Off Topic The Climate debate

The climate is cyclical though and I have issues with all the increase in temperature being attributed to CO2 and especially us.
There was a medieval warm period followed by the little ice age. This didn't end until the late 1800s but it is pretty much dismissed as a factor. Our killing of the planet is said to begin in about 1850. That coincides with the end of a time when it was climatically colder.
We don't have any data about temperature before about 1850. We need to extrapolate from different sources like, for example tree rings.
It is reported that in Roman times they could grow grapes in Yorkshire so it must have been warmer than today.
The warm period and little ice age have been thought to be local events, just the North Atlantic area, but so was the Ice Age.
What I'm getting at is that it has been warmer than today, we adapted and got on with it. Then it got colder again, then warmer.....
Even more recently in the 1930s parts of the USA suffered prolonged droughts, they called it the Dust Bowl.
Am I mistaken or were there news reports about wild fires in parched Australia last year?
This year it's flooding but, no matter what, everything is blamed on Climate Change.

I'd be very interested to hear first hand how Climate Change is affecting you today.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

This demonstrates my issue with the globe getting warmer. Out of the 52 States only 4 have had record high temperatures in the 2000s. Many had their highest temperature in the 1930s. I'm sure that if Greta had been about in 1930s America she'd be wetting herself but it cooled down again afterwards even though the Yanks increased the amount of fossil fuels they burned.
Wouldn't you expect more recent temperature records if we're on the edge of a precipice?

 

Thankfully I think the majority of people and governments don't really want to take this trial and error approach to something as complex as our climate. This is a global effect and to selectively take one temperature here or another there because it supports the argument is possibly satisfying but it's better to take a mean global average temperature change as this is a global effect.

 

Trial and error? They are extreme temperature readings for a very large, highly populated country that is supposed to ge the largest emitters of CO2 in history. It's as far as you can get from trial and error but if you have other data please share it.
Not models or projections - actual data.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/extreme/records.shtml

Does Australia help?

Same story

 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/...imates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

 

Yes exactly - now you're getting there

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/?ref=ftr#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

 

If those figures are reflective then why aren't we seeing more record high temperatures?
I used the USA because the figures are there for 52 States from Alaska to Hawaii which is a good spread.

Why is it that your Australian data takes a distinct upturn in temperature in 1980? It shows about a 1 degree increase within 2 years. That looks unprecedented. There must have been a panic in Oz at that time.
Or maybe it was the time when they started getting satellite data? That sounds more likely doesn't it?

 

Does coincide with satellites and computers,
Maybe they moved on from measuring the temperature from the thermometer on the wall of the local bush bar?

 

Annual weather and temperatures here are to an extent affected by La Nina or El Nino that are weather patterns in the pacific. With La Nina, which is what we are having this year temperatures on the East coast tend to be cooler but the weather wetter. When it is La Nina, as we have had for the previous decade temperatures are warmer and the weather drier. The opposite tends to happen of the West Coast. I don't buy the satellite data glitch, I could be wrong, but as we have numerous ground based weather stations that is where the raw data is collected

 

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

 

I read on your original link about how they collect the data. They have 112 sites. They investigate whether there are any anomalies in the data and adjust them. For example if a site is moved or it's surroundings change for some reason.
The key for me is that it is adjusted. I found one example of a new site in Canberra. They have two pictures, one when it started giving readings and another a few years later. The only difference I could see was that the grass had grown but they said that the original readings were 0.5 degrees too cool.
http://www.bom.gov.au/research/publications/researchreports/BRR-032.pdf
(Page 9 on the document)
This is the trouble with mean temperatures.
Place A is 10 degrees and Place B is -10 degrees. The mean temperature is 0. Change them to 20 and -20 and the mean stays the same but both areas have seen a 10 degree swing.
I know this is unrealistic but why not give us actual figures from one station that has not changed since 1910? Don't adjust the figures, just give us the actual temperatures.

You're like a Christian arguing in defence of God. No matter what I say you won't accept it which is why I said at the very start it was a pointless discussion.
I'm just hoping that you'll look at future headlines with a slightly more quizzical eye. And it's not just Climate Change.
Fingers crossed

 

Anyone remember the other recent doomsday prophecies?
Acid rain, the ozone layer, mad cows disease, aids etc?

 

Anyone would think that they wanted to keep us in a state of fear. Frightened people are easier to control. One of the things the Nazis taught them.

 

They were affected by the weather?

 

Ok fair enough I'll look with a more quizzical eye if you try not to see conspiracy theories everywhere.

 

Being skeptical used to be a good thing didn't it? I think I've asked some reasonable questions.
It's Political. The IPCC report is reviewed by Politicians before release. Once it is released the Media (especially tossers like George Monbiot in the Guardian) paint the worst possible picture and that is what the public see. It's only if you dig down into the actual data that you find anything resembling the truth.
If the Guardian headline was 'everything is going to be fine, nothing to worry about' then people wouldn't pick the paper up. 'We're all going to die in 10 years' is a compelling headline.
Politicians, just as with Covid, only want the worst case. They want us to be frightened because we're easier to control.
It's not a conspiracy, it's an agenda.

 

Coming soon.... everyone will get it...nobody left out... you won't know when...yes folks he's here Mr g.reaper...let's get ready to rummmbbblle

 

Null

 

As you don't appear to accept that there is any need to address climate change what do you think of your governments proposals to Build Back Greener?

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/1033990/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf