lol womble good luck pal


and ...

from Nov 1897  

Unprecedented hail storm in Brisbane caused much damage smashing thousands of windows in Eagle Street.



and some local weather stations the other day really ramped up the climate change rhetoric ... citing winds of 140km, planes overturned & the worst storm since 1985 (30 years ago yep)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/severe-storm-batters-south-east-queensland/5923302

The storm packed wind gusts of more than 140 kilometres per hour and caused damage and destruction across Brisbane and areas to the west


some reporters that bothered to research the '85 storm found the following info ...

Cricket ball sized hail driven by winds of up to 185km/h (offical measurement at the Brisbane airport) caused widespread damage throughout Brisbane.



.. that is the real inconvenient truth for the alarmists

storms will now cause much more financial damage .. for the reason that there are more people and more houses crammed into pockets & subsurbs .. brisbane population has exploded since 1985

as secong correctly points out the effects seem greater because of the volume of people (& reporters lol) .. but in fact historically these occurances are not uncommon .. just devastating


like November 20, 1937 - Ice was packed into a lagoon on property adjoining Gunyerwaraldi near Goondiwindi for four weeks from hail that fell in a severe storm.

and January 1936 - The largest hail ever seen at Boonah.   Nine stones weighed 1.75 pounds.  Windows broken, hoods of cars pierced.

and also January 12, 1958 - Hail remained 4 feet deep 24 hours after a storm at Taboola (near Beaudesert). Hail also smashed windows at Beaudesert and holed tanks at Clarendon.


a fuller listing is here but no point looking at history i guess when alarmism is the agenda

http://www.bsch.com.au/severewx/index.shtml

Thebas - would you agree the extreme weather events are more frequent now?

no i just mean they seem to be more frequent - there were occasional extreme events every 30 or 40 years, now we've got stuff happening every 2 to 3 years

pure chance? possibly but unlikely i'd suggest

i agree rhino that it can be a case of .. show me something more often to my face and i think it is happening more .. exposure

however i had a lot at the BOM site regarding extreme weather events and found this

i suggest a cyclone is at the high end of extreme events

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/eastern.shtml

Climatology Cyclone frequency

On average 4.7 tropical cyclones per year affect the Queensland Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre Area of Responsibility.

There is a strong relationship with eastern Australian tropical cyclone impacts and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon, with almost twice as many impacts during La Niña than during El Niño.

The likelihood of this occurring by pure chance is remote (significant at 99% level).

There have been 207 known impacts from tropical cyclones along the east coast since 1858. Major east coast tropical cyclones impacts include

1890 Cardwell; 1893 Brisbane; 1898 NSW; 1899 Bathurst Bay; 1918 Innisfail; 1918 Mackay; 1927 Cairns and inland areas; 1934 Port Douglas; 1949 Rockhampton; 1954 Gold Coast; 1967 Dinah, Southern Queensland; 1970 Ada, Whitsunday Islands; 1971 Althea, Townsville; 1974 Wanda, Brisbane; and 2006 Larry, Innisfail.

The Queensland region of the Gulf of Carpentaria region has been hit by several disastrous tropical cyclones.

These include The 1887 Burketown cyclone, The 1923 Douglas Mawson cyclone, The 1936 Mornington Island cyclone; the 1948 Bentick Island cyclone and Ted in 1976.

The BOM seem to be indicating on their site that major cyclonic activity … up my way at least … had its most impact between 1858 and 1974 than later, but maybe they don't include minor cyclones who knows

Just find it interesting how people tend to form their opinion in line with the political parties they support.


... are you saying that is what you do AFL  ?   

I listen to the experts in the field of Climate Science............ the actual people who study Climate Science.

It is the Bolt's and Moncktons and the Tea Party Republicans and Murdoch's of this world who choose NOT TO BELIEVE THE CLIMATE

SCIENTISTS because of their political affiliations.

That was intended for the smart arse Rhino

AFL
Australia and the USA are 2 of the last remaining political systems that divide largely on political grounds mainly because the
right wing extreme elements  in both countries take a myopic view of a world wide problem.

Obama the deceiver castigated Australia in front of innocent Uni Students at UQ .. telling them that he was hero for signing a non-binding accord with China where they would both now plan to INCREASE the ghreenhouse gas emmisions .. while simple little australia has BOTH its major political parties aiming for a modest 5% emmissions REDUCTION

the climate scientists must be aghast at the 2 BIGGEST EMITTERS in the whole wide world thumbing their noses at science for the next 10 to 15 years

good on australia for having a reduction plan

Ha Ha Ha  Indirect Inaction is a reduction plan......that is the funniest thing you've posted for ages.

Abbott doesn't give a s hit about reductions.....he got where he is by loving coal h it is a pollution filled smoke screen to appear

to be doing something. And he doesn't give a toss if it doesn't reach 5%

No one really voted for Tony AFL. They voted against the prior revolving leaders government. I would think Tony will be gone soon enough.

In the meantime, I would like to apologise to the Australian people for being solely responsible for his election.

no offence AFL i know you are passionate about your politics

but it brings back your original comment today

Just find it interesting how people tend to form their opinion in line with the political parties they support.

you have made no comment (and i'm not really asking for one) about gillard's deceipt of the true believers when she opened up coal to gina and had christine milne say on an ABC tv interview that .. labor didn't have the will to honour their committment to a signed agreement with the Greens ... and chose the mining industry instead

that was christine milne .. google her abc interview and absorb it ..

you have been tricked by labor and seem intent of only recognising what happens from the libs

that .. in esesence .. is party political .. if you can't see what gillard & labor chose to do ... WHILE IN POWER

china will be buying & burning plenty of coal over the next 16 years ..

they announced it together with Obama who ratified it by signing a (non-binding) agreement with the chinese

we are bit players AFL

the issue is with the 2 biggest emmitters

Why aren't you getting stuck into them ?

that's just party political too & frowing .. not interested mate

take it up on the other thread as part of political discussions

we have come a long way on this thread over the past 4 years

we have changed with the changes in scientific knowledge

we know the atmospheric temp hasn;t changed much (0.5c) in the past 60 years and we know the surface temps have

we know the oceans have

we know that methane is probably the biggest new worry in this greenhouse sceanrio

and we know (or at least expect) ... the Yanks ... to ramp up their natural gas plans as an offset to coal

and therefore provide little benefit for the planet (in fact Greenpeace suggest it could be worse )

[i]How much natural gas is the United States estimated to have and how much do we currently consume as a nation? Will we run out of natural gas soon?

In recent years, estimates of the technically recoverable resource natural gas base have ranged from 2,300 – 3,800 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), enough to supply current consumption for 88 – 154 years.

By 2012 shale gas accounted for 39 percent of U.S. lower-48 production and IHS CERA expects that it will account for 58 percent of total productive capacity by 2035.

Unconventional gas from all sources (shale, tight sands, coal bed methane, and associated gas from unconventional oil plays) is expected to provide 90 percent of total natural gas productive capacity by 2035.

http://www.fuelingthefuture.org/faqs#2runout

AFL
Just find it interesting how people tend to form their opinion in line with the political parties they support.


.. come on mate .. i thought we were getting somewhere

you are trapped in your own scenario

it's a global picture .. and it isn't good as i see it ...

the 2 biggest emmitters in the world have thumbed their noses at science .. and then pat themselves on the back

hang on ... i found it for you AFL

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3693980.htm

CHRISTINE MILNE:     

We signed an agreement which had very clearly that we'd worked together in the public interest, that we would work together to address climate change and to bring transparency to the parliamentary process and Labor had walked away from that by basically choosing the mining industry rather than working with the Greens

politics ffs ...

Womble
Conservatives are more likely to be religious imo add to that conservatives not liking the idea of spending money or worrying as much about others and you could well be right

ffs lol ... the plot womble .. i think it has been well & truly lost in your case imo ..


but while you are at it ... can you tell us what Muslim religious people are more likely to do 


---

oh yeah and this classic

You just have to hear how may times they've been saying things are 1 in 100 year events lately


... my question would immediately be ...

who are 'they' that have been saying this ?


but if you have a moment ... please have a read what the Bureau of Meteorology have to say about the 1 in 100 year events

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/rainfallEvents/why100years.shtml

let us know what you find out

i mean would you say the same thing about a Prime Minister who introduced a co2 tax to "indirectly" reduce coal production in australia

and then 8 weeks after introducing that tax ... grant approval for the biggest bloated miner in australia ... to open a brand new coal mine in alpha qld .. taking their booty out by ship through the Great Barrier Reef

because if your idea is not party political .. then both scenarios should have you with the same emotions  ?


question asked re this political BS but NO NO NO answer from the LABOR one eyed hack some 46 minutes after it was asked.......should have been admonishing LABOR/Gillard for that....

swings and roundabouts womble.....above/below happens all the time......you expect a constant ffs?

AFL you are the most one eyed useless never wrong forumite on this forum....post carp about jesus ets on you BS thread and ignore the question here

nothing to say about the sweetheart deal of JULIA and GINA

going on about CC and ignoring the above deal PURELY BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BY LABOR - defender of the planet (well that's what we all thought until the NEW coal mine came along)-

WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE....100% LNP hater.....wont call out your own team

have to give womble some credit in bagging his own team re this