Just thought I'd put this here in case anyone out there doesnt think its getting a tad warm these days.

I thought it was a pretty good way to get a quick snapshot of this climate change thing, a visualisation I hadn't seen represented so well previously.




110 years of Australian temperatures.These maps are produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and show the anomaly of mean temperature for each calendar year, compared to the average over the standard reference period of 1961-1990.The colours range from dark blue (more than 3C below average) through to brown (more than 3C above average).

Nah, a quick snapshot would've had blue being minus twenty degrees and brown being plus sixty degrees. This just sells alarmism with micromath.

Last seven years equals drought.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
Nah, a quick snapshot would've had blue being minus twenty degrees and brown being plus sixty degrees. This just sells alarmism with micromath.

I dont agree... i think the point of it is to show the change that has been measured. your suggested scale wouldn't show any change at all

We are fakked.

Alarmist propaganda

Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.

Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.

Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.

So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.

Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.

Select to expand quote

beefarmer said..

psychojoe said..
Nah, a quick snapshot would've had blue being minus twenty degrees and brown being plus sixty degrees. This just sells alarmism with micromath.

I dont agree... i think the point of it is to show the change that has been measured. your suggested scale wouldn't show any change at all

psychojoe didn't use sarcastica font. That would have made his point much more clearly

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda

Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.

Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.

Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.

So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.

Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.

What are the chances that you've accessed evidence that escaped the BOM?

As well as being our hottest year on record in 2019 we also set another global record for Co2 emissions. But the good news is that the margin by which we break each previous year's record is falling. We only beat 2018 emissions by 0.6%

www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-will-break-another-record-in-2019/

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda

I think I'd be a lot more concerned if Tony Abbott did like a climate graph

Last thing we may wish could be another volcano eruption in Australia.

The latest was 7,000 years ago , here in Queensland .So next eruption somewhere is well overdue.Once Greta fix our climate we could start worry about that matter too.

Kinrara
be vigilant
everybody keep posting if hear any noises under ground

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..What are the chances that you've accessed evidence that escaped the BOM?

TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda

Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.

Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.

Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.

So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.

Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.

Conspiracy theorists and troll bots don't require evidence.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda

Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.

Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.

Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.

So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.

Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.

It just amazes me that deniers still exist. Big business' political climate change campaign seems to be running in overdrive atm.

And working.

Just like big tobacco back in the day.

I do worry how bad things need to get before deniers actually think, "Mmmmm." Like, how much evidence and consensus in the scientific community and extreme weather do they need?

Then again, I do live in a country where people actually think Sco-Mo had some substance, and John Howard did anything worthwhile.

I disagreed with a lot of Tony Abbott(the real one), but at least he was authentic.

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..

TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda

Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.

Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.

Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.

So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.

Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.

It just amazes me that deniers still exist. Big business' political climate change campaign seems to be running in overdrive atm.

And working.

Just like big tobacco back in the day.

I do worry how bad things need to get before deniers actually think, "Mmmmm." Like, how much evidence and consensus in the scientific community and extreme weather do they need?

Then again, I do live in a country where people actually think Sco-Mo had some substance, and John Howard did anything worthwhile.

I disagreed with a lot of Tony Abbott(the real one), but at least he was authentic.

So why did you vote him in!

Btw, boughta coupleof these:www.ebay.com.au/itm/Co2-Carbon-Dioxide-Generator-Propane-With-8-Burners-Hydroponics-PPM-Controller-/333117057294 just to offset my electric vehicle use and piss off all the runts bitching about climate change while breeding like rats.

also replace your out of date image with the OPCW updated visualization.

Select to expand quote

beefarmer said..
Just thought I'd put this here in case anyone out there doesnt think its getting a tad warm these days.

I thought it was a pretty good way to get a quick snapshot of this climate change thing, a visualisation I hadn't seen represented so well previously.




110 years of Australian temperatures.These maps are produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and show the anomaly of mean temperature for each calendar year, compared to the average over the standard reference period of 1961-1990.The colours range from dark blue (more than 3C below average) through to brown (more than 3C above average).

Pls correct me if I am wrong, but I thought our drought was caused by colder temps in the East Indian releasing less humidity in the air.

Select to expand quote

beefarmer said..
Just thought I'd put this here in case anyone out there doesnt think its getting a tad warm these days.

I thought it was a pretty good way to get a quick snapshot of this climate change thing, a visualisation I hadn't seen represented so well previously.




110 years of Australian temperatures.These maps are produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and show the anomaly of mean temperature for each calendar year, compared to the average over the standard reference period of 1961-1990.The colours range from dark blue (more than 3C below average) through to brown (more than 3C above average).

