Dear mhaze,

You wrote: “But you can't look at two dresses that might be .005cm different in length and determine that the temperature changed by .037K. That's effectively what you tried to do.”

No it is not. I equated a higher wattage with a higher temperature which was perfectly fine. Sure I should have tidied the language up a touch and said: "To have done that the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 BY 2.05e+10W."

Gas in the thermosphere is so thin it is incapable of conducting heat so temperatures exceeding a couple of thousand degrees register well below zero on a thermometer. Measuring the heat transfer is a perfectly robust indicator of temperatures.

Dear Aiden,

Just having a bit of fun mate.

Dear Hasbeen,

I have already posted this before with no response from you. Care to comment?

Quote.

Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote: “In South East Queensland we are having the coldest summer in my 30 years here. Days are about average, but I have never before seen everyone bearing jumpers on summer nights.”

Mate it must be your thinning blood because there isn't a single statistic which bears out what you are claiming.

The stats for Hervey Bay show the mean low temperature for January was 21.0 degrees. In 2016 it was 20.4. In 2003 it was 20.0 and in 2000 it was 20.7.

In December last year it was 21.8 which was higher than the year previously at 21.4, and the year before at 21.5, and the year before that at 21.0 and it goes on. In fact the last time it was higher was in 2009.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=040405

Perhaps you might like to give me another town nearby to check although a medical check might be advisable

You're still trying to talk yourself out of this SR? Seriously, just admit the error and move on.

I'm pretty sure you know you're wrong and just won't own up (we've seen it plenty of times before) but just in case, let's hit you over the head with logic yet again.

Power is NOT temperature. Its a proxy for temperature but its not a one to one relations. If the power levels drop by 0.1% it doesn't mean temperature drops by 0.1%.

Yet you specifically called the value of a power reading as being temperature. Its just wrong.

Take tree cores as another example. If the tree rings are wide apart it suggests the temperature was warmer than usual. And if they are close together, it suggest a cold period. But paleo-climatologists don't (repeat don't) say that they are the same. They are indicative proxies.

Imagine if a paleo-climatologist were to say because the tree ring in year 'A' was 1mm the temperature was 1mm. They'd be laughed out of town. Imagine if they doubled down and said the tree ring in year 'B' was 0.999996mm therefore it was colder in 'B' than 'A'.

They'd be thrown out of town.

That's what you've down SR. Used the measurement for one thing and called it another and then assumed a one-to-one relationship.

Take-away lesson - SR shouldn't take up paleo-climatology.

Dear mhaze,

ROFL.

This is so typical of you. You had nothing substantive to contribute as usual so you get fixated on an insignificant semantic point and like some drunkard prospector yell Eureka over a bit of fools gold.

And once again you mince and prance about all beside yourself with some faux smugness when you have nothing.

The authors were perfectly justified in framing their levels of cold, cool, neutral, warm and hot around the quintiles of thermal transfer of NO in the thermosphere and it is perfectly justified in this case in saying a higher wattage equates to a higher temperature.

So when you rabbit on with "Its a proxy for temperature but its not a one to one relations. If the power levels drop by 0.1% it doesn't mean temperature drops by 0.1%." it is irrelevant. No one said it was either. However a lowing in wattage directly equates to a lowering in temperature, something you are struggling to accept.

"I hate to say I told you so..."

Hey Hasbeen,

Yes I tried to tell them too.

Do you want to know who else tried to tell us?

Dr Suess did.
Yep and he departed 30 years back born in 1904.
Dr Suess could predict the future, I'm not lying:

See this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/anal-swab-china-coronavirus/2021/01/27/cc284f56-6054-11eb-a177-7765f29a9524_story.html

And now see this:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvqAJzOXcAkz1w7.jpg

In any case kids of tomorrow will never know, because Dr Suess books have been marked for the great book-burning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/dr-seuss-books-canceled-notebook/2021/03/02/b3496b98-7b55-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html

Of course it is warmer around the more built-up areas due to heat reflection & retention !

I installed my weather station when we moved here just over 29 years ago. I have rainfall figures since then, but I found a set kept by a 87 year old local dairy farmer & his father dating from 1920.

I also have the record posted by the local paper of official rainfall from 1896. The BOM hate such records, as it shows up the lies of their homogenization trickery.

Only have my own temperature records, max & min since 1992, but those are enough to put the lie to global warming. This summer has been about average max, but has been the coldest minimums in that 29 years by enough to make the average the coldest in 29 years.

I know of course you will scream weather not climate. Strangely you are one of the first to claim record highs are climate, not weather.

The fools at the BOM don't appear to be able to get anything right. Yet again this year we see a La Nina year producing well below average rainfall. 100mm below average here, & worries about Brisbanes dams getting very low, at the end of our wet season. Yet the BOM persists with claiming El Nina produce the wettest years. Just like some clowns actually believe global warming caused the Northern Hemisphere record cold.