The curious effects global warming has on SA,

The assumption that the forest fires  was the result of global warming has been disproved already,   The fires were ferocious because the combustible undergrowth was not properly maintained and arsonists started 19 fires,     There were strong  normal seasonal winds  driving the fires to spread/  Anyone who knows  forest management that trees are not set alight easily - it takes combustible  undergrowth with very high temperature  of burning undergrowth causing trees to catch fire.    

I worked for ten years for the then Forestry Department  with some of the largest forests  in the southern hemisphere and they  never had a problem with forest fires because the combustible  undergrowth was removed leaving grass to cover the forest floors.    That issue was covered year after year after year through careful planning and implementation.    Governments who own forests and do not manage it properly love to find other excuses for runaway fires and for that global heating is an opportune excuse,   In Australia though the problem that actually happened was identified and dealt with and there were no fires this year,     In California the matter was surprisingly the problem that caused  total disruption  of the electricity supply system in the state and was the same as the problems identified in Australia.    

What drive the slow heating is the normal effect of the cycle we live in at present,   There has been graphs that indicated how the  temperatures rise  am fall and none of the graphs indicate there is anything different in the present cycle..     

By the way the last ice age ended circa 12 000 years ago and whereas the cycles are  about 25 000 years apart  we are near the stage where  temperatures would  start going down.

You really are unbelievably gullible - bats has been around since the end of the dinosaur era and  they have never transmitted the viruses they carry to humans before the Chinese start research of  that  phenomenon  as  they did with the present virus,  The Chinese Government first claimed  it was not transmitable between humans and at the same tome claimed it came from the wetmarket in Wuhan,     However there is evidence that the wetmarket situated about 600  meters from the reaearch laboratory  in Wuhan was selling fish only and not live animals,    So bats infect fish and that infests humans - as believable as the child story that the moon is made of green cheese,

Because the Communists said  as stated the sheeple believe them.                                         

Show me the argument that you have poked any holes in Anger. It’s not a question of CO2 doubling you moron. CO2 itself in total, including the vastly larger natural component only contributes 20% to the Greenhouse effect. Man made CO2 is less than 5% of that, so basically1% of the greenhouse effect.

As for the argument that the earth is configured to absorb exactly the amount of CO2 we would emit if we followed the Paris Climate accord....what rubbish. More CO2 equals a greener planet absorbing much more CO2. It’s just another ‘tipping point’ argument.

You seem very angry Anger, but clueless. So prove to me you are quantitatively literate....integrate x squared between zero and 10. Show me you even have a grasp of the basics.

Nope Anger, you don’t make others Angry....you’re the red in face, huffing and puffing acolyte who gets upset when people question the secular religion you believe. You are the same  person as the religious zealots you despise.

Now to the meager substance of your long response....it’s possible that a variable which represents 1% of  greenhouse effect could change everything. But not likely unless you are a modeler who needs a result.

Why does the still constantly occurring record cold weather matter? Because it shows the probability distribution of temperatures hasn’t moved much. A meaningful shift from the previous averages would mean outlier observations would be considerably less frequent.

Why is it odd that the earth happens to be at exactly the point where all the CO2 produced can be comfortably absorbed and a 1% increase can’t be absorbed? Well because it’s clear the prior level is some kind of equilibrium. So if there is a spike a new equilibrium will likely be reached with a lag...but the weathermen only harp on how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, with no thought about the responses in foliage.

We may in fact have to wait for a while, temperatures could increase a degree or so over 50years. But build out the green economy and you pull forward CO2 usage as well. 

...

Nope I find nothing troublesome in your responses....just an assertion that what you believe much be true. And nobody has made a persuasive argument that a modestly warmer earth isn’t in fact better....the weathermen just continue to push out scare story after scare story. A bit like old religion.

Your such a broken record. LOL at this rate I reckon I could set my watch to it...if I had one. Again with the climate science is a religion deflection. An even weaker position than most of your other arguments. Does repeating stuff over and over make you feel better?

Now to the meager substance of your long response....it’s possible that a variable which represents 1% of  greenhouse effect could change everything. But not likely unless you are a modeler who needs a result.

CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere yet without it plant life could exist on the the planet and the earth be a frigid lifeless wasteland.  Small things can have massive influences.

If I was to inject someone with Botulinum toxin equivalent to 1% of their body weight would I need a modeler to tell me that person was going to die?

"Why does the still constantly occurring record cold weather matter? Because it shows the probability distribution of temperatures hasn’t moved much. A meaningful shift from the previous averages would mean outlier observations would be considerably less frequent."

You as a layman don't get to determine what is a meaningful shift. Your feelings on what is meaningful or significant is irrelevant, you're feelings/gut instinct is not science.

No climate scientist who supports man made climate change has ever said localized cold weather events could not occur during periods of man made warming. Indeed global warming is often the cause of them. I already posted this link above where global warming was linked to a cold weather period in Europe.

https://www.dw.com/en/cold-winter-global-warming-polar-vortex/a-56534450

By the way scoffing, laughing and acting incredulous at is not a rebuttal, you did that before in another thread where I linked to a similar article on the a cold period in America and my god I know you like to repeat yourself but can we just save the time and effort please.

"Why is it odd that the earth happens to be at exactly the point where all the CO2 produced can be comfortably absorbed and a 1% increase can’t be absorbed? Well because it’s clear the prior level is some kind of equilibrium. So if there is a spike a new equilibrium will likely be reached with a lag...but the weathermen only harp on how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, with no thought about the responses in foliage."

Sure call the natural carbon cycle equilibrium if you want. And yes a new equilibrium will eventually be reached, I'm pretty sure the planet can't heat up indefinitely, the question is would the new equilibrium be good for the human species.

Why are you bringing up weathermen, who gives a fiddlers what weathermen think, they just read the weather out on the news. I'm far more interested in the views of climate scientists.

Believe me the scientific experts are aware that there could be an increase in foliage in certain regions due to global warming, they just took all the consequences of global warming analyzed them and came to the conclusion that the negatives far far outweigh the positives.

Nope I find nothing troublesome in your responses....just an assertion that what you believe much be true.

No assertion or belief on my part. I follow the science and evidence not biases driven by political ideology.

And nobody has made a persuasive argument that a modestly warmer earth isn’t in fact better

Sure they haven't. You keep on telling yourself that.

the weathermen just continue to push out scare story after scare story. A bit like old religion.

Again with the weathermen and the religion, always with the religion. Starting to suspect you have to repeat this stuff to keep yourself convinced.

Nobody ignore scientists  - but when scientists are involved with issues abused by politicians  they are as guilty of the abuse as politicians are,   Politicians has  become more and more leftist in their approach using science as a basis for totalitarian  control over humans by introducing measures that they claim are based on science.

The politicians  claim  that  based on findings by scientists on wind and sun electricity is the only answer to  electricity needs of the world and ignore nuclear based power provision.    Why should that be - it is because the climatologists venture into a field of engineering of which they are as ignorant as the  politicians  are - and the latter being interested  in issues enhancing their  own interests and not the interest of the people they govern.

The USA  is a typical example where crooked and corrupt politicians  abuse science and engineering so as to ensure that people become dependent on them and in a democracy it is supposed to be the other way around.     There is not a single issue dealt with by the present US Government which is not aimed at establishing political corruption  and ultimate total control by a totalitarian government.    Election fraud is being legitimized through  legislation they have introduced.     The fact is that thy use climate change to introduce legislation and  financial  allocation which politicians claim to be adhered to  based on the findings of climatologists, when  the factual is that virtually nothing will be spent on infrastructure -   whether to enhance projects they claimed are based on  climate change or for that matter any other infrastructure - but is being used virtually totally to cover maladministration and fiscal dishonesty of the past and at present.

Personally I think the views of climatologists will be more  acceptable to people  if the political abuse is removed from it,     Especially when  the Governments are as corrupt  as the  present US Government is  the effects of  their abuse of climate change for political expedience is resulting in  the rejection not only of the politicians,  but also of the climatologists.  Incidentally  their is a Commission of Enquiry at present dealing with  Government Corruption in SA - which  are so bad that it  came near to destroying the economy  of the country,  but the locals were learners compared  to the corrupt scum that  are governing the USA at present.        

In fact is more against  the political abuse and corrupt maladministration  of politicians than I am against well-meaning climatologists who do not veer  into the political sphere and support the real combatting of all forms of pollution.               .       

Nuclear is obviously the way to go. The problem is you cant build massive industries around it. It would simply slot into the current system in the same way that replacing your old car battery with a new one would. It'd just be a swapping out of power source. 

There's little incentive for politicians to take this route because the lobbying money is nowhere near as much as what the green energy coffers offer...because green energy means swapping out most of the infrastructure, end user configurations and appliances and more.

These twits that want to replace fossils fuels have not really understood that, outside of charging batteries from nuclear generated power, nothing else comes close to fossil fuels. 

What they're also not considering is that 3rd world countries will lag behind even further when a situation arises that means their already poor output is hampered further due to draconian green laws resultant in lesser energy availability. 

Solar in the NH is a supplement at best and even in sunny climates, is still too expensive to set up to maintain...for most people. Gas creates CO2. Hydro is only viable close so source. Wind turbines are just a joke on every count.

So perhaps we need to ask why nuclear doesn't seem to be an option.

The moment Chernobyl enters the conversation then you know what you're dealing with. IE lies.

Nuclear is obviously the way to go. The problem is you cant build massive industries around it. It would simply slot into the current system in the same way that replacing your old car battery with a new one would. It'd just be a swapping out of power source. 

I'm pretty certain some climate change advocates do support the use of nuclear power. But nuclear power has a image issue. Regardless of how true it is people have a perception that nuclear power is very dangerous and no ones wants nuclear waste storage sites anywhere near them.

There's little incentive for politicians to take this route because the lobbying money is nowhere near as much as what the green energy coffers offer

May its to do with the fact that fossil fuel companies far outspend everyone else when it comes to lobbying.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/

2 Billion spent on lobbying between 2000-2016 in the USA alone.

http://priceofoil.org/2018/07/20/fossil-fuel-industry-has-spent-nearly-2-billion-on-lobbying-to-kill-climate-laws/

" These twits that want to replace fossils fuels have not really understood that, outside of charging batteries from nuclear generated power, nothing else comes close to fossil fuels."

No its more the people who want to maintain fossil fuels stand to loose a lot of money by the switch to renewables. They don't care about the consequences, they only care about loosing money and have turned the climate change discussion into a political issue to motivate the masses to support a cause that's not in their own interests.

"So perhaps we need to ask why nuclear doesn't seem to be an option.

The moment Chernobyl enters the conversation then you know what you're dealing with. IE lies."

There probably is fear mongering against nuclear power. But for the average Joe in the street they aren't deliberately lying, its fear motivating their dislike of nuclear power.

Stav

To be honest  - will the move to electric-powered vehicles mean that ordinary people would not be able to have their own means  of  transport  as they have at present.     Remember over the last 30 years worker real income has dropped by 30% in the USA  and unemployment has increased and will increase in future by even bigger margins.   

Only upper-income people would be able to buy electric-powered vehicles and if one take into account the Cuba situation  50year and older vehicles will become the norm in the USA and  for that matter Western Europe as well.    

As far as I am aware there is no heavy duty electricity powered vehicles produced at present and that is a problem on its own.   The prices of fossil fuel prices  as a result of so-called Green policies  are driving the cost of movement of goods  by road transport up and consequently the consumers will have to pay higher prices on virtually everything they use,  Especially food prices will rocket 

The long and the short iro this argument is  that economic consequences of so-called  climate change  based  measures is practical and even possible?   

The fact that the green religion is dead set against nuclear tells you they are not serious about carbon. There is no faster, more energy  positive way to reduce carbon emissions.

But you have to laugh when acolytes like Anger equate  CO2 to Botulinum toxin. Without carbon fuels we would still be in an agrarian economy and the global population wouldn’t be a tenth of what it is today. 

Oil has been and continues to be man’s greatest friend...without which wind and solar would be pipe dreams. The global warming case is actually weaker today than it was 20 years ago....because by now the effects of climate change were supposed to be far more dramatic. 

Nothing has been proven.....people have just been brain washed by constant repetition into believing that a bunch of suppositions are reality. We are still dealing with less than 0.5 degrees of warming that can actually be tied to CO2.

Mozart

As you stated  the planet is never static,     Stav entertained us with a projected low rainfalls in Australia,      But  there is an issue that effect rainfall in countries bordering the Pacific Ocean and in fact World wide  discovered in 1822 and called El Nino  by ordinary people and  ENSO by scientists,   

So lets ad a bit of info on the phenomenon  on site for him and see what happens then:-

?

ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.

 El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[32] A recent study suggests a strong El Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.   The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.   The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[35]

An early recorded mention of the term "El Niño" to refer to climate occurred in 1892, when Captain Camilo Carrillo told the geographical society congress in Lima that Peruvian sailors named the warm south-flowing current "El Niño" because it was most noticeable around Christmas.    The phenomenon had long been of interest because of its effects on the guano industry and other enterprises that depend on biological productivity of the sea. It is recorded that as early as 1822, cartographer Joseph Lartigue, of the French frigate La Clorinde under Baron Mackau, noted the "counter-current" and its usefulness for traveling southward along the Peruvian coast.

Charles Todd, in 1888, suggested droughts in India and Australia tended to occur at the same time;  ] Norman Lockyer noted the same in 1904.   An El Niño connection with flooding was reported in 1894 by Víctor Eguiguren   (1852–1919) and in 1895 by Federico Alfonso Pezet (1859–1929).   In 1924, Gilbert Walker (for whom the Walker circulation is named) coined the term "Southern Oscillation".   He and others (including Norwegian-American meteorologist Jacob Bjerknes) are generally credited with identifying the El Niño effect.    The major 1982–83 El Niño led to an upsurge of interest from the scientific community. The period 1991–95 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession.  An especially intense El Niño event in 1998 caused an estimated 16% of the world's reef systems to die. The event temporarily warmed air temperature by 1.5 °C, compared to the usual increase of 0.25 °C associated with El Niño events.   Since then, mass coral bleaching has become common worldwide, with all regions having suffered "severe bleaching"   

So El Nino has been around for thousands of years and  probably related ton the heating phase of the planet for millions of years and also the cooling phase of that prhenomenon.   Around  the 1980's there were huge panic when climatologists  forecasted that the Western Cape and the California Coast and the West Coast of Australia would become deserts because of climate change,    To date there was no sign of  it hapening,   The last intense El Nino cycle was in 2015-16  when there was a  drought  in  Australian and  Western Cape and massive rainfall and flooding in California - all associated blamed on El Nino.    

I mentioned earlier that a heat wave that hit  Europe  in 1997 and that again was associated with the El Nino  effect that year,    As an Irish citizen Stav may be interested in  El Nino being the reason for the crop failures and potato production  failures that  caused massive starvation and deaths in Ireland and link it to a similar situation to the one of China  mentioned above,     Another effect of El Nino occurred in 1947 when famine occurred  in Russia  caused  by  drought and  excessive high temperatures  leading to widespread starvation in that country.   

As indicated  above El Nino  had  an intense  effect in 2015-16 and not since - so another El Nino will likely occur in 2021-22.   

Is El Nino  the result of humans  causing global heating or any human  impact  on the phenomenon  itself   is evidently  nonsense.      What is clear is that modern scientists ignore the effect  El Nino has on the world climate and especially heatwaves associated with El Nino and blame human causing  climate change for it  happening.

Luckily for the planet humans do not cause the cycles in evidence for millions of years and  El Nino.  If it was so - the human race would have been  wiped out already,.      

There are probably technologies under development which will render this argument redundant in future.

However, and for now, if you're not in support of nuclear energy then you're either misinformed/brainwashed or disingenuous.

As Moz says, if you're serious then the most efficient solution should be a priority. 

It's a bit like a friend being severely injured...So you put them on your bicycle instead of on the backseat of your AMG, to take them to hospital.

When they succumb to their injuries en route, since you couldn't peddle fast enough, have a guess who'll be doing time for manslaughter

"Why, sir, did you not use your car to take them to the hospital?"

"Umm, because car accidents happen."

The fact that the green religion is dead set against nuclear tells you they are not serious about carbon. There is no faster, more energy  positive way to reduce carbon emissions.

Climate science is religion , oh look the moz record has got stuck again. Give the table a nudge we might get to hear the rest of the record.

"But you have to laugh when acolytes like Anger equate  CO2 to Botulinum toxin. Without carbon fuels we would still be in an agrarian economy and the global population wouldn’t be a tenth of what it is today. "

What did I tell you about laughing, scoffing and acting incredulous. That's not a rebuttal, its just evasion..

Its up to you to support your repeated claim something small can't have a significant impact. I merely cited  an examples where something small can have a drastic effect. No one disputes what carbon fuels have done for mankind. They have taken us from a patch work of agrarian societies to where we are today and enable the population of the species to grow massively. But again just because something has a positive effect, doesn't mean it can't also have a negative effect.

"Oil has been and continues to be man’s greatest friend...without which wind and solar would be pipe dreams. The global warming case is actually weaker today than it was 20 years ago....because by now the effects of climate change were supposed to be far more dramatic. "

Nope, the case from global warming just keeps on getting stronger as the evidence just keeps on stacking up and the effects become ever more observable.. Absolutely there have climate change advocates who have exaggerated and outright lied about the effects of climate change, its wrong for them to do so regardless of intentions and only undermines their side of the argument but again they are nearly always layman supporters of climate change, politicians or news media, climate scientists very rarely if ever do that, in fact they are extremely careful in what they say and will only say something if they have evidence to support it. And again as a layman you don't get to determine if the affects are dramatic.

Nothing has been proven.....people have just been brain washed by constant repetition into believing that a bunch of suppositions are reality. We are still dealing with less than 0.5 degrees of warming that can actually be tied to CO2.

Repeating something does not make it true. You like mike are in position to accuse anyone else of being brainwashed.

@mike

So El Nino has been around for thousands of years and  probably related ton the heating phase of the planet for millions of years and also the cooling phase of that prhenomenon.

Yeah El Nino has been around for thousands of years. So has La Nina as well.

Around  the 1980's there were huge panic when climatologists  forecasted that the Western Cape and the California Coast and the West Coast of Australia would become deserts because of climate change

Can your provide a link to what exactly these climatologist said?

Is El Nino  the result of humans  causing global heating or any human  impact  on the phenomenon  itself  is evidently  nonsense.

No El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon. But the evidence indicates climate change is making El Nino more intense.

"What is clear is that modern scientists ignore the effect  El Nino has on the world climate and especially heatwaves associated with El Nino and blame human causing  climate change for it  happening."

You have no evidence to support that claim. Its just as weak a claim as climate change skeptics saying that climate scientists are ignoring the sun.

"Luckily for the planet humans do not cause the cycles in evidence for millions of years and  El Nino.  If it was so - the human race would have been  wiped out already,"

No one said humans are responsible for natural temperature cycles that occur over millions of year or El Nino so would you please stop using strawman arguments.

Stav

I see where you are coming from  - you are obviously convinced that climate change at present are the result of  humans - while I doubt the possibility that humans have any role in climate change.  

The problem I have is that politicians has hijacked the process and are becoming more oppressive  as times go by,     That in itself reduce science to become a political circus - with all the nasty consequences that circus produces,   

Lets face facts - you believe global warming is caused by humans  and there are no headlines by the scientists  that takes into account other factors that could have an impact

I believe differently.    I believe that there is indeed global warming - but in the main it is die result of  the natural cycles that effect the planet for millions of years and that we are at present still in a heating phase/.

Whenever there are abnormal years  where major fluctuations in weather conditions occur - there are virtually always links to El Nino. - a Pacific Ocean phenomenon that affects climatic conditions worldwide. and is not confined  to Pacific Rim countries,   There has always been links to El Nino when droughts hit Australia and  South Africa,  - but the effect on countries in the northern hemisphere is not surprising me. at all.  

However. El Nino  is a natural phenomenon  of a temporary nature and comes in minor and stronger intensity and does not influence the trends in the longer term.   It bothers me that I have never seen any reports on climatic change  that occur in years when El Nino was intense - like the heatwave that hit central Europe in 1997  that was totally blamed on   human caused climate change without a word about El Nino being mentioned..

The Western Cape story was in 2006  and not in the 1980's and I was wrong in that,     I wanted to quote a reference to the said report - but my computer crashed and you may find it by referring to the 2006 climate change report on the Wester Cape.     The situation were repeated in 2017 when South Africa nd also the Western Cape suffered a sever drought and no mention  was made by the scientists of the  fact that a very intense El Nino was in 2016  and lasted for two years until early 2018.    Since then the rainfall has gone back to normal and the higher temperature forecasted by the  scientists  has vanished from sight.     Although the scientists in a presentation to Government  kept quiet about the El Nino issue  - there were clear evidence that the drought  resulted from the intense El Nino situation.      The latter was widely discussed as well.

However, you may find the following interesting:-

Notes on a New Desert - Pacific Standard (psmag.com)

That article was written in  the drought period  I mentioned,    The  fact is it is totally true - but there is a snag never mentioned.       The last ,major dam  in the Western Cape  supplying water to Cape Town was built in the 1970's  when the city population was circa 1,1 million.   Since 1994 the city population grew to 3,2 million and the whole water supply system was not upgraded.     Provision of bulk water to towns  and cities are the responsibility of central government in SA  and \the growth in the population of Cape Town  probably contributed more to the problem than the drought did,   The SA Government was to blame for the crisis  worsened by the drought,      Since the end of the drought the dams return to nearly full capacity and some were in fact overflowing - but the water shortage in Cape Town will only be solved  through -

*       construction of new dams or heightening of the walls of existing dams; and

*       more extension  of  usage of desalination of sea water.

When I went to see the Springboks playing Australia in Perth in  2005  there was a water crisis in Perth and the media dealt extensively  with desalination as an answer to the water problems in Perth.        There is one problem  with desalination and that in SA  - it appears to be a problem in New Zealand as well -  is that the sewerage treatment  plants have collapsed and millions of towns of industrial sewerage and human waste - some people calling it what it really is "shit" - ran into rivers and the sea and that cause a  serious  problem as well,    Aside from normal population growth there is a flood of migrants entering SA  - under the old apartheid government  that figure was approximately 8 million - but at present the figure is near to 15 million   out of a population of circa 57 million.      An estimated   3  million fled from Zimbabwe  after 2005  as a result of the oppression and murder of thousands of people by the Mugabe Government linked to destruction of farming when it became socialized  with resultant starvation by near to 70%   of the Zimbabwe population.

On one point I do agree with you  and that in fact air pollution must be reduced and that cleaner forms of electricity must be introduced,    There are already extensive wind and sun  facilities provided by the private  sector  and  those should be extended.      I must also state that there is a  nuclear power plant  on  the  outskirts of Cape Town  that has been in use for more than 40 years without  any  trouble  ever,    I can remember that in the late 1990's when I was  Town Secretary in a municipality bordering Durban there was an approach about construction of a similar nuclear power plant  about 25 kilometers to the north of the Municipal border  There were protests about that issue that was unbelievable.    

Anyway - South Africa can kiss nuclear power plants goodbye - the Government due to corruption is bankrupt and there is no way  such plants can be constructed in SA at present.

Peace please  my friend and I must watch Munster play in their next game.           

      .      .               .             

        .                .          

On the contrary Stav, all the ‘evidence’ of retreating glaciers, calving ice bergs, droughts etc....is by definition a nonsense. An increase in temps of 1.2 degrees, or 0.7 degrees since WW2 would never drive these supposedly massive changes. That increase is within the yearly variation we would normally see.

Those effects would be conceivable with a 5degree change....not 0.7 degrees. So they are just anecdotal.

The problem is Anger, your generation was hopelessly brain washed by the Left at school. And being a religion and not an intellectual orientation it has left you totally incapable of independent thought. Your feeble efforts on here show that.....cut and paste is all you have.

You studied IT but you can’t integrate x squared between limits? What a laugh. But look at this chart.....hold on let me help you. Draw a best fit line through the lows and then draw a best fit line through the highs. Look at the range....it’s fully 0.7degrees, probably more.

So this dramatic increase everybody is citing since WW2 is no more than the annual range of temperatures.

If you are going to call somebody dishonest, make sure you are right first. And take a pill for that brainwashing, it can become chronic.

• File
 
• File history
 
• File usage
 
• Global file usage

Oh you mean the Catholic Church with a Pope that hopped onto the Climate Change bandwagon.  Keep pitching Anger, eventually you will get one past the bat.

And here’s the thing...the chart wasn’t  posted to show  temperature increases it was posted to show  temperature variance,

And the chart wasn’t posted to show temperature increases since WW2....it was posted showing......Right.....temperature variance.

As for cold temps in Chicago being relevant...the whole area east  of the Rockies and west of the east coast mountain ranges is effected by the same weather systems. Here’s an example from the great February cold snap:

During this long blast of cold weather, several Midwest cities are experiencing record low temperatures, the National Weather Service said.

The weather station in Hibbing/Chisholm saw a record low of minus 38 degrees, while Sioux Falls, South Dakota, hit minus 26 degrees. La Crosse, Wisconsin, reached a record low of minus 19.

The NWS also noted Friday through Sunday was the first three-day stretch of days completely below zero since January 2019, but the first time it's happened in February since 1996. The weather service added that staying below zero the entire day Monday, which is likely, would mark the first time since 1994 with four or more consecutive subzero days.

The record for the longest subzero stretch in Minnesota is seven days, set in 1912, according to the NWS

.....

Down goes Anger...again,

I'm still waiting for the global flooding and drought data.

Oh you mean the Catholic Church with a Pope that hopped onto the Climate Change bandwagon.  Keep pitching Anger, eventually you will get one past the bat.

Decades after I had passed through the Catholic school system. Are you you actually saying the Catholic Church is a leftist organization? No you don't actually believe that, you simply just mindlessly parroted a conspiracy theory that many on the American right have, that the schools have been taken over the left and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be brainwashed by the left.  People living in America tend not to have too much knowledge of how things work outside their borders, which is fine, I wouldn't expect you to know much about the Irish education system, I mean why would you need to know, but if you don't know you shouldn't comment on it, it only makes you look even more foolish...if that's possible at this point.

"And here’s the thing...the chart wasn’t  posted to show  temperature increases it was posted to show  temperature variance,

And the chart wasn’t posted to show temperature increases since WW2....it was posted showing......Right.....temperature variance."

"As for cold temps in Chicago being relevant...the whole area east  of the Rockies and west of the east coast mountain ranges is effected by the same weather systems. Here’s an example from the great February cold snap:"

Which proves nothing as again its a limited area over a limited time period.

"Down goes Anger...again,"

Down indeed...in fits of laughter.

Anger what you are attempting to calculate is the average variance. I am not trying to calculate the average variance which is small as befits a very stable variable. I am calculating the difference between the best fit line through the highs and the lows....ie the range of variance. 

Which if you followed my simple instructions you would see it’s around 0.7 degrees. Which says the average  temps we are seeing 70 years after CO2 increased significantly haven’t even exceeded warm years back in  the mid 1900s.

How’s your PhD...oh I forgot, you don’t have one of those and you can’t integrate x squared between simple limits. Waaaaahahaha and you want to opine on mathematical modeling. 

Whatever variations observed over the last 200 years is well within the limits of a peak era...these things are observed over millenia...trying to make sense of 150 year observations is not scientific...that does not mean we should have carte blanche with our emissions...but 7 billion humans is the real imbalance...focusing on CO2 only is a charlatan's slight of hand trick...nature have a way of balancing these things...

Well that I do blame on oil. Without the magnificent gift of oil we wouldn’t have a tenth of the population. But it took some ingenuity....the genius of the cat cracker for example  that released oil’s full potential. And the genius of the engineers that perfected engines....internal combustion and jet.

 It’s nauseating watching kids who couldn’t add two and two without a calculator denigrating all this great technology.

The tolerances for the internal combustion engines are small fractions of a mm...F1 cars and motorbikes ref 10K to 20K revolutions per minute...mechanical engineering at it's best!...better than the very best Swiss watches.