Posted by Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?
Comments
-
You mean forecast errors of +76%, -6%, +103%, +17%, +1%, +11%, +50% are “pretty damn good”.
No wonder you lot couldn’t run a whelk stall!
-
And Duff,
your tedious tendentious droppings are like those of a stalled whelk, never going anywhere except in circles.
What a boor you are. Room 101 for you, best ignored.
-
Come off it Duff. It is obvious from the phrasing that there is a high degree of uncertainty attached to the 3 month weather forecasts. It states at the foot of the 3 month forecasts:
The outlook should not be used in isolation but should be used with shorter-range and more detailed (30-day, 15-day and 1 to 5-day) forecasts and warnings…
It is noticable that the 30-day forecasts are better than the 3 month, but the phrasing still indicates a lot of uncertainty. Do you seriously beleive it is possible to forecast rainfall 30 days ahead and get the percentage of normal rainfall bang on?
When it comes to forecasts how did ‘your team’ do? John McLean:
it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier..
-
Duff. Tosser. Next.
-
#lord_sidcup, that would only be of use to someone who wanted to learn something.
Duffski doesn’t need to learn anything. If he thinks it might be true, IT IS TRUE!!!
-
Just checked WUWT for my daily giggle – Duff copies and pastes WUWT shock!! Really, he’s just like a little wind-up clockwork mouse.
-
Wrong again, Duff.
He means you don’t understand big concepts like “probability”, “weakly favours”, “slightly favours” – and you’ve cut-and-pasted some cherry-picked forecasts without a clue that your conclusions would require far more analysis than you’ve provided.
In other words, the same old same old from you.
-
Hurrah! M’ Lord Sidcup and I agree, yes ” there is a high degree of uncertainty attached to the 3 month weather forecasts”.
So why do you lot keep telling me you know, definitely, absolutely and completely, honest, guv, on me muvver’s eyes, what the climate will be in 5, 10, 30 years.
-
Duff still doesn’t understand the difference between starting conditions and boundary conditions.
Or, more bluntly, between weather and climate.
Hey Duff, last year a very large proportion of Australia experienced above average mean temperatures, especially during winter and at night. This week there’s a blanket of heat covering the continent that has wrought untold damage directly (mature trees have lost all their leaves in my UK-like climate, and many orchardists had summer stone-fruit literally cooked on the branches) and through devastating bushfire. By your logic this proves global warming…
-
Duffer, two words already known to you and used by you in your previous post: ‘weather’ and ‘climate’.
Read the definitions and then see if understanding dawns. As a hint, we in the UK have a temperate maritime climate, regardless of the rainfall figures.
-
“Really, he’s just like a little wind-up clockwork mouse.”
He has no will of his own.
It’s too much effort for him to actually think independently, so he finds a messiah to follow that says what he likes to hear, and blindly repeats whatever they say at the moment.
-
Duff – all that time spent at WUWT and yet you know so little. Their aim is to confuse and in your case they succeed. Please read:
-
“So why do you lot keep telling me you know … what the climate will be in 5, 10, 30 years.”
Because the climate predictions are not for the summer but for the climate.
Why do you lot keep making up strawmen?
-
So, now that Duff is back from his irrelevant excursion into rainfall predictions, perhaps he can attend to what I posted prior to that excursion:
Duff claims there is cooling. Duff claims the Met is “revising its temperature projections downwards”.
– for 2012, the Met office prediction was bang-on. 9th warmest year on record. Not exactly “cooling” is it.
– for 2013, the Met office predicts .09 degrees higher than 2012. Not exactly a prediction for any “cooling” is it.And meanwhile, as mentioned above, John McLean (etc…) predicted 2012 would be the coolest year since the 1950s.
Obviously, John McLean (and his fans) were completely and utterly wrong. As usual. -
Not just John.
Roy Spencer (some mothers do ‘ave ‘em) was hugely wrong. Again.
Lindzen? Wrong.
Esterbrook (twice)? Wrong.
And Akasofu was wrong.
Here are their predictions compared to the actual data:
-
So, the Met Office can’t predict weather, ie, ‘BBQ summers’, soaking wet droughts, etc, a few months ahead but it can predict climate conditions decades ahead!
Gosh, you ‘climate scientologists’ believe anything, don’t you? But somehow you seem reluctant to believe that they have revised *their* global temperature forecast through to 2018 by nearly 0.5 of a degree DOWN! And that’s despite all that EXTRA CO2! Have they got this one right, I ask? I doubt it, their forecasts are only fit for tearing up and hanging in those outside bogs the Aussies tend to go in for!