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..


also replace your out of date image with the OPCW updated visualization.

OPCW.... Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.

Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?

Edit: It sounds like you are making this up.

www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs

"The second limitation is that many of these early observations were taken using a variety of observing methods. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology was formed in 1908 by an Act of the Federal Parliament. The formation of a national meteorological agency soon addressed the lack of national standards for instruments and calibrations, as well as limitations on the continental coverage of observations.

The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country had occurred by 1910, two years after the Bureau was formed. Standard observational practices (such as the use of a Stevenson screen to house the instruments) were in place at most sites in Queensland and South Australia by the mid-1890s, but in New South Wales and Victoria many sites were not standardised until between 1906 and 1908."

www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/

www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

It sounds like data has been in place to a reasonable quality since 1908.

that still looks like nothing to worry about.
Lets take a color palette from our seabreeze above 50 Knots wind.





that looks convincing
full pants, everybody

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.

obviously measurements are less and less reliable the further back in time you go though.

one interesting thing i thought about it is too look at the data from my life time only... for me 1980 onwards... as thats the only info that i can relate my own personal experiences of climate. it does show pretty significant change, compared to any other 40 year period

if someone had shown me the same graph in 2002 for the years up to then id've be like.... 'yeah whats the problem?' . Funnily enough that was the year i was at Uni studying this stuff for the first time, it was already established fact amongst the scientific folk then (Co2 emissions and links to the planet warming up), though granted at that time there was a lot more uncertainly about it all, regarding how quickly the planet would warm up etc.

I always thought the general public would need some major catastrophies to drive them towards any meaningful change... like food shortages, droughts etc. i hope Im wrong. its pretty grim stuff really.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

beefarmer said..
Just thought I'd put this here in case anyone out there doesnt think its getting a tad warm these days.

I thought it was a pretty good way to get a quick snapshot of this climate change thing, a visualisation I hadn't seen represented so well previously.




110 years of Australian temperatures.These maps are produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and show the anomaly of mean temperature for each calendar year, compared to the average over the standard reference period of 1961-1990.The colours range from dark blue (more than 3C below average) through to brown (more than 3C above average).

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.

Who green thumbed this? Is this how conspiracies theories start? Someone has a guess, and then other people repeat it verbatim, and before you know it it has become truth? From what I can see, there is no quality data for periods before 1910 or at least 1908.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?

I'm just going by the data and comments in this video. (Fast forward to 45 seconds to see the graphs of data.)

I'm not qualified to say if he is right or wrong, but I'm sure there's plenty of vested interested for some people to discredit the figures prior to 1910. I like to see full disclosure on this stuff.

"The service has predicted and subsequently observed smoke to blow in many different directions over the last couple of months - including back over Australia itself - with the pollutant now severely affecting New Zealand. Many people in the smaller country are choosing to remain indoors to protect themselves from the smoke, which has also turned glaciers brown, possibly leading to them melting more quickly. "

atmosphere.copernicus.eu/wildfires-continue-rage-australia

I found this description interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought

Just in that the Federation Drought was not just one big period of dry, but a mixed bag by the look of it. I guess this is Australia, and not a cut and dried simple weather pattern, if there is such a thing.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

FormulaNova said..
Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?

I'm just going by the data and comments in this video. (Fast forward to 45 seconds to see the graphs of data.)

I'm not qualified to say if he is right or wrong, but I'm sure there's plenty of vested interested for some people to discredit the figures prior to 1910. I like to see full disclosure on this stuff.

I can't comment on the validity either, as I couldn't even get that same data that he uses in the graph. He does seem to use a very artificial date range for his graphs though and I also wonder if he did this to try and project his argument a certain way or was there another reason?

I don't know if these 'vested interests' really exist though. Sure, there COULD be people that want to show themselves correct, but wouldn't the data be pretty hard to present if its 110 years worth and showed it cooling?

Select to expand quote

beefarmer said..
OPCW.... Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?

I meant IPCC :)

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

I'm not qualified to say if he is right or wrong, but I'm sure there's plenty of vested interested for some people to discredit the figures prior to 1910. I like to see full disclosure on this stuff.

I am not qualified either but I think I my scientific background tells me to trust a source like NASA more then some dude that made a YouTube video. NASA clearly identified that the increase average land temperatures seem to have a direct correlation to the increase in CO2 emissions since 1900:

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Interesting that up until the 1980s the graph was pretty consistant. Before the 1980s we had little renewable energy, cars were far more polluting, less environmental restrictions.

Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster