Global boiling? The boiled brains of people still banging on about the myth of carbon dioxide and climate change is the problem.

I recently saw an interview of a character claiming to be a doctor who handed out certificates for brainwashed (or boiled-brain) school kids. When made to look like the idiot he was by the interviewer, he just laughed maniacally, revealing missing teeth. This is the sort of nutter that is sending kids around the twist. Their problems are not climate change, but the lying lunacy of psychopaths about climate change, which is perfectly natural as we get further away from the last ice-age.

Have the sh-t for brains kids had the chance to hear the alternative claims that there is a dangerous lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Or any other opinions contrary to those of the wackjobs and Communist teachers’ unions?

Of course they haven't.

My goodness the climate deniers are having to work overtime aren't they.

Perhaps they are just looking to get in before the El Nino weather really bites.

Perth has clocked record setting temperatures this month.

"Perth weather smashing November records with first extremely severe heatwave warning issued in history"
http://thewest.com.au/news/wa/perth-weather-smashing-november-records-with-first-extremely-severe-heatwave-warning-issued-in-history-c-12630992

As it did in September.

"Perth sets new September temperature record amid 'searing air mass'"

http://www.9news.com.au/national/western-australia-weather-geraldton-sets-september-temperature-record-38-degrees/f1d8d968-773c-40a3-8916-7c9300f3f6ad

And some hard right flog of an ex-reporter types up his little denial piece sitting in the comfort of his Noosa retirement village.

But truthfully it is pretty hard to feel any anger, or even disappointment at the idiocy. Now it is just pity.

At least he will find some similarly afflicted idiocy here on OLO.

Because they have no vote, their strikes are a complete waste of time!

As for the authors CO2 numbers? It looks as though he (Fossi fuel flunky) has massaged them or selectively chosen some Authors whose numbers are equally suspect?

Current CO2 numbers have never been higher and are in uncharted territory! Climate caused catastrophises have never been worse in living memory!

We need to transition to nuclear power yesterday! Preferably MSR thorium and 3 cents PKWH! And electrify the economy ASAP!

No harm will ensue, and the economy will get a huge boost and inflation will be killed in its tracks!

Neither of the two outcomes seem to be on the author's wish list!
Alan B.

WTF?

School children are probably not going to sway the general public but it does show an interest in topical subjects.

The author quotes:

"Recently published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that there has not been global warming for the past eight years. "

The article was published on 4 February 2023.

This is, however, what the NOAA states on 4 June 2023:

"A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years."

I trust the information from the NOAA long before an article claiming to present information from NOAA that the NOAA refutes.

I wonder how many of these people "striking for climate" will go on to parent 2 or more little resource consumers thus contributing to their own demise.

I hate to burst the bubble of a few climate alarmists commenting here but a few hot days in Perth does not constitute a climate emergency (check the link to Jennifer Marohasy's article on temperature homogenising and expunging of old records), I do not live "in a Noosa retirement village" but close to the sea with million dollar views, and the list of past higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - some at least 10 times present levels - is a direct quote from Wikipedia. But I do support modern nuclear technology as a better solution to a non-problem than our present mad rush to costly and unreliable renewables which is destroying rainforests, koala habitat and productive farmland to "save the planet".
However, if you wish to join the climate nutters like Extinction Rebellion, go buy your superglue..

The author refers to a series of failed predictions of the climate alarmists. But this is really like shooting fish in barrel. Its just too easy.

We've now had half a century of climate alarmism filled with all sorts of predictions about what is in store for humanity. So very many of these predictions have fallen by the wayside that it'd take the felling of several forests to comprehensively list them.

But still the alarmists just carry on as though the most recent predictions are gospel and will most definitely come to pass.

Beware folks!. The end is nigh. (or nigh-ish).

Dear Mikkoi2,

Presumably you are the author of this turgid piece.

Fair enough. Let's see how you respond to the following.

There were two major peaks of CO2 concentrations during the Jurassic period.

Early on the sea levels were equivalent to where they are now but tracking with the increases in CO2 the sea levels rose remarkably within the period.

"During the latest part of the Toarcian, the sea level again dropped by several tens of metres. It progressively rose from the Aalenian onwards, aside from dips of a few tens of metres in the Bajocian and around the Callovian–Oxfordian boundary, peaking possibly as high as 140 metres above present sea level at the Kimmeridgian–Tithonian boundary. The sea levels falls in the late Tithonian, perhaps to around 100 metres, before rebounding to around 110 metres at the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary."

Further:

"During the Toarcian Warm Interval, ocean surface temperatures likely exceeded 30 °C, and equatorial and subtropical (30°N–30°S) regions are likely to have been extremely arid, with temperatures in the interior of Pangea likely in excess of 40 °C."

Wikipedia

This is obviously the kind of trends one would expect and except to the most ideologically tainted we can see some of that now.

Why do you remain so steadfastly wilfully ignorant of this?

Either grow up or fade away.

I don't support any kids taking days off school to go to any protests.
I don't even support it when its an issue I agree with.

It's a students job to go to school to learn, not be indoctrinated and then used for political purposes.

There's a reason we don't let 10 year olds vote.

As for glueing oneself to a road...
All I can say is 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes'

Elderly lawyer shoots dead two climate protesters blocking highway
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lawyer-shoots-two-protestors-panama-b2445820.html

They wanted to screw around and mess with other people going about their day.
They got unlucky and messed with the wrong person.

Poorer by the day education fostered by insipid Academia has brought on this dilemma that’ll plague Western society for generations !

"Why do you remain so steadfastly wilfully ignorant of this?"

How do you know he doesn't know about this? Perhaps he, like the rest of us, thought that what happened 187Ma is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

Meanwhile.... "Significant 21st century cooling in the Central Pacific, Eastern Pacific, and nearly all of Antarctica “implies substantial uncertainties in future temperature projections of CMIP6 models.” – Zhang et al., 2023"

West Antarctica cooled by -1.8°C from 1999-2018. In spring, the cooling rate reached -1.84°C per decade.

"Of 28 CMIP6 models, none captured a cooling trend – especially of this amplitude – for this region. This modelling failure “implies substantial uncertainties in future temperature projections of CMIP6 models.”

I'd explain the significance of such modelling failures, but we are talking with SR here, so not real point.

Still, as regards WTF's competing papers, we should point out the significance of the recent cooling trend isn't so much the actual quantum of the cooling but the way it calls into question the accuracy of the models. In the end, this whole stupid scare is based on computer model forecasts. But if the models fail to accurately reflect recent temps then their accuracy is dubious. In the same way as Zhang et al point out that the models failed to reflect the SH cooling, many said models failed to see the recent cooling. If the models can't even show accuracy about the recent past, why should we treat them as anything other than interesting toys for the forecasts about the distant future?

Even Albanese's education minister has advised the naive, brainwashed children to get educated if they want to change the world.

No wonder an increasing number of grandparents are contributing to private school education to keep their grandchildren out of the clutches of the Communist teachers' unions.

Post-truth mhaze,

Firstly go read the article for once. The author was the one who raised the Jurassic period not me so it is entirely relevant to the discussion.

As to your paper are we really going to do the 'earth is cooling since 1998' dance you tried on years ago? What a cockup that turned out to be.

The paper you are quoting concludes: "However, for the four seasons, only the spring 20-yr box windowed cooling was statistically significant at the confidence level of p < 0.05."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/104/6/BAMS-D-22-0153.1.xml#fig1 (see referencing really isn't that hard).

So one season, in an area which has been warming at twice the global rate, has a significantly significant cooling period and you are all cock and hoop?

Get a life.

Perhaps if the tin lids were better educated and not brainwashed by green advocates, they might realize that coal fired power is powering inflation, destroying our manufacturing sector and our economy.

That the only viable choice for a prosperous future and economy, is nuclear as either SMRs or MSR thorium or MSR nuclear waste burners burning nuclear waste others pay us annual millions to take of their hands.

It's a no brainer that the latter s walk away safe and reduces the half-life of the waste to 4-300 years instead of thousands as now.

It's their future these ideologically motivated air heads are trying to f#ck! And should be condemned in the strongest possible terms as the ignorant brainwashing imbeciles they most assuredly are!?
Alan B.

Standard SR in one post.

First he makes up stories about me using 1998 as a crux year. I can show multiple posts where I specifically abjured using the date. But with SR, the truth runs a distant second.

Then he claims that my posts on the previous hiatus were a cock-up. I can show numerous threads where I had to educate SR on the causes and actuality of the millennial hiatus. But with SR, the truth runs a distant second.

What the hell, here's an example of SR's historic cluelessness on this.... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314301

Meanwhile, last year's Nobel Physics prize winner, Dr. John Clauser has come out against the idiotic notion that there is a climate emergency. “There is no climate crisis! … Much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril.”

Why is he so wilfully ignorant of what happened 187Ma?

"Get a life."

I have a life. An infinitesimally small fraction of it is having fun pointing out your idiocies.

It's also a trait of the new climate change religion zealots such as the minority here, that they resort to personal slurs while trying to justify their beliefs that we really are facing a climate catastrophe and current dire warnings are more legitimate than those of decades past. The only thing that changes is the goal posts which get moved further out whenever a forecast tragedy fails to eventuate. Of course "climate change" is real, it's been happening since before the dinosaurs ruled the Earth and it always will happen despite any puny attempts to limit the tiny amount of a trace gas that is essential to all life on the planet. And BTW, as former chief scientist Alan Finkel admitted some years ago, if Australia cut it's tiny contribution (about 1.2% of the global total) immediately, it would have negligible effect on world climate.

Newly elected Argentine President, Javier Milei, has called climate change a "socialist hoax". Fifty six percent of Argentinians agree with him - possibly many more who voted for other people for different reasons. Fewer and fewer people these days bother themselves with the natural process of climate change. It's well down on the list of Australian's concerns in any polls you look at.

Is indoctrination irreversable ?

Hey Indyvidual, re "is indoctrination irreversible", maybe we should capture and store it, bottle it or tax it and limit it to 2 degrees this century!

Dear Mikko2,

What a piss-weak reply. A typical denier diatribe with the usual sloganeering and false bravado.

You could have at least acknowledged the fact that when CO2 levels where higher in the past they were inevitably accompanied with markedly higher sea levels and conditions over large swathes of the planet which would have been far less comfortable for human habitation.

But you dodged it completely.

Care to try again?

post-truth mhaze,

You are doing it too. Rather than addressing the fact that you are trying to claim the models are crap because the was one season on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf which has shown a statistically significant cooling for the 1999-2018 period, you completely ignore it to dredge up other material where you were shown to be torturing the statistics.

So what exactly do you think Zhang's paper shows?

It shows what Zhang says it shows. I've already covered it.

Decided to drop the issue of your previous embarrassments on this issue?...good idea.

Mhaze, I wouldn't lose any sleep over SR's typical woke left diatribe. Suffice to say that ancient ice cores have revealed that higher CO2 levels have always followed periods of warming - QED they are not driving it. But don't let inconvenient facts like that get in the way of a good scare campaign to frighten our kids and grandkids.

Dear Mikko2,

You really don't want to go there do you.

Higher CO2 levels in the past have seen pronounced increases in sea levels a hundred metres higher than current levels.

Zero comment on this fact from you. It is obvious why not, your house of cards comes tumbling down pretty quickly if you concede what is historical data doesn't it.

You really are a dodgy as hell.

Post-truth mhaze,

At your insistence I have gone back and look at the thread you linked to and it brought back some fond memories of me schooling you on what statistical significance was.

Quote

You are a funny guy.

Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics.

You do realise as you drop the time frame you will inevitably increase the error margin thus trends become no longer 'statistically significant' purely because a narrower time parameter was selected.

Try it for yourself on your climate sceptic mates UAH data set. From 1980 until now the trend is 0.142 with an error band of plus or minus 0.067 degrees centigrade per decade therefore statistically significant.

Now split it up taking 1980 to 1999 (Trend: 0.119 ±0.196 °C/decade) then 1998 to 2015 (Trend: 0.070 ±0.199 °C/decade). Would you look at that, the statistical significance has disappeared.

This is very basic stuff mate. Pretty hard to take you seriously if you can't grasp it.

End quote

That was back when you could at least present some form of coherent argument. Now it is all tinfoil stuff.

Tell yourself what you must SR. Selectively quote all you want SR. I know you are very anxious and willing to deceive yourself about your relative accuracy.


When SR doesn't provide a link, you can take it to the bank that he has something to hide. He quotes from one of his more inane posts from the period and doesn't provide a link because it would then be possible to see his argument decimated in my follow-up post. Or perhaps he doesn't know how to get such links....I'll give him a helping hand.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314254

mhaze as well as being hung up on past sea levels, he can't disagree and debate without the typical slurs of climate cult doomsayers. Obviously sea levels have been much higher, as evidenced by marine fossils in limestone caverns which were once coral reefs, now hundreds of metres above current sea levels and also in central Australia which was once an inland sea. As well as proving that reefs thrived back then with much higher CO2 levels, it does nothing to support the claims we are now in an era of "global boiling" as the kids are being indoctrinated.
And when there is clear physical evidence in the ancient ice cores that warmer temperatures always preceded any increase in CO2 by many years (hundreds) it's obvious CO2 did not cause the warming.

post-truth mhaze,

Well that had me in stitches.

My argument decimated? ROFL.

Firstly why did I need to provide a link to a thread you had already linked to? Utterly inane accusation.

And this was my comprehensive reply to you:

Quote

Oh my dear mhaze,

Now you are just camping it up.

You didn't show me a pause because there isn't one.

From your link;

Degrees C warming per Decade

Land/Ocean
HadCRUT4 - Trend: +.084
NOAA - Trend: +.121
Karl(2015) - Trend: +.121

Global
GISTEMP - Trend: +.123
Berkeley - Trend: +.098
HadCRUT4 krig v2 - Trend: +.098
Karl(2015) global - Trend: +.134

Land
Berkeley - Trend: +.134
NOAA - Trend: +.151

Satellite
RSS - Trend: -.027
UAH - Trend: +.076

So 10 data sets showing upward trends in global temperatures, only 1 showing a negative trend. 6 of the 10 actually show a trend above .12 degrees which perfectly reflects the predicted .13 rate.

End quote.

Something you really never addressed fully did you.

Anyway how is this quote from you going?

“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 13 December 2007

Dear Mikko2,

Tut, tut. You poor thing. Some anonymous bloke on a backwater forum calls you out on a ridiculous article and you sook up.

Your article contained disparaging remarks such as "perpetual alarmists" "The sickest aspect" "dodgy computer modelling". I'm just returning the favour.

Your article directly quoted Wikipedia"

"Concentrations of CO2in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.[4]Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2concentrations peaked at approximately 2,000 ppm during the Devonian (400&#8201;Ma) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200&#8201;Ma) period and was four times current levels during the Jurassic period (201–145 Ma).[16][17]"

With the implication that rising CO2 levels were nothing to worry about.

But at least you have acknowledged the higher sea levels even though you haven't directly related them to higher levels of CO2. Some progress at least.

Are you prepared to acknowledge the current increase in CO2 has been and will continue to contribute to sea-level rises or not?

"Something you really never addressed fully did you."

Well I did. I pointed out that that when you give trend lines you need to give a start end end date which you didn't do because you ("then and now" ) didn't/don't understand the nature and significance of trend lines.

I do recall that after you'd been utterly eviscerated you were left with a post that read "LOL" because you had nothing of substance to refute my points whereupon you exited the thread, suitably chastised.

What can be drawn from this is that, back at the time of your original embarrassment, I was pointing out that the significance of the so-called pause was that it invalidated the models. You never understood that. And what this latest paper is doing is showing the limitations of the models. You'll never understand that.

And since this whole, stupid scare is based on models, invalidated models does rather put a dent in the scare. You'll never understand that.

" now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period,".
Well it's nice to see you trolling trough my past posts to try to further your education on the subject. Keep trying.

Multi-decade means many decades. If you find a 10 year old with a calculator you'll find out that means 30 or 50 or 70 years. Not 15. Numbers always did bamboozle you, didn't they.

In a word SR. No!

This forum is being ruined by paid Labor party operatives, using the facilities of parliament to research & invent garbage to support the current narrative.

Is SR & now WTF reading from the lefty hymn book, or are they ones who wrote it?

I admire those who still continue to contribute.

Well said, Hasbeen!

post-truth mhaze,

Why is it with RWNJs that your accusations are most often confessions.

You said: "Well it's nice to see you trolling trough my past posts to try to further your education on the subject. Keep trying."

But it was you who trolled through my posts and then linked the 2015 thread in this one.

If you scroll down in that thread you will see me quoting you from 2007:

"A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction to get to where you are now admittedly takes some courage."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314366

It really is constant hypocrisy from you isn't it.

And why are you saying I don't use start and end dates when that is exactly what I did in the reference earlier in this and the 2015 thread. I will post it yet again:

Quote

"Try it for yourself on your climate sceptic mates UAH data set. From 1980 until now the trend is 0.142 with an error band of plus or minus 0.067 degrees centigrade per decade therefore statistically significant.

Now split it up taking 1980 to 1999 (Trend: 0.119 ±0.196 °C/decade) then 1998 to 2015 (Trend: 0.070 ±0.199 °C/decade). Would you look at that, the statistical significance has disappeared.

This is very basic stuff mate. Pretty hard to take you seriously if you can't grasp it."

End quote

But you certainly didn't here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314034

Dear Mikko2,

So you think those calling out your bunkum are somehow paid Labor party operatives as asserted by the confused old bloke Hasbeen?

Bloody hell. Why on earth would they waste their time. it isn't as though your offerings wouldn't be dismissed by 95% of the country already.

You really do have an inflated opinion of yourself don't you.

Well SR, we all know your assumption that any dim-witted assertion you make automatically becomes fact, but (and please sit down for this) is ain't so.

Just because you say in 2015 that I'd held certain views in 2007 doesn't make it so. No, really it doesn't. You'll have to trust me on this. Indeed when you made your assertions in 2015 I pointed out then that you were wrong and pointed out that none of the quotes you dug up from 2007 supported your assertions. You then dropped it, suitably chastised. A shame you can't recall that.

"And why are you saying I don't use start and end dates..."

I was referring to this post from you... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314263

Did you not find it in the links or were you so embarrassed by it that you tried to pretend it didn't exist? Anyway, this was the post that had trends but no dates which in turn demonstrated that you really had no understanding of how trends worked. If you scroll down from that post you'll see my post which ripped your assertions to shreds, whereupon you screamed "lol" and prompted fled the thread.... as usual.

I know you don't want to return to the main point here, but I'll mention it anyway. Back in 2015, I was pointing out that the so-called hiatus called the models into question, and the Zhang paper does likewise. This is significant because the whole stupid scare is based on model predictions. If I keep saying it you might absorb it.

post-truth mhaze,

In the very same thread you wrote:

Quote

Based on the Argo data for depths 0 - 2000 metres:
Trend for Pacific Ocean - +.009 degrees /decade.
Trend for North Atlantic Ocean - +.007 degrees /decade.
Trend for Indian OCean - +.067degrees / decade.

ie no statistically significant warming in any of those places.
This by the way is adjusted data. The raw data is even worse for your assertions. Sorry to confront you with real data but some of us think its rather important.

End quote

With nary a date in sight.

Lol.

As I asked earlier: "Why is it with RWNJs that your accusations are most often confessions."

Steely R could do us all a favour by just rusting away quietly in the salty air created by all those rapidly rising tides he is besotted about.

SR,

Re Argo. Context matters. Read the previous posts with 'ant' on this.

There was no need to post the Argo dates since we ('ant' and I) were using the full Argo data record, it being a then fairly new set of data.

Do try to keep up.

You, on the other hand, were cherry-picking start and end dates to achieve a preconceived outcome and, to try to hide that lie, refused to mention the actual start and end dates. And when called out, you scurried away with alacrity.

Funny how these protesters are now demanding for more fuel to be let into Palestine ?