Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
imnofreak
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 35K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricey getting destroyed :lol:
-PB Not for the first time.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
imnofreak wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricey getting destroyed :lol:
-PB Not for the first time. Bunch of Commie Marxists! -PB
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you never answered my question
why would i bother to do anything you say?
what are you some kind of dictator?
they're rhetorical by the way as it appears you're a little authoritarian trying to impose your will upon anyone who doesnt follow your cult doctrine Hahahaha youre so hypocritical its just funny to read. Youre so caught up in your own conspiracy theories and your pseudoscience that every post you make just shows your ignorance even further. Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. Yup. So much wrong with most of his posts that I cant get through it all. There he is again straw manning my very strong argument into something easier for him to attack. Ive said numerous times if the weight of scientific evidence one day arrives at a different consensus, then science and myself will change, but when there is so so much evidence for one side only the most tunnelled visioned, scientific ignorant would think otherwise. See the difference between scientists and rice is science doesnt start with an opinion its trying to prove, it lets the evidence decide its opinion. I see rice as one of those people who were still clinging to the earth is the centre of the universe people many hundreds of years after the scientific evidence had proved time and time again it isnt. but there is no scientific evidence there is no warming. its stopped when your models predicted otherwise. how could your models be so wrong? they are computer models you know, thats what all this fantasy is based on. models got it? you never will. you'll spend your whole life worrying about the sky falling when it wont happen. what a wasted life.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you never answered my question
why would i bother to do anything you say?
what are you some kind of dictator?
they're rhetorical by the way as it appears you're a little authoritarian trying to impose your will upon anyone who doesnt follow your cult doctrine Hahahaha youre so hypocritical its just funny to read. Youre so caught up in your own conspiracy theories and your pseudoscience that every post you make just shows your ignorance even further. Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. Yup. So much wrong with most of his posts that I cant get through it all. There he is again straw manning my very strong argument into something easier for him to attack. Ive said numerous times if the weight of scientific evidence one day arrives at a different consensus, then science and myself will change, but when there is so so much evidence for one side only the most tunnelled visioned, scientific ignorant would think otherwise. See the difference between scientists and rice is science doesnt start with an opinion its trying to prove, it lets the evidence decide its opinion. I see rice as one of those people who were still clinging to the earth is the centre of the universe people many hundreds of years after the scientific evidence had proved time and time again it isnt. but there is no scientific evidence there is no warming. its stopped when your models predicted otherwise. how could your models be so wrong? they are computer models you know, thats what all this fantasy is based on. models got it? you never will. you'll spend your whole life worrying about the sky falling when it wont happen. what a wasted life. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: The saying ignorance is bliss has never been more appropriate than in your case But keep shouting the 'NO WARMING FOR 17 YEARS I KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE WHO RESEARCHES THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WHICH EVIDENCE I NEED TO IGNORE TO SUIT MY OWN AGENDA. I DONT NEED ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE I JUST NEED THE BIT THAT SUITS ME' i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap. again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong? are you going to avoid that issue too?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
...waits for the copy and paste expert to copy and past something else
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. what do you think the consensus among the cavemen was? did I say anything about the middle ages? you make a lot of assumptions you know. not very scientific, but carry on.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. what do you think the consensus among the cavemen was? did I say anything about the middle ages? you make a lot of assumptions you know. not very scientific, but carry on. Rookie error on your part but understandable given most people believe that those in the past believed the earth was flat. Nice try at wriggling out of your ignorant statement though, not that I sledged you for it in any case, by referring to cavemen of all people.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. what do you think the consensus among the cavemen was? did I say anything about the middle ages? you make a lot of assumptions you know. not very scientific, but carry on. Rookie error on your part but understandable given most people believe that those in the past believed the earth was flat. Nice try at wriggling out of your ignorant statement though, not that I sledged you for it in any case, by referring to cavemen of all people. er no, error on your part and your attempt has backfired rather embarrassingly for you you've pasted a wikipedia article that specifically refers to a time period prior to the ancient greeks what do you think the consensus was?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you never answered my question
why would i bother to do anything you say?
what are you some kind of dictator?
