Polar blast brings heaps of snow to the mountains, wild weather to the coast

Well, that’s Karl Herzog.

Nah, that’s all just a hoax from the left wing Egg overlords trying to convince you to pay more tax and install a new world order.

Didn’t you know they’ve falsified DNA records of egg shell in the vicinity? I read it on a blog, it must be true.

Any realist can deduce these facts by themselves with a couple of selective “scientific observations”*

*Google searches of ideologically preferred sources.

Penfold once again demonstrating that the culture wars memes don’t just cut & paste themselves. #NotScience

@Penfold
Well, Penfold – at least on this occasion, the fiction of your post is not of your own creation. Mind you – you probably want to broaden your goto reference materials beyond wikipedia and nursery rhymes

Well JS I had to resort to nursery rhymes to try to answer your question on how warming is the opposite of cooling.

Alas though I’ve failed again.

But are you saying the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme isn’t true ? Please provide peer reviewed evidence. 🤣🐣

The thing most notable about all these Humpty experts is their deep sense of humour and not taking themselves seriously.

Wonder if they’ll all be at the Egghibition 2025 later this year driving their Yolkswagens.

@Penfold
Oh dear 🤥
I never asked the question “how warming is the opposite of cooling”. You’ve obviously read so many fairytales about the non-existence of anthropogenic climate change, that you are making up your own fairy tales now 🤥

Penfold, your steps are quite unnecessary before you have confirmed the existence of at least one Humpty.

Breaking further steps down for you:
a) Which egg and when and where was the photo taken? Eye-witnesses? Is there potential tampering with the photograph?
b) Do you have prior DNA of Humpty with which to compare? Have you by chance located his cousin Numpty?
c) Gravity’s existence is a fact, as opposed to the gravitational theory of relativity. The problem is a theory of causes of gravity as opposed to behaviour. As yet unsolved.
d) Deft horses. I would not choose them for surgery myself. It is little wonder the patient died.
e) The King will fake this because it is sworn before the King. No use.

One must be careful with one’s assumptions.

Humpty Dumpty was not an egg. Penfold fails on the opening premise. The rest of the logic is irrelevant after that.

JS if you’re crediting me with the Humpty Dumpty fairy tale well I’m honoured.

You’ll love this big word – he’s described as an anthromorphic egg and dates back to the 1870’s. I’d have to be over 150 years old to have created him. Or Peter Pan.

Well speaking of fairy tales DJA, what makes you think Humpty wasn’t an egg ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty

You’re sounding like JS not knowing what warming and cooling are.

Axon – the only tampering I’m aware of was the BOM tampering with historic temperature records.

@Penfold
Yet again, you demonstrate you are incapable of reading comprehension, Penfold.

The fairy tale you created was that I asked the question “how warming is the opposite of cooling” 🤥 … it’s such a shame that they don’t have a bigger ‘pinocchio emoji’ to represent you.

PS The ‘story’ of Humpty Dumpty is not a fairy tale, it’s a nursery rhyme.
PPS If you are going to use big words, at least get it right … did you mean anthropomorphic?

Penfold
I know what warming and cooling are, Penfold – but I’m happy for you to offer your insight.

Especially, as I’m still waiting for to quote the passage from that Canberra Times article, which you cited, where it “declared that warming resulted in cooling”? 🤥

Penfold. Wrong.

Surprise.

You’ve nailed me there JS. Quite right, it’s not a fairy tail it’s a nursery rhyme.

Fairy tales are comments like “renewables are cheaper”.

@penfold: “what makes you think Humpty wasn’t an egg ?” Oh, just a modicum understanding of history and literature. Lewis Carroll was the writer that popularised HD as an egg (it is even in the Wikipedia article you referenced). A common interpretation is that Humpty Dumpty was a cannon. The other thing you should consider is that many nursery rhymes are allegories.
So, was the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty a riddle (answer probably egg), an allegory, or an allegory that was retconned into a riddle? My time machine is in the shop for a service, so I can’t go back and check.

@Penfold
Again fabricating your own version of what you want to believe is the truth, Penfold. Those of us with lived experience, of using renewable energy at home, can certainly attest, it’s no fairytale, that renewables are cheaper. There are numberof reports and analyses, not fairy tales, that also show the general use of renewables is cheaper. Would you like me to cite some?

Now, stating that the Canberra Times “declared that warming resulted in cooling”, that’s a fairy tale … oh unless you can show it did happen – which you seem unable to do so far 🤥

It’s a copy and paste from previous years. They just change the date and increase the temperature.

Apparently now it’s 2.1 degrees higher than 1961 to 1990. The IPCC reckon it’s 1.1 degrees from 1850 to 1900. Can’t even get their stories straight, just make it up as they go.

“It’s a copy and paste from previous years. They just change the date and increase the temperature.”

An adult posted this…there is no point debating science with a conspiracy theorist.

Yes CR, silly you. The Eskimo Pie doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry.

“I thought…”…. I only got this far started laughing. You’ve demonstrated time and again you don’t think about these topics Capital because no matter how much evidence is put before you it either goes over your head…or worse you know you’re wrong but like most culture warriors, facts are merely an inconvenience.

