ClimateGate busts things wide open

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 16, 2016, 6:28 am

Udon Map wrote:
ronan01 wrote:What bed-wetting alarmists say,... However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”
Have you actually read the IPCC report or are you merely requoting the Washington Post? Presumably, the fact that you're citing the IPCC means that you believe it to be a credible authority.

I just read the 2014 version of the same report. According to the report, the data clearly supports that climate change is real and the earth's surface temperatures are rising over time. The unknowns are how much faster the average surface temperatures will rise in the future (which depends greatly on the scenario and assumptions one adopts) and the extent to which humans can arrest that rise.
I have read the IPCC report and it clearly down-plays the role of the sun and solar rays, and over eggs the importance of CO2.

The IPCC is less than credible - they are the leading global warming bed-wetters

Of climate change is real - tell me when the climate has not changed.

The earths temperature has clearly risen over time, except for about the last 20 years.

It is expected the earths temperature will rise following an ice age and a little ice age.



User avatar
Udon Map
Admin
Posts: 2863
Joined: July 31, 2013, 7:57 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by Udon Map » May 16, 2016, 9:25 am

ronan01 wrote:The IPCC is less than credible - they are the leading global warming bed-wetters
OK, I'll call a foul here. You can't cite them as an authority when you like what they say but then trash them when you disagree. Either IPCC is credible and knows what it is talking about or it doesn't.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 16, 2016, 11:25 am

Udon Map wrote:
ronan01 wrote:The IPCC is less than credible - they are the leading global warming bed-wetters
OK, I'll call a foul here. You can't cite them as an authority when you like what they say but then trash them when you disagree. Either IPCC is credible and knows what it is talking about or it doesn't.
I did not cite them as an authority.

My point is that the alarmists bed-wetters do everything to down play the obvious role of the sun on the earths climate and over emphasis the role of CO2.

My comment was:

What bed-wetting alarmists say,... "However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”

And I further noted that the article cited "the discredited Skeptical Science website".

User avatar
Udon Map
Admin
Posts: 2863
Joined: July 31, 2013, 7:57 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by Udon Map » May 16, 2016, 11:37 am

ronan01 wrote:I did not cite them as an authority.

My comment was:

What bed-wetting alarmists say,... "However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”
Um, no, that wasn't your quote. In your original post which I quoted, the quotation mark before "However" does not appear, leading to the conclusion that that is what you wrote. So without that after-the-fact-added quotation mark, it appears that you have designated the IPCC to be "the world’s leading authority on climate science"

Oh, and one more thing, -- now that you added that single quotation mark after the fact, your quotation marks are out of balance. They have to be used in pairs, as you undoubtedly know.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 16, 2016, 12:14 pm

Udon Map wrote:
ronan01 wrote:I did not cite them as an authority.

My comment was:

What bed-wetting alarmists say,... "However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”
Um, no, that wasn't your quote. In your original post which I quoted, the quotation mark before "However" does not appear, leading to the conclusion that that is what you wrote. So without that after-the-fact-added quotation mark, it appears that you have designated the IPCC to be "the world’s leading authority on climate science"

Nowhere did I cite the IPCC as an authority. Nowhere.

You say it appears I have because it suits your argument.

What I did post was:

What bed-wetting alarmists say, and it is notable this article quotes the discredited Skeptical Science website :

No, the sun isn’t driving global warming

However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”

The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... l-warming/

It is quite clear this was quoting the linked article. You only have to refer to the linked article - it is obvious you have not.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 16, 2016, 12:26 pm

Udon Map wrote:
ronan01 wrote:I did not cite them as an authority.

My comment was:

What bed-wetting alarmists say,... "However, the idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”
Um, no, that wasn't your quote. In your original post which I quoted, the quotation mark before "However" does not appear, leading to the conclusion that that is what you wrote. So without that after-the-fact-added quotation mark, it appears that you have designated the IPCC to be "the world’s leading authority on climate science"

Oh, and one more thing, -- now that you added that single quotation mark after the fact, your quotation marks are out of balance. They have to be used in pairs, as you undoubtedly know.
On another thread you posted:

The relevant sections are codified in the United States Code as follows:

42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a) et seq.: Employer practices: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, ***, or national origin, ....

42 U.S.C. §2000e(j): The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.


Should the text in red be enclosed in quotation marks?

User avatar
redwolf
udonmap.com
Posts: 1028
Joined: March 15, 2012, 8:16 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by redwolf » May 16, 2016, 1:24 pm

loving this.

thread of the week! :badteeth: :badteeth:
AUT VIAM INVENIAM AUT FACIAM | ARCANA IMPERII | ALIS AQUILAE

User avatar
Udon Map
Admin
Posts: 2863
Joined: July 31, 2013, 7:57 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by Udon Map » May 16, 2016, 3:04 pm

ronan01 wrote:Should the text in red be enclosed in quotation marks?
No, hardly necessary. It's obvious that I did not write the text of the statutes. In fact it was obvious even to you, as your using that example in the way that you did makes clear.

But, I see that you don't like being wrong. Not being able to find anything here to ding me on, you went to another conversation entirely and took two paragraphs out of context to prove... what, exactly? That context is relevant in understanding the meaning of what is written? Bravo, sir, bravo! Well done!!

Nor do you apparently have the capacity to say something as simple as, "Yes, I see how the confusion arose."

Given everything, my good man, I shall take my leave of this conversation. It's been a pleasure; and anytime that you are interested in having a discussion based on intellectual honesty, i.e., where you are actually willing to consider objectively that the other person may be right and you wrong, do let me know. It will be fun!

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 16, 2016, 4:47 pm

Udon Map wrote:
ronan01 wrote:Should the text in red be enclosed in quotation marks?
No, hardly necessary. It's obvious that I did not write the text of the statutes. In fact it was obvious even to you, as your using that example in the way that you did makes clear.

But, I see that you don't like being wrong. Not being able to find anything here to ding me on, you went to another conversation entirely and took two paragraphs out of context to prove... what, exactly? That context is relevant in understanding the meaning of what is written? Bravo, sir, bravo! Well done!!

Nor do you apparently have the capacity to say something as simple as, "Yes, I see how the confusion arose."

Given everything, my good man, I shall take my leave of this conversation. It's been a pleasure; and anytime that you are interested in having a discussion based on intellectual honesty, i.e., where you are actually willing to consider objectively that the other person may be right and you wrong, do let me know. It will be fun!
Thank you for your further uninterested comment.

Yes, context is relevant in understanding the meaning of what is written.

I do congratulate you on your ability to nit-pick and avoid addressing the subject matter, your ability to do is well demonstrated.

I have found it tedious engaging with you on an intellectual level and note your relationship with honesty is somewhat tenuous at best, on that basis, it is highly unlikely I will desire to let you know anything.

I do congratulate you on your ability to nit-pick and avoid addressing the subject matter, your experience at this is obvious.

Good day to you too, my jolly fellow. Your departure will not leave me wanting.

User avatar
redwolf
udonmap.com
Posts: 1028
Joined: March 15, 2012, 8:16 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by redwolf » May 16, 2016, 5:11 pm

ronan01 wrote:
I do congratulate you on your ability to nit-pick and avoid addressing the subject matter, your ability to do is well demonstrated.

I do congratulate you on your ability to nit-pick and avoid addressing the subject matter, your experience at this is obvious.
Hey it's duplicate, -you might have typed this too fast. Did you copy it from a troll script?

The earth is warming. It was pretty hot recently.
AUT VIAM INVENIAM AUT FACIAM | ARCANA IMPERII | ALIS AQUILAE

User avatar
GT93
udonmap.com
Posts: 7848
Joined: June 5, 2009, 9:37 am
Location: Auckland

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by GT93 » May 17, 2016, 1:33 am

It's gotta be the thread of the year rather than just thread of the week redwolf. It's been absolutely awesome.

I too read that April was more than a little warm on planet Earth and it's, of course, been pretty warm as usual in this delightful thread.
Lock 'em up - Eastman, Giuliani, Senator Graham, Meadows and Trump

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » May 17, 2016, 6:52 am

OK, back to evidence .......

COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS

AS usual, Ronan posts a link he likes, This refers to a claim in 1996 that Galactic cosmic rays affect cloud cover. However the actual article he cites refers mainly to climate change in the past, not the present. So is it happening today?

Speptical science gives a good potted account that suggests no.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic ... vanced.htm

Of course, Ronan doesn't like Skeptical science. So here's some more:

COSMIC RAYS NOT CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE -Scientific American (2013)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... te-change/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... al-warming


OK, back to the present. 7 months of record monthly average temperatures - the monthly records have been broken for 7 consecutive months - some were only set last year, but broken again .....

Of course the big El Nino helped, But they are all substantially higher than the last big El Nino. Of course warming skeptics used THAT as their excuse for 'no Global warming for 17 years' as it took that long for more typical years to catch up. So expect in 10 years time to see 'No Global warming since 2016' myth starting .... as it will probably take that long (or longer) before these records are beaten again.

User avatar
noosard
udonmap.com
Posts: 4018
Joined: April 17, 2011, 4:07 am
Location: Ban Jumpa Udon
Contact:

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by noosard » May 20, 2016, 8:23 pm

Just got the proof of climate change
Power bill. the most it has been in the last 5 years
March - April damn hot
AC been working overtime
Lucky for the wallet the rain season has bought some relief

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » May 20, 2016, 8:39 pm

India just had their hottest day on record - 51 degrees Centigrade.

User avatar
papafarang
udonmap.com
Posts: 4304
Joined: August 2, 2013, 10:14 am

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by papafarang » May 20, 2016, 9:39 pm

yeh but the thermosphere has not changed in 1,500,000,000 years :lol: it reaches 2,000c in the daytime, but due to a lack of atoms it never really warms up, but us being made up of atoms ,we would warm up quite quickly. this has nothing to do with this thread , but there's been no BS posts lately so I thought I would throw in some useless rubbish that has no meaning while I try to figure out how I can how the human race can use 105% of energy sources ,got me baffled, I keep coming up with a figure of 100%... maybe it's my dodgy solar powered calculator.
anyway poor Indians 50c :shock: , perhaps all 1 billion of them should move to Perth in Australia the bunch of bed wetters... or should we not get into what will happen when parts of our planet become inhabitable ?
Hansa village clubhouse . Tel 0981657001 https://www.google.co.th/maps/place/Han ... 5851?hl=en

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 21, 2016, 6:08 am

rick wrote:OK, back to evidence .......

COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS

AS usual, Ronan posts a link he likes, This refers to a claim in 1996 that Galactic cosmic rays affect cloud cover. However the actual article he cites refers mainly to climate change in the past, not the present. So is it happening today?

Speptical science gives a good potted account that suggests no.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic ... vanced.htm

Of course, Ronan doesn't like Skeptical science. So here's some more:

COSMIC RAYS NOT CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE -Scientific American (2013)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... te-change/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... al-warming


OK, back to the present. 7 months of record monthly average temperatures - the monthly records have been broken for 7 consecutive months - some were only set last year, but broken again .....

Of course the big El Nino helped, But they are all substantially higher than the last big El Nino. Of course warming skeptics used THAT as their excuse for 'no Global warming for 17 years' as it took that long for more typical years to catch up. So expect in 10 years time to see 'No Global warming since 2016' myth starting .... as it will probably take that long (or longer) before these records are beaten again.
What a cheap shot. Skeptical Science will rot your brain.

You know weather is not climate and quoting one month or one day is really very silly and a sign of desperation.

El Nino did not help, it is El Nino.

The duration of the Pause can be seen here - it is undeniable.

https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Barney
udonmap.com
Posts: 4426
Joined: November 1, 2012, 5:51 am
Location: Outback of Nong Samrong Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by Barney » May 21, 2016, 6:30 am

rick wrote:India just had their hottest day on record - 51 degrees Centigrade.
Wow Rick, that's nice and high but does it rate with some aussie towns.
You will notice that the high temps have not occurred of late and were well back in time in some cases,
that should help Ronan's argument, :D
The unfortunate part os that I have worked and suffered in a lot of those towns or regions for extended times.
I'll vouch that it does get real hot.
Please read below for factual data.

http://www.outbackcrossing.com.au/Infor ... alia.shtml

The Great Debate - The Hottest Town in Australia

It may seem odd for a town to covet the 'Hottest Town' title but the prize may well be increased tourism opportunities, increased government funding or just a swelling of local pride.

Australia has had a few claimants over the years and all of these towns may well be the true title holder in one sense or another.

How do you measure the 'Hottest'? Is it the highest temperature ever recorded on a single day or is it the highest mean temperature for the year? Could it be the longest heatwave on record?

All the Australian towns mentioned here can claim to hold a record under one of these conditions but we wanted to find out which town is truly the hottest.

How Hot is Hot?
So how do you know when it's really hot? We have had the opportunity to live and work 100km from 'Emu Creek Station' (Nyang), 200km from Marble Bar (W.A.), in Cloncurry(QLD) and on the edge of the Namib Desert in Namibia, Africa. Over time we've seen a few uncommon heat related incidents that indicate the temperature is getting really high - •It is officially above 45°C.
•Normally shy birds swoop into the swimming pool for a drink while you are still swimming.
•The trees and vegetation take on a kind of 'droop' and everything seems to be just hanging on.
•The air conditioner in your car is going flat-out but not really making a difference.
•Your footwear melts into the bitumen as you walk across the road.
•Birds fall out of trees - literally.
•The tyres on your vehicle 'separate' and break down as you are diving at highway speeds.
•Normally boisterous young dogs will simply lay in the shade and won't move - even for food.
•Kangaroos and other Australian native animals are dying of heat exhaustion.
•Your petrol powered car vaporises it's own fuel between the fuel tank and engine and refuses to run.
•A Dingo will approach a water hole while you are still there.

Indicators that you have been living in a hot place too long -
•You do not physically own any form of jumper, pullover or wind-cheater.
•Your hot water system is turned off at the mains for the majority of the year.
•You feel cold if you visit a southern town and the temperature is 32° C.
•Your house air conditioner runs 24/7.
•You refuse to work or be in the sun after noon.
Map of the Hot Spots
Marble Bar - Western Australia

In general, Marble Bar and the Pilbara and Upper Gascoyne regions get mind-blisteringly hot. The temperate reaches 42°C by 9am and then climbs to 45, 46, 47 degrees and beyond for weeks on end.

Marble Bar is listed by the Guinness Book of Records for recording 161 consecutive days to 20 April 1924 - a temperature that never dropped below 100°F (37.8°C).

The town has never recorded a sub zero temperature and the rock around the town absorbs and holds the heat like an oven.

Marble Bar, indeed, holds the record for the longest running heatwave in Australia.

Cloncurry - Queensland

Cloncurry is another scorcher of a town but unlike Marble Bar in the west, it suffers from high humidity as well as the rampaging heat.

Dense cloud builds up in the 'Wet Season' and the promise of rain is a daily event.

Unlike the Pilbara region the winter months in North West Queensland settle down to much cooler temperatures - even verging at times on cold.

Cloncurry's claim to temperature fame is of having the highest ever recorded temperature of 53.1°C (127.5°F) on 16 January 1889.

The National Climate Institute has since refuted the claim by announcing the temperatures were recorded in a beer crate and were out by four or five degrees, making the probable temperature on the day around 47 to 48°C.

Whatever the case, Cloncurry does indeed, get extremely hot.

Forget the Claims - What are the Facts?

'According to the Bonzle Digital Atlas of Australia' (whom presumably sourced the Australian Bureau of Meteorology) the 10 hottest places by maximum mean temperature in Australia are -
1.Wyndham, W.A. - 35.6°C.
2.Marble Bar, W.A. - 35.3°C.
3.Warmun(Turkey Creek), W.A. - 35.0°C.
4.Kununurra, W.A. - 35.0°C.
5.Timber Creek, N.T. - 34.9°C.
6.Elliot, N.T. - 34.5°C.
7.Derby, W.A. - 34.4°C.
8.Looma, W.A. - 34.4°C.
9.Borraloola, N.T. - 34.4°C.
10.Kalumburu, W.A. - 34.3°C.

These are average daily temperatures for the whole year. If you don't like the heat there is not a town listed here that you will live in comfortably. But does this make Wyndham the hottest town in Australia? Maybe not.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) lists the highest official highest temperature recorded, state by state, as -
1.Oodnadatta, South Australia - 50.7°C, 2 January 1960
2.Mardie, Western Australia - 50.5°C, 19 February 1998
3.Menindee, New South Wales - 49.7°C, 10 January 1939
4.Birdsville, Queensland - 49.5°C, 24 December 1972
5.Hopetoun, Victoria - 48.8°C, 7 February 2009
6.Finke, Northern Territory - 48.3°C, 1 & 2 January 1960
7.Scamander, Tasmania - 42.2°C, 30 January 2009

We have no idea why the Australian Capital Territory and it's highest ever temperature failed to get a mention.

So Who Takes the Title?

It is undeniable that Marble Bar holds the record for the longest running recorded heatwave. The place gets unbearably hot and consistently breaks annual records for temperature.

Cloncurry must be disregarded based on the suspicious evidence offered to support it's claim and the fact it has been refuted by the 'The National Climate Institute'. The place still gets uncomfortably hot though.

Wyndham maintains a hold with an average daily temperature of 36 degrees, which is consistent if nothing else.

However, the title must got to the town who was first across the line. Let's face it, the fastest athlete of all time is the man who actually ran the fastest time. The tallest mountain is Everest because it reaches highest into the sky.

So the title of the 'Hottest Town in Australia' goes to the place that actually got the hottest - Oodnadatta, with an official recorded temperature of 50.7°C on the second of January 1960.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » May 21, 2016, 6:59 am

Global warming bed-wetters need a crisis. They are only happy when there is something to worry about.

They make meaningless statements like "climate change is real" to justify their depressive feelings. And clever politicians exploit these irrational feelings. “The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.”

Strangely Obama declared: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal", and I wonder why the pleb bed-wetters dont just accept what the bed-wetter in chief says and relax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ ... =australia

The climate has always changed, but the bed-wetters, like children with climate change console, think they can control climate via tax policy.

The favourite bed-wetter bed time fear story is rising sea level and they warn of 20 to 50 metre sea level rise unless we do precisely what they say.

But sea level rise, like "climate change", is nothing new, and has been rising at about 3mm per year for a long long time. To be expected after an ice age and a little ice age. This chart shows sea level rise following the ice age:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Level.png

Sea levels are highly variable and change for a number of reasons like siltation, sedimentation, subsidence and isostatic rebound:

Rising oceans created new ports for ancient Greek and Roman shipping. Today many of those ports are inland because the Little Ice Age again turned water into ice and lowered sea levels. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them ports again:

- Ephesus, an ancient important port city from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period through the Roman Empire was located on the sea. Today, in modern-day Turkey, it is 5 km from the Mediterranean.

- The old Roman port Ostia Antica was located at the mouth of the Tiber River, and it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, had sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. Today it is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Roman Warm Period sea level was much higher ithan today.

- In 1066, William the Conqueror defeated individual Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. When William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now called Pevensey Castle. At that time it was located on a small island in a harbor. A bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because prisoners were thrown into the “Sea Gate” and their bodies washed away by the tide. Today Pevensey Castle is a mile from the coast – sea level was higher less than 1000 years ago.

http://todieadrydeath.com/2013/02/07/cl ... -isnt-new/

- The famous City State of Pisa, near the mouth of the Arno River, was a powerful city, because maritime trade brought goods from sailing ships right into the port. This changed after 1300 AD with the onset of the Little Ice Age, sea levels fell and ships could no longer sail into the port. Pisa is now seven miles from the Tyrrhenian Sea.

The following two links are a good read on sea level rise:

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... nature-no/
https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... -not-feet/

"So, the next time you come across someone pitching a catastrophic sea level rise, of upwards of 20 feet by 2100, realize that such a number is intended only to scare you into taking some action—soon to be prescribed by the same source. The best science tells you otherwise, and that the feet should be inches."

User avatar
papafarang
udonmap.com
Posts: 4304
Joined: August 2, 2013, 10:14 am

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by papafarang » May 21, 2016, 7:13 am

spot on Barny, but those places have always been hot, that's why 1billion people don't live there.
oddly enough there is only one date prior to 1960 that holds a record, is it just chance that 6 other records are after 1960 ?
1.Oodnadatta, South Australia - 50.7°C, 2 January 1960
2.Mardie, Western Australia - 50.5°C, 19 February 1998
3.Menindee, New South Wales - 49.7°C, 10 January 1939
4.Birdsville, Queensland - 49.5°C, 24 December 1972
5.Hopetoun, Victoria - 48.8°C, 7 February 2009
6.Finke, Northern Territory - 48.3°C, 1 & 2 January 1960
7.Scamander, Tasmania - 42.2°C, 30 January 2009
Hansa village clubhouse . Tel 0981657001 https://www.google.co.th/maps/place/Han ... 5851?hl=en

User avatar
papafarang
udonmap.com
Posts: 4304
Joined: August 2, 2013, 10:14 am

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by papafarang » May 21, 2016, 7:27 am

"The best science tells you otherwise, and that the feet should be inches."
my god man, do you still work with those ? there's a new system out called metric, much more accurate and based on physics
Hansa village clubhouse . Tel 0981657001 https://www.google.co.th/maps/place/Han ... 5851?hl=en

Post Reply

Return to “World News”