Oh, and by the way, whilst Australia fries in the middle of its summer, China and Russia are frozen solid and there has been greater snow cover this December than for absolute yonks!
Global warming? Do me a favour!
-
“So, the Met Office can’t predict weather ie, ‘BBQ summers’”
Reading isn’t something you do, is it duffski.
The Met Office didn’t predict a BBQ summer.
-
I think you’ve demonstrated long enough your inability to cogitate or listen to anything you don’t like to hear, duffer.
In my opinion you need to be given your own thread where you can post crap without getting it in real conversations.
-
“China and Russia are frozen solid and there has been greater snow cover this December than for absolute yonks!”
..whilst Europe as far as Moscow has basked in way above average temperatures for weeks and the central US will have record warm temperatures this week…
but heck, that’s weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.
Duff, you are an old fool. You still have no clue about separating weather from climate, do you? One is stochastic, the other deterministic, if various parameters are taken into account. Thus is is of course much easier to elucidate long-term climate patterns than short-medium term weather trends. That it doesn’t register with you is really embarrassing. Glad I don’t encounter guys like you at science conferences. You insist on self-humiliation.
-
Just for you, Wow:
“A “barbecue summer” – from no less an authority than the Met Office itself.
Yesterday, though, the Met Office conceded what Britons have seen with their own eyes over the last few weeks: apart from a fortnight in June, the summer has been more soggy than sizzling. And it’s not likely to get much better in August, a prediction that will disappoint, if not entirely surprise, millions of “staycationers” who booked a holiday in the UK to enjoy the sunshine and beat the recession.”And before you snuffle and grunt allow me to give you the source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/29/summer-weather-forecast-rain-holiday
Yes, indeed, little ‘Georgie Moonbat’s’ paper of choice!Of course, you may be confused, a normal state for you, I guess, by the *following* summer when an independent forecaster repeated the same mistake:
“Thankfully, the company doing the predicting is not the much-criticised Met Office, but the little-known Positive Weather Solutions (PWS), who unlike their larger rival correctly predicted both last year’s washout summer and the big winter freeze from which we have only recently emerged.”
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/15759/barbecue-summer-forecast-not-met-office#ixzz2HKBX5daJSo they’re all crap! They couldn’t spell ‘chaos’ let alone understand it!
-
Hmmmm,
maybe Wow is a ‘undercover denialist’ whose mission is to make vitriolic comments to make the other side of the political debate look untenable?
His style of commenting would certainly turn off anyone who this site would call a ‘luke warmer’.
And I know I shouldn’t wind you up but you make it far too tempting. -
Jeff H,
perhaps you may need to explain to the politicians and/or their employees such as Tim Flannery that weather and climate are not the same thing?
While you’re at it, the ABC as well as much of the rest of the media need some help.
Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn’t it?
Heat waves are not uncommon or indicative of anything alarming at this time of the year.
They are bloody uncomfortable however if you have no relief from the heat.
If accompanied by hot winds it is also not uncommon that fires will happen.
That is also unpleasant and dangerous, but not indicative of AGW.
They’re really not doing you any favours.
BTW,
the ‘trends’ in the modelling are represented as linear and are interpreted that way.
I agree that climate/weather is anything but linear, however that is not the way it has been represented to the public. -
Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn’t it?No, you cretin; that AGW is a causal factor in the increase of extreme weather events is not the same as the tautology “extreme weather events are weather”.
-
Or rather I should say that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
-
I agree that climate/weather is anything but linear, however that is not the way it has been represented to the public.
So so many lies from the denier (including the absurd lie that she’s not a denier).
-
We’re now confronting the exact same perversity as on the other thread. AGW provides a higher baseline, therefore the probability of extreme heat-related events increases dramatically, and cold events diminish accordingly.
As has, demonstrably, happened. For example here for the US. (And to an almost ludicrous extent of late!)
Nitpicking about 100% individual attribution is a denialist strawman, though it’s clearly often the result of pure incomprehension; in a very real sense, we are most frequently arguing with people who have never truly grasped the concept of an average, let alone a trend…
-
This ain’t no trivial event, incidentally.
Not indicative of AGW? You’re kidding, right?
-
And Duff is off again on his tangent about weather predictions.
The thing Duff studiously avoids is this, the global temperature prediction was bang on.