they're rhetorical by the way as it appears you're a little authoritarian trying to impose your will upon anyone who doesnt follow your cult doctrine Hahahaha youre so hypocritical its just funny to read. Youre so caught up in your own conspiracy theories and your pseudoscience that every post you make just shows your ignorance even further. Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all
RedKat thinks science is a vote
imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat
and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution. Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth But anyway, carry on. Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself. Yup. So much wrong with most of his posts that I cant get through it all. There he is again straw manning my very strong argument into something easier for him to attack. Ive said numerous times if the weight of scientific evidence one day arrives at a different consensus, then science and myself will change, but when there is so so much evidence for one side only the most tunnelled visioned, scientific ignorant would think otherwise. See the difference between scientists and rice is science doesnt start with an opinion its trying to prove, it lets the evidence decide its opinion. I see rice as one of those people who were still clinging to the earth is the centre of the universe people many hundreds of years after the scientific evidence had proved time and time again it isnt. but there is no scientific evidence there is no warming. its stopped when your models predicted otherwise. how could your models be so wrong? they are computer models you know, thats what all this fantasy is based on. models got it? you never will. you'll spend your whole life worrying about the sky falling when it wont happen. what a wasted life. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: The saying ignorance is bliss has never been more appropriate than in your case But keep shouting the 'NO WARMING FOR 17 YEARS I KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE WHO RESEARCHES THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WHICH EVIDENCE I NEED TO IGNORE TO SUIT MY OWN AGENDA. I DONT NEED ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE I JUST NEED THE BIT THAT SUITS ME' i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap. again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong? are you going to avoid that issue too? Until you accept that the comment 'theres been no warming for 17 years and nothing else matters' comment is flawed because it doesnt take into account all the evidence (because you know how science always looks for limitations of any study) and account for those theres no point falling for your tricks again and answering your questions while you ignore everything I raise. you're being a weasel about this. your models were wrong. not just a bit wrong, but very wrong. and now you're telling me that all the evidence wasnt taken into account. that sounds like a problem for the alarmists, not mine
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
on reflection I see that RedKat's responses are very much like those that would be accepted in a school project of a government school. like around grade 4 to 9 level.
no discernment, critical thought or actual proper research required. just paste some links and attribute sources.
it makes sense that quite a few here would be able to identify on that level
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
case in point ^
|
|
|
DB-PGFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 499,
Visits: 0
|
Skip to around 55 minutes. Carlson doesn't really sit on either view. An interesting listen to say the least.
[youtube]R31SXuFeX0A[/youtube]
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
-PB
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Of course it won't meet the high standards set by our esteemed resident 442 climate scientist, namely a mister R Crackers, as it was only published in the journal nature but here's an interesting article for perusing. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-models-on-the-mark-australianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Blackmac79
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:
i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap.
again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong?
are you going to avoid that issue too?
Mind if I ask a question, specifically related to the part I have bolded? How exactly is people wanting to reduce emissions and find clean sources of energy going to "Fuck up the world"? Now I have made the assumption that "this crap" you speak of is, due to the title of this thread and the conversation related therein, is infact the idea that we need to move to clean forms of energy to save the world. So again, why, even if we acknowledge that the world doesn't need saving, is the move towards clean energy and away from coal and fossil fuels a bad thing?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Blackmac79 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap.
again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong?
are you going to avoid that issue too?
Mind if I ask a question, specifically related to the part I have bolded? How exactly is people wanting to reduce emissions and find clean sources of energy going to "Fuck up the world"? Now I have made the assumption that "this crap" you speak of is, due to the title of this thread and the conversation related therein, is infact the idea that we need to move to clean forms of energy to save the world. So again, why, even if we acknowledge that the world doesn't need saving, is the move towards clean energy and away from coal and fossil fuels a bad thing? 1. there is no such thing as clean energy. its a fantasy 2. attempts to artificially reduce carbon emissions are economic and all involve lowering our living standard via either taxes or raising the cost of fuel whenever you significantly raise the cost of living, people at the lower end die. whenever you destroy an economy, more people die to put it simply because i'm tired of arguing this crap with morons on this forum
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Blackmac79 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap.
again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong?
are you going to avoid that issue too?
Mind if I ask a question, specifically related to the part I have bolded? How exactly is people wanting to reduce emissions and find clean sources of energy going to "Fuck up the world"? Now I have made the assumption that "this crap" you speak of is, due to the title of this thread and the conversation related therein, is infact the idea that we need to move to clean forms of energy to save the world. So again, why, even if we acknowledge that the world doesn't need saving, is the move towards clean energy and away from coal and fossil fuels a bad thing? 1. there is no such thing as clean energy. its a fantasy 2. attempts to artificially reduce carbon emissions are economic and all involve lowering our living standard via either taxes or raising the cost of fuel whenever you significantly raise the cost of living, people at the lower end die. whenever you destroy an economy, more people dieto put it simply because i'm tired of arguing this crap with morons on this forum :lol: Do you have any figures for this occurring in Australia.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:
to put it simply because i'm tired of arguing this crap with morons on this forum
If only.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Blackmac79
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Blackmac79 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap.
again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong?
are you going to avoid that issue too?
