SR,
What have I told you before about numbers? Avoid like the plague

SR wrote: “Yup. The baseline has been shifted up purely to lessen the visual impact of rising temperatures.”

This from the WMO… http://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate

“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has updated the U.S. Climate Normals to the 1991-2020 baseline period to provide a most recent baseline for climate information and services to climate-sensitive sectors and a standard reference to compare variations in temperature, precipitation etc to the 30-year average.

The move is in line with a World Meteorological Organization recommendation that the 30-year standard reference periods should be updated every decade in order to better reflect the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience.”

It feels like I’m piling on, but the man is so pompous in his ignorance.
Stand-by for a change of topic so quick it’ll make your head spin.

___________________________________________________________________

From Chris Lewis,

“it is amazing how the British conservatives strongly feel that humans are causing global warming, at least the vast majority of them, yet their Australian counterparts do not.”

Why is this always a binary? Humans are causing or not causing? Why can’t there be nuance.

This conservative thinks:
* Man is causing SOME of the warming
* There is no evidence the warming is currently dangerous let alone catastrophic
* There is no evidence things will get bad if warming reaches +2c (let alone +1.5c) over 1850 temps
* Few of the promises made in Glasgow will be kept.
* Accepts that the Transient Climate Sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is somewhere around 2c but that we’ll never get to a doubling of CO2 from estimated 1850AD levels.

The whole thing is performance art with the nett effect being the transfer of wealth from the already poor to the already wealthy.

My guess is that most of the so-called deniers would go along with that. That is, they don’t deny that warming is occurring and is partially caused by CO2e but that the problem is wildly exaggerated

Oh LEGO if you think I am going to engage with someone who expects to be taken seriously when they publicly proclaim that climate change is as big a con as "...racial equality, or the so called stolen generations..." you are sadly mistaken. I strongly suggest that rather than all the reading and brain development you claim to have done, perhaps you could do some soul searching and discover some humanity.

Of course you do not want to cross swords with me, Aries54. Like any good trendy lefty, you are required by peer group pressure to simply accept all of those concepts as indisputable facts. To question them would be heresy. It would violate your compulsive need to believe that you are a genuine member of the Brahmin caste, a class who possesses unmatched intellectual and moral superiority. Your need for a positive self esteem about yourself trumps any wish to impartially examine facts. And when somebody like me comes along and throws a spanner into your whole clunky belief system, it frightens you and you shrink away. Not without tossing a few insults as you back out of the arena though, as a way to maintain your ruffled dignity.

Come on Aries54. Man up. Try putting your precious values to the test by putting yourself up against a switched on opponent. If you wont do that, then everybody reading our posts will know that your beliefs are so poorly rooted in any reasoned argument or verifiable fact, that you fear to defend that which you so passionately champion. All you want to do is to chant the champagne socialist mantras while thinking this displays your shining virtue, your high intellect, and your membership of a superior class of people.

The planet warms and cools every thousand years and that is a verifiable fact. We are in a warming period, right now, and a bunch of public servants who know how ignorant of history people like you are, knew how to make a perfectly natural event resemble the End of Times, and present themselves as the new Saviours of the World.

And they knew how to make people like you believe in their greedy self interest. Just present the case for HIGW as a cause which the young Brahmins can use to display to the grotty working and disadvantaged classes how brilliant they are, and to the middle and upper classes (who are usually their parents), how morally superior they are, and they would gulp at it, hook, line, and sinker.

LEGO - The list of people you don't like is growing. From races not your own, aboriginal children stolen from their homes, young socialite socialists, chardonnay socialists, trendy lefties, and now it's the Brahmin caste. Unfortunately for you, your targets are so boringly predictable. Spoiler alert - chardonnay is so last decade. Get with the programme man, it's oat milk, turmeric latte now.

My wise old father, now long gone, once said never argue with drunks or idiots. Your long winded rants prove the wisdom of his words.

One of the dumbest comments I've read is:

"I mean it's simple, if Australia doesn't step up on this issue then other countries will penalise our exports by placing a carbon tariff on them."

Bollocks, most of our product goes to those with worse records than Aus, and export more taxable products to us on which we could tax.

Also this 'carbon tax' does not comply with WTO rules.

Dear mhaze,

Well that got a laugh. Really? Your failures with Covid statistics are infamous. This still very much holds:

“mhaze's approach to statistics:

"I see people wearing winter coats and hats. What a bunch of sheep! LOL! I did my own research and found out that only 1500 people die from hypothermia in the US per year. That's only 0.0005% of the population. They live in fear of something that 99.9995% of people won't die from. It gets better, a lot of the people who died from hypothermia were wearing coats and hats, and they still died! Coats don't work!"”

And here you are putting your foot in it yet again, still not fully reading nor understanding the article before cherry picking from it.

The adjustment isn't meant for historical comparisons like Spencer is doing at all.

But rather:

“NCEI generates the official U.S. normals every 10 years in keeping with the needs of our user community and the requirements of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and National Weather Service (NWS). The 1991–2020 U.S. Climate Normals are the latest in a series of decadal normals first produced in the 1950s. These data allow travelers to pack the right clothes, farmers to plant the best crop varieties, and utilities to plan for seasonal energy usage. Many other important economic decisions that are made beyond the predictive range of standard weather forecasts are either based on or influenced by climate normals.”

Short term stuff.

But as your link clearly states:

“However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”

This is an example from the Canadian government site:

“Departures are calculated by subtracting the 1961 to 1990 reference value from the annual average.”
http://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/temperature-change.html

Hung by your own petard old chap.

Lol.