philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 4:42pm:



You poor dumb Schmuck. You can't tell the difference between BOM and the Climate Council.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 4:42pm:



Wow and NOTHING to do with the El Nino and Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HT) eruption that is still having an impact.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/hot-spring-weather-bom-predicts-summer-sc...

But what you should really do is look at when BOM made their summary. Hint: 5 December.

The Conversation? 26 August.

The ABC? 8 November.

Both well before BOM's prognostications. You really are deficient.

lee wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:18pm:


The cause is Global Warming as stated in the article you posted....Look at the rising trend in temperatures accross the world....Do you claim the world is not warming Lee???

Thank you for confirming the BOM are correct!!!

Leroy wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:58pm:


It won't because you obviously do not think....Your proposal (Nobody elses) is to send of Nuclear Waste a couple of kilos at a time into space....The idea is idiodic and nobody would support such an idiodic proposal!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:


And you speak for everybody?.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:38pm:



According to NASA. Who believe CO2 is the control knob. But H2O is the dominant GHG and has a much greater control than any minor gas. CO2 is 420ppm is 0.042% of the atmosphere. Human emissions are about 4% of that 0.04%.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:38pm:



And? Please provide the link that PROVES CO2 is the cause. In fact it was after some delegates had left an IPCC meeting that the wording was changed to say there was a proven link, but never shown.



philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:38pm:


Well there is that possibility. However UK alone has a number of phantom sites.

"Science Shock: U.K. Met Office is “Inventing” Temperature Data from 100 Non-Existent Stations"

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-te...

And of course the uk met office can show annual temperatures back to 1850 with an accuracy of 7 decimal places. Of course back then they were using liquid-in-glass thermometers. Good luck getting 7 decimal places on those.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/HadCRUT.5.0.2.0/analysis/diagn...

And these days most of the temperatures are taken at airports, which are designed for aircraft and not climate, as they have inherent problems. And then there is homogenisation. Homogenistaion can't tell you what the temperature was yesterday, never mind a day 100 odd years ago.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:38pm:


Where did I do that? It was the Climate Council that you quoted, NOT BOM.

You are such a dick.

Leroy wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:


So nobody is stupid enough to send Nuclear Waste into Space for the reasons I quoted accept for you....You are such a dickhead!!!



By the way....Your links go nowhere???

https://space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/Space-Manufacturing-conference-12-111-D...

https://opinion.sites.northeastern.edu/2020/12/29/why-dont-we-send-nuclear-waste...

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:38pm:


Nope, AGW "climate porn", "existential threat" is crap. The world may be warming. The question is, if it is how much is mankind's contribution? The instruments are not ideally sited and distort things, so one cannot actually conclude anything.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:38pm:


You haven't shown any report from BOM. I haven't seen you post one on the ABC that was published after BOM released its projections. Timing is everything.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:38pm:


Well it is not individuals trying to eleminate fossil fuels, by edict. Then there are the billionaires who see great gain in touting renewables. Those billionaires like to fly private jets, and have an increased carbon footprint. But is only for elites, they want the rest to holiday at home or not at all.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 6:38pm:


And yet you haven't shown that is not what they did.

BTW - here is the story of Ben Santer and what was agreed and what was subsequently published by the IPCC.

"Agreed comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Santer’s replacements

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”


The second assessment report. 1995. Santer and others published a paper in 1996 that said the models were accurate. And we know now that they ain't. But publishing a paper after the event?