Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

What about before the BOM actually kept good records...

I wonder what happened in the previous 200, 2000, or 200000 years of Australia????

Just curious, as we don't have records and none of us were here!

---

As others have touched on, there are other sources of information. Soil and ice cores have been mentioned, but old ships logs extend the record of directly measured recent air and water temperatures, and atmospheric pressures, for close to 200 years. Almost every scientific discipline has people involved in modelling historical temperatures for geological time spans. These include geologists, botanists, marine, terrestrial and atmospheric biologists, bacteriologists and my personal favourite, one I met is a paleopalynologist. All of these disciplines create models which, while not as accurate as direct measurement, can be calibrated reasonably accurately. One model by itself probably doesn't mean much, but so many models, based on different parameters, nearly all showing the same thing, are a pretty sound indication of what's happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

The climate is constantly changing. Probably always has and probably always will. The argument should not be directed at its existence but more to how to minimize the effect. As for using Canberra as a barometer, I can't think of anything more ridiculous. It would have to be one of the most inappropriately located cities in the country. Miserable climate, miserable soil and a smog trap. Lovely. And you wonder at the lack of historical Aboriginal occupation?

---

Poo of the male moo, I love my little town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

Poo of the male moo, I love my little town.

---

Some folk are easily pleased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCArcher

Does Australia have access/control of a geostationary, IR capable satellite with sensors sensitive enough to pinpoint small areas over all of Australia?

---

I don't know if we here in Australia have any control of any IR satellites, but I used this NASA site to monitor the recent fires here in the Adelaide Hills and on Kangaroo Island. It shows active fires in the last 24hr period. You can zoom right in to get precise locations. Use your mouse to get a an exact coordinate reference.

As you can see, the fires in southern NSW and Vic are still very active in the last 24hrs.

FIRMS - Fire Map

I'm late coming to this discussion having just got back from interstate and before that being distracted by the bush fires here in the Adelaide Hills.

On the MM CC Deniers, I have some in my family and after close observation of them over many decades I see their position as being more one of belief than of coming to an opinion based on any understanding of the available science. Any reading they do on the topic comes from Murdoch rags or pre-packaged bundles of pseudo-facts on denier sites aimed at reassuring themselves of their position.

Many of them also hold the belief that they are being denied the right to hold their beliefs. They feel persecuted and part of a minority group, which is also fertile ground for conspiracy theory promulgaters and shock jocks. No surprise that the latte drinking-lefty-greenies got a serve from that quarter for causing the bush fires by denying controlled fuel reduction burning in National Parks or that it was all caused by arsonists. The explanations and solutions are always simplistic.

In the same way that you won't change someone's religious beliefs with logical argument, I don't try to change their MM CC Denial 'beliefs' with logical argument. You can't. And, it is not surprising that so many MM CC Deniers are also religious fundamentalists. There is a coalition (small c) here in Australia (also in US) between the far right, the religious fundamentalists, social conservatives and MM CC Deniers. They are comfortable with each other and although not all components of that coalition hold to all of the constituent views they are sufficiently adhesive at the moment to hold sway and power here in Australia.

Now, if you think I'm indulging here in a bit of a conspiracy theory myself, have a listen to the podcast with Niki Savva (former senior adviser to to John Howard and Peter Costello) on how ProMo got the top job on his side of the circus. The title of her book, Plots and Prayers, summarises the dirty tricks that were employed by the righteous right.

How brutal politics and righteous prayers toppled a Prime Minister - Conversations - ABC Radio

There is a different dynamic in the UK where there is bi-partisan (left and right) support for action on climate change.

I would be pessimistic about change if it was dependent on that relatively small but controlling coalition (small c again) losing its grip on power here. They may prevail for some time yet.

However, I'm more optimistic about the shift that is quietly going on globally with financial divestment in the fossil fuel industry. For example, BlackRock, the largest asset manager worldwide (worth $10trillion), which has been recalcitrant up until now on climate change action, announced last week that it will be progressively divesting from coal companies and companies that generate at least 25% of their profits from burning thermal coal.

BlackRock, world's largest investment manager, pulls out of thermal coal | RenewEconomy

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the largest sovereign fund in the world valued at over US$1.1trillion, commenced its divestment in coal, oil and gas last year. Small steps, but a trend that appears to be gaining momentum over which our local cabal will thankfully have no influence.

I don't wish to change anyone's beliefs, but if you share my views about the need to take action to avoid the tipping point beyond which no human effort can reverse the runaway effects of climate change, then make your views known to your superannuation fund. Their investment decisions on your behalf will give you the greatest leverage in bringing about change. With $3 trillion in superannuation we wealthy Australians can make a difference globally well beyond our population size.

Apologies to anyone who got this far for my long post.

Having got that off my chest it's time to watch the men's singles tennis final on the box...:U

Blackrock doesn’t sound like it is completely onboard

Blackrock And Greta Thunberg Team Up, Well Sort Of

Blackrock is only following the money and not the mantra, they can see that there is more to be made from environmental thinking and the emergence of new energy technologies, there is no altruistic motivation involved only monetary profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Blackrock is only following the money.

---

No doubt about that at all.
Do I care?
Nope - it's a result.

Al Capone got locked up for tax evasion, not murder.
Did the Fibbies care?
Nope - they got a result.
Jail is gaol - maybe just in a different wing (with the same privileges that corruption can buy).

Your comment raises a very important point Ray - the Boardrooms of the world have already decided that fossil fuels are out and renewables are either in, or at least ok at arms length. Fine by me if they do it for non-altruistic reasons - I couldn't give a fig if they just want to make some honest/clean money for a change. After all, that is the first legally binding duty of any board - to make a profit for the shareholders.

Neil

Thanks for reminding us of Nikki Savva's interview. Worth listening to again or for the first time so here it is again from a former Liberal party advisor. Interesting.

How brutal politics and righteous prayers toppled a Prime Minister - Conversations - ABC Radio

Regards
Paul

What a shame if we closed all the coal plants.

Wind, solar, hydro, thermal, wave, parabolic solar salt collectors, ethanol, compressed air, CO2 concentrators....

Solar, solar, solar, wind, wind, wind.

HUGE battery reservoirs. Huge desal plants.

I can hear it now... b.b.b.uuutttt Australia doesn't have enough space for solar! Or enough sun! We can't POSSIBLY put 1000 floating wind pontoons off the coast of Sydney! Just.... BECAUSE!!!!!

Wouldn't it be just terrible. Just terrible.


edit: this is interesting. Shows how far behind per capita we are compared to the ROW: Wind power by country - Wikipedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

there is no altruistic motivation involved only monetary profit.

---

That's true, and it tells an important story. Large scale funding of coal projects is done because the alternatives are becoming more competitive and will get even better as more money is invested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Blackrock doesn’t sound like it is completely on board

Blackrock And Greta Thunberg Team Up, Well Sort Of

---

Yes, Beardy, they have come to this position very reluctantly. The US$90 billion loss in their fossil fuel portfolio last year has helped to budge them. Without this shift they would be holding increasingly stranded assets. The smart money abandoned fossil fuel (and in particular coal) assets some time ago.

But, as FenceFurniture notes, whatever the reason, "it's a result".

If anyone is interested in the complex nature of the disjunction between attitudes on climate change action and voting patterns here in Australia I can highly recommend the following two pieces from Rebecca Huntley, one of our leading researchers on social trends. I thinks she has considerable insights into why Australians who when surveyed are widely supportive of action on climate change but are not voting that way, and why some strategies are counterproductive.

Here is a brief article in which she introduces her findings.... you may identify which group you sit in on her six segment spectrum.

Climate change splits the public into six groups. Understanding them is key to future action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And, for a more detailed and in depth analysis, listen to the following podcast from her (45mins)....

Why are we so divided on climate change? - Big Ideas - ABC Radio National

My personal experience of her 'Dismissive' group rings true. As expressed before, my view is that I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them of anything... they won't/can't change. The real concern with them is that, despite being a small minority, they currently have disproportionate power and influence here in Australia. I agree with Huntley, "we need to drive the Dismissive group out of positions of power in our government [and] stop the flow of their donations into our political parties...", while at the same time focussing on the other groups that are more open to change and avoid "the language of crisis and emergency [that] can actually turn off those who are Disengaged and Cautious". They are the voter blocs that are needed to neutralise the disproportionately influential Dismissives.

January average temp here was 27.0° - third hottest on record. That makes the last three Januaries the three hottest on record.

If Saturday and Sunday had been part of January it would have been yet another record (the ave would have been around 29.5°, which is more than last Jan).

Sunday 2nd Feb was 38.8°, which is a new record for February. For some reason there is no information for Saturday but it was
a) forecast to be 3° hotter than Sunday
b) definitely was about 3° hotter than Sunday in the lived experience
c) in Blackheath (10kms) it was 2.8° hotter than Saturday

So that makes Saturday:
The hottest day ever (not just February) in Katoomba at ~41.6°
The first ever day over 40°
(I have some doubts about those temps being over 40)

However, as it stands, Sunday is the hottest Feb day, due to no info for Sat, and today - two days later - I have jacket on for the forecast high of 18°.



NASA, that well-known pack of untrustworthy charlatans that faked a moon landing and are now faking CC, have just announced that 2019 was the second warmest on record, after 2016, and the last 5 years have all been the warmest of the last 140 years.

Full story:
NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

NeilS is right in that it is impossible to change the minds of people who just refuse to believe that CC has been exacerbated by man - we've seen that within this thread (and apparently Senator Jim Molan on Q&A last night - I'm yet to see it). I agree that it is a waste of time and effort
BUT
the deniers are slowing down the best efforts of the best science to be able to do something about this catastrophe within the miserable amount of time left. Out of their fear of losing money they are going to cost themselves more money.

It's a disgrace.

I seem to recall somebody saying that sea levels are not rising - just look at the records for Fort Denison. Well apparently that is not the case around the North American continent - perhaps like everything else, NA is different?. Sea levels are not just rising, but accelerating (remembering those three new islands discovered in the Arctic Ocean some months ago).

Sea level rise accelerating along US coastline, scientists warn | Environment | The Guardian

A search of "are world sea levels rising" points to plenty of articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

the deniers are slowing down the best efforts of the best science to be able to do something about this catastrophe within the miserable amount of time left.

---

It is absurd that the increasingly small amount of CC deniers can still exert a disproportionate amount of influence over the debate. They are quite comfortable accepting the 3% of scientists that "do not believe" in climate change instead of the 97% who do believe. It comes down to fear (fear that they will lose out) and money. In fact to my mind the two are inextricably linked. So why do they actually get as much traction as they do?

Basically they have no scruples and are very comfortable lying. I suspect most of us were brought up believing the majority of what we were told and it takes quite a large step to divorce ourselves from that mindset. For example: a certain QLD Premier's catch phrase was " It'll be right. Don't you worry your head about that." It has taken the internet and the vast array of information available to everybody that has taught us to question. However, the internet is itself the biggest source of mis-information and human nature is such that it believes what it wants to believe. I frequently draw automotive analogies and my analogy here is that if you revel in the raw power of a V8 car you probably do not want to relinquish that for a Prius. However, when a Tesla blows your muscle car into the weeds over the standing quarter you sit up straighter (or be extremely P...e Off).

Without completely going along with Al Gore, his "inconvenient truth" was right on the money and I often wonder how things would have gone if little Georgie hadn't pulled a swiftie. Maybe Al would have been different if he had been the incumbent.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is absurd that the increasingly small amount of CC deniers can still exert a disproportionate amount of influence over the debate.

---

I'll assume you mean that the number of deniers is reducing :D Thank gawd fer that, but I do wish that rate of decrease would increase.

Still haven't watched Q&A but I saw a snippet of Jim Molan in the news. How on earth did such a moron get to be a General? Certainly I understand how he could get to be a Senator, but a Major General? I've never heard of such head in the sand mentality from a member of the pragmatic Army.

As a former Major General of the Army he proudly said (re CC denial) "I'm not relying on evidence."

WHAT? He also came out with the usual lie of "I'm happy to be convinced one way or another". What a load of bollocks.

I'd still like to see the actually temperatures and weather patterns before the recordings started??????

Sorry folks, but when the "Media" and "Educators" put out figures that suit their purposes of making money or pushing specific agenda to justify there own ends;

I'm can't say I trust them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

I'd still like to see the actually temperatures and weather patterns before the recordings started??????

---

OK, so fundamentally, you are saying that because dinosaurs couldn't record the temperatures, that we now don't know enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

I'd still like to see the actually temperatures and weather patterns before the recordings started??????

---

So what you are asking for is something that you know very well cannot be produced in the format that you require. Apart from this having been previously addressed and debunked, it's a standard reply for people who refuse to be convinced no matter how compelling the data is. They ask that the data be produced in a format that they know can never be done - i.e. from thermometers and other such instruments before such things existed. That's why they ask for that data - it's impossible to produce, so it gives them a convenient cop out.

So instead of saying "I want to see this or that" (because it still won't change your mind) why don't you show some facts - facts - that prove that we are not contributing to the planet getting hotter? That doesn't mean merely showing some other contributing factors (because there are some) - it means proving that we are not one of them.

Ice core samples are just as accurate - as is the CO2 content of the air pockets trapped in them.

The science is settled Peter - it is incontrovertible. It cannot be cogently argued with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

Sorry folks...

---

No point in apologising to us - most of us will be dead before the weather becomes intolerable, with half the planet uninhabitable, and the rest of it frighteningly expensive. It's our grandchildren that will certainly be owed an apology in due course. We are leaving them a shocking, disgraceful legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

...when the "Media" and "Educators" put out figures that suit their purposes of making money or pushing specific agenda to justify there own ends; I'm can't say I trust them!

---

How can you possibly say that when you put such store in the words of Alan Jones - who is pushing a specific agenda to justify his own end - having an audience!!! Which makes money for him, dammit!!! :((


Can you say what it is that you are afraid of?

Can you say what it is that would convince you to change your mind? (something possible, that is....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The science is settled Peter - it is incontrovertible. It cannot be cogently argued with

---

That's what they said when the science of the day all pointed to the Earth being flat and people were persecuted for arguing that it was round at the time.

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing. As it changes life evolves. The day of the dinosaur is gone and for the time being it's our turn. Nothing we can do can change that inevitably the planet will not naturally support human life after some as yet undetermined time. At best we can delay the inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing.

---

That's the same tired old argument that doesn't acknowledge our contribution to the rapid acceleration of change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

The day of the dinosaur is gone.....

---

I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

That's the same tired old argument that doesn't acknowledge our contribution to the rapid acceleration of change.

---

Have you had the electricity disconnected at your place yet, Brett, or are you still contributing to the problem?

I'm in the same situation as you are Doug - no choice about whether or not I can have Solar power. If I had a choice I would be on Solar, and with an electric vehicle

It has to be said that that is not much of an argument - too many individuals don't have such control over their lives. That is completely separate to acknowledging that we cannot continue - as a society (not one individual) - to do what we are doing to the atmosphere.

Can you say why you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Can you say why you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC?

---

Can you say where I said that I don't?

Well, your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept our contribution. But rather than estimating, do you accept it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

How can you possibly say that when you put such store in the words of Alan Jones - who is pushing a specific agenda to justify his own end - having an audience!!! Which makes money for him, dammit!!! :((

---

you accuse Peter of putting store in the words of Alan Jones, and yet you seem to take great store in everything the ABC states. Just look at the number of times you quote them. Who says they aren’t
pushing a specific agenda to justify their own end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well, your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept our contribution. But rather than estimating, do you accept it?

---

Im keen to find out just what in my posts gave you that idea. Can you find an example of something I have posted, and quote it IN CONTEXT to make your case. Don't just take part of a post and quote it out of context like you did with Senator Molan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

you accuse Peter of putting store in the words of Alan Jones, and yet you seem to take great store in everything the ABC states. Just look at the number of times you quote them. Who says they aren’t pushing a specific agenda to justify their own end?

---

It is not an accusation - it is an observed fact. When an email is sent to a significant number of people saying that "Alan Jones is singing my song" (re CO2 non-impact) then I think it's pretty safe to say that store is put in Jones' words.

To address the second part of your post: it is not necessarily the ABC making those statements - they are reporting scientists opinions, papers etc. There may have been some ABC staff opinions in that mix, but by and large it is reported from other sources. Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only. Quite a number of those links have links to other sources, so I'm trying to take information from as a broad a base as I can.