CR the thing most notable about all these climate experts is their deep sense of humour and not taking themselves seriously.

Wonder if they’ll all be off to COP30 later this year.

I also read somewhere Marxists shun humour.

What really worries me is that you and your fellow climate-change travelers are becoming fanatical behind the science you believe and we could end up with you in power in which case it could be history repeating itself as some ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice, believing it could influence the weather and appease deities associated with climate, such as rain gods.

These rituals were often performed during times of drought or other natural disasters.

They would go to an opening of an envelope if were free.

Capital Retro
Thankfully, CR, you and your ‘Catweazle mentality’ will never end up in power.

CR – inadvertently I think JS has just saved humanity and the planet.

All we need to do is find a way to manufacture polar vortexes and temperatures will fall.

Problem solved.

Marxists shun humour capital? You obviously didn’t hear the laughter ringing out all over Canberra from Labor party HQ when your mate Zed lost his “unlosable” senate seat. The laughter was even louder when the Libs were decimated at the recent federal election.

Us Marxists just can’t stop laughing!

If I were Dr Phil I would say “you need help, JS”

“I also read somewhere Marxists shun humour.”…the fact that you throw around the term “Marxist” when you clearly don’t understand it is funny enough.

@Penfold
You may be right, Penfold. Not having Capital Retro, or anyone associated with his ideological ilk, in power, could be the path to saving the planet.

I have to concede, that’s very percepftive you … shame you had to spoilt it, and follow. with your usual nonsensical drivel.

I didn’t read the article (don’t subscribe), but it’s hard to deny that something is affecting the climate when once in a century weather events are suddenly once a decade.

I’m going to be sensible about this and go with the consensus rather than some random guy who seems to have a solid answer for all this cities ills (like my first boss said to me, jack of all trades…)

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Please share your science credentials, I might listen in your waffle if they check out..

You don’t need a subscription to read the first few lines DM. And you don’t need any scientific credentials.

The concept that cooling is caused by warming shows the ridiculousness of the entire theory and hysteria.

@Penfold
It certainly is ridiculous that you are countering an argument that you have fabricated -i.e. that “cooling is caused by warming”.

As you well know, ‘global warming’ refers to the increase in earth’s average temperature – which is happening.

Nevertheless, you disingenuously (ignorantly?) state that the article reports “the cold snap is due to global warming”. This is a complete falsehood, as the article does not reference ‘global warming’ once – rather it correctly attributes extreme weather patterns to climate change or, more accurately, anthropogenic climate change.

We live in a democracy, so you are free to promulgate your denialist nonsense, but at least try not to fabricate the other side’s argument.

So now define “climate change” JS. And its cause. There’s only two dots to join.

This is another of your argument that black is white.

@Penfold
Seriously, Penfold? Are you incapapble of using google to look up the definition of climate change?

As for its cause? I referred to anthropogenic climate change – which is by definition derived from human activities … again google it if you need a fuller definition.

Yes, you are correct, my argument that you stated a falsehood is black and white – because it’s true.

Try the UN definition. It’s rool simple. Climate change is caused by global warming.

So warming causes cooling. But that conundrum is probably hard to understand in the fog of climate zealotry.

@Penfold
Oh you mean this UN page – https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change, Penfold?

Perhaps read it yourself. Amongst the compendium of science based information, you’ll see this statement:
“Many people think climate change mainly means warmer temperatures. But temperature rise is only the beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others.”

I look forward to your next attempt to promulgate your denialist falsehoods.

Yes i do love this climate change evangelism JS. So climate change, caused by global warming, in fact leads to cooling. And despite Al Gore telling us the rains would stop, it also means more rain. And it means more “extreme weather”, except there’s less extreme weather.

It’s really make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff. I wonder if in 50 years time when the whole religion has been completely debunked whether people will admit they’d been hoodwinked. It’s a bit like the church 400 years ago trying to deny science.

Well having zero understanding of science doesn’t stop you blabbering on Penfold, so shouldn’t stop anyone else having the same right.

Apparently you haven’t because you keep banging on about this issue as if you’re an authority when you’re actually demonstrably clueless.

Every major scientific body in the world accepts the fact of climate change and the urgent need to address it. Time to grow up.

How kind JS, though this stopped being about science years ago. It’s just about religion now.

Science tells us that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, Tuvalu is sinking not growing, there’s no examples of more extreme weather events, Fort Denision sea levels haven’t changed. When BOM “homogenised” historic temperatures (made them lower to make current temperatures appear higher) the game was up.

Here’s another one for you – the temperatures around solar panels at night are 3 – 4 degrees higher than the surrounds, so solar panels are responsible for pushing temperatures higher. All these are facts, dare you to look them up.

Here’s the UN on 26 June 1989:

“UNITED NATIONS (AP)—A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations”.

Coastal flooding, crop failures, eco-refugees, beyond human control. Well, we’re still waiting ….

Hey have you heard the one about the boy who cried wolf ?

Seano you’re funny. Despite the overblown nature of the entire climate religion, i happily accept climate change is real and man is partially responsible. Science tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases have warming properties.

But do you know another fact of which you evangelists are blissfully unaware – science can’t tell us how much CO2 increases will impact global temperatures. Just read any IPCC report. I’ve read them, highly unlikely you ever have. Here you go 🙂

https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

So ask yourself a question – if they have any idea on the relationship between CO2 and temperatures (other than “more”), why the need for five different “scenarios” ?

Name me two of those “major scientific bodies” in China, Seano.

Quoth Penfold, “you don’t need any scientific credentials” … for science.

Fear not Penfold, no-one will ever accuse you of having any scientific credentials, nor understanding thereof.

Standard Penfold red herring BS.

And this is a particularly idiotic comment:

“So ask yourself a question – if they have any idea on the relationship between CO2 and temperatures”

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.

What you’re doing, well the culture warriors you cut and paste this stuff from, are doing is the equivalent of saying “Well we know a planet killing asteroid will impact earth but Scientists can’t predict the precise location…therefore ….because I’m a genius named Penfold…it’s not a problem”.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

“Name me two of those “major scientific bodies” in China, Seano.”

Capital, you don’t have to beclown yourself, it’s not mandatory or anything but anyway what part of “every major scientific body in the world” is hard for your to understand?

If you have one that disputes climate change as a fact then name it.

@Penfold
One thing I have to concede about you, Penfold, is that you are consistent.

Like a metronome you persist with your drivel – referencing hyperbole as if it is fact.

What don’t you understand about the fact that ‘global warming’ refers to an increase in the average surface temperature of the earth? The fact that we have the odd cold spell, has a miniscule impact on that rise in average surface temperature. I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge the difference between weather (short-term atmospheric conditions) and climate (long-term trends), because that would go against your denialist doctrine.

Nevertheless, I suggest you investigate polar vortex displacement – particularly as it relates to the Arctic region, and which can send frigid air southward into regions like North America and Europe, causing unusual cold snaps. Or more appropriately, will allow you to understand how ‘global warming can lead to cooling’.

“It’s a bit like the church 400 years ago trying to deny science.”
Yet here you are, 400 years later, trying to deny science, and the plethora of studies supporting the reality of anthropogenic climate change today.

@Capital Retro
You could start with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the China Meteorological Administration, CR.

@Penfold
As usual, Penfold, you cherry pick single instances of anomalies – for which I have previously provided evidentiary explanations, as if you have miraculously debunked the whole science behind climate change.

Similarly, referring to over 30 year old hyperbole from administrators, proves nothing, other than they needlessly exaggerated a proven crisis.

And yes, we have all heard about the boy who cried wolf. Unfortunately, because the boy lacked credibility from his embellishing the facts, the wolf, which did actually exist, ate him. Fortunately, with respect to climate change, sensible scientists have been able to demonstrate it is real – despite the embellishment by administrators, which simply gives social media fodder to denialists like you.

Well JS once again to miss the entire point. Which was the Canberra Times actually claiming that one outcome of global warming (or climate change as it became known for convenience) is cooling. Either you didn’t read the first paragraph or you failed to understand the stupidity of it (it’s not paywalled btw):

“Far from being isolated incidents, these events are a reminder that climate change doesn’t just mean hotter summers or more bushfires. It also means more extreme cold events”.

Now we know all you climate evangelists have blinkers on with the width of a pin hole, but maybe ask any child whether warming means cooling. Or less rain means more rain.

I was referencing simple facts, so it’s a hoot you call them “hyperbole” then try to claim some scientific moral high ground. That has been the bedrock of climate science ever since we were told “the science is settled”. It was the bedrock of religion 400 years ago too.

Oh and i love how you now regularly insert the word “anthropogenic”, it sounds even more moralistic.

As for the UN, well they’ve been leading the charge on this hoax for 30 years. Unless you can tell us which of their 10 year predictions is even close to true after 30 years.

Seano is that 1.1 degrees with the fake temperature measurements or the real ones ? Here – lemme help – it’s the fake ones.

Why would any scientific body falsify temperature measurements ? That’s called fake news.

I have no doubt temperatures are slightly higher, but then Warragamba was overflowing too a couple of weeks ago.

Actually, the UN boss said it was now “climate boiling”.

They are all about historical research and modelling, no “proof” of anything.

BTW, it was -6 in Canberra last night.

Yes CR, climate boiling was a classic from the socialist UN chief. How much should we try to scare the kiddies. They should be ashamed of themselves and it’s further proof that they need to use silly language to reinforce the great hoax, or their relevance.

JS – “cherry pick single instances of anomalies” is also known as using scientific observation. It’s just observations that don’t align with the climate narrative.

Btw the Great Barrier Reef seems to be in pretty good shape too, despite the predications. Two of three zones had their highest coral cover ever last year.

https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/new-report-great-barrier-reef-shows-coral-cover-increases-onset-serious-bleaching-cyclones

Some might call that an inconvenient truth.

“Seano is that 1.1 degrees with the fake temperature measurements or the real ones ?”

Puerile Penfold. When you start the “everything I don’t like is a lie” nonsense your rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of the cookers. Ignoring the rest of your anti-science, fact free, logical fallacy inflected drivel.

“They are all about historical research and modelling, no “proof” of anything.”
Capital, can’t a name one major scientific body in the world that denies the reality and seriousness of climate change. As unsurprising as you running away from the point. Even your own statements are beyond dumb, the trend over time in the historic data is proof. Log off and go for a walk champ.

@Penfold
The stupidity of it, Penfold, is your ludicrous claim that the article is implying that warming is cooling – or whatever it is you are blithering about.

You keep on raising these anomalies that have previously been dealt with – by scientific analysis and explanation, which don’t in any way prove your ridiculous claims against anthropogenic climate change. You say GBR “seems to be in pretty good shape” because of recent regrowth, but as the real experts state, this is far from an indication that the reef is healthy, as the latest Outlook Report shows: https://www2.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/outlook-report-2024

There is nothing inconvenient about the truth – if you actually stuck to it, and didn’t try to manipulate it, in an attempt to present your version of alternate reality.

Yes, I use the term anthropogenic climate change, because as you denialists like to remind us, the earth’s climate has always changed. The issue we currently face, is the acceleration of these latest changes, because of man’s influence over the last 200 or so years – that’s the anthropogenic bit, in case you didn’t know.

@Capital Retro
Interesting that you deride the use of modelling in climate science, CR … but it’s modelling that helps scientists understand long-term climate patterns and how they have changed over time. You know, the information that you denialists, like to throw up as proof that climate has always been changing – which, by the way, no one disputes.

Pengold accused of cherry picking, comes back with this absolute pearler:

“JS – “cherry pick single instances of anomalies” is also known as using scientific observation”

Bahahahahaha.

No seriously, bahahahahaha.

Then Pengold PhD literally reposts another attempted cherry farmed report that doesnt even say what he claims. The failings of his rotten cherries already having been discussed here in detail.

Theres definitely a couple of cult like zealots here, but it isn’t the ones who support the enormous body of actual detailed scientific research showing that climate change is real.

JS there’s a lot of words there that don’t say very much so let me ask this in simple words:

How is it possible that climate change will deliver, as the CT asserts, “more extreme cold events” ?

Here’s your chance to provide all the science you like.

Here you go chewy, probably the best response is this:

https://region.com.au/breaking-news-kids-to-be-taught-how-to-write-properly/881813/

Nothing interesting at all JS.

Climate change has never been in dispute – it happens naturally so modelling is meaningless.

The thing we realists dispute is that it is man-made.

…..and again last night!

“Climate change has never been in dispute – it happens naturally so modelling is meaningless.

The thing we realists dispute is that it is man-made.”

The cognitive dissonance here is almost pathological. FTR “realists” don’t reject science because it doesn’t fit a political narrative.

I think we can all agree the education system has failed you Pengold.

But I don’t think anyone would limit that just to writing.

I mean even in your last effort:

“How is it possible that climate change will deliver, as the CT asserts, “more extreme cold events” ?”

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that climate change means every part of the earth gets impacted in the same way, all at the same time. And that any discrepancy in this is “proof” that climate change isn’t real.

How is it possible that more energy in a global system can lead to more dynamic effects Pengold asks.

LOL.

Dr chewy you are a laugh. All the hyperventilating about people’s education, scientific abilities and addressing issues you can’t provide any response to such a simple question:

How is it possible that climate change will deliver, as the CT asserts, “more extreme cold events” ?

You should be able to knock that out of the park given your obvious intellect.

Not just last night CR, it felt like -9 degrees at 7am this morning ! 🌨

For the deniers, here’s the scientific evidence:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60903/IDN60903.94926.shtml

But chewy, more energy is due to more heat, which is due to trapping more solar radiation.

So how does that mean more cooling ?

Take your time, I’m fascinated to know how chewisycs explains this.

Pengold PhD,
With all your claimed “scientific observations”, it should be easy for you to provide the reasons why it isn’t possible as you’ve claimed above.

I’ve actually already given you the answer but you clearly weren’tt equipped to understand it, which makes your continued responses even funnier.

Pengold Phd once again confusing weather which is a point in time with climate change with is trends overtime demonstrating that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Sorry chewy, you’ve failed to provide any answer. But because I’m nice I’ll make it a simple binary question for you:

Isn’t warming the opposite of cooling ?

Btw binary means there’s only to answers: Yes or No.

Which do you choose ? 🤔👨‍🎓

Penfold : “ask any child whether warming means cooling”

We do not ask children about post-tertiary science, Penfold. Such opinions are your province.

Axon that one is a classic – children don’t know the difference between warming and cooling, it’s a “post-tertiary science” 🤣

How about your favourite 1 + 1, is that also post-tertiary science ?

Both are indicative of your inability, Penfold, in this case your stated belief that scientific credentials are superfluous to science.

For the benefit of latecomers, the complete equation was 1 – 1 + 1 = 1, something Penfold never grasped when discussing the proper base for a percentage change, percentages being something else of which Penfold has demonstrated no understanding in various threads.

Now, Penfold does not understand energy, which is at least consistent with his proven inability to understand operation of an energy market.

Quite the record.

@Penfold
I’ve already provided a scientific explanation of climate change producing “more extreme cold events”, Penfold.

