pmccarthy

I accept my own data. I have been paying for electricity for over 50 years. It was nearly all coal and it was cheap and reliable. Now it is woke electricity and it is expensive and we get blackouts. What more data do you need?

The Klimanachrichten article references a ZDF documentary by journalist Johannes Hano, which notes that locals in Tuvalu aren’t fearful of climate change. A 2018 study (Paul Kench, University of Auckland) found that 74 out of 101 of Tuvalu’s islands have remained stable or have actually grown in size, despite an approximate 15 cm rise in sea level over recent decades. This is attributed to coral-derived sediments being washed onto the islands by currents and storms, increasing their area

SWMBO can leave the house for ten minutes o two hours. But you can guarantee that when I let a big one rip, she will walk in immediately afterward.

Coal has been a cheap, reliable source of electricity since the 1920s. What planet do you guys live on?

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.

Well, the science is NOT settled. No one can make a case that it is! Science is about constantly challenging and defending theorems. There is no point in you spending one minute of your time to paste a scattergun of unsubstantiated statements and then expect me to address them point by point, an exercise that would take me hours to do properly. Which is exactly what the video is about. The difference between cult belief and science. Farmer's records? Here are mine, since 1961. On such a short base you could argue that the world is ending, we have gone from 800mm to 600mm per year. But a longer chart, over two centuries, would pick up the big droughts including the worst, the Federation drought, and show quite a different story. People have small memories and smaller imaginations.

The mass of trees, grass and other vegetation comes almost entirely from carbon dioxide. The carbon is turned into plant matter and the oxygen is expired for us to breathe. For example, a 50-tonne (dry weight) tree contains ~49+ tonnes of carbon from this source. Very little of a tree is minerals from the ground. These are scientific facts, indisputable. The claim that we are all doomed for using fossil fuel or nuclear energy is a claim that is poorly based and deserves ongoing debate, as this video argues.

This thread has been idle too long. 7 minutes video.

Watching a show about restoring a horse-drawn coach, I finally found why the yanks call sill panels rockers. On a through-brace coach, they sit on the leather braces and rock to provide suspension.

I think the first Anzani was a v twin.

Behind the eight ball.