Mind if I ask a question, specifically related to the part I have bolded? How exactly is people wanting to reduce emissions and find clean sources of energy going to "Fuck up the world"? Now I have made the assumption that "this crap" you speak of is, due to the title of this thread and the conversation related therein, is infact the idea that we need to move to clean forms of energy to save the world. So again, why, even if we acknowledge that the world doesn't need saving, is the move towards clean energy and away from coal and fossil fuels a bad thing? 1. there is no such thing as clean energy. its a fantasy 2. attempts to artificially reduce carbon emissions are economic and all involve lowering our living standard via either taxes or raising the cost of fuel whenever you significantly raise the cost of living, people at the lower end die. whenever you destroy an economy, more people die to put it simply because i'm tired of arguing this crap with morons on this forum Ok so what you are saying is that moving away from using a limited resource, where supply will eventually run out, will involve a greater cost of living and those at the lower end will die. Wouldn't supply/demand economics suggest that continually using such a limited resource will actually see fuel prices rise? and electricity prices rise? rather than say if you reduce demand on these limited resources? However if we agree that there is only a limited amount of the resources we currently use, surely long term thinking, and simple supply/demand economics would suggest that using forms of energy (Solar, wind, geo-thermal) where there is an unlimited (I understand that one day the sun will burn out, but energy won't matter then) supply surely, and again I am just using simple supply/demand economics here, the long term costs are significantly lower? Infact I think in the last decade photovoltaic cells have decreased to below half of their original price. So say we use this trend, along with the trend of increasing uptake of such technology, we can see that the demand for quality photovoltaic cells is increasing, therefore the price should decrease even further into the future? Also new homes in England are SAVING significantly on heating costs through the use of geothermal water heating, indeed the cost effectiveness of this is becoming apparent with the money saved on heating bills repaying your investment in under 5 years! I am no econimist however creating Jobs through the manufacture, installation and upkeep of such technology surely is positive economics. (oh and just quickly on your first point I think that I have shown above two sources of the fantasy of clean energy) Edited by blackmac79: 21/7/2014 10:35:17 PM
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
this is where your argument hits a brick wall, since you seem to believe in peak oil if oil runs out then the problem of climate change will solve itself. no tax required.
|
|
|
Blackmac79
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:this is where your argument hits a brick wall, since you seem to believe in peak oil if oil runs out then the problem of climate change will solve itself. no tax required.
I think anyone with a simple understanding of geometry and internal spaces believes in peak oil. It will happen. I never mentioned a tax, I was refering specifically to the idea that you started with that it would "Fuck everything up", by striving for cleaner energy sources. Where your argument hits a wall is that we talk about clean energy, you say it is a fantasy, I counter with two increasingly popular and simple forms of clean energy which are becoming increasingly cost effective, you mention tax. The thing with taxes is that they are not inherently bad things. Next time you travel to a country without significant business tax report back on how Joe Bloggs is going? Tax's enable spending, specifically (again) public spending, without which it is widely accepted that private captial injections would not occur. What our (Australias) particular "carbon tax" problem was is that it was an unspecified revenue raising levy. People I think would have had much less issue with it were the funds going to the rebate of installation of Photovoltaics on roofs, or the installation of geothermal underfloor heating in new homes, and perhaps the research into reducing the cost of individual photovoltaics. The carbon tax was not a bad tax, just a poorly set up one.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Just wait until you can buy affordable batteries to store your rooftop solar power. It's coming and it's going to be a game changer.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
solar panels are heavily subsidized the energy companies will never allow you to be self sufficient dream on
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt-20140722-zvhzq.htmlMore lies and non evidence hey Crackers. ------------------------------------------------------------//-------------------------------------------------------- Last month was a scorcher for global temperatures with warmth over land and sea breaking records for June while sea-surface temperatures posted their largest departure from long-term averages for any month. Combined average temperatures over land and sea were 0.72 degrees above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees, making it the hottest June and adding to the record May and equal record April, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). More striking for climatologists, though, were the sea-surface temperatures. These came in 0.64 degrees above the 20th century average of 16.4 degrees – the first time any month had exceeded the long-run norm by more than 0.6 degrees. Parts of all major ocean basins notched their warmest June, with almost all the Indian Ocean and regions off south-eastern Australia the hottest on record. An El Nino event remains about a 70 per cent chance of forming during the northern summer, which could see more records tumble. The weather pattern sees the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean becoming relatively warm compared with western regions, and typically brings hotter, drier than usual conditions to