Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[7000gods]

Just finished 500 dives.

The planet is warming.

Greenland,so named to invite settlers,is melting fast.

The Gulfstream is slowing down.

That would mean another iceage?

Less typing and more looking is good no?

[canuckamuck]

Wow, 500 dives taught you all that?

[7000gods]

55,

Weather=Diving,and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC),the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index, Empirical Mode Decomposition/Hilbert-Huang Transformation (EMD/HHT) methods...ZZZZZZZZ....I prefer hot cold up down dense,heavy, light=

Fish farming may be another kettle altogether.Peace.

[NumbNut]

So tell me Rick... why have the last seven years out of ten been the hottest years in Oz since records began? Please, enlighten me!

That's a task I wouldn't wish on the Lord Buddha himself, but here's something to think about.

The entire planet has been exiting the Little Ice Age for the past 160 or so years and been getting gently warmer all along since then* (a total of about 0.8C during that time).

If you drew a graph of this from 1850 on the left to 2010 on the right, you would see a line gradually sloping up from left to right. Now, whereabouts on that graph would you expect to find the highest temperatures? At the right-hand side, i.e very recently? Correct.

Which is why the statement that "the last 10 years have been the hottest, that implies man-made climate change" is perhaps the most meaningless and innumerate statement made in this field, which is why it tends to be uttered by activists, journalists, politicians and bureaucrats, since scientists know it is nonsensical.

*It's actually been wiggling about a bit, due to cyclic factors -- in 1974, there was a worldwide panic about global cooling, which was eerily similar to the wailing we see today about global warming.

So you don't know why then. Why not just say that, instead of heading down some sidetrack that means... what, exactly?

My question was, again, why have the last seven out of ten years been the hottest years in Oz since records began. I'm all ears Rick.

[Donnie Brasco]

@ numbnut

Appreciate your effort here but it's a bit of misdirection at best.

You start with:

So tell me Rick... why have the last seven years out of ten been the hottest years in Oz since records began? Please, enlighten me!

You have simply chosen to ride a good horse to death long after the posse'd been called off by reviving this gov't cancelled Warmist fraternity of yours. I guess that's ok. But don't hold your fanaticism up as PROOF of anything except your zeal.

I'd also venture that an examination of your crowdsourcing might yield some fascinating surprises.

As for your willingness to

a) suddenly choose 7 years of hot Australian weather (your term when it suits you) as an exemplar of some kind of Global Climatic Warming and

your fast and lose implication that "since records began" equates with a period long enough to qualify as "climate"

c) and the implication that THIS is some kind of trend because YOU have chosen to focus on it as a trend is highly indicative of the arrogance and special pleading afoot in organizations such as yours.

d) once again failed to address (yea) IGNORED ANY HUMAN cause for your Alarmist position.

AND YOU GUYS JUST KEEP IGNORING REQUESTS FOR PROOF. . . . . . or when you are cornered by science and data you point to pollution (which we ALL deplore) as a cause of Global Warming and hope to cover your angles with ugly pics of the corporate sins that offend us all.

And thereby, YOU CEASELESSLY INSIST THERE IS CAUSALITY. And that AGW is a fact . . . "Here" (you say) "See this dead zone ?"

BUT OUTSIDE OF A FEW HIGHLY SUSPECT CO2 models which utterly fail in their intended purpose, YOU NEVER EVER DEMONSTRATE any CAUSALITY.

There are PLENTY of other entirely reparable issues you guys could be dealing with in society rather than banging away on something (Warmism) that is actually something else (Change) and has not been demonstrated to derive from human activity.

PLENTY.

You've all been distracted from the REAL game in play here.

Global Warming Alarmism is like a streaker at the football game.

A distraction.

Totally misdirected.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

Three-card monte'd, I'm afraid ;-)

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Edited March 11, 2014 by Donnie Brasco

[NumbNut]

@ numbnut

Appreciate your effort here but it's a bit of misdirection at best.

You start with:

So tell me Rick... why have the last seven years out of ten been the hottest years in Oz since records began? Please, enlighten me!

You have simply chosen to ride a good horse to death long after the posse'd been called off by reviving this gov't cancelled Warmist fraternity of yours. I guess that's ok. But don't hold your fanaticism up as PROOF of anything except your zeal.

I'd also venture that an examination of your crowdsourcing might yield some fascinating surprises.

As for your willingness to

a) suddenly choose 7 years of hot Australian weather (your term when it suits you) as an exemplar of some kind of Global Climatic Warming and

your fast and lose implication that "since records began" equates with a period long enough to qualify as "climate"

c) and the implication that THIS is some kind of trend because YOU have chosen to focus on it as a trend is highly indicative of the arrogance and special pleading afoot in organizations such as yours.

d) once again failed to address (yea) IGNORED ANY HUMAN cause for your Alarmist position.

AND YOU GUYS JUST KEEP IGNORING REQUESTS FOR PROOF. . . . . . or when you are cornered by science and data you point to pollution (which we ALL deplore) as a cause of Global Warming and hope to cover your angles with ugly pics of the corporate sins that offend us all.

And thereby, YOU CEASELESSLY INSIST THERE IS CAUSALITY. And that AGW is a fact . . . "Here" (you say) "See this dead zone ?"

BUT OUTSIDE OF A FEW HIGHLY SUSPECT CO2 models which utterly fail in their intended purpose, YOU NEVER EVER DEMONSTRATE any CAUSALITY.

There are PLENTY of other entirely reparable issues you guys could be dealing with in society rather than banging away on something (Warmism) that is actually something else (Change) and has not been demonstrated to derive from human activity.

PLENTY.

You've all been distracted from the REAL game in play here.

Global Warming Alarmism is like a streaker at the football game.

A distraction.

Totally misdirected.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

Three-card monte'd, I'm afraid ;-)

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Errr, what? The person misdirecting facts here is you.

The heading of this thread is 'How Much Has Global Warming Raised Temperatures Near You'. That is the point I am addressing, and the point I suggest you get yourself back to if you are to have any credence in this conversation at all..

Anyways, have a squiz at this:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3951122.htm

And get this inta ya too:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/10/3941061.htm

Don't argue with me, argue with the data. Seven of the last ten years are the hottest years in recorded Australian weather history, FACT. Anything to add?

Edited March 11, 2014 by NumbNut

[RickBradford]

My question was, again, why have the last seven out of ten years been the hottest years in Oz since records began. I'm all ears Rick.

Unfortunately, that last part seems to be true.

If you really cannot understand what I posted before, which is that a graph sloping upwards over time will inevitably show higher values in the recent past than it did in the distant past, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Edited March 11, 2014 by RickBradford

[chuckd]

@ numbnut

Appreciate your effort here but it's a bit of misdirection at best.

You start with:

So tell me Rick... why have the last seven years out of ten been the hottest years in Oz since records began? Please, enlighten me!

You have simply chosen to ride a good horse to death long after the posse'd been called off by reviving this gov't cancelled Warmist fraternity of yours. I guess that's ok. But don't hold your fanaticism up as PROOF of anything except your zeal.

I'd also venture that an examination of your crowdsourcing might yield some fascinating surprises.

As for your willingness to

a) suddenly choose 7 years of hot Australian weather (your term when it suits you) as an exemplar of some kind of Global Climatic Warming and

your fast and lose implication that "since records began" equates with a period long enough to qualify as "climate"

c) and the implication that THIS is some kind of trend because YOU have chosen to focus on it as a trend is highly indicative of the arrogance and special pleading afoot in organizations such as yours.

d) once again failed to address (yea) IGNORED ANY HUMAN cause for your Alarmist position.

AND YOU GUYS JUST KEEP IGNORING REQUESTS FOR PROOF. . . . . . or when you are cornered by science and data you point to pollution (which we ALL deplore) as a cause of Global Warming and hope to cover your angles with ugly pics of the corporate sins that offend us all.

And thereby, YOU CEASELESSLY INSIST THERE IS CAUSALITY. And that AGW is a fact . . . "Here" (you say) "See this dead zone ?"

BUT OUTSIDE OF A FEW HIGHLY SUSPECT CO2 models which utterly fail in their intended purpose, YOU NEVER EVER DEMONSTRATE any CAUSALITY.

There are PLENTY of other entirely reparable issues you guys could be dealing with in society rather than banging away on something (Warmism) that is actually something else (Change) and has not been demonstrated to derive from human activity.

PLENTY.

You've all been distracted from the REAL game in play here.

Global Warming Alarmism is like a streaker at the football game.

A distraction.

Totally misdirected.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

Three-card monte'd, I'm afraid ;-)

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Errr, what? The person misdirecting facts here is you.

The heading of this thread is 'How Much Has Global Warming Raised Temperatures Near You'. That is the point I am addressing, and the point I suggest you get yourself back to if you are to have any credence in this conversation at all..

Anyways, have a squiz at this:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3951122.htm

And get this inta ya too:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/10/3941061.htm

Don't argue with me, argue with the data. Seven of the last ten years are the hottest years in recorded Australian weather history, FACT. Anything to add?

Just a guess, but I would surmise the alleged rise in Australian temperatures is due to the immense amound of hot air that has been generated by the newly discovered warmists.

If it makes you feel better, that would seem to qualify as man made warming.

[NumbNut]

My question was, again, why have the last seven out of ten years been the hottest years in Oz since records began. I'm all ears Rick.

Unfortunately, that seems to be true.

If you really cannot understand what I posted before, which is that a graph sloping upwards over time will inevitably show higher values in the recent past than it did in the distant past, then we really have nothing to discuss.

We have nothing to discuss alright. We have nothing to discuss because you and your mates, for reasons known only to yourselves, refuse to address the facts that are staring us all in the face.

The title of this thread is How Much Has Global Warming Raised Temperatures Near You. I answered that as it pertains to myself, but you and your cohorts seem to go out of your way to NOT address the question. Why comment on a thread that you have nothing to add to?

[NumbNut]

@ numbnut

Appreciate your effort here but it's a bit of misdirection at best.

You start with:

So tell me Rick... why have the last seven years out of ten been the hottest years in Oz since records began? Please, enlighten me!

You have simply chosen to ride a good horse to death long after the posse'd been called off by reviving this gov't cancelled Warmist fraternity of yours. I guess that's ok. But don't hold your fanaticism up as PROOF of anything except your zeal.

I'd also venture that an examination of your crowdsourcing might yield some fascinating surprises.

As for your willingness to

a) suddenly choose 7 years of hot Australian weather (your term when it suits you) as an exemplar of some kind of Global Climatic Warming and

your fast and lose implication that "since records began" equates with a period long enough to qualify as "climate"

c) and the implication that THIS is some kind of trend because YOU have chosen to focus on it as a trend is highly indicative of the arrogance and special pleading afoot in organizations such as yours.

d) once again failed to address (yea) IGNORED ANY HUMAN cause for your Alarmist position.

AND YOU GUYS JUST KEEP IGNORING REQUESTS FOR PROOF. . . . . . or when you are cornered by science and data you point to pollution (which we ALL deplore) as a cause of Global Warming and hope to cover your angles with ugly pics of the corporate sins that offend us all.

And thereby, YOU CEASELESSLY INSIST THERE IS CAUSALITY. And that AGW is a fact . . . "Here" (you say) "See this dead zone ?"

BUT OUTSIDE OF A FEW HIGHLY SUSPECT CO2 models which utterly fail in their intended purpose, YOU NEVER EVER DEMONSTRATE any CAUSALITY.

There are PLENTY of other entirely reparable issues you guys could be dealing with in society rather than banging away on something (Warmism) that is actually something else (Change) and has not been demonstrated to derive from human activity.

PLENTY.

You've all been distracted from the REAL game in play here.

Global Warming Alarmism is like a streaker at the football game.

A distraction.

Totally misdirected.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

Three-card monte'd, I'm afraid ;-)

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Errr, what? The person misdirecting facts here is you.

The heading of this thread is 'How Much Has Global Warming Raised Temperatures Near You'. That is the point I am addressing, and the point I suggest you get yourself back to if you are to have any credence in this conversation at all..

Anyways, have a squiz at this:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3951122.htm

And get this inta ya too:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/10/3941061.htm

Don't argue with me, argue with the data. Seven of the last ten years are the hottest years in recorded Australian weather history, FACT. Anything to add?

Just a guess, but I would surmise the alleged rise in Australian temperatures is due to the immense amound of hot air that has been generated by the newly discovered warmists.

If it makes you feel better, that would seem to qualify as man made warming.

Just a guess is your problem. Maybe the hot air is blowing over from your neck of the woods? Just a guess...

[RickBradford]

Why comment on a thread that you have nothing to add to?

Well, you directly asked for my help -- twice -- in understanding why high Australian temperatures have been measured recently.

I answered you -- twice -- as simply as I could.

Don't blame me if you can't understand the answer to the question you posed.

[NumbNut]

Why comment on a thread that you have nothing to add to?

Well, you directly asked for my help -- twice -- in understanding why high Australian temperatures have been measured recently.

I answered you -- twice -- as simply as I could.

Don't blame me if you can't understand the answer to the question you posed.

You answered nothing. Address the question or give it a rest eh?

[RickBradford]

Just finished 500 dives.

The planet is warming.

Greenland,so named to invite settlers,is melting fast.

The Gulfstream is slowing down.

That would mean another iceage?

A very timely post, given that a bunch of scientists, who have probably never been diving in their lives, have just announced the results of 20 years of research into exactly that question and have come to precisely the opposite conclusion.

The ADCP [acoustic Doppler current profiler, operational since 1992 - Ed.] measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current," said Rossby*. "There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down."

Bah! He should have taken up diving instead, or at least rented the video of The Day After Tomorrow....

*H. Thomas Rossby, a professor at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, has spent much of his long career studying ocean circulation – especially the Gulf Stream – and how it makes its way across the Atlantic towards Europe and as far north as northern Norway.

[Donnie Brasco]

Wonder if Obama in hand with the Goggle corporation, secretly funneled tax payer money into this University to boost Global warming data, thus justifying for him to give more (tax payer) bailout money to his failed but supported Global Warming companies of which his supporters & friends hold stock.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No mate, it's the gay left-handed tree-humping whale-hugging mushroom smoking GREENIES! It's always them! They're to blame for EVERYTHING!

@ Numbnut

This LOADED opening question you insist we all return to assumes "Global Warming" as a universal premise.

You note and you suggest that that we were invited by Google to participate only inasmuch as we would be able to regurgitate the catechism of your little movement. So, it was as if "the saved" were only being asked to provide anecdotes of Jesus as our own personal saviour.

In other words, anyone who HADN'T experienced waves of hot flashes and warming trends you Warmists so fervently quested for in your pathetically LOADED opener . . . . . need not raise their lowly countenance.

C'mon, Numbnut . . . . . Do give this kind of sophomoric obfuscatory tactic a rest, will ya ?

After all, a huge response to this phoney little opening gambit, was a flood of FACTS and SCIENCE. In response to this information, instead of addressing actual issues and real points of contention, you slid into a hall monitor posture.

Much easier I'll grant you. But you were fooling no one.

This is an open board. Your insistence and your "errr," FAKE discomfort with inquiry and opposing science that gives your a junk science a good hard shove is obviously not to your (or Google's) liking. And it seems that anyone who'd rather contest Warmism or demand proof of the anthrogenic claims that you people assume and are so sure of and the guilt you wish to lather on . . . . . anyone who objects is out of order the, is that right ?

Well that's just HARD CHEEZE there, isn't it, numbnut ;-?

If you'd been paying attention to anyone but yourself you'd have noted that the conversation in this thread has, for the sake of intellectual honesty, re-stated its premises several times.

Yes, yes, yes you and Google WOULD have loved choral unanimity.

Might that have just helped out with your own crowdsourcing efforts then ?

Thankfully, even if you failed to notice, the conversation did move on from the faux premises of Google's primary iteration some time ago.

Information has been presented which (gasp) proved heretical to the OP's "the science has been settled" opening remark here.

Many of us have disagreed that there is anything resembling "Global Warming" at all.

Instead we have presented facts, argument opinion and data to the contrary.

Sorry about that numbnut. That's how discussions go.

This is WHY we HAVE conversations.

Is current pro-Warmist consensus indeed so overwhelming in Oz that debate is deemed unnecessary ?

I HAVE seen some incredibly violent Warmist advocacy suggesting that AGW skeptics be lynched, beaten or have their hearts torn out. . . Is this the crowdsourcing that has you so bursting with pride.

Or are we dissidents to be mere ticket holders in your church basement whose timidly raised hands will be acknowledged ONLY if we can first display some Warmist bonefides.

Like I said. This is a conversation. A discussion.

So let's have some scientific EVIDENCE that these last seven hot years were the result of human activity. And not just some mainstream media sanctioned cartoon based on the last seven years. You DO get sun down there do you not ? Sunspots ?

Or are you and you crowdsource gang just going to leave the hot-weather horror in our laps and hope we've had enough guilt beaten into us by you lot so that we'll take the blame.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Edited March 11, 2014 by Donnie Brasco

[NumbNut]

Wonder if Obama in hand with the Goggle corporation, secretly funneled tax payer money into this University to boost Global warming data, thus justifying for him to give more (tax payer) bailout money to his failed but supported Global Warming companies of which his supporters & friends hold stock.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No mate, it's the gay left-handed tree-humping whale-hugging mushroom smoking GREENIES! It's always them! They're to blame for EVERYTHING!

@ Numbnut

This LOADED opening question you insist we all return to assumes "Global Warming" as a universal premise.

You note and you suggest that that we were invited by Google to participate only inasmuch as we would be able to regurgitate the catechism of your little movement. So, it was as if "the saved" were only being asked to provide anecdotes of Jesus as our own personal saviour.

In other words, anyone who HADN'T experienced waves of hot flashes and warming trends you Warmists so fervently quested for in your pathetically LOADED opener . . . . . need not raise their lowly countenance.

C'mon, Numbnut . . . . . Do give this kind of sophomoric obfuscatory tactic a rest, will ya ?

After all, a huge response to this phoney little opening gambit, was a flood of FACTS and SCIENCE. In response to this information, instead of addressing actual issues and real points of contention, you slid into a hall monitor posture.

Much easier I'll grant you. But you were fooling no one.

This is an open board. Your insistence and your "errr," FAKE discomfort with inquiry and opposing science that gives your a junk science a good hard shove is obviously not to your (or Google's) liking. And it seems that anyone who'd rather contest Warmism or demand proof of the anthrogenic claims that you people assume and are so sure of and the guilt you wish to lather on . . . . . anyone who objects is out of order the, is that right ?

Well that's just HARD CHEEZE there, isn't it, numbnut ;-?

If you'd been paying attention to anyone but yourself you'd have noted that the conversation in this thread has for the sake of intellectual honesty, re-stated its premises several times.

Yes, yes, yes you and Google WOULD have loved choral unanimity.

Might that have just helped your crowd sourcing then ?

Thankfully, the conversation moved on from the faux premises of Google's primary iteration some time ago.

Information has been presented which (gasp) proved heretical to the OP's "the science has been settled" opening remark here.

Many of us have disagree that there is anything resembling "Global Warming" at all.

Instead we have presented facts, argument opinion and data to the contrary.

This is WHY we HAVE conversations.

I HAVE seen some incredibly violent Warmist advocacy suggesting that AGW skeptics be lynched, beaten or have their hearts torn out. . . . . Is the Warmist consensus so overwhelming in OZ that debate is unnecessary ? Is this the crowdsourcing that has you so bursting with pride.

Or are we dissidents to be mere ticket holders in your church basement whose timidly raised hands will be acknowledged ONLY if we can first display Warmist bonefides.

Like I said. This is a conversation. A discussion.

So let's have some scientific EVIDENCE that these last seven hot years were the result of human activity.

Or are you and you crowdsource gang just going to leave the hot-weather horror in our laps and hope we've had enough guilt beaten into us by you lot so that we'll take the blame.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Settle Gretel! And get it right, I am answering the topic of this thread, this is how it is in my neck of the woods.

As to cause and effect, I'll leave that to the 97% of scientist who don't agree with your position... take it up with them!:-

Source

[NumbNut]

Just finished 500 dives.

The planet is warming.

Greenland,so named to invite settlers,is melting fast.

The Gulfstream is slowing down.

That would mean another iceage?

A very timely post, given that a bunch of scientists, who have probably never been diving in their lives, have just announced the results of 20 years of research into exactly that question and have come to precisely the opposite conclusion.

The ADCP [acoustic Doppler current profiler, operational since 1992 - Ed.] measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current," said Rossby*. "There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down."

Bah! He should have taken up diving instead, or at least rented the video of The Day After Tomorrow....

*H. Thomas Rossby, a professor at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, has spent much of his long career studying ocean circulation – especially the Gulf Stream – and how it makes its way across the Atlantic towards Europe and as far north as northern Norway.

Ah, now this IS my neck of the woods. An ADCP, in laymans terms a Nortek, named after one of the companies that manufacture them.

I'm actually looking at one now and QC'ing it, in between posting on this thread.I tell ya, I'm flat out.

Anyways... Norteks, as with virtually all survey instruments, need to be calibrated to output sensible data you can have any level of confidence in. Not casting any dispersion's on the folks involved in the above mentioned study, but you can make a Nortek output just about anything you want. Was it vessel mounted or stationary? Was it a network or just a few strategically positioned units, and the values necessarily interpolated between the stations? Many, many questions to ask.

Better get back to it actually, some of us have to work for a living

[chuckd]

Just a guess, but I would surmise the alleged rise in Australian temperatures is due to the immense amound of hot air that has been generated by the newly discovered warmists.

If it makes you feel better, that would seem to qualify as man made warming.

Just a guess is your problem. Maybe the hot air is blowing over from your neck of the woods? Just a guess...

...and therein lies the entire problem with global warming. It is ALL guesswork, but everybody wants a piece of that $1 Billion daily being spent/wasted on the matter.

[Scott]

Posts removed for a variety of reasons, including those that are unattributed.

[Donnie Brasco]

Wonder if Obama in hand with the Goggle corporation, secretly funneled tax payer money into this University to boost Global warming data, thus justifying for him to give more (tax payer) bailout money to his failed but supported Global Warming companies of which his supporters & friends hold stock.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No mate, it's the gay left-handed tree-humping whale-hugging mushroom smoking GREENIES! It's always them! They're to blame for EVERYTHING!

@ Numbnut

This LOADED opening question you insist we all return to assumes "Global Warming" as a universal premise.

You note and you suggest that that we were invited by Google to participate only inasmuch as we would be able to regurgitate the catechism of your little movement. So, it was as if "the saved" were only being asked to provide anecdotes of Jesus as our own personal saviour.

In other words, anyone who HADN'T experienced waves of hot flashes and warming trends you Warmists so fervently quested for in your pathetically LOADED opener . . . . . need not raise their lowly countenance.

C'mon, Numbnut . . . . . Do give this kind of sophomoric obfuscatory tactic a rest, will ya ?

After all, a huge response to this phoney little opening gambit, was a flood of FACTS and SCIENCE. In response to this information, instead of addressing actual issues and real points of contention, you slid into a hall monitor posture.

Much easier I'll grant you. But you were fooling no one.

This is an open board. Your insistence and your "errr," FAKE discomfort with inquiry and opposing science that gives your a junk science a good hard shove is obviously not to your (or Google's) liking. And it seems that anyone who'd rather contest Warmism or demand proof of the anthrogenic claims that you people assume and are so sure of and the guilt you wish to lather on . . . . . anyone who objects is out of order the, is that right ?

Well that's just HARD CHEEZE there, isn't it, numbnut ;-?

If you'd been paying attention to anyone but yourself you'd have noted that the conversation in this thread has for the sake of intellectual honesty, re-stated its premises several times.

Yes, yes, yes you and Google WOULD have loved choral unanimity.

Might that have just helped your crowd sourcing then ?

Thankfully, the conversation moved on from the faux premises of Google's primary iteration some time ago.

Information has been presented which (gasp) proved heretical to the OP's "the science has been settled" opening remark here.

Many of us have disagree that there is anything resembling "Global Warming" at all.

Instead we have presented facts, argument opinion and data to the contrary.

This is WHY we HAVE conversations.

I HAVE seen some incredibly violent Warmist advocacy suggesting that AGW skeptics be lynched, beaten or have their hearts torn out. . . . . Is the Warmist consensus so overwhelming in OZ that debate is unnecessary ? Is this the crowdsourcing that has you so bursting with pride.

Or are we dissidents to be mere ticket holders in your church basement whose timidly raised hands will be acknowledged ONLY if we can first display Warmist bonefides.

Like I said. This is a conversation. A discussion.

So let's have some scientific EVIDENCE that these last seven hot years were the result of human activity.

Or are you and you crowdsource gang just going to leave the hot-weather horror in our laps and hope we've had enough guilt beaten into us by you lot so that we'll take the blame.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Settle Gretel! And get it right, I am answering the topic of this thread, this is how it is in my neck of the woods.

As to cause and effect, I'll leave that to the 97% of scientist who don't agree with your position... take it up with them!:-

Source

Yes indeed there, NumbNut (apologies for screwing up the capitalization) and by your methodology we should all eat grass. (50 million sheep can't be wrong)

Looks like with an argument like that, you're all done.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[NumbNut]

Yes indeed there, NumbNut (apologies for screwing up the capitalization) and by your methodology we should all eat grass. (50 million sheep can't be wrong)

Looks like with an argument like that, you're all done.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

My methodology? I'm not proposing anything Donnie me old mukker. I'm reporting the facts, something you seem to be inordinately afraid of. I'll leave methodologies to those folks in a better position to propose them.

As to eating grass, well... most of my mates who partake of the weed tend to 'smoke' it, but if eating it floats your boat then go for it. Who am I to point fingers at what anyone else chooses to do in their own time?

Speaking of recorded weather facts as pertains to Oz, here's some more:-

“Australia’s mean temperature has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910,” BoM chief Dr Vertessy said. “Seven of the ten warmest years on record in Australia have occurred since 1998. When we compare the past 15 years to the period 1951 to 1980, we find that the frequency of very warm months has increased five-fold and the frequency of very cool months has decreased by around a third.

“The duration, frequency and intensity of heatwaves have increased across large parts of Australia since 1950. Extreme fire weather risk has increased, and the fire season has lengthened across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.

“We have also seen a general trend of declining autumn and winter rainfall, particularly in southwestern and southeastern Australia, while heavy rainfall events are projected to increase. Australian average annual rainfall has increased slightly, largely due to increases in spring and summer rainfall, most markedly in northwestern Australia.”

Source

Maybe you should just 'fuggedabowit' eh?

Happy reading champ.

[PHP87]

In 1974, Time Magazine and other media outlets were proclaiming that the next Ice Age was imminent. The cause? Anthropological due to smog and other evils of Man.

Link to the Text and to Time Magazine article:

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/time-magazine-june-1974-another-ice-age/

Also, NASA has shown correlating temperature fluctuations of Geo-stationary satellites orbiting 23,000 miles above the Earth in the Clarke belt. Is Man causing those temperature changes as well?

The facts are that the Sun does not burn at one constant temperature and those changes are being seen here on Earth, on Satellites 23,000 miles above the Earth and even on Mars.

Global Warming or Climate Change as it is now being called is nothing more than religion for far-left environmentalists and a source of Grant money for researchers.

And as mentioned earlier in the thread, China, India and other countries don't give a hoot about "Climate Change"

It's like telling us not to piss in the swimming pool when there's hundreds kids in there that are already doing so.

And these same alarmists now blame every weather event on man-made "Climate Change"

The planet has been around for Billions of years and they are using a tiny data sample of a hundred years or so. Not a very accurate picture. It's like taking a picture of Bangkok from 1932 and saying "this is what Bangkok looks like"

And let's not even get into the fudging of the numbers, or how Al Gore stated 10 years ago that by now, miles of coastal land would be flooded, yet he recently bought a 9 Million dollar Villa near the beach in Southern California.

I guess he bought flood insurance as well...

