|
|
Post by P London on May 27, 2019 5:11:13 GMT -5
Lommaren That only suggests that regional warming is indeed the correct term, as opposed to global warming—notice the difference? The Scandinavian Peninsular is warming...but it's quite the opposite here in NSW. Global warming = the temperature averaged over all the Earth surface is increasing, not "the temperature over every single inch of the globe is increasing". In other words, global warming is the average of the temperature changes over all the regions you can define. But remember they don't call it ''global warming'' anymore interestingly its called ''climate change'' |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 27, 2019 5:25:04 GMT -5
Global warming = the temperature averaged over all the Earth surface is increasing, not "the temperature over every single inch of the globe is increasing". In other words, global warming is the average of the temperature changes over all the regions you can define. But remember they don't call it ''global warming'' anymore interestingly its called ''climate change'' That's because warming would be falsifiable, can't have that. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 27, 2019 12:15:04 GMT -5
I don't see "climate change" and "global warming" as mutually exclusive, the two terms have different meanings and can be used to express different aspect of this topic.
Climate change is the most generic term, it comprehends any change in the climate system. Global warming instead is specific for the evolution of the temperature parameter over time, specifying also that it is referred to the global scale and to a temperature increase. So, in my interpretation (which is pretty literal), global warming is one of the phenomena related to climate change. Similarly, other parameters (rainy days and amount, atmospheric pressure, water temperature, snow thickness...) can also be followed over time to give a more complete description of the way climate changes.
There could be some practical difficulties in this, but theoretically I don't see why climate change should not be falsifiable when global warming is. As long as some climate-related parameters changes over a long period (even the temperature), the climate is evidently somehow changing.
(*message written on the train from the cellphone, so probably there are more typos than usual*)
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on May 29, 2019 8:01:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Jun 3, 2019 13:01:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 3, 2019 16:10:20 GMT -5
Ariete Ha! Perfect. Proved our point that all you alarmists do, is appeal to authority instead of fact-checking the so-called "evidence". Better luck next time!
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jun 4, 2019 14:40:25 GMT -5
I would've expected someone with a PhD in astrophysics is more intelligent than to allow himself to be brainwashed by this lefty con. The idea of greenhouse gases causes global warming comes from physics itself, so unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jun 4, 2019 14:47:51 GMT -5
Ariete Ha! Perfect. Proved our point that all you alarmists do, is appeal to authority instead of fact-checking the so-called "evidence". Better luck next time! not really an appeal to authority, just funny to see a dribbling moron get owned. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 5, 2019 1:42:46 GMT -5
Contradiction at its finest.   Notice how they forgot to mention the 118-year record cold reading at Dalby, QLD—as well as the lesser records broken at Cowra, Young, and Oberon back in May. The culprit? "According to Monash University's Climate Change Communication Research Hub"...at this point, the BOM aren't even compiling their own data anymore, but instead relying on some "research hub" at Monash University! The smug blighters know that they can easily manipulate data without getting charged for it; if only Tony Abbott were still in parliament to conduct a Royal Commission expedition into this catastrophic scandal. www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australian-climate-update-june-2019/529790  |
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Jun 5, 2019 3:08:43 GMT -5
>have consistenly above average weather across the country almost all of autumn >last week of May is super cold in the south-east which delivers massive snowfalls >BRO THEY FUCKIN LIED BRO GOTTEM LEFTY SHILLS ROYAL COMMISSION Also remember they count all of Australia when delivering these reports, so any negative anomalies in the south-east (if there even were any) could be cancelled out by hundreds of stations in the north, for example. Might be weird that they didn't report on the individual cold records broken, but a quick look also reveals that they didn't post about individual warm records either, just a summary for the entire country. Here are the full articles so others can draw their own conclusions:   |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 5, 2019 3:33:54 GMT -5
jgtheone Then why does the BOM try to paint the entirety of Australia as "warming", when in fact much of it was sourced from shorter-term stations and/or longer-term stations with homogenisations geared at cooling the past—even those of the post-Stevenson era? And do remember the source of this article: " According to Monash University's Climate Change Communication Research Hub"—did you not decipher that statement properly? This particular "climate report" wasn't even compiled by the BOM themselves, but instead by a plainly-biased university research team—and the BOM uses this as "fact", thereby misinforming; that is a dire offence and must be dealt with accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Jun 5, 2019 3:52:08 GMT -5
jgtheone Then why does the BOM try to paint the entirety of Australia as "warming", when in fact much of it was sourced from shorter-term stations and/or longer-term stations with homogenisations geared at cooling the past—even those of the post-Stevenson era. And do remember the source of this article: " According to Monash University's Climate Change Communication Research Hub"—did you not decipher that statement properly? This particular "climate report" wasn't even compiled by the BOM themselves, but instead by a plainly-biased university research team—and the BOM uses this as "fact", thereby misinforming; that is a dire offence and must be dealt with accordingly. That research hub is only sourced when referring to the below average rainfall trend in Western Australia, otherwise they don't state a source so it's assumed that the BoM are using their own data. Why would they try to fake data anyway, what's the point? It's not influencing anything in terms of renewable energy investment, that's the job of governments. Faked data or not, each side of the government was going to have their own position set in stone. Furthermore, changing a couple of stations would do nothing to the overall average of the country. There are thousands upon thousands of stations, old and new, in the system. Changing or homogenising a few would do nothing. It's also normal for many new stations to open up. Hunters Hill for example is a mostly cold station that is fairly new. Another example is the new Mt Hotham station which is higher in elevation, from 1700m to 1800m. If they wanted to make it look like climate change was occurring then they would have placed it at 1600m. What I do disagree with is the fact that most of the media uses averages such as 1856-2012 (the old Melbourne/Sydney stations, for example) when talking about averages, and not 1981-2010. That is what inflates things, and I think that is the reason for a lot of the constant above average reports that you see. We'd see a more realistic spread of averages and above/below conditions with 30 year averages. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 5, 2019 4:20:20 GMT -5
That research hub is only sourced when referring to the below average rainfall trend in Western Australia, otherwise they don't state a source so it's assumed that the BoM are using their own data. Why would they try to fake data anyway, what's the point? It's not influencing anything in terms of renewable energy investment, that's the job of governments. Faked data or not, each side of the government was going to have their own position set in stone.(I)Furthermore, changing a couple of stations would do nothing to the overall average of the country.(II) There are thousands upon thousands of stations, old and new, in the system. Changing or homogenising a few would do nothing. It's also normal for many new stations to open up. Hunters Hill for example is a mostly cold station that is fairly new. Another example is the new Mt Hotham station which is higher in elevation, from 1700m to 1800m. If they wanted to make it look like climate change was occurring then they would have placed it at 1600m.(III)What I do disagree with is the fact that most of the media uses averages such as 1856-2012 (the old Melbourne/Sydney stations, for example) when talking about averages, and not 1981-2010. That is what inflates things, and I think that is the reason for a lot of the constant above average reports that you see. We'd see a more realistic spread of averages and above/below conditions with 30 year averages.(IV) Congratulations—you've just admitted that it was merely an assumption. If the BOM outright refuses to publicly display their evidence and/or methodology, then what precisely remains to trust of them? II. January 1939 would sorely disagree with that statement of yours, I'm afraid; owing chiefly to the adjustments applied at Rutherglen, VIC and surrounds (notably in the ACORN satellite data, the BOM's foremost source for "undoubtable warming"), have earned January 2019 the new title of hottest summer on record (averaged around)—but without the adjustments, there'd be quite a different tale to tell. UHI development has also a vital part to play in the rapid warming of urban sites, most prominently that of Sydney Observatory Hill. III. Charlotte Pass, NSW ring any bells? They've conveniently shut it down back in 2015 due to "lack of observersation", when they could just as easily have re-established the Charlotte Pass site as an AWS...but alas, they have no problem whatsoever establishing AWS sites in the hot, desert regions of Australia. Hunters Hill and Mt. Hotham aren't notable cold-spots, at least when laid in comparison with our national record-holder, i.e. Charlotte Pass—so long as they leave it deserted, Australia shall never see a new record cold national reading once again. IV. Now this I can agree with; however, you've forgotten to mention that ever-increasing UHI development and site urbanisation—especially in Sydney and Melbourne—are without doubt yielding major influence over the rapidly-rising urban temperatures; quite the opposite in much of the longer-term, regional stations, particularly in the country's southern quarter. |
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Jun 5, 2019 5:46:01 GMT -5
I. Congratulations—you've just admitted that it was merely an assumption. If the BOM outright refuses to publicly display their evidence and/or methodology, then what precisely remains to trust of them? You could just as easily say that about using the research hub for the entire article. The article's data mainly comes from the BoM. The UHI does play a part in rapid warming (especially with minimums) and is why the 81-10 averages should be normal. Do those alleged adjustments in 1939 (which I know was hot because of the Black Friday fires and the 45C day in Melbourne) only conveniently occur around your area, or are there other stations? For me, 2019 was definitely the hottest January on record and I also had a 46C day, which would have been similar for the airport area in 1939. Hottest month for Melbourne CBD was January 1908 or something like that. Difference is, years back then were more likely to have Januarys averaging 24C than now. The last 10 years have been 26C or above (average or above). Is that similar for you? I remembered the Charlotte pass thing after I made my post, funnily enough. It is a shame that it doesn't exist anymore, I for one would love it to still be open. There is still no evidence they shut it down due to an agenda though, that's just speculation. What temperatures would have to be recorded at Perisher, for example, to estimate a -23C at Charlotte Pass? Just a general question btw. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 5, 2019 16:46:15 GMT -5
You could just as easily say that about using the research hub for the entire article. The article's data mainly comes from the BoM. The UHI does play a part in rapid warming (especially with minimums) and is why the 81-10 averages should be normal. Do those alleged adjustments in 1939 (which I know was hot because of the Black Friday fires and the 45C day in Melbourne) only conveniently occur around your area, or are there other stations? For me, 2019 was definitely the hottest January on record and I also had a 46C day, which would have been similar for the airport area in 1939. Hottest month for Melbourne CBD was January 1908 or something like that. Difference is, years back then were more likely to have Januarys averaging 24C than now. The last 10 years have been 26C or above (average or above). Is that similar for you?I remembered the Charlotte pass thing after I made my post, funnily enough. It is a shame that it doesn't exist anymore, I for one would love it to still be open. There is still no evidence they shut it down due to an agenda though, that's just speculation. What temperatures would have to be recorded at Perisher, for example, to estimate a -23C at Charlotte Pass? Just a general question btw.First and foremost, I will address the error(s) in your statement—"around your area; is that similar for you?". Temperature averages commenced in 1897 at Kiandra Chalet (precipitation since 1866), but daily records i.e. record highs, weren't registered until 1957; that you can discover for yourself on the BOM climate charts for Kiandra Chalet, in which you'll see that it's not possible to view daily records prior to 1957—only averages, hence the rather mild record highs and lows relative to its long referrence period (if it held records of the 1939 summer, it would have soared above 32.9° C; likewise, if it held records of the 1901 winter, it would have plummeted below –17.8° C). Therefore, I am unable to make a judgement if this situation holds any similarity to that of yours i.e. Melbourne's, owing to the lack of adequate evidence. More to my misfortune, Kiandra Chalet was the oldest station in the entirety of the Snowy Mountains regional. Let us compare Perisher Valley and Charlotte Pass: I. Perisher Valley II. Charlotte PassThe record lows for both Perisher and Charlotte were registered upon the 29th of June, 1994; the former yielded a reading of –18.0° C, whereas the latter a much lower reading of –23.0° C; why is this, you ask? Notwithstanding their similar altitudes (1,735 m for the former; 1,755 m AMSL for the latter), the geography surrounding Charlotte Pass is what enables it to be so cold—Perisher Valley severely lacks this sort of deep valley geography akin to that of Charlotte's, thereby halting much of the inversion-based cooling: As for your other statements regarding the BOM's warming agenda, I'll have to give you the victory for that one, as I cannot prove beyond doubt that the BOM indeed preaches such an agenda, due to my lack of any adequate evidence; merely a speculation, as you've said—likewise the IPCC climate model "predictions". |
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Jun 6, 2019 1:31:35 GMT -5
Thank you for your explanation. As I said earlier I wish the Charlotte's Pass station still existed, even if it was an AWS it'd be fine. We can at least roughly estimate the temperature at Charlotte's based on the observations at Perisher but we will never be fully sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Jun 7, 2019 5:43:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by omegaraptor on Jun 13, 2019 13:04:14 GMT -5
“We need a climate debate” because of an anomalously hot two days in Seattle even though two thirds of the country is below average.
|
|
|
|
Post by omegaraptor on Jun 13, 2019 19:47:35 GMT -5
Some info on solar power and how it is not as "green" as generally thought: The production of solar panels produces sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride, two extremely potent greenhouse gases that are 24000x and 17000x more powerful than CO2, respectively. Solar panels contain toxic heavy metals such as lead and cadmium which get washed off by rainwater and leach into the ground, and solar panels are very difficult to dispose of or recycle. Solar waste is predicted to become a major problem in coming decades. www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#7eebe009121cknot you were talking about how nuclear power and fossil fuels are superior to solar and wind power. You might like this information. |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Jun 13, 2019 21:51:19 GMT -5
Some info on solar power and how it is not as "green" as generally thought: The production of solar panels produces sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride, two extremely potent greenhouse gases that are 24000x and 17000x more powerful than CO2, respectively. Solar panels contain toxic heavy metals such as lead and cadmium which get washed off by rainwater and leach into the ground, and solar panels are very difficult to dispose of or recycle. Solar waste is predicted to become a major problem in coming decades. www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#7eebe009121cknot you were talking about how nuclear power and fossil fuels are superior to solar and wind power. You might like this information. The "Green Industry" is just that, an industry. They care nothing for the environment and only exist to serve as profit reallocation from the big bad oil companies (not that I like oil companies, those fucks never hired me). It's an economic and political war and has nothing to do with science or even the real world, other than money/economics. Electric vehicles are another similar example: they heavily tax the existing electrical infrastructure (if it even exists in certain areas) and their manufacturing is not environmentally friendly. Anyway, going back -- solar panels are a scourge and pathetically useless in the grand scheme. They're just another failure. |
|
