|
|
Post by Hugh Jorgan on Feb 18, 2023 22:09:17 GMT 12
Duckmaster, if there is more Climate changing gases in the atmosphere now then why was the 1938 flood worse than this one... and by a long way!
Explain this...
Sahora holds the world record for the highest rainfall received in one year after the village received 1,041.8 inches of rainfall in the 12 months between August 1st, 1860 and July 31st, 1861...
Why is it a record not surpassed with all the new carbon and methane in the atmosphere,
Also... The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 °C (134.1 °F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States
That's over 100 years ago ! Why has that never been beaten in all this globall warming
Same with...
The Coldest Temperature Ever Recorded. On July 21st, 1983, Vostok Station experienced the coldest air temperature ever recorded on Earth, a bone-chilling -128.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 18, 2023 22:15:37 GMT 12
Lol DM. Spoken like a classic hysterical climate alarmist.
Yes it comes as no suprise that you are up to speed with the man made climate change bible and that you are praying to the climate gods (aka the UN) to lock us up in smart cities and remove all our personal freedoms in the name of saving the planet.
I prefer a more ballanced view on climate trends like that of the retired Director general of NZ's DSIR David Kear. There are plenty more scientists like him that haven't been indoctrinated from their very first day at uni or corrupted by the dollar.
Unbiased scietists while becoming quite rare do still exist however you have to go looking for them as they don't get any airtime in MSM.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 18, 2023 22:37:07 GMT 12
This is a good article that shows NZ central and local government climate policies are based on flawed modeling. Modeling that even the UN has now rejected. www.nzcpr.com/climate-change-alarmism/ |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 18, 2023 22:59:21 GMT 12
The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 °C (134.1 °F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States
That's over 100 years ago ! Why has that never been beaten in all this globall warming There's a lot of controversy about this official world record. For the record (pun intended) Prior to 2013, the all-time hottest temperature in world history was a 136.4 degrees Fahrenheit (58.0°C) reading from Al Azizia, Libya, in 1923. But this was decertified by the World Meteorological Organization in 2013. With the Libya record abandoned, the official world record was given to a 134 degrees Fahrenheit (56.7C) measurement taken at Death Valley on July 10, 1913. Comprehensive studies have concluded that official readings of 134, 130, and 131 degrees Fahrenheit taken on July 10, 12, and 13, 1913 were most likely the result of an inexperienced observer. In order for the 1913 Death Valley record to be decertified, though, an official WMO investigation committee would have to be assembled to look into the matter, a years-long process for which there is currently no motivation. While the 1913 value is officially the hottest world record it is not the hottest reliably measured world record.
That record belongs to Furnace Creek as well, where the visitor Center hit 130.0F (54.4C) on July 9, 2021, beating the previous reliably measured world record of 129.9 degrees Fahrenheit (54.4C), set at the same location on August 16, 2020. Back 1913 the systems, processes and methods to verify and peer review the recordings simply didn't exist. The importance of the recording was unknown at the time so there can be no reliability of the reading. Today the WMO has complex processes in place to ensure readings are accurate before they certify them, this process can and has taken over 12 months. In 1913 there was no WMO or even the UN. Just a guy with clipboard writing down numbers with no idea of the wheels he was setting in motion if he got it wrong. I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself if the 1913 world record (like the 1923 Lybia record) could have been recorded in error. A lot of people far more qualified than either you or me think so. But don't let that create a bias for you, research the facts and decide for yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2023 5:54:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 19, 2023 6:25:52 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 19, 2023 6:33:07 GMT 12
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2023 7:09:25 GMT 12
Might be 20c downtown Auckland but stand in the right spot with the heat/sun reflecting off High rise buildings and you can get 25c+. We must of had one the coolest summers yet in NZ,South island Alexander use be constant over 30c now high 20s. Rangiora in Canterbury holds the record maximum of 42.4 °C recorded in 1973, with Christchurch recording 41.6 °C in that same year. More recently, Timaru reached 41.3 °C on Waitangi Day in 2011. Cooling?? Never mind Sabre,ducky will be along with more of his B/S |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 8:01:36 GMT 12
Never mind Sabre,ducky will be along with more of his B/S Actually no. I cannot really talk about those other things as I don't know and would have to go and research them. I was quite well versed on the Death Valley one. I visited Death Valley in late 2021 and there was a huge display on the wall all about it. What I can tell you is these organisations that accept records into the record books are now meticulous about ensuring that there was no outside natural influence. Eg if more trees and plants are planted around a recording station then it will effect the temperature because plants have a cooling effect. I might go look at the antarctica one. Don't know anything about that and it interests me. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 8:11:34 GMT 12
I thought this was just because of La Nina? The whole South Pacific has been colder as a result of La Nina but not as cold as it has been in past La Nina events. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 9:36:18 GMT 12
This is a good article that shows NZ central and local government climate policies are based on flawed modeling. Modeling that even the UN has now rejected. www.nzcpr.com/climate-change-alarmism/Out of curiosity what would you prefer that they base it on? RCP8.5 is often referred to as a "business as usual" scenario, as it assumes that no significant policy changes are made to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note, however, that RCP8.5 is not a prediction or a forecast of future emissions, but rather a hypothetical scenario that helps researchers explore the potential impacts of different levels of emissions on the climate system. There has been some controversy around RCP8.5, with some critics arguing that it is unrealistic or overly pessimistic. Some researchers have argued that it is based on outdated assumptions about economic and technological trends, and that it does not reflect the potential for rapid advances in renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies. However, many climate scientists believe that RCP8.5 remains a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and that it is still possible that emissions could follow a similar trajectory in the absence of more ambitious climate policies. Governments and policymakers use a range of different scenarios, including RCP8.5, to inform their climate change policies and