Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Pretty sure that's illegal, but I understand your feeling that way.

In my former life in Air Conditioning here I could be flat chat in September (Royal Show time) & in other years could have gone bust waiting for work until Jan or Feb. New work & Service just about non-existent. If it ain't hot people don't use their A/C.

Just sayin'

Originally Posted by 4bee

In my former life in Air Conditioning here I could be flat chat in September (Royal Show time) & in other years could have gone bust waiting for work until Jan or Feb. New work & Service just about non-existent. If it ain't hot people don't use their A/C.

Just sayin'

...never owned one.....

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Pretty sure that's illegal, but I understand your feeling that way.

Catch them in the act and roll a burning log on top of them, Nobody will ever know

Originally Posted by vnx205

.....

A failure to acknowledge the other possible reasons for the rejection of the Libya record suggests that you do not have an open mind on the subject.

On the contrary .. mind is fully open to the possibility that the recording was incorrect.
90 years later tho?
Were they alseep for those 90 years?
Why in this era?
What I'm questioning is why such a monumental timeframe between recording and final realisation that it may have been incorrectly recorded?

Same with the ACORN2 anomaly. Why do they now realise that there could be discrepancies with the manually recorded data .. NOW!
Why not closer to the dates of when they began recording data electronically.

Had the reanalysis of the Libyan record been done in the 1950's .. or even later .. would never have come into question.
But post a warming globe era? .. when it smells like ****, it is!

When you see garbage written the way they've done ... this isn't science.

Although personally unable to investigate the extreme's reliability at the time it occurred, Amilcare Fántoli, the chief of the Libyan section of Servizio Meteorologico, examined the available evidence in some detail (Fántoli 1954Fántoli 1958). He concluded that, although there was an unusually violent and persistent ghibli, the most probable maximum at El Azizia on 13 September 1922 was 56°C, not 58°C. Fántoli's conclusion was significantly influenced by the lack of excessively high temperatures at surrounding stations.

Some research on the issue.(which I've already done)What they're trying to say is that the microclimate didn't really support a potential temperature of 58°C, but that the more likely temp high may have been 56°C!
Really? .. that's their 'evidence'.

Apparently so. But their scientific assertions contain more "probabilities", "potentials", "maybes" and "we think" conjectures .. obviously good science is best served with those kinds of premises. They obviously have data to prove their "probable" science ... so where is it?They seem to have data that shows that 58 wasn't a likely max temp on the day at the time .. so what were the other relevant data recorded at the site close to that specific time?If you're foolish enough to believe their pathetic "probably" explanation go for it.

what distance relationship to these 'surrounding stations' to the site in question? >40 klms. That's to the one site. The other two sites are more like 80klms away.
In what direction? South .. away from the coast, where those other 'nearby' stations record their numbers.
Aziziya is inland by 40klms, receives hot ghibli winds regularly, receives regular 50+ degree temps around that time of year(more so in Aug)

So what they're saying is that because a 'normal' high temp in Sept is more like 40-45, that it's unlikely that it had reached 58 in Sep 1922.
And that in Sep 1923 when it recorded a maximum of 54.8 .. that this is more likely!
What about August 1923 when it maxed at 56°C .. why is this reading not under contention?
This idiot argument basically diminishes any 'extreme' temp recording .. ever, anywhere.
Because it's unlikely to get this hot or cold .. then the data must be corrupted in some way.
Why don't they question the max recorded temp in Sep 1941? of all the obviously corrupted data, this one is massively out of bounds .. by an lower range 14°C, and an averaged out value of 16° for the time of year.
Tell 'ya why, because it's the lowest maximum recorded in the area at that time of year.
They won't remove any of the lower range data, because that's not conducive to their warming globe ideology .. and we can't have that.

Ero, all climate data recorded since data capture began are null and void if they're out of the normal range!

These people are morons .. and you want us to think they're scientists?

I know the area, I know the issue, I know the data(in my limited ability of what can be found easily online) .. I also know that they're argument for their case that it's an invalid data point is so deep into the pile of BS .. you can only laugh at their level of stupidity.

Do note too .. approx 40klms from where I live, on the day of Feb 7 2009, we received our hottest ever day. I remember it clearly they reckon it was 46 in Melb(the record), my closest weather station recorded 45, but 40klms away it was high 30's on the whole. Roughly 8°C difference.
Is this Melb record also invalid? If not, why not. How to they know EXACTLY .. that the data is right. How do they not know it was actually 44° in Melb, when all other areas 40-ish klms away were abotu 8°C down.

THAT'S how stupid the WMO argument for Libya is. They don't know.. hence why so many 'possibles', 'probablys', and 'maybes' in their analysis.

Just reread post 916. It's all there.

Climate change is a thing but whether humans contribute enough to matter is the question. I find it hard to find reliable data that doesnt conflict, for example one estimate is human output is 29billion tonnes but average of 10t per person times 7bill is 70 billion tonnes, then there is volcanoes and live stock. should the percantage of c02 in the atmosphere be changing?, I remember something like 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere, what are we down to 67%, 50% now, is that actually changing?

I also worry about the hidden agendas behind climate change(not global warming anymore cause even if it freezes they are still right) only studies confirming the trendy theories being funded so of course thousands agree and not many disagree because they aren't funded.

And lastly I prefer to err on the side of caution but even if we saved more carbon than using it china and india would still produce enough to stop any reversal action and sending us broke trying to set a good example doesn't make sense to me.

Oh and as far as renwables go I am still skeptical of lifespan/output to energy to create and transport costs. Now our free energy wind farms cost alot to produce and the non biodegradable fibreglass blades becomes landfill, so after 20yrs each blade takes 40m3 to bury.....there are tens of thousands of these.

I would be interested to see how accurate the studies calculating mining, manufacture, transport, warehousing, sales and promotions, delivery and installation of a domestic solar installation really is. They say payback for manufacture is 2 years but is that just mining and production or does it include all the steps before it gets to your house?

Edit: also added to that should be the energy costs for all of the above processes mining etc for the accessories to install the said solar system, the extruded aluminium rails brackets electrical cabling the electronic system that runs it.

Its easy to twist figures and statistics to suit an agenda.