Edited March 12, 2014 by PHP87

[RickBradford]

In 1974, Time Magazine and other media outlets were proclaiming that the next Ice Age was imminent. The cause? Anthropological due to smog and other evils of Man.

It wasn't just the media.

The CIA wrote a report saying the cold climate would lead to famines, unrest,and thus indirectly threaten the security of the US. Here's a snippet from the summary:

Note the certainty in the language - ".. scientists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change." Elsewhere, they say that scientists are "convinced" about the coming cooling.

Barely 10 years after that report, society started worried about detrimental warming.

Decades later, society is still making the hubristic mistake of believing that we are much smarter than we are.

[PHP87]

In 1974, Time Magazine and other media outlets were proclaiming that the next Ice Age was imminent. The cause? Anthropological due to smog and other evils of Man.

It wasn't just the media.

The CIA wrote a report saying the cold climate would lead to famines, unrest,and thus indirectly threaten the security of the US. Here's a snippet from the summary:

Note the certainty in the language - ".. scientists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change." Elsewhere, they say that scientists are "convinced" about the coming cooling.

Barely 10 years after that report, society started worried about detrimental warming.

Decades later, society is still making the hubristic mistake of believing that we are much smarter than we are.

Yet the fact remains that nearly 40 years later, the impending Ice Age failed to materialize.

[RickBradford]

@PHP

The 1974 CIA report is a fascinating document, full of overconfident scientific hype and dire predictions. Wherever you look, you can see echoes of what is being said today by the self-styled elites on climate change.

The "scientists" noted global weather events -- drought in Burma and North Korea, record floods in the US, crops damaged by record cold in Japan, floods and drought in Pakistan etc etc, and concluded:

"Climate is now a critical factor. The climate of the neo-boreal time period has arrived. The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world. The politics of food will become the central issue of every government."

Honestly, if you closed your eyes, you'd think it was Al Gore bloviating.

Edited March 12, 2014 by RickBradford

[sunshine51]

When I first arived in Southeast Asia more than 40 years ago

it just didn't seem as hot as it is these days. Of course I was

a lot younger back then & didn't really pay much attention to

what the thermometer said....hot is hot. These days though as

I'm now in my mid 60's....it just plain downright feels hotter

and I'm used to the heat. That said...there are times where I

wish I had a portable aircon suit.

[PHP87]

About 100 links to articles from the 1970's regarding the impending the Ice Age that failed to materialize:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

So the new schtick is Global Warming or "Climatic Change" as some called it in the 1970's

These charlatans, like many politicians, count on short memories.

I remember the 1970's hysteria of the "Ice Age" very well.

[Scott]

Posts violating fair use have been removed as well as a large number of posts which are off-topic and inflammatory.

[Donnie Brasco]

About 100 links to articles from the 1970's regarding the impending the Ice Age that failed to materialize:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

So the new schtick is Global Warming or "Climatic Change" as some called it in the 1970's

These charlatans, like many politicians, count on short memories.

I remember the 1970's hysteria of the "Ice Age" very well.

It doesn't take much to spook the herd these days.

I am reminded of that early scene in Kubrick's 2001 Space Odessy.

The apes spend their hours of darkness awake under a large flat boulder blinking and whimpering as they cower from a ferocious predator.

They comfort each other with defences that sort of worked in daytime confrontations with other apes

They whimper to one and other in their terror and mutter and blink in the dark as a huge predatory cat, a giant leopard with sabre tooth fangs paces to and fro snarling in the moonlight above them.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[RickBradford]

With global temperatures static for over 17 years, and doomsday computer climate projections getting further and further from reality, the Alarmists of the Green/Left have restated their favourite position:

What are we to make of those behind the well-documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly." - Lawrence Torcello, Assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY.

Yes, yes, we must punish all those who disagree with us, for they must not only be wrong, but actively evil. Otherwise, why would they oppose us?

How lucky we are to live in an age where we have broken free of all those misguided philosophers like Confucius, Plato, Locke, Spinoza and Russell, and can bask in the wisdom of Torcello, standard-bearer of the magnanimous, open-minded and tolerant Green/Left.

And the Green/Left still can't figure out why nobody likes them.....