decisions. The reason RCP8.5 is sometimes used is that it represents a plausible and relatively extreme scenario of what could happen in the absence of significant efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Although RCP8.5 is sometimes criticized for being overly pessimistic or outdated, it is still considered a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and for highlighting the urgent need for strong climate action. By considering a wide range of scenarios, including both optimistic and pessimistic ones, policymakers can better understand the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change, and develop policies that are robust and adaptable in the face of different future outcomes. It is worth noting, however, that many governments and organizations also use a range of other scenarios that reflect different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and different degrees of climate action. These scenarios are often based on more up-to-date data and assumptions about economic and technological trends, and can provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the potential impacts of climate change and the costs and benefits of different policy options. Your assumption that all NZ policy is based on this controversial hypothetical projection is fundamentally flawed. Even the article you linked doesn't suggest that. |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 19, 2023 9:54:28 GMT 12
This is a good article that shows NZ central and local government climate policies are based on flawed modeling. Modeling that even the UN has now rejected. www.nzcpr.com/climate-change-alarmism/Out of curiosity what would you prefer that they base it on? RCP8.5 is often referred to as a "business as usual" scenario, as it assumes that no significant policy changes are made to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note, however, that RCP8.5 is not a prediction or a forecast of future emissions, but rather a hypothetical scenario that helps researchers explore the potential impacts of different levels of emissions on the climate system. There has been some controversy around RCP8.5, with some critics arguing that it is unrealistic or overly pessimistic. Some researchers have argued that it is based on outdated assumptions about economic and technological trends, and that it does not reflect the potential for rapid advances in renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies. However, many climate scientists believe that RCP8.5 remains a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and that it is still possible that emissions could follow a similar trajectory in the absence of more ambitious climate policies. Governments and policymakers use a range of different scenarios, including RCP8.5, to inform their climate change policies and decisions. The reason RCP8.5 is sometimes used is that it represents a plausible and relatively extreme scenario of what could happen in the absence of significant efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Although RCP8.5 is sometimes criticized for being overly pessimistic or outdated, it is still considered a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and for highlighting the urgent need for strong climate action. By considering a wide range of scenarios, including both optimistic and pessimistic ones, policymakers can better understand the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change, and develop policies that are robust and adaptable in the face of different future outcomes. It is worth noting, however, that many governments and organizations also use a range of other scenarios that reflect different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and different degrees of climate action. These scenarios are often based on more up-to-date data and assumptions about economic and technological trends, and can provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the potential impacts of climate change and the costs and benefits of different policy options. Your assumption that all NZ policy is based on this controversial hypothetical projection is fundamentally flawed. Even the article you linked doesn't suggest that. I really do have better things to do than debate with climate change armeggedon cult members but this is a worthy take away from the article which contradicts what you have just said after reading the same article..... The RCP8.5 scenario and its SSP5-8.5 successor assumes the world is going to massively increase emissions of greenhouse gases by intensifying its future consumption of coal by 500 percent. It is actually an impossible scenario. To achieve it would mean that coal would have to be used to generate all of the world’s energy – replacing natural gas, nuclear, and renewable generation, as well as replacing all fuels in the world’s transportation fleet. To do this would take more than all known reserves of coal. In reality, NIWA’s “business as usual” scenario is actually an improbable “climate Armageddon” scenario. And it is this that our government officials and politicians are using to justify the “climate emergency” and the suite of draconian policies that are being implemented to address it. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 12:01:49 GMT 12
Out of curiosity what would you prefer that they base it on? RCP8.5 is often referred to as a "business as usual" scenario, as it assumes that no significant policy changes are made to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note, however, that RCP8.5 is not a prediction or a forecast of future emissions, but rather a hypothetical scenario that helps researchers explore the potential impacts of different levels of emissions on the climate system. There has been some controversy around RCP8.5, with some critics arguing that it is unrealistic or overly pessimistic. Some researchers have argued that it is based on outdated assumptions about economic and technological trends, and that it does not reflect the potential for rapid advances in renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies. However, many climate scientists believe that RCP8.5 remains a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and that it is still possible that emissions could follow a similar trajectory in the absence of more ambitious climate policies. Governments and policymakers use a range of different scenarios, including RCP8.5, to inform their climate change policies and decisions. The reason RCP8.5 is sometimes used is that it represents a plausible and relatively extreme scenario of what could happen in the absence of significant efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Although RCP8.5 is sometimes criticized for being overly pessimistic or outdated, it is still considered a useful tool for exploring the potential impacts of high greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system, and for highlighting the urgent need for strong climate action. By considering a wide range of scenarios, including both optimistic and pessimistic ones, policymakers can better understand the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change, and develop policies that are robust and adaptable in the face of different future outcomes. It is worth noting, however, that many governments and organizations also use a range of other scenarios that reflect different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and different degrees of climate action. These scenarios are often based on more up-to-date data and assumptions about economic and technological trends, and can provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the potential impacts of climate change and the costs and benefits of different policy options. Your assumption that all NZ policy is based on this controversial hypothetical projection is fundamentally flawed. Even the article you linked doesn't suggest that. I really do have better things to do than debate with climate change armeggedon cult members but this is a worthy take away from the article which contradicts what you have just said after reading the same article..... The RCP8.5 scenario and its SSP5-8.5 successor assumes the world is going to massively increase emissions of greenhouse gases by intensifying its future consumption of coal by 500 percent. It is actually an impossible scenario. To achieve it would mean that coal would have to be used to generate all of the world’s energy – replacing natural gas, nuclear, and renewable generation, as well as replacing all fuels in the world’s transportation fleet. To do this would take more than all known reserves of coal. In reality, NIWA’s “business as usual” scenario is actually an improbable “climate Armageddon” scenario. And it is this that our government officials and politicians are using to justify the “climate emergency” and the suite of draconian policies that are being implemented to address it. RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) is not impossible, but it is considered to be a relatively extreme and unlikely scenario, given the current and projected trends in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. RCP8.5 assumes a future where there is a continued increase in the use of fossil fuels, resulting in very high greenhouse gas concentrations by the end of the century. While it is not impossible that emissions could follow a similar trajectory, there are several factors that suggest this is unlikely. These include: Recent trends in energy use: In many parts of the world, the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power is increasing rapidly, while the use of coal and other fossil fuels is decreasing. This suggests that emissions may not continue to increase at the same rate as in the past. Technological advances: There have been rapid advances in technologies such as electric vehicles, energy storage, and carbon capture and storage, which could help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Climate policies: Many countries have implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and energy efficiency standards. These policies are likely to have a significant impact on future emissions. Despite these factors, some researchers argue that RCP8.5 cannot be ruled out entirely, and that it is important to consider a wide range of scenarios, both optimistic and pessimistic, when developing policies to address climate change. It is worth noting, however, that the most recent scenarios developed by the IPCC, known as the "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways" (SSPs), assume lower greenhouse gas emissions than RCP8.5, reflecting recent trends in energy use and technological advances. It is difficult to say definitively whether it was a mistake to use RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) to produce climate policy, as different governments and organizations may have used the scenario for different reasons and in different ways. However, it is worth noting that RCP8.5 was developed as part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released in 2014. At the time, RCP8.5 was one of four scenarios developed by the IPCC to explore different potential trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions and their associated climate impacts. Since the release of AR5, there have been significant advances in our understanding of climate change, as well as changes in the political and economic landscape. Many governments and organizations now use a range of different scenarios to inform their climate policies, reflecting both the range of potential outcomes and the need for policy flexibility in the face of uncertainty. It is worth noting that climate policy decisions are complex and often require a balance between scientific, economic, social, and political considerations. While the use of RCP8.5 may have been appropriate in some cases, it is important to continue to update and refine our understanding of climate change, and to use the best available scientific information to inform policy decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 19, 2023 12:15:49 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 12:21:24 GMT 12
Hmmm... an 8 year old opinion piece by Joseph Bast who is funded by the fossil fuel industry. I cannot speak to any specific opinion piece, as there are many articles and opinion pieces that make various claims about the IPCC's latest report, and each must be evaluated on its own merits. However, it is important to note that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is widely recognized as the leading authority on climate science, and its reports are based on a rigorous and transparent process of scientific review and consensus-building. The IPCC's latest report, which was released in 2021, is based on a comprehensive review of the latest scientific research on climate change, and it provides an assessment of the current state of knowledge regarding the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to climate change. The report was authored by hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, and was subjected to extensive review and scrutiny by a range of stakeholders, including governments, experts, and members of the public. While it is possible that some individuals or organizations may disagree with certain aspects of the report or its conclusions, it is important to approach any criticisms or concerns with a critical eye, and to evaluate them in light of the available evidence and the scientific consensus. The IPCC report is widely considered to be an authoritative and evidence-based assessment of climate change, and it provides a critical foundation for efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Joseph L. Bast is a well-known climate change skeptic who has published a number of articles and reports through The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has been criticized for promoting climate change denial and downplaying the risks of global warming. The Heartland Institute has received funding from a number of fossil fuel companies and other industries that have a vested interest in opposing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Reconsidered series published by the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) is often cited by climate change skeptics as a counterpoint to the reports produced by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). However, the NIPCC is not a recognized scientific body, and its reports have been criticized for containing a number of inaccuracies, errors, and selective use of data. It is important to approach any information or opinions on climate change with a critical eye, and to evaluate them in light of the available evidence and the scientific consensus. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations around the world agree that global warming is real, largely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks to the environment, human health, and the economy. |
|
