Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (10)
A couple of weeks ago, I was dreaming of a white Christmas. Admittedly, in Kiama on the coast just south of Sydney, it was pretty long odds, but sitting on my deck on Christmas Eve wearing a sweater and with the heater on, I hadn’t given up hope. After all, with all this climate change going on, why not. Alas, it was not to be. Christmas Day dawned almost perfectly.
Today I’m back in my winter track suit.
However, the general weather we have been having prompted me to think about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yes, we have a La Nina, keeping us cool and wet at the moment, and this is a natural event – as the catastrophists will no doubt point out. It doesn’t of itself disprove catastrophic warming, they will say. The warming is there all right – it’s just being masked by La Nina, they will insist.
The same thing happens when the northern hemisphere gets record snow dumps, which they seem to have had regularly over the past few winters.
All of these events are triggered by oceanic drivers but at some point, if CAGW is as catastrophic and as imminent as the alarmists claim, they too must be subsumed by the heating atmosphere. We are obviously not yet at the point where even man’s irresponsibility and selfishness can totally eliminate such massive natural phenomena. But surely, by now though, they should at least be somewhat noticeably diminished, as to both frequency and severity? Not from where I’m sitting. This summer is the coldest and wettest I can remember for many years.
But cartoonist Jess Harwood at The Guardian doesn’t see it that way, telling us that this is the hottest La Nina on record. That’s a bit of poetic licence. It sounded an odd claim to me so I checked it out. Turns out it’s not the hottest La Nina on record at all. It’s apparently the hottest La Nina year on record. Actually, its only the sixth- hottest year on record. Well, that’s according to our trusted friends at NOAA and our very own BoM. And we know how rigorous their science is. This is a year in which Antarctica recorded its lowest-ever temperature reading and in which snowfall in the northern hemisphere also reached record proportions. Larry Hamlin, at Watts Up With That provides a well-argued counter to this claim by NOAA.
So how long will it be before CAGW blocks La Nina from sending us our traditional flooding rains? When Tim Flannery told us ‘even the rain that falls isn’t going to fill our dams and river systems’, what timeframe did he have in mind, I wonder?
Since 1950 there have been about 23 La Nina years, with 10 of them since 2000. Two were rated moderate and two strong. So far, 2021/2022 has not yet been rated, but I’d be surprised if it’s not right up there. Seems like business as usual to me.
The BoM has a Climate History – Rainfall page which displays a montage of maps of Australia since 1900 showing rainfall. If you look at that page as a whole, you will see that blue tends to dominate in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century.
How long will it be before it dawns on a manipulated public that ‘catastrophic’ just ain’t happening? How long will it take for most people to trust what they see, not what they are told?
I wonder sometimes if they use the same modelling company for AGW as they do for covid.
As regards global cooling, those with some science/engineering knowledge should look at the work of Prof. Valentina Zharkova. The current, and deepening, grand solar minimum will extend until about 2053. Try to imagine the death by famine and war which this interval in Earth’s history will cause.
For those interested in debunking the BS spread by the global warmists, there is no better reference than the work of Tony Heller.
Meanwhile, we have wall-to-wall political morons who care more about increasing their own wealth and self-aggrandisement than the welfare of the people they are elected to govern.
I reckon the wheels will fall off the catastrophic-climate-change-is-nigh bandwagon in about 3 to 5 years. It’s already starting, with energy-price issues, which will continue to cause increasing problems as renewables expand, and as the climate stubbornly refuses to play end-of-the-world ball.
The marketing has changed.
The polar bears and penguins have disappeared off the media and now we have ‘true life’ interviews of ‘ordinary people’ affected by eg the heat wave in WA.
Its the bloke running the pub, its the ladies working the cool room. Well, at least it was on our ABC’s 7.30 Report.
However this report gives one an inkling of how the marketing is to progress.
Some activist was waxing quell horreur that Djokovic was removed on the discretion of the minister,
Why, that means that ‘ a certain catastrophist young lady’ who believes we are going extinct, could be refused entry to Australia.
It is true that this young lady has focussed the fears and anxiety of millions of schoolchildren to their detriment.
However what it does reveal that the Greens will be bringing out a ‘keynote speaker’ before the next ‘Climate election’.
It could be her.
Biggles
“Try to imagine the death by famine and war which this interval in Earth’s history will cause.”
“Twilight of Abundance” (Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short) by David Archibald.
ISBN-10 1621571580
Thanks, rod.stuart. Was more to the point when it came out (2015). Sections about Obama and China now mostly irrelevant, but the book is still a worthwhile read. Prof Zharkova’s work solidifies the GSM scenario, making Archibald’s predictions about famine and war more pertinent. When Canada stops exporting wheat to Africa and the Middle East, the balloon will go up. Refer Dr. Tim Ball re the last.
Thanks Peter.
The Indian Ocean Dipole is described by BOM as another “climate driver”.
Dr Occam: there is no causal relationship between the observed IOD negative-positive switching pattern over the past half century and the 30% increase in global atmospheric “carbon” (dioxide) emissions — from 317ppm to 413ppm — over the same period.
Carbon dioxide emissions – whether national, regional or global — therefore do not determine IOD behaviour (type, frequency). IOD behaviour is random, unpredictable and determined by natural climate variability, not a consequence of so-called human-induced climate change.
BOM: “Since 1960, when reliable records of the IOD began, to 2016 there have been 11 negative IOD and 10 positive IOD events.”
BOM oddly have yet to update its table here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Indian-Ocean&indian=History
See: https://quadrant.naphix.com/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/01/dipolaxing-the-bushfire-climate-change-nexus/
Alice Thermopolis: As is the case with the NOAH & NASA, the people at our BoM alter data to support their warmist fantasies; e.g. on 19/4/19, at 11 a.m., a record low day maximum of 10.4 degrees was noted at Albany Airport, W.A. and snow fell. The BoM later estimated that the temperature in nearby Albany town was 25.1, a 15 degree upward ‘adjustment’. This recent clip from Tony Heller sets out further and better particulars regarding the BoM’s chicanery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBhD_6_hyB0
A new study into the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide by Skrable, Chabot, and French, is published in the journal Health Physics (World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)). The authors conclude “ that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”
Ian Mackenzie: Sorry to say, your post is irrelevant. The warming effect of CO2 became saturated below the current concentration. Please see Prof. Wal Happer’s work at Princeton. The essence is that only infra-red of wavelength about 665 micrometres excites the CO2 molecule into banging about and energising, (heating), the other gasses in the atmosphere, i.e., there is only a sliver of the electro-magnetic spectrum which causes CO2 to be a ‘greenhouse’ gas. (Frankly, I don’t like the term ‘greenhouse’; it is a 19th century concept which is unscientific.)