I suggested you investigate polar vortex displacement – particularly as it relates to the Arctic region, and which can send frigid air southward into regions like North America and Europe, causing unusual cold snaps.

You have proven time and time again, that research is beyond you, even though I provided a hint. Nevertheless, I did the google search for you and found the following link:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-arctic-polar-vortex
PS It’s even got some diagrams if there’s too much for you to read.

Thanks JS. The polar vortex was first described in 1853, which from memory lies outside your scientific expert definition of anthropogenic climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

Any other theories ?

Axon, sorry for the mathematical question but what do integers have to do with percentages ?

@Penfold
Reading comprehension is not one of your stong suits, is it, Penfold?

No need for theories, as I referred to ‘polar vortex displacement’. Rather than wikipedia (seriously that’s your goto reference material is it?), click on the link I provided for you, and you might actually learn something.

Geez JS i can’t win. You tell me i don’t do any research then i do some and get panned. I did click on your link, there were some nice pictures there as you claimed. It sounds like you’re rejecting the Wikipedia claim about the first observations of polar vortex displacement.

So of course it wasn’t very hard with a few extra clicks to find this article from National Geographic referencing the polar vortex. Here’s a snippet:

“While the term may seem like a more recent invention, it has been used since the mid-1800s.”

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/polar-vortex/

So you get a pat on the back for finding a reason how warming can contribute to rare cooling events, but they’re nothing to do with climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

Now i’m not sure if the humble National Geographic meets the esteemed scientific standards of JS – and Dr Chewy and friends – but can i ask the question again please:

Do you have any further theories as to how warming leads to cooling ? Or if you prefer – how does climate change lead to “more extreme cold events” ?

It goes right the way back to the opening post.

Ah, Pengold,
accused of being ignorant of the science, juvenile and narrow minded in his thinking on the topic.

So what does Pengold PhD do:

“Here’s an irrelevant and simplistic binary question and a link to last night’s BOM temperatures to show em. That’ll definitely prove that climate change is a scam”.

Hilarious stuff as usual Pengold PhD, too funny.

I do wonder though what Pengold does during the Summer months when it’s hot and he cant rely on the daily weather?

Pengold’s ideological cousins in Europe must be having nightmares at this time of year.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-29/european-heatwave-sends-temperatures-soaring/105473708

Climate change believers putting on their usual song and dance. AGW-caused polar vertex displacement (nice one @JS) is why Giralang preschool had to close for a day? Good grief. Anyone making arguments like that needs their head examined.

The CT article was obviously silly and over the top, even by climate cultist standards. Just surprised the resident lefties here feel such a strong need to defend it.

CaptainSpiff – it’s a hoot to observe – vortexes, post-tertiary science, cognitive dissonance. They even deny that climate change is caused by global warming. At least JS tried to come up with something plausible, if only he’d read a little more.

Hey chewy what’s the latest science buddy – is CO2 good or bad for plants today ?

@CaptainSpiff
I never said the polar votex displacement caused the Giralang Preschool pipes to freeze, CaptainSpiff. If you actually bothered to read the thread before going off on your jaundiced rant, you would see that I was answering the question relating to more extreme cold events.

If you are going to intercede, at least try to keep up with the conversation.

@Penfold
Firstly, Penfold, wikipedia is hardly reasearch – anyone can post a wikipedia article.

Congratulations on finding the National Geographic, a respected scientific journal, article on the polar vortex. It certainly explains what the polar vortex is and how “wobbles” bring colder weather. No real conclusion one way or the other with respect to climate change.

So, given you obviously respect the findings of National Geographic, I will stick with them to provide further realities.

National Geographic is one of the many science related journals which reports on the realities of climate change (I haven’t been able to find a journal that doesn’t – but my search was not exhaustive), as per this article:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects
If you read it, you will find, not only a comprehensive description of the impact of :
“The past 10 years have been the 10 hottest years on record, and a reconstruction of Earth’s average temperature over the past 485 million years showed that when the planet warms, catastrophic weather and mass extinctions follow. At no point in the period of Earth’s history examined, the study notes, have temperatures warmed as quickly as they’re warming now.”
and
“A warmer planet doesn’t just raise temperatures. Precipitation is becoming more extreme as the planet heats. For every degree your thermometer rises, the air holds about seven percent more moisture. This increase in moisture in the atmosphere can produce flash floods, more destructive hurricanes, and even paradoxically, stronger snow storms.”

Hmmm – are snow storms cold on our ‘global warming’ planet, Penfold?

Oh and this other article on the polar vortex, again from National Geographic (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/the-polar-vortex-is-coming-raising-odds-for-intense-winter-weather), while not conclusive, on the impact of climate change on its disruption, does not discount that impact, which is why further research is being undertaken.

I assume references from National Geographic are acceptable to you.

Pengold PhD once again avoiding the topic and unable to respond when provided the detailed evidence in response to his inane and irrelevant questions.

He was even arguing last week that Co2 was b9th beneficial and harmful to plants in the same thread, so desperate has he become to “show climate change is a scam”.

It really is sad that he’s unable to join the fruitful exchange of ideas and debates that happen amongst the adults here. He really should lift the bar.

Penfold : “what do integers have to do with percentages?”

ROFL

Penfold : “you don’t need any scientific credentials”

Quite the record you have, Penfold.

Things about which Penfold has proven not to have a clue:
“vortexes, post-tertiary science, cognitive dissonance … climate change … global warming … energy dynamics” and surfeits.

“is CO2 good or bad for plants?” A surfeit is too subtle a concept for Penfold.

Hey Penfold, you need water to live, so why not immerse yourself in it? Do you fear there may be other consequences? You need oxygen to live, so breathe pure oxygen, so good for your lungs. Do you fear there may be other consequences?

Those were polite answers to a question one might describe as stupid.

Pathetic argument by analogy @Axon. Can you tell us what CO2 level is necessary to start killing plants and when you think we’ll get there?

@JS The cold temperatures that froze pipes in Canberra is just weather, right? Why do you need to connect a couple of cold weeks to some overarching climate trend, and tie yourself in knots explaining how in some contrived corner case warming will produce cooling?

Weather isn’t climate. Regardless of whether it’s summer or winter, hot or cold. Warmists jump up and down as soon as there’s a single 40+ day in summer, and then get incensed if anyone says something during a cold spell.

The elephant in the room for the climate crisis believers is that in the last 150 years, the earth has warmed by roughly a single degree… Can you personally tell the difference between a 17 degree day and an 18 degree day? Do you think that difference constitutes a crisis?

That’s gold standard cherry picking there Axon. But you’ve obviously forgotten the context of your advanced mathematics lessons. We were discussing APS numbers, not percentages but it can all get confusing can’t it.

JS wow a lot of words there. All you really needed to say is yes, a polar vortex has nothing to do with climate change. Even Wikipedia tells us that !

JS something else is troubling me regarding this global warming stuff and I seek your advice. Now as we know those klever scientists tell us that the earth has warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century. Let’s say 150 years, give or take.

So when you tell us that the earth’s last 10 years have been the hottest on record, well how does that work ? (and let’s ignore those “homogenised” temperatures)

If it’s been a linear path for 150 years, then warming has been at 0.007 of a degree for 150 years.

If it’s been non linear then perhaps the last 10 years have meant 0.1 degree per year with 140 years of flat lining, with we know isn’t the case.

Either way, can temperature observations even measure temperatures to that level of preciseness ? One suggests the answer is no.

Now I’m not disputing the 1.1 degree, but the claim about the last 10 years is almost statistically immeasurable. We know you guys swallow all the talking points without question, but how do you explain that ?

I’m guessing the question – a mathematics one – might be a bridge too far, but what does your impeccable research tell you ?

@CaptainSpiff
Penfold raised the question of ‘warming producing cooling’ … I addressed that.

Seriously, you need to read the thread and undersatand what is being discussed before going off in a drivel of tangental rants.

@Penfold
Obviously facts are inconvenient for you. Nevertheless, my apologies – I didn’t realise you have such a short attention span when it comes to reading.

As per the second link – scientists have not discounted the impact climate change could have on polar vortex distortion, hence the need for further research.

So no, I didn’t need to say “a polar vortex has nothing to do with climate change” – irrespective of what, your preferred ‘reference material’, wikipedia says.

Thanks JS. “Not discounted” obviously means there is no evidence. Keep digging.

As for Satan, well climate nirvana is a religion. 😈

And speaking of reading it was the Canberra Times which declared that warming resulted in cooling. 📚

CaptainSpiff – the Canberra Times is today reporting that it’s been a record breaking cold start to winter.

It’s paywalled so I’m not sure if they reckon it’s warming wotdunnit.

Perfectly good analogies, CaptainSpiff. Do you not understand that something vital can be in deleterious in surfeit, directly or indirectly?

Your question is meritless. Are you asking for a date and time? Different plants react differently, and the problem is the various impacts of climate change. This has already been mentioned by chewy14 to Pengold.

Predictions by experts are already available on impacts of levels of warming likely to be reached this century, and it appears that so far the climate state may be worse than expected.

I see the usual culture warriors have left their villages short handed.

There’s not point arguing with these…people…they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Of course none of these rocket surgeons can explain why every major scientific body in the world accepts the proven fact of climate change and the urgency of the need to do something.

When they do try to talk around this fact their rhetoric quickly moves from sounding idiotic to certifiable.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

Show me a single cherry picked, Penfold. You cannot. It is your habit to state things without any basis in fact, a firehose of misinformation.

We discussed percentage change of those numbers, Pengold, who has momentarily recalled that calculating percentages usually involves integers, but will forget it by his next post.

I do not suffer your “confusions”.

@JS I read the thread alright and it seems to be mostly you and the rest of the crew coming up with various insults for Penfold. After all, how dare he poke fun at left wing catechisms. Precious few climate change facts, and the one that I raised (1 degree of measured warming in the last 150 years – how does that make a crisis), you find to be a “drivel of tangential rants” (what does that even mean?).

Gotta love this polar vortex distortion though. It’s a keeper. If it’s warm – it’s because of climate change. And if it’s cold, it’s polar vortex distortion, also caused by climate change! Got it.

