marble wrote: maccamax wrote: Am I reading that correctly Gai in saying it is cooler now than in 1998. you are reading it correctly macca - but any year can provide a spike. the idea is to draw a straight line to observe a trend. then the result is painfully obvious

I always remember my first 2 jobs in the 1940's.    Somewhere around / after 1946 when on a dairy in the Hunter ( Putty NSW )   a terrible drought . Cattle dying , The heat , the countryside like dirt only. Farmers cutting down trees in the hope some food may save some cattle .
Later 1949 in the coldest hole in this world , doing night shift on the Railways in Orange NSW ( snow Country ) near the highest peak of the Great Divide.      Ohhh So cold , Traffic Nil , due to snow . Stopped Trains , the lot.        . I see no Difference today if your in these areas on the ever changing weather cycles.
We have yearly seasons ( cycles ) probably 10 yearly 50 -- 100   --200 -- 500-- 1000 yearly cycles. What's new pussycat.

We are more informed these days and the greatest disaster in OZ ( causing loss of life ) was in 1899, when few people lived here. ...     So where's the argument about severe weather events.

maccamax wrote: Am I reading that correctly Gai in saying it is cooler now than in 1998.

Well not to my way of interpreting
I assumed those figures below the zero line to be cooler '79 - '97 & those above/thereafter to be warmer.

marble wrote: you are correct, we have had severe weather events since the dawn of time - only now they are more severe and more frequent

They couldn't be more severe than in 1899..      The TV back then wasn't as clear and the harsh weather made reception poor.
   Only more frequent because we have more avenues reporting them.

haha !

... to even think humanity can effect the planet in any significant way is simply arrogant.

.[/QUOTE]

Virtually yes, you said this :

Seriously, a couple of decent volcanic eruptions, and it won't matter if the entire planet gave up fossil fuels for a decade!

and did not answer this :

However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount.

marble wrote: ... to even think humanity can effect the planet in any significant way is simply arrogant. this is what you posted Dr

Beware marble!

The volcano thing was done years ago....that's for the seriously scientifically illiterate.

max manewer wrote: haha !

Yes Me too=

What I write TB is always the only sense on any pages.

   You stopped the clock with that last post === congratulations.

Isaac soloman wrote: are you tired of being outraged yet macca? i know i am. let them learn by long, hard experience....sadly and only then may they understand where you were coming from. they will be usurped

600 billion in debt and going backwards.    . Still they don't see what a maybe delusion is doing to us.

We subsidize the world to give others our resources to burn for cheap energy.

What’s the net cost of using renewables to hit Australia’s climate target? Nothing

https://theconversation.com/whats-the-net-cost-of-using-renewables-to-hit-australias-climate-target-nothing-88021

Is the science on nuclear settled Doc?

Doc might let them store it in his foil lined bunker