I have to ask why the ABC would push a not-necessarily-true climate agenda, and to justify their own end. They are publicly funded but independent of Govt. What purpose could it possibly serve for them? Furthermore, I suspect that they would take a lot less heat from the current Govt (so since 2013) if they adopted News Ltd's position, so they are not taking an easy road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I have to ask why the ABC would push a not-necessarily-true climate agenda, and to justify their own end. They are publicly funded but independent of Govt. What purpose could it possibly serve for them? Furthermore, I suspect that they would take a lot less heat from the current Govt (so since 2013) if they adopted News Ltd's position, so they are not taking an easy road.

---

Are you the only one in Australia that cannot see that the ABC has a green agenda? I stopped watching Q and A years ago because the audience and panel are stacked green almost every episode. It started out as a good unbiased forum for debate but it quickly degenerated to the ABC's usual bias.

I never stated that you only quoted the ABC - I just observed that you quote them frequently.
As the the ABC reporting from various sources, it would seem that they choose whom they report. That could be construed as pushing an agenda in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Im keen to find out just what in my posts gave you that idea. Can you find an example of something I have posted

---

It will take quite some time to trawl back through 260+ posts to find yours, and I don't have that time right now. Perhaps later this evening.

I did not quote Molan out of context - I quoted part of it and provided the link to him saying his words. It was about a minute long IIRC. I just watched it again - 1:25 long, and none of the parts (2) shown are cherry picked or quoted out of context. The moderator asked "What is the evidence that you are relying on?" and Molan replied "I'm not relying on evidence, I am saying etc etc" so I have not quoted him out of context at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

I never stated that you only quoted the ABC - I just observed that you quote them frequently.
As the the ABC reporting from various sources, it would seem that they choose whom they report. That could be construed as pushing an agenda in my opinion.

---

And I didn't say that you said I only quote one source - I am just clarifying that I look at a number of sites.

Who do you think we should be reading then, if you think that the ABC could be construed as having an agenda? What are the sources to be trusted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I did not quote Molan out of context - I quoted part of it and provided the link to him saying his words. It was about a minute long IIRC. I just watched it again - 1:25 long, and none of the parts (2) shown are cherry picked or quoted out of context. The moderator asked "What is the evidence that you are relying on?" and Molan replied "I'm not relying on evidence, I am saying etc etc" so I have not quoted him out of context at all.

---

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience. From the sentence fragments from that interchange between Hamish and Molan can you conclusively answer "evidence of what" is Molan not relying?

The whole 1.25 minutes of it is "cherry picked" and totally without any definite context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

. Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only. .

---

That quote would suggest otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

That's what they said when the science of the day all pointed to the Earth being flat and people were persecuted for arguing that it was round at the time.

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing. As it changes life evolves. The day of the dinosaur is gone and for the time being it's our turn. Nothing we can do can change that inevitably the planet will not naturally support human life after some as yet undetermined time. At best we can delay the inevitable.

---

The science of the day never pointed to the earth being flat. It was scientists who showed that it wasn't.

Sure, the earth's climate has always changed, but it has never changed as quickly. There is so much science showing that we are creating the mechanisms that cause this accelerated change, it's out there freely available and has been for so long that it's now time for those who deny anthropogenic climate chagne to prove their assertions, rather than saying "I don't trust scientists/educators/academics/the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

That quote would suggest otherwise.

---

I don't understand what you mean. What quote?

Post #275.
Would you prefer “stated” to “quoted”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Post #275.
Would you prefer “stated” to “quoted”?

---

Stated or quoted doesn't matter. Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I still don't know what you mean. "Otherwise" to what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

The science of the day never pointed to the earth being flat. It was scientists who showed that it wasn't.

---

Well until Pythagorus, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes had their say around 500 - 350 BC all the previous scientists of the day seem to have accepted that the Earth was flat, even if the cats had not pushed everything off the edges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Sure, the earth's climate has always changed, but it has never changed as quickly. There is so much science showing that we are creating the mechanisms that cause this accelerated change, it's out there freely available and has been for so long that it's now time for those who deny anthropogenic climate chagne to prove their assertions, rather than saying "I don't trust scientists/educators/academics/the media.

---

Did I say anything to indicate otherwise? Mind you there are differing opinions on how fast the climate changed in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65.5 million years ago or even the Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago. Many scientists believe that the Cretaceous-Tertiary event may have taken place by very rapid cooling over days or weeks rather than years but that goes hand in hand with the idea of it all being caused by a very extreme and rapid catastrophic event.