Just saying and seano sounding very much like the same person

What’s a “rocket surgeon” ?

“Gotta love this polar vortex distortion though. It’s a keeper. If it’s warm – it’s because of climate change. And if it’s cold, it’s polar vortex distortion, also caused by climate change! Got it.”

No, you obviously have not “got it”. Cold deriving from a shift in the polar vortex consequent on dynamics of climate change would be a consequence of the dynamics of climate change, not your false distinction between that and warming consequent on the dynamics of climate change. Some answers are not as simplistic as you may wish.

While CaptainSpiff and Penfold may sound very much like the same person, it is more likely that there are at least two deluded people in the world. From previous observation I doubt Seano and JustSaying are the same person. They have distinct styles in discussing the facts.

Now, who is Yogie?

Captain, you contribute nothing but demonstrating that you don’t stand the science. When you publish your peer-reviewed paper disproving climate change the you can talk as if you’re an authority, until then all you’re doing is joining the ranks of culture warriors desperate to beclown themselves. Thanks for playing skipper.

Yogie, we’re not but why would you care? How does that change the scientific proof of climate change and the need to act?

Axon you’d need to go to the Fyshwick Markets to see a picked cherry that you’d understand. 🍒

They are Marxists twins. Joined at the mouth.

As argument by analogy, and then character assassination, wears thin @seano turns to argument by authority (NASA!).

OK, so how much does NASA think the climate has warmed in the last 150 years @seano?

Why is that not mentioned in the link you posted?

Seems like a pretty central fact for anyone concerned about global warming.

Any actual numbers will do @Axon. Let’s have examples of plants that will die off due to increased levels of CO2, and what year it’s predicted to happen.

Meanwhile I will look up what “deleterious in surfeit” means.

CaptainSpiff you might have noticed the only place you’ll find more climate change experts than here at the RiotAct is at an IPCC conference.

Do you think they’ll all be invited to COP30 in Brazil later this year ?

“What’s a “rocket surgeon” ?”…it’s a joke Penfold, which like science we’ve established you don’t understand.

“As argument by analogy, and then character assassination, wears thin @seano turns to argument by authority (NASA!).”….actually that’s an argument by evidence, swing and a miss, thanks for playing skipper.

“They are Marxists twins. Joined at the mouth.”…and there we go. Capital proves he is clueless in regards to the evidence, he’s a culture warrior with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

CaptainSpiff be careful what you wish for. Axon’s contribution to any mathematical discussion is to advise us that 1 + 1 – 1 = 1.

@Penfold
For someone who derides others for their lack of mathematical acumen, Penfold, you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding how averages work.

The aim of action on climate change, as per the Paris Accord, is to keep the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

You mentioned that Canberra has had a record breaking cold start to winter – which will result in a very low average temperature. It’s being reported, that many parts of Europe are experiencing record high temperatures – and naturally high average temperatures. So, the record high average in one region and record low average in another, could well offset each other to give a much lesser, maybe even 0, change in the global average temperature. That perceptibly ‘benign average’, still doesn’t remove the impact of those two extreme levels of temperature.

That is the reason 2°C above pre-industrial levels has been set as the maximum global average increase. This 2022 article (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF003330) provides a very good explanation of what that AVERAGE of 2°C means.

As for the Canberra Times? Don’t you think it’s about time you stopped lying about what the article actually reported. I have a CT subscription so am able to read the whole article. Not once in the article is warming (global or otherwise) mentioned. What the article actually stated is:
“Far from being isolated incidents, these events (record-breaking sub-zero temperatures) are a reminder that climate change doesn’t just mean hotter summers or more bushfires. It also means more extreme cold events, more infrastructure failures, and more disruption to children’s learning, right here in the nation’s capital.”
You can (mis)interpet the article however you like, to suit your narrative, but that does not make it (“declared that warming resulted in cooling”) true.

PS Nice pick up on my fat fingering typo. I first wondered WTF you were on about with your satanic references.

PS. I’m not interested in your cherry-picked culture wars memes which are about wasting my time digging through the evidence to prove you’re talking out of your….hat…only for you to ignore the facts and move on to the next piece of BS because you’re not actually interested in the science.

From experience with the clowns who post anti-science BS, their positions are not rationally based it’s about their personal politics…well the politics of the billionaires fund culture wars convincing dopey people to ignore science an act against their own best interests.

But any time you want to put forward a peer-reviewed paper disproving climate change I look forward to reading it skipper. Or even explain why every major scientific body in the world is wrong and you’re right on climate change…good luck with that skippy.

I remember a few years ago that the Canberra Times re-published a climate-change article by George Monbiot and included a couple of un-captioned images of earthquake damage in Christchurch to try and link them to the article.

I called it out – direct to Monbiot and he was very angry with the CT and let them know.

@CaptainSpiff, feel free to name almost any leafy plant for yourself. When a person has excessive levels of cholesterol or other factors deleterious to health (see, looking it up was useful), then what is the exact level at which they will die and on what date? Your question is patently silly. The silliest part of all is that you and Penfold think it is not.

@Penfold, apart, that is, from over 99% of published climate scientists regardless of when and where they gather orcommunicate. You are as good as a flat-earther, albeit they could probably put up more plausible arguments for the great A’Tuin.

JS – congratulations, you’re almost (net🤣) zeroing in on my original post. Here, let’s spell it out clearly for the slow coaches.

Canberra Times: climate change leads to cooling.

United Nations: global warming causes climate change

Now wait for it, here’s the big step …. QED:

Climate change leads to cooling 😎 🍾❄️🎊

Wasn’t that hard was it 🤣

Now as for the 2 degrees well sadly you’ve missed the point again. I was asking how we got to 1.1 degree, which is apparently a fact. 2 degrees is a forecast, not a fact.

But then we also hear about 3 and 4 degrees, along with global boiling. Is that 100 degrees ? 🔥

@CaptainSpiff
“1 degree of measured warming in the last 150 years – how does that make a crisis”
When you understand the concept of an increase in the AVERAGE global temperature, you may be on the path to understanding the crisis … sadly that’s probably a bridge too far for you.

Nevertheless, this article (https://science.nasa.gov/earth/measuring_global_temperature/) may assist you.

Thanks seano – so these rocket surgeons, are they goodies or baddies ?

@Penfold
You like to pose simple questions, Penfold, so here’s one for you.

In that CT article, to which you provided the link in your original post, where was it “declared that warming resulted in cooling”? 🤥

@Penfold
PS I’m not sure where you got 1.1° C from, but a look at the ‘2024 was the warmest year on record’ graph in this article (https://science.nasa.gov/earth/measuring_global_temperature/#milestone) and you’ll see how we got to 1.28° C increase.

Well JS i’m not sure i can help you much more, we seem to be getting into a bit of a twilight zone. Perhaps this is where seano’s rocket surgeons reside.

Here’s the CT article which even you were able to copy and paste:

“climate change doesn’t just mean hotter summers or more bushfires. It also means more extreme cold events”.

A cold event, icymi, means things get colder. One of the outcomes of things getting colder is “cooling”.

You yourself have been arguing that climate change means cold stuff via these “polar vortexes”.

Now you were even kind enough to offer this: “will allow you to understand how ‘global warming can lead to cooling’.”

So are you now arguing that global warming, or climate change, doesn’t lead to cooling ?

Oh man it’s hard to keep up. (that one’s for seano and chewy 🙂

As for the 1.1 degree, perhaps ask the IPCC.

But here’s something else i don’t understand – COP21 in Paris in 2015 saved the planet, we were told. And now it apparently hasn’t.

How did science get it so wrong ?

Btw JS thanks for the NASA link. They’re now claiming 1.45 degrees but you say 1.28. See the graph.

Did the temperature increase 0.17 degrees between when you posted the link at 5:20 and right now at 6:05 ?

Boy oh boy this stuff’s tricky.

Just seano, because you always have to resort to put downs and quote what people say and then cherry pick to suit your narrative. You sound like a Labor bot. Penfold and others have provided some sound and good points, but you go off on a self fulfilled rant.

“Penfold and others have provided some sound and good points”

Now we all know Yogie is actually Penfold, thanks for the laugh, undercover PhD.

lol Yogie. I mean seriously, whinging about “put downs” as if the clueless culture warriors, who post anti-science drivel and who can’t point to any peer-reviewed evidence disproving science change, nor will they explain why every major scientific body in the world is wrong in accepting the clear evidence for climate change and the need to act, as if they don’t use logical fallacies, ad homs and lame put downs to cover the vacuousness of their arguments. Laughable.

Your contribution to the debate is even less than Penfold’s and that’s quite the low bar.

@Penfold
Rather than avoiding it, please answer my question.

In that CT article, to which you provided the link in your original post, where was it “declared that warming resulted in cooling”? 🤥

JS I’ve tried to answer your question in several ways but if you still can’t grasp it, sorry, can’t help you any more.

Everyone else seems to have grasped it.

Yogie – all you’re going to get from seano are the monotonous culture wars, game over, take a walk, i win, I’m an expert and you’re not. He’s pretty much a bot programed by green left drones.

Penfold, I never claimed to be an expert. I pointed to the actual experts and the evidence and asked you to refute it which you haven’t done because you can’t.

So yes I win.

seano you never answered the question about goodies and baddies.

If it helps, Buzz Lightyear is a goodie and Darth Vader is a baddie.

@Penfold
Perhaps you can indulge me, Penfold, and quote the passage from that Canberra Times article, which you cited, where it “declared that warming resulted in cooling”? 🤥

“Buzz Lightyear is a goodie and Darth Vader is a baddie”….does your mum know you’re on the internet?

Chewy just seano. Have a listen to yourselves. I haven’t been on this site for a few months and you are still trotting out the same old lame excuses and insults. Get a life

Not sure seano. Like you, my mother isn’t particularly internet savvy.

Yogie, what’s that school yard drivel got to do with the scientific proof for climate change and the urgent need to do something about it? I’ll wait.

If you want to join the culture war trolls who seek to deny and delay action on climate change against their own best interests, I’m sure they’ll welcome another non-critical thinker.

“Get a life”….indeed.