The Weather Where You Live?

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The next day was fabulous, got a 18 mile bike ride in at Acadia National Park. 1100 feet of elevation change.
IMG_2131.JPG
 
Beautiful picture. Makes my long for my old stomping grounds in Oregon and north Idaho. Thank you for sharing that. As for us we're having a serious cooling down. High today was only 90F
 
Glad I am not in one of those states but friends in Victoria are bitching about the cold so I find the first sentence somewhat strange.
Apart from the severe lack of rain, yesterday was just another day in paradise here in the Wide Bay Burnett region.


 
I'm seeing puzzling statements from our local news media about the "exceptional" and "unprecedented" heat we're experiencing here in the northstate.

The reality is, that this has been a milder, wetter summer than usual along with a much cooler September than average.

For example, the first couple weeks of September last year were triple digits (which is typical), this year we've had highs in the low to mid 90's (much cooler).
 
Well winter is definitely at an end (and so too is spring one might think) ...with a boom. 37°C (98.6°F) this week.

i6P5_ZFQboLsuv7Vm3yRynzgLxOlotBzybi5b37vw&usqp=CAU.jpg
 
I'm seeing puzzling statements from our local news media about the "exceptional" and "unprecedented" heat we're experiencing here in the northstate.

The reality is, that this has been a milder, wetter summer than usual along with a much cooler September than average.

For example, the first couple weeks of September last year were triple digits (which is typical), this year we've had highs in the low to mid 90's (much cooler).

They are obviously drinking far too much of the global warming Koolaid and being badly affected by it.
 
They are obviously drinking far too much of the global warming Koolaid and being badly affected by it.
I have to agree.

This last winter, the National Weather Service claimed California's heavy snowpack in the Sierra Mountains was "historic" and "unprecedented" in their page and a person replied:
"The Donner Party would like to have a word".

:lol:
 
They are obviously drinking far too much of the global warming Koolaid and being badly affected by it.
It is not "koolaid". It is scientific fact!

 
It is not "koolaid". It is scientific fact!


And this is real fact.

GrauGeist said:

I'm seeing puzzling statements from our local news media about the "exceptional" and "unprecedented" heat we're experiencing here in the northstate.

The reality is, that this has been a milder, wetter summer than usual along with a much cooler September than average.

For example, the first couple weeks of September last year were triple digits (which is typical), this year we've had highs in the low to mid 90's (much cooler).

This is another real fact

Back early in this century the then chief climate scientist was sacked for objecting to a development that was too close to the Sydney NSW weather station because it would artificially raise the Sydney temperature records. The development went ahead. He was replaced by the person who had convinced the Vic and Qld state governments that they must build massive desal plants because their dams would never ever ever ever fill again. In Qld the desal plant has never been needed and the overflowing dam in Brisbane caused massive flooding in 2010, 2013 and 2022 with damage in the billions each time.

And another.

During the 2010 floods PNG, QLD, NSW and the NT all had record king tides. These tides caused unprecedented flooding in many areas.

Five years after those floods climate scientists put out a report that said that the QLD floods caused the sea levels world wide to go down by nearly 50mm.
 
Yes, and off the East Cape of NZ there is a large area of ocean that shows up on satellite thermal imaging as very hot. The climate scientists say it is caused by global warming but do not know how. The local fishermen call the area the rumbles and often smell sulphur. The USGS Tsunami site in Hawaii regularly shows volcanic activity under this hot water but the climate scientist are still adamant it is purely caused by global warming.
And there is a road slowly re-appearing from under an ice field in Scandinavia that was very busy until around 800 years ago but climate scientists say the area is hotter now than it has ever been.
Tree rings in the area show that the temperatures were hotter as far back as Caesar's time but climate scientists say the area is hotter now than it has ever been.
Same in Italy from about the same period.
Greenland WAS green and much of the ice melt is coming from the bottom of the glaciers because volcanic activity has increased the ground temperature climate scientists say the area is hotter now than it has ever been.
They are excavating a historic village on the edge of the Arctic Ocean that was built using trees and the area is hundreds of km/miles north of the current treeline and any other wooden buildings but climate scientists say the area is hotter now than it has ever been. Again around the same period. Local verbal history is that the village was raided and burnt by another tribe about 400 years back.
There is a glacier in the US that is melting and it has tall timber inside the ice. Tree scientists say the trees were up to 1,200 years old before the glacier encased them but climate scientists say the area is hotter now than it has ever been.
We are paying millions to support island nations that are being damaged by rising sea levels yet on some of those islands the Jeppersen charts that pilots use, which are routinely updated using GPS data, shows that the airports, which have had no maintenance or repair are actually higher above sea level than they were at each of the previous update. And they rose on each of those updates too.
 
