks who use Risk Assesment are still lending money for 50 year mortgages and longer in areas which the climate cult say will be under meters of water in the next 7 years sorry its now 4 years. The other fact that as far as I'm aware no government has started emergency flood defences even started or plans to start.

What you are claiming is not believable. Please provide examples of areas where both climatologists have claimed in 7  or 4 years and wear long-term mortgages are being offered. I'm calling your bluff.

[jacko45k]

12 hours ago, BritScot said:

The other fact that as far as I'm aware no government has started emergency flood defences even started or plans to start.

As you said, London built the barrier.....

[Mac Mickmanus]

15 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

As you said, London built the barrier.....

London had a history of being flooded and more area became affected as London expanded and so a barrier became necessary

[hotchilli]

On 3/9/2023 at 7:07 AM, webfact said:

A new study that takes into account the effects of both climate change and normal oceanic variations predicts that by 2100, some of Asia’s major cities may be submerged.

A new study that repeats the old warning.... Thailand will bury it's head in the sand until it drowns.

Then react.

[KhunLA]

If this Climate Change, Global Warming, MM or not ...

... I'm lovin' it.  Rained 3 times already this dry season month ☂️