Somehow, the accurate global temperature prediction is being confused with inaccurate local rainfall predictions.
Is Duff stupid? No, this is simply dishonesty.
-
In fact, if the innaccuracy of weather predictions is increasing, that would be yet another indicator of climate change.
So Duff’s crap about weather prediction being increasingly innaccurate actually proves climate change is proceeding at an accelerating rate.
Hoist with his own petard.
-
‘Lukewarmers’ one encounters online are almost invariably Deniers who like to project an aura of profound wisdom and being above the fray.
It’s crap. Chammy’s a classic example – record prolonged heat not indicative of AGW? That’s actually funny. A sky blanketed in a copper-gold haze may not prove there’s a bushfire, but only an utter fool would not treat it as being ‘indicative’ of one!
And then there’s siding with every perversity of a clearly obnoxious and equally clearly wrong crank. They all do it, and then announce ‘oh, I didn’t say I agreed with X, I just feel you should respond to X’s points.’ Yes, this is the same stunt BFPM is pulling. And he and Chammy both genuinely appear to believe this makes them clever.
But, ultimately, it’s a form of cowardice. They want to crow with the deniers when they imagine they’re ‘winning’, and disown them the moment that victory turns to ashes. As they all do.
There are 2 groups of ‘extremist’ partisans. One maintains 2+2=4. The other holds the answer to be 5. Some rather silly people – and a good proportion of the appallingly poor ‘he said / she said’ media – feel the answer must be 4.5.
If you don’t think this is a fair analogy – and, I’ll add, self-proclaimed lukewarmer answers really range between about 4.6 and 5.4 – please tell us the position of every academy of science and major scientific institution in this matter.
As opposed to, say, a handful of scientists tied to libertarian thinktanks – or the Cornwall Alliance! – and a truckload of grotesque, comic-opera shouty buffoons a la Monckton, Morana, and Delingpole.
Spin it how you like; you’re claiming the answer is 4.5, secretly believe it’s 5, and don’t have the courage to be open about either.
-
Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn’t it?The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad. Are you really this obtuse or are you just having fun at our expense?
-
Without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad?
As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?
Haven’t there been ‘badder’ heatwaves than this one? Well before AC02 levels were deemed to have got dangerously high and tipped us over a dangerous tipping point globally? (above 350ppm of GHGs or CO2 equivalent?) -
And before you snuffle and grunt allow me to give you the source
A newspaper article about the summer 2009 predictions written in 2009? You are utterly desperate.
And that’s without your iron determination NOT to understand that climate is far easier to predict than the specific weather generated by that climate – especially over timescales more than a couple weeks, such as your “to 2018″.
You deserve your own thread because all you do is crap out the same debunked memes time after time.
-
Without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad?
As bad as whatAs bad as it would have been without AGW, moron.
compared to what
Compared to what it would have been without AGW, cretin.
Deniers, too stupid to grasp counterfactuals.
-
cham, do you agree that the climate in Africa is hotter than the climate in Canada?
-
“His style of commenting would certainly turn off anyone who this site would call a ‘luke warmer’”
Aaaaw.
Resorting to tone trolling, cham?
Can’t deal with the facts, so go off on a tangent?
Really, you’re not a lukewarmer, you’re a troll and a denier.
Simple as that.
-
As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?
Really?!
This is almost the most extreme miscomprehension you’ve tried on to date – and that’s saying something!
Without AGW it wouldn’t have been as bad as it is. It’s not a difficult concept, just like “storm surges wouldn’t have been as bad if Sea Level Rise hadn’t given them a higher baseline to add to”.
Your implied argument is as bad as someone arguing that the fact that their car is NOT going as fast as it has ever gone means that the hill they are currently driving down is NOT contributing to their current speed. Any high school physics student can see the folly of that – as can many people who haven’t studied any physics at all.
Your argument is also statistically illiterate. We have a signal of interest – the climate trend due to anthropogenic forcing – and noise on top – which can be roughly described as “natural variation” and “weather”. You can’t validly argue that “the signal isn’t there unless there’s a new record every day” – but that’s where your argument leads to.
You should also be reading something like bill’s link to coverage of the marked change in ratio of high temperature to low temperature records across the globe over the last few decades. That points out that we are seeing exactly what we expect in the records if there’s an underlying warming signal with noise on top. But you prefer not to educate yourself! After all if you were successful you might see the folly of arguing “it’s not the absolute worst event in history” and trying to imply from that that AGW has not contributed to it.
I am curious though. What exactly are these academic science credentials you touted a while back? They don’t seem to have helped you reach the point where you can do basic scientific or statistical thinking – many high school students are far more competent.
-
““A “barbecue summer” – from no less an authority than the Met Office itself.”
Incorrect.
You never even read that link.
“Positive Weather Solutions (PWS)”
Check up on the site.
It’s one person with stock footage pretending to be their members of staff.
I.e. it’s a scam to get money for no work. Read about them here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/26/weather-forecasters-daily-mail
-
So Lotharsson,
Seeing as we were discussing this part of Jeff H’s comment:
‘but heck, that’s weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.’And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.
I then commented that the ABC and others claiming that the current heatwave is attributable to AGW was not really doing the climate/weather misconception any favours.
It is clearly a ‘weather’ event is it not?
Just the opposite to the weather that David D had commented on.
I found Simon’s ‘probably’ comment rather incongruous.
Are you defending the ABC’s comment or Simon’s comment?
Or are you just wanting to argue with me? -
The climate, clearly warming, affects every weather event. We understand this by stating that heat waves are more likely.
And it will become much, much worse…
-
Is Duff stupid? No, this is simply dishonesty.
Actually it’s both, and they feed each other.
Hoist with his own petard.
Hoist by his own petard.
Without AGW it wouldn’t have been as bad as it is.
Argh … right! Chammy’s questions were so stupid that I supposed them to be slightly less stupid and got it backwards.
-
Oops, as my own link establishes, Vince is right and I am wrong … it’s “with”, not “by”. How appropriate, though, that it’s a pun for Duff being blown up by his own fart.
-
In your muddled thinking
And of course Chammy display yet more of the same in her idiotic response.
Or are you just wanting to argue with me?
No, we would prefer that you weren’t a moron.
-
Are you defending the ABC’s comment
Which comment is that? All we have is your comment:
the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
but you aren’t a reliable reporter … you get what other people say all muddled up by passing it through your mush-for-brains.
-
So therefore Ianam are you supporting Simon’s ‘probably’ comment?
You’re right that things are getting muddled, but not because of what the ABC said yesterday. -
And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.
I doubt you understand what “linear” is, or maybe you don’t understand “climate”.
Jeff was saying that climate is the baseline, the long term slow-moving signal (which you seem to be referring “linear” although that’s NOT what Jeff was saying) – but the weather is the much more volatile short term movements on top – what Jeff explicitly said were NOT “linear”.
So you seem to have completely DISAGREED with that, and not realised it. In your use of the word “linear”, climate is highly “linear” and weather is “anything but linear”.
(But I wouldn’t describe it that way – we know the climate system can also undergo rapid non-linear changes and move to a new regime from whence moving back to the old one is quite difficult.)
-
It is clearly a ‘weather’ event is it not?
Of course.
But that doesn’t mean it’s got nothing to do with climate. Climate is the baseline on which weather rides.
Just like sea level is the baseline on which tides and storm surges ride.
Just like a warming trend is the baseline signal on which ups and downs of weather ride.
Alternatively: climate generates weather, or climate defines how many dots are on each side of the dice which are thrown to see what weather you get. The changing climate has loaded the dice.
Changing the climate changes the distribution of weather you get.
-
Lotharsson,
Who said that weather has nothing to do with climate?
My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.
Jeff H had clearly pointed out that it makes no sense do that albiet from the opposite weather perpective.
I agree that is the case and pointed out that maybe the media and politicians and govt employees need that explained to them.
In this instance it was the ABC yesterday.
Somehow, that then turned into you arguing with me.
ABOUT WHAT?????
I most certainly did not claim that the weather has nothing to do with climate because that would be a really stupid thing to say.
Actually the only one who has raised it that way is you. -
You’re right that things are getting muddled, but not because of what the ABC said yesterday.
That right there is an example of your immensely stupid muddling. What did the ABC say? A direct quote please, not an impression from an imbecile (you).
So you seem to have completely DISAGREED with that, and not realised it.
Quite so: Jeff said that climate isn’t fickle and Chammy, being the lazy careless imbecile she is, completely misunderstood what he wrote.
But that doesn’t mean it’s got nothing to do with climate.
As I noted, that AGW is a causal factor in the increase of extreme weather events is not mutually exclusive with the tautology that an extreme weather event is a weather event. But Chammy will continue to indulge in her false dichotomies indefinitely because … well, because she’s stupid, and too Dunning-Krugerishly arrogant to bother to follow a counterargument.
-
My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.
It only seems that way to A CRETIN. Saying that a weather event is probably worse than it would have been without AGW is not to say that it is “indicative” of AGW — that interpretation is retarded, stupid and lazy … the behavior of a jackass moron troll too effing lazy to bother to read or understand what anyone says.
AGW is an established fact, so we don’t need individual extreme weather events to “indicate” it. But one thing that is indicative of AGW is the increased frequency of extreme weather events. The current weather event is just one data point that is “indicative” of such an increase. Ah, but why am I trying to explain this to AN IMBECILE who gets everything wrong at every opportunity.
-
My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.
I don’t know this “Simon” you are referring to, as there are none posting on this thread.
Given your extensive history of misunderstanding people, perhaps you could, you know, do the widely performed simple courtesy of actually quoting the quote you are referring to – and then we can see if Simon actually thought what you think he seemed to think?
And to make sure we’re all on the same page please define “indicative” as you are using it/as you think other people are using it.
-
Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile.
Really, why bother with her?
-
I don’t know this “Simon” you are referring to, as there are none posting on this thread.
Rational inference indicates that she means Richard Simons, who wrote
The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.
Which of course is not a claim that “the heat wave is indicative of global climate change”. He also wrote:
Are you really this obtuse or are you just having fun at our expense?
I’m firmly convinced that it’s the former. While Chammy is a lazy troll who readily misinterprets what people say and willfully evades and avoids anything that might challenge her beliefs, she is also a genuinely stupid person.
-
Which of course is not a claim that “the heat wave is indicative of global climate change”.
Sorry, I was being erroneously charitable to Chammy … her actual misrepresentation of what Richard wrote is far worse; she claimed that he seems to think that
one weather event [is] indicative of AGW
Pardon my immense disgust at people like her.
-
As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?
Would you prefer me to say ‘as hot as it has been recently’? Does that clarify it sufficiently for you? Or are you suggesting that the current Australian heatwave is beneficial?
-
Richard, as Loth pointed out, Chammy’s question is immensely stupid. You wrote
The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.
Obviously you meant “as bad as it is“.
-
I made my previous comment before I’d read anyone else’s response. Thanks, folk.
My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.
Assuming you are trying to refer to me, the suggestion that I think that one weather event can be indicative of climate change is complete and utter claptrap. By what tortuous ‘thinking’ process did you arrive at such a stupid conclusion?
While Chammy is a lazy troll who readily misinterprets what people say and willfully evades and avoids anything that might challenge her beliefs, she is also a genuinely stupid person.
I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for a while, then for a few weeks I was hoping she could learn, but for the last couple of weeks it’s become clear that she’s both dishonest and incapable of altering her views no matter what the evidence.
-
my apologies Richard,
I remembered you by your sirname.
No disrespect intended.
Other than that folks, the moment, Zzzzzzzzzz for the rest.
-
OK, so chameleon was thinking of Richard Simons, who said the precise opposite of what she claimed. Not only stupid, disingenuous, illogical, incoherent and arguably dishonest – but so lazy she couldn’t be bothered to scroll up a couple of pages to see the name of the commenter she was allegedly responding to.
Chameleon by now has a track record almost as reliable as sunspot – at getting it horribly horribly wrong. As with sunspot, one would do very very well betting against any claim she makes without providing unimpeachable evidence.
-
I remembered you by your sirname. [sic]
Remembering his name isn’t necessary, cretin, since it’s right here on the page, just above his comment that you also didn’t remember and couldn’t be bothered to read before characterizing it.
No disrespect intended.
That’s like getting drunk, going out and driving, and killing a bunch of people, and then going “oh, sorry, I didn’t intend that”. It’s your despicable behavior that produces the offensive result, you shitstain on humanity.
-
I have such a low opinion of sunspot that my view of chameleon makes her relatively a saint.
-
Ianam, I reckon chameleon is working hard to change your relative assessment.
-
my apologies Richard,
I remembered you by your sirname.
No disrespect intended.I don’t care about that – you aren’t the first to get my names switched. What I do care about is that you completely misrepresented my views. But I don’t expect you to have the honesty or grace to apologize for that.
-
Not being funny guys, but Chameleon’s retarded and illiterate gibberish *really* doesn’t warrant the frequency of replies some of you are according it.
We’ve established it hasn’t the slightest idea about the basics of any of the sciences, and that it appears incapable accepting let alone remedying that fact, so most of these replies are a waste of space.
-
@Vince
I’ve said that repeatedly about all the debates with the trolls here. I’ve admonished people for being neurotic … a trait that I have been expressing the last couple of days in full glory. I’ve quit before … I hope to do so again.
-
Of course, nothing here is as neurotic as stu and chek continuing, year after year, to argue with Jonas about hands moving boxes and such.
-
Inaman, I see that your tourette’s syndrome has not abated.
I note that some of the cranks in here are pushing the “bush fires are caused by CC’ meme, ummmm………people light fires, lightning lights fires, hot weather helps them burn you idiots !
Oh….and down in Tasmania the fires have been fanned by barnturds little arms furiously spinning around while he screams the sky is falling. lol
-
Karen, just letting you know it’s now 2013, since your Korsakoffs seems to be advancing of late.
Another good instance of the syndrome is this intriguing claim that ‘cranks’ – meaning, against the odds, persons other than yourself, we gather – are maintaining that ‘bushfires are caused by cc’, because, you see, that’s not really true, now, is it?
We do have a muppet claiming that the ABC was claiming that, but she’s nearly as terminally bewildered as you are, love.
Really, it must be terrible to feel your mind slipping away. Feel free to pop back in occasionally and we’ll all cheer along your brave attempts at coherence, eh?
-
Shorter Karen: “I swung at my strawman, missed, and crapped my pants”.
-
au contraire Bill!
It was over 47deg here yesterday and we were inside under our evil RC air conditioner to escape the heat.
We had the TV on 24 ABC news for some noise.
It was most definitely claimed by 24 ABC news on several occasions between 2pm and 5pm on Monday Jan 7th that this current heatwave and the fires in TAS were caused by AGW.
I repeat that this type of nonsense does no favours to anyone who is interested in and/or trying to make sense of AGW! NONE! -
For those (Duff, Karen, she-of-many-colours, B4PM, SD, GWS, OP) who cannot understand the connection between climate and weather, and climate change and more extreme weather her is a primer which includes the well know quote, and if you are new to it think about it very carefully:
Deke Arndt, Climate Monitoring Branch Chief, NCDC: Climate kind of trains the boxer, but weather throws the punches. And what climate will do is help train weather to throw certain punches more often. We’ll see these as extreme precip events, extreme droughts.
State of the Climate in 2009 and all indicators have grown more unequivocal since.
There really is no excuse for continued stupid on this for those who persist in nay saying APGW and all its effects are either wilfully ignorant or mendacious.
-
Weather throws the punches?
Chuckle.
Maybe you need to rethink your PR? -
Chameleon’s retarded and illiterate gibberish *really* doesn’t warrant the frequency of replies some of you are according it.
Yeah, but everyone’s gotta have a hobby
One of mine that I indulge in in waves and then leave for a while is slapping down trollish stupidity. -
As its an open thread I’ll throw in a report on another way in which we are FUBARing the planet with our short sighted attempts at biomass fuel sourcing.
Biofuel production threatens air quality and crop yields, study finds
-
Hi chameleon, coming here is like looking through a little window into a padded room
-
Weather throws the punches?
Chuckle.
Maybe you need to rethink your PR?And you moan about people swearing at you.
Sorry but you lost any moral high-ground long ago as your cloak of impartial information seeking slipped.
You are now stark naked and it ain’t a pretty sight and with this last remark have lost any right to be treated with respect. You are simply another nasty mendacious little troll.
-
Shorter Karen: “I’m not mad, everybody else is”.
-
Chameleon and Karen will end up BFF … how sweet.
-
Ohhh my gawd Lyin nell, you are an idiot ! Not long ago you were blathering on about climate being changed by humans cutting down trees and starting agriculture, now tree are getting planted and your still whining, get a grip man !
“The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union’s 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1bn. The European plan would also would reduce the annual value of wheat and maize production by $1.5bn since ozone impairs crop growth, the study added.”
What a load of shite !!!
-
Chammy, love, you’re a stuck-up, pretentious bore. Piss off.
-
“Hi chameleon, coming here is like looking through a little window into a padded room”
Yeh… and you’re in the room Karen, along with like-minded idiots.
-
Oh perfect, just perfect! A favourite quote from this, er distinguished ‘climate scientologist’ site:
“Climate kind of trains the boxer, but weather throws the punches. And what climate will do is help train weather to throw certain punches more often.”Oh my giddy aunt! How could anyone say that with a straight face? If you lot are relying on that as your best deep thinking, you’re away with the fairies!
But as we are on the subject of quotes, here’s another from a very great scientist indeed:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”You ‘climate scientologists’ proposed, and keep proposing, that CO2 causes global warming. The amount of CO2, courtesy of China, India, et al, keeps growing exponentially and yet … and yet … global temperatures barely move and even the Met Office has been forced to cut its forecast temperatures for the next five years. But still you hold hands and cry in unison, “I believe! I believe!”
I hope you and Tom Cruise are very happy together!
-
Tell me, is the weather in Dubai different from the weather in Anchorage?
If so, how do you know?
And how would you describe the different weather?
-
Duffer: “and yet … global temperatures barely move”
There’s your problem – whoever is feeding you disinformation is lying to you. Average global temperatures keep on rising – but you’ll have already forgotten the record arctic melt this year, and the late season superstorm and hurricanes hitting the US North Eaast, won’t you? Like a good wattminded goldfish.
-
“Oh my giddy aunt! How could anyone say that with a straight face?”
Easily.
Apparently you don’t know what analogy means.
READ A BOOK.
-
” My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.”
in·dic·a·tive
/inˈdikətiv/
Adjective
Serving as a sign or indication of something.
Noun
A verb in the indicative mood.
Synonyms
indicatory -
If you ask for proof of AGW, then that event will be indicative of AGW.
-
Happy new year David
Rutgers Snow Lab, a December record for Northern hemisphere snow cover.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
arrrrrrrr…. THE SNOW IS FALLING THE SNOW IS FALLING lol
-
Too bad Karen its all melting away now…check out temperatures in the central USA this week.
Also, since when is snowfall any kind of evidence that it isn’t warming? Indeed, temperatures across much of the NH in December were well above normal – and the snow fell as heavy, wet stuff. Madison WI had a record 33 cm fall late in the monthwith a temperature steady at +1 C – meaning it wasn’t ‘dry’ snow. But, as I said, snow fall is not an indicator of below average temperatures; it indicates an increase in the prevalnce of low pressure and lift due to advancing warm air overriding cold air.
You are such an ignoramus. But then again, I have yet to see one climate change denier on Deltoid who knows much about anything, let alone science. You are instead driven by your own profound stupidity.
-
Yup, another common problem with deniers (because of the moron effect), is that every year they are flummoxed by the onset of Winter.
Their failure to grasp is not just limited to languages but to their own life experiences.
-
Does it ever – I mean like EVER – occur to you numpties that for a record amount of precipitation to get up there into the atmosphere, there must have been a record amount of warming to vapourise all that water in the first place before it could fall?
Or do simple organisms like you just think, snow -durrrr no AGW?
-
Hi Jeffery, central USA this week, how about right now, Nebraska, – 11C and 1 C in Texas, yeah a real scorcher, hehe
Brrrrrrrr, looks mighty cold in Canada also.
-
How about the average over Australia beating the record for the hottest average Aus temps? 40.6C.
-
And Canada? Cold? In winter?
That would be the climate, wouldn’t it?
-
Karen, what do you mean by “mighty cold in Canada”?
So what.
-
Chek all of the recent floods have not been as large as they have in the past when the climate was cooler, your evaporation theory just evaporated.
Q, do you still wet your pants ? Or you just can’t recall any prior debates on flood level’s ? The warmers lost
again -
Perhaps you can suggest some other as yet unknown mechanism for hoisting water into the atmosphere then Karen?
-
Average global temperatures keep on rising…
…and a heck of a lot of heat energy is going into warming the ocean, including the deeper parts.
Focusing purely on surface temperatures is a great way to mislead the gullible. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Duff.)
Speaking of gullible, here’s Karen:
…all of the recent floods have not been as large as they have in the past when the climate was cooler, your evaporation theory just evaporated.
Er, no.
The evaporation link is that warmer water evaporates more easily and warmer air holds more water vapour.
Do you deliberately make fallacious arguments or does it just come naturally?
-
Possibly chek didn’t think that there were floods before he exited a birth canal ? Only a recent event eh, hehehe
There has always been evaporation little cheky, even before you were born dear………
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 7, 2013
January 8, 2013
January 8, 2013
January 8, 2013
January 8, 2013
January 8, 2013