south-east Asia and Australia. Australia posted its hottest 12 months on record in the year to June, while 2013 was the hottest calendar year in more than a century of records, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. While June was another month of above-average temperatures, Western Australia and the Northern Territory were cooler than normal – breaking a sequence begun in February in which every state or territory had above-average warmth, NOAA noted. June was the 352nd month when global temperatures were above the 20th century average – with the last below-average month in February 1985 when Bob Hawke was in his first term as Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan in his second-term in the White House. Minor cool snap Apart from a cool snap over the past few days, cities such as Sydney and Melbourne are continuing their run of above-average conditions with temperatures likely to again edge up over the coming week. So far this year, above-average maximums in Sydney are running at about 2.5-to-one compared with cooler-than-usual weather, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. In the first half of the year, Sydney had 162 days of 20 degrees or warmer conditions, easily ahead of the previous record in 2004 of 157. After tops of 18 on Tuesday and Wednesday, Sydney can expect 20-21 degree days out to next Monday, with little more than the odd shower over the period. Maximums for the city are running about 2 degrees above the July average of 16.3 degrees so far this month. Melbourne’s maximums in July have been closer to the long-run average of 13.5 degrees. Aside from a top of 14 degrees forecast for Tuesday and again on Friday, other days should be in the 15-17 range, according to the bureau. Climate scientists say man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are trapping more solar heat and leading to the global warming that increasing the likelihood that hot rather than cold records will be broken. The first half of the year tied 2002 as the third-warmest on record for land and sea-surface temperatures, NOAA said.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:solar panels are heavily subsidized the energy companies will never allow you to be self sufficient dream on People already are lol. -PB
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt-20140722-zvhzq.html
More lies and non evidence hey Crackers. ------------------------------------------------------------//--------------------------------------------------------
Last month was a scorcher for global temperatures with warmth over land and sea breaking records for June while sea-surface temperatures posted their largest departure from long-term averages for any month.
Combined average temperatures over land and sea were 0.72 degrees above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees, making it the hottest June and adding to the record May and equal record April, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
More striking for climatologists, though, were the sea-surface temperatures. These came in 0.64 degrees above the 20th century average of 16.4 degrees – the first time any month had exceeded the long-run norm by more than 0.6 degrees.
Parts of all major ocean basins notched their warmest June, with almost all the Indian Ocean and regions off south-eastern Australia the hottest on record.
An El Nino event remains about a 70 per cent chance of forming during the northern summer, which could see more records tumble. The weather pattern sees the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean becoming relatively warm compared with western regions, and typically brings hotter, drier than usual conditions to south-east Asia and Australia.
Australia posted its hottest 12 months on record in the year to June, while 2013 was the hottest calendar year in more than a century of records, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
While June was another month of above-average temperatures, Western Australia and the Northern Territory were cooler than normal – breaking a sequence begun in February in which every state or territory had above-average warmth, NOAA noted.
June was the 352nd month when global temperatures were above the 20th century average – with the last below-average month in February 1985 when Bob Hawke was in his first term as Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan in his second-term in the White House. Minor cool snap
Apart from a cool snap over the past few days, cities such as Sydney and Melbourne are continuing their run of above-average conditions with temperatures likely to again edge up over the coming week.
So far this year, above-average maximums in Sydney are running at about 2.5-to-one compared with cooler-than-usual weather, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
In the first half of the year, Sydney had 162 days of 20 degrees or warmer conditions, easily ahead of the previous record in 2004 of 157.
After tops of 18 on Tuesday and Wednesday, Sydney can expect 20-21 degree days out to next Monday, with little more than the odd shower over the period. Maximums for the city are running about 2 degrees above the July average of 16.3 degrees so far this month. Melbourne’s maximums in July have been closer to the long-run average of 13.5 degrees. Aside from a top of 14 degrees forecast for Tuesday and again on Friday, other days should be in the 15-17 range, according to the bureau.
Climate scientists say man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are trapping more solar heat and leading to the global warming that increasing the likelihood that hot rather than cold records will be broken.
The first half of the year tied 2002 as the third-warmest on record for land and sea-surface temperatures, NOAA said.
you call Sydney Morning Herald as credible evidence? oh please its been fucking cold here for weeks dont tell me its the hottest on record dont tell me the sky is red when its blue
|
|
|
Blackmac79
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:solar panels are heavily subsidized the energy companies will never allow you to be self sufficient dream on Great counter points to all my posts. You win at debating
|
|
|