Last edited:
I do not wish to fuel a possible political discussion, but if I may input the following?

Notice that in the article posted by GTX it specifically states "The past eight years were the warmest on record globally" - not locally or everywhere on the face of the Earth.

Also, one can argue a bit about how valid the qualifier "on record" allows for overall accuracy of the intent of the article - which is to address the idea of global warming/climate change. We only have about 100-150 years of accurate data records regarding temperatures (ie where everyone was on the same page as far as how to measure the temperature and/or compare slightly different methods). After the start of the Renaissance Period and prior to about 150 years ago most temperature records are somewhat relative and usually derived from pattern type analysis.

Before the Renaissance Period temperatures are pretty much all derived from inferential analysis. Before human written historical record all temperature are based on general comparative analysis/best guess as to what the actual conditions were at the time.

One example of the latter method which has a prominent place in the argument for global warming is use of the CO2 content of ice cores extending back 650,000 - 800,000 years. During the warmer periods the CO2 levels were higher, during the cooler periods the CO2 levels were lower - this is born out by scientific measurement and comparison with other factors such as earth cores showing types and levels of vegetation/corals/etc. But - and this is a very important but - the latter method cannot even remotely give accurate record of shorter periods of time as small as 150 years, nor of the period of the Renaissance Period to today (ie ~600-700 years). Even the entire period of human written history (~5000 years) is too short a time to be accurately inferred when you are talking about 800,000 years ago.

When you add in the possibility of other factors such as changes in the Earth's tilt, changes in Earth's magnetic field, changes in the Sun's energy output, plate tectonics (ie volcanoes and land mass movement/distribution), changes in the level of atmospheric particulates due to volcanic activity and/or the level of intra-Solar system dust due to traveling through interstellar/galactic dust clouds as we rotate around the Milky Way, etc - it becomes problematic to predict what is going to happen in the long run. Some of the additional factors came into play in the debate during the mid- to late-1990s when NASA refused to sign on to the blanket statement that global warming is caused by humans. NASA and other groups associated with astrophysics had in the past commented on the fact that the Solar system was moving out of an interstellar/galactic dust cloud, and had been for at least 10s of thousands of years. Also, the Sun briefly put out more energy than 'normal' for a period of a couple of years in the early-1990s. NASA believed that the Sun's increase in output accounted for as much as 1/2°C increase in Earth's global temperature as of ~1998. However, that left the other 1/2°C of the increase unaccounted for. The Earth's global temperature has continued to warm since then - even though the Sun's output went back to normal in the mid-1990s. Continuing research has reduced the probable effect of the temporary change in the Sun's output to <1/4°C.

It should be noted, however, that the basic physics behind the idea - that some amount of global warming is being caused by increases in CO2 due to human activities - is sound. All kinds of laboratory simulated Earth atmosphere tests have been done using various light sources and mixtures of atmospheric gases (ie varying levels of CO2 and other 'Greenhouse Gases') that clearly indicate higher levels of CO2 will result in warming.

When you combine the 'Greenhouse Gas' effects with the loss of ice/snow cover (whatever it might be caused by) you get continuing increases in Earth's global temperatures.

In theory, the only ways to stop the increase in temperature, are if:

1. the particulates in the atmosphere increase to the necessary level (increasing the reflectance and decreasing heat absorption)
2. the Sun's output decreases (and remains decreased) the necessary amount (ie the Earth receives less energy to absorb)
3. the amount of 'Greenhouse Gases' decreases to the necessary level (decreasing the heat absorption)

Or some combination of the 1 thru 3

Bleh
 
Last edited:
In theory, the only ways to stop the increase in temperature, are if:

1. the particulates in the atmosphere increase to the necessary level (increasing the reflectance and decreasing heat absorption)
2. the Sun's output decreases (and remains decreased) the necessary amount (ie the Earth receives less energy to absorb)
3. the amount of 'Greenhouse Gases' decreases to the necessary level (decreasing the heat absorption)

Or some combination of the 1 thru 3

Bleh
My favorite proposal re. #2 is the giant sunbrella in the sky. :thumbleft:
 
Someone (I do not know who or what organization) put forward the idea of placing large numbers of (relatively) small discs in space at the Lagrange point between Earth and the Sun. The idea is that the number of discs (and hence the total area of the 'umbrella':)) could be modified as needed - more/less discs equal less/more energy reaching the Earth.
 
I do not wish to fuel a possible political discussion, but if I may input the following?

Notice that in the article posted by GTX it specifically states "The past eight years were the warmest on record globally" - not locally or everywhere on the face of the Earth.

Also, one can argue a bit about how valid the qualifier "on record" allows for overall accuracy of the intent of the article - which is to address the idea of global warming/climate change. We only have about 100-150 years of accurate data records regarding temperatures (ie where everyone was on the same page as far as how to measure the temperature and/or compare slightly different methods). After the start of the Renaissance Period and prior to about 150 years ago most temperature records are somewhat relative and usually derived from pattern type analysis.

Before the Renaissance Period temperatures are pretty much all derived from inferential analysis. Before human written historical record all temperature are based on general comparative analysis/best guess as to what the actual conditions were at the time.

One example of the latter method which has a prominent place in the argument for global warming is use of the CO2 content of ice cores extending back 650,000 - 800,000 years. During the warmer periods the CO2 levels were higher, during the cooler periods the CO2 levels were lower - this is born out by scientific measurement and comparison with other factors such as earth cores showing types and levels of vegetation/corals/etc. But - and this is a very important but - the latter method cannot even remotely give accurate record of shorter periods of time as small as 150 years, nor of the period of the Renaissance Period to today (ie ~600-700 years). Even the entire period of human written history (~5000 years) is too short a time to be accurately inferred when you are talking about 800,000 years ago.

When you add in the possibility of other factors such as changes in the Earth's tilt, changes in Earth's magnetic field, changes in the Sun's energy output, plate tectonics (ie volcanoes and land mass movement/distribution), changes in the level of atmospheric particulates due to volcanic activity and/or the level of intra-Solar system dust due to traveling through interstellar/galactic dust clouds as we rotate around the Milky Way, etc - it becomes problematic to predict what is going to happen in the long run. Some of the additional factors came into play in the debate during the mid- to late-1990s when NASA refused to sign on to the blanket statement that global warming is caused by humans. NASA and other groups associated with astrophysics had in the past commented on the fact that the Solar system was moving out of an interstellar/galactic dust cloud, and had been for at least 10s of thousands of years. Also, the Sun briefly put out more energy than 'normal' for a period of a couple of years in the early-1990s. NASA believed that the Sun's increase in output accounted for as much as 1/2°C increase in Earth's global temperature as of ~1998. However, that left the other 1/2°C of the increase unaccounted for. The Earth's global temperature has continued to warm since then - even though the Sun's output went back to normal in the mid-1990s. Continuing research has reduced the probable effect of the temporary change in the Sun's output to <1/4°C.

It should be noted, however, that the basic physics behind the idea - that some amount of global warming is being caused by increases in CO2 due to human activities - is sound. All kinds of laboratory simulated Earth atmosphere tests have been done using various light sources and mixtures of atmospheric gases (ie varying levels of CO2 and other 'Greenhouse Gases') that clearly indicate higher levels of CO2 will result in warming.

When you combine the 'Greenhouse Gas' effects with the loss of ice/snow cover (whatever it might be caused by) you get continuing increases in Earth's global temperatures.

In theory, the only ways to stop the increase in temperature, are if:

1. the particulates in the atmosphere increase to the necessary level (increasing the reflectance and decreasing heat absorption)
2. the Sun's output decreases (and remains decreased) the necessary amount (ie the Earth receives less energy to absorb)
3. the amount of 'Greenhouse Gases' decreases to the necessary level (decreasing the heat absorption)

Or some combination of the 1 thru 3

Bleh

I am not disputing that mankind is doing damage to the environment but I do not trust the environmental scientists any more than smart people trusted those many scientists 100 years ago who claimed that you could tell a persons personality, intelligence and all sorts of other things like the probability they would commit crime from the shape of their heads. That was utter bull dust but there were lots of scientists that not only studied this but "proved" it was true. Check out the Smithsonian and their collection of skulls collected by their staff who believed that crap.

Go through history and there are always fad science movements and often they try and quietly fade away once given serious questioning.

There are many another major contributors to global warming that are totally ignored, because to fix those things we would need to think and stop being selfish. You know - build light coloured houses, concrete paths and roads, houses with passive cooling, use public transport instead of our own personal five seat conveyance to move one person, etc etc etc.

Going back to the late 80's early 90s there were suburbs in one US city (Albuquerque from memory) that had a lot of disease that was tracked back to the temperatures in those suburbs being significantly higher than the other suburbs. All the hot suburbs had dark roof tiles and blacktop footpaths whereas the older and cooler suburbs tended to have iron roofs and concrete footpaths. Black and dark red absorb and hold heat, iron roofs reflect the heat. Have a look at the thermal images of Atlanta Ga and you can clearly see major differences in local temperature related to the land use and building colours. These hot spots cause local updrafts which have massively changed Atlanta's weather and that is totally man made.

The shipping industry knows this which is why bulk gas carriers are all light coloured on top. Many other industries also know this and take appropriate actions. The housing industry and most local governments say who gives a ****. Likewise the car industry churns out dark coloured vehicles and people buy them because that colour is Kool this week/month/year. Go out on a hot sunny day and measure the temperature of the roof of a selection of cars. You will be amazed at the difference. That all contributes to local warming.

Use google streetview to view the weather reporting stations in your town/city and in other cities. How far is it from a local heat source. Many are close to roads and airconditioners and other heat sources so their readings are inflated by these things.

Another significant factor is the population size, both numbers and physically. Way back in the International Geophysical Year (1957) most schools had suitable science projects. The one my year 10 class chose was how much heat does a human body produce. We put three students (largest, smallest and a mid sized one) in large cardboard boxes with a thermometer inserted through a tight hole in each, sealed the box with tape and then measured the temperature rise over ten minutes. We then calculated the heat output and found not only was it directly related to body weight but that the average heat output was the equivalent of a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. We confirmed this by putting a 100 watt bulb in each box.

Given how much bigger modern children are compared to us (at least 50%) they are radiating far more heat. Given the population has at least doubled since then that is a lot of heat being pumped into the atmosphere every day just by humans existing.

Then there are air-conditioners. About 15 years ago Sydney Aus broke its 150+ year old temperature record by 0.1C. Naturally this was caused by global warming. 150 years earlier the city had maybe 1/100th the modern population. There were no building air-conditioners belching heat into the atmosphere 150 years earlier. There were no vehicles belching heat from their radiators and air-conditioners and exhausts (plus radiating heat from multiple sources) 150 years earlier. There were no electric cars belching heat from their air-conditioners and heat exchangers 150 years ago, etc, etc etc..

On the other side of the coin no school in my day had a heated pool. Now almost every school pool is heated, and many are in air conditioned buildings. Likewise no students had a car. We walked, rode a bike or caught a bus. Now they all go to school with either mum driving or driving their own car and they blame us oldies for causing global warming.

As you say - Bleh
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back