Hehe - that climate change stuff
Discussion
They don't call it 'The Wet' for nothing.
I used to live in the Northern Territory and was there in 1998 when this happened. A cyclone crossed the coast and dumped its rain on the escarpment (a rock plateau) in Kakadu national Park. Nothing new, a regular occurrence for that time of the year, but this was a big one. Floodwaters in the Katherine Gorge rose 20.4 metres (67 feet!) in two days.
I landed there the night of the heaviest rain and when taxi-ing out watched the ashphalt on the apron blister and burst open under pressure from the water flowing underneath. We spent weeks flying in emergency supplies.
I used to live in the Northern Territory and was there in 1998 when this happened. A cyclone crossed the coast and dumped its rain on the escarpment (a rock plateau) in Kakadu national Park. Nothing new, a regular occurrence for that time of the year, but this was a big one. Floodwaters in the Katherine Gorge rose 20.4 metres (67 feet!) in two days.
I landed there the night of the heaviest rain and when taxi-ing out watched the ashphalt on the apron blister and burst open under pressure from the water flowing underneath. We spent weeks flying in emergency supplies.
Edited by Flintstone on Tuesday 4th January 21:31
TVR Moneypit said:
Guam said:
signia said:
fatboy b said:
Who is laughing at other's misfortune? I'm just pointing out that the climate change thing seems to be improving. 
Yss, if "improving" also means "more frequently occuring". Climate always changes (as evidenced by that pic)
At first it would be cold and snowy. Then it would change to damp but mild. Then to warm and sunny. Then damp but mild turning to cool. Then cold and snowy again.
Of course back then we hadn't invented this
Not that I'm in any way entering into the endlessly dreary and plentiful debates on these fora about Climate Change - merely pointing out it's been a funny old year/decade for weather in Australia.
Guam said:
thinfourth2 said:
But its just a localised event in australia so you can't take that as proof of anything.
Its not like there is a bridge in perth scotland that has the same markings
The locals must of driving alot of range rovers in 1814
Cracking Pic you should send that along with the Aussie one to Delingpole, I bet he uses them when they start screaming seeeeee "The models suggest more extreme weather" Its not like there is a bridge in perth scotland that has the same markings
The locals must of driving alot of range rovers in 1814
signia said:
fatboy b said:
Who is laughing at other's misfortune? I'm just pointing out that the climate change thing seems to be improving.
Yss, if "improving" also means "more frequently occuring". If there is some, and it would be interesting to see it, the results of 'more frequently occurring' (extreme weather of all types) is fewer deaths, so there's a result. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means fewer deaths. Somehow that makes Greens go blind before seeing Red.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1378-indur-...
yes it's referenced
signia said:
fatboy b said:
Who is laughing at other's misfortune? I'm just pointing out that the climate change thing seems to be improving.
Yss, if "improving" also means "more frequently occuring". turbobloke said:
Where's the evidence for more frequently occurring?
It was a slightly tongue in cheek response to the pic itself,... if you look at the dates they're getting closer (granted - you can't see if there are any under the water, nor higher up from more recent years.) ie. 1818 then 1954, then 1991, then obviously 2011. 136 years between the first and second, 37 between the second and third and only 20 between the recent.
Wasn't trying to make any lentilist suggestion
But assuming that change of 99 years then 17 continues at the same proportional rate, then I reckon the next one will be in 2.9 years time. deeps said:
signia said:
fatboy b said:
Who is laughing at other's misfortune? I'm just pointing out that the climate change thing seems to be improving.
Yss, if "improving" also means "more frequently occuring". Dr Reed F Noss of The Wildlands Project said:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
Awaits somebody with a Grade F GCSE in biology but no sense of humour w
king over a food websignia said:
fatboy b said:
Who is laughing at other's misfortune? I'm just pointing out that the climate change thing seems to be improving.
Yss, if "improving" also means "more frequently occuring". I'm getting old, and I no longer understand the scientific method. In days gone by, it was necessary to validate one's theory by making predictions, and then making observations that confirmed the theory.
Nowadays, it seems that you just have to be dumb enough to believe George Monbiot when he tells you that there is a concensus.
Nullius in Verbia.
Don
--
Don
--
signia said:
turbobloke said:
Where's the evidence for more frequently occurring?
It was a slightly tongue in cheek response to the pic itself,... if you look at the dates they're getting closer (granted - you can't see if there are any under the water, nor higher up from more recent years.) ie. 1818 then 1954, then 1991, then obviously 2011. 136 years between the first and second, 37 between the second and third and only 20 between the recent.
Wasn't trying to make any lentilist suggestion
But assuming that change of 99 years then 17 continues at the same proportional rate, then I reckon the next one will be in 2.9 years time. It's a well known fact that increasing co2 levels increase the frequency and severity of alarmist media reporting, as evidenced here. All of the computer models showed that this increase in reporting of normal weather events would increase in line with co2 levels. This has further been compounded by the gullible twonk feedback mechanism..... It's worse than we first thought in fact!
MilnerR said:
It's a well known fact that increasing co2 levels increase the frequency and severity of alarmist media reporting, as evidenced here. All of the computer models showed that this increase in reporting of normal weather events would increase in line with co2 levels. This has further been compounded by the gullible twonk feedback mechanism..... It's worse than we first thought in fact!
It's a perfect fit.It's all so clear to me now!
Where do I send my money?
ETA -
Edited by nelly1 on Wednesday 5th January 08:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff