pmccarthy

Of course, I meant to write the temperatures have risen to what they were 1500 years ago.

Get a dog.

Friends won a house on the Gold Coast. They moved there but couldn't stand it.

I just read an article a 1,500-year-old reindeer trap that was discovered in the mountains of Norway last year. It says: Increased snowfall during the sixth century reshaped migration routes and limited access to mountain regions. Heavier snowpack extended winter conditions and pushed communities to relocate hunting activity to lower elevations, where herds adjusted more easily. The wooden trap and other objects have been frozen under ice ever since and have just emerged. In this location at least, temperatures have fallen to what they were 1500 years ago.

The union has announced that workers on Vic tunnels will earn up to $360,000 pa. They are proud of their win in negotiation with Jacinta for more of our money.

His brother once wished to be a tampon.

My comments on the Sabine video. I am just commenting what I understand at present without going back to research and justify each statement. 1 the way CO2 absorbs infrared has been known for well over 100 years. It might or might not be significant in the atmosphere. The arguments against it include atmospheric layering (no glass in the greenhouse walls) and the overwhelming effect of moisture and clouds. 2 Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since measurements began (since 1982). But we don't know how variable and cyclic it is over longer periods. Ice cores show that it increases after warming, therefore is an effect of warming, and not a cause. 3 Oceans becoming less alkaline (not more acidic!) can be due to volcanic activity which is largely unquantified and much greater than "climate scientists" acknowledge. 4 The additional CO2 in the atmosphere may be from fossil fuels, the isotopic ratio is not proof yet. It can also be from land clearing, volcanism etc. 5 Stratospheric cooling must be considered in relation to the clouds and moisture problem at lower levels. All of my statements can be backed up by scientific papers. There is a lot of debate about them all. It is prudent to say that we don't have the answers at present, that the science is far from settled. The greatest risk to humanity is that we condemn later generations to a world without adequate energy supplies, destroying our industrial capacity and standard of living. Of course this will not happen globally, but at present Australia is out there on its own destroying its infrastructure without having put a substitute in place.

Announcement: the dear leader had an election this morning. We hope this eladicates any confusion.

I still haven’t watched it, just woke up, but you seem to misunderstand the argument. I certainly understand and accept the science behind ACC and believe there is an element of it in our current climate. The evidence says it is probably not a major factor in climate variability and in any case the current approach by our governments will have zero effect while destroying our economy. Climate modelling is unreliable and misleading.

I will watch it. I think she is a very smart lady.

The other problem is that most of the land surface has no records until recently. Historical records are biased to the USA and some western European countries. There can be no "global" temperature estimate, even for the land masses and there are virtually none for the air over the oceans which make up 70% of the planet's surface. If reliable records exist they only cover the past 40 years or so since satellite scanning measurements began. Even there, there are scientific papers pointing out the errors in satellite measurements,

When we sold our last place I paid to have the outside cedar weatherboards repainted in red cedar colour. The buyer repainted I white immediately.

Thanks all for a surprisingly logical response! I agree with much of it except a couple of ad hominem bits. Can I ask for comment on the following? The climate models that have been developed to date are, to the extent they have been tested, wrong. Over the past thirty years every base case model and every public prediction has shown a greater temperature increase than was actually experienced. We cannot rule on the models from the past decade, because there hasn’t been time to find out how they perform. But we have no reason to expect they will be any better.

Yep definitely a shame. Shame on Andrew.