Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I never doubted that the increase in human exhalation was relatively trivial compared to other sources, however it’s not certain that the sinks are keeping up with carbon inputs or we wouldn’t be where we are.

It's not only trivial Franz, it's part of the "natural carbon cycle" and according to the folks who created the 97% consensus, scepticalscience.com, is not a problem.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm

But our "foremost climate expert" thinks it's part of the problem.

Funny that. And unique, as far as I can gather.

It's also funny that man's breathing, natural as it is, isn't a problem for some, but man's completely natural progression from rubbing bits of wood together to burning oil and coal is a problem, with the c02 emissions classed as being "man made" and therefore not in the "natural" emissions category.

Particularly given the fact that we universally class fossil fuels as "natural" resources and actively encourage their discovery.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/about-us/our-department/natural-resources/Pages/default.aspx

But somehow, actually using them is deemed by some as something that is "unnatural".

Would you accept that it can be said that they're all "natural emissions" at the end of the day, coming as they do, from "natural resources"?

Akrasia

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I never doubted that the increase in human exhalation was relatively trivial compared to other sources, however it’s not certain that the sinks are keeping up with carbon inputs or we wouldn’t be where we are.

The massive difference between co2 released by breathing, and co2 released by burning fossil fuels, is that all the CO2 we release by breathing comes from the food we eat, which had only recently absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere. Our breathing is carbon neutral, we breath the co2 that plants sequestered when they were growing.

CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is completely different, it is taking carbon that was sequestered under ground and releasing it back into the atmosphere at a rate far greater than the natural carbon cycle can sequester it.

CO2 atmospheric concentrations have gone from 280ppm to over 400ppm. There is absolutely zero doubt that this is anthroprogenic (from burning fossil fuels and changing land use) from anyone who has any credibility on this matter.

(this is really basic stuff, I'm genuinely surprised that Gaoth Laidir posted that)

ch750536

Am I missing something? We don't make CO2 when we breathe, we just remove the oxygen?

Akrasia

Dense, you''re so wrong it's not even funny. Burning wood that has been growing by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is carbon neutral. Burning coal and oil/gas that has been sequestered underground for millions of years is not carbon neutral.

Dense has absolutely zero understanding of the science behind this, it's laughable, in a different thread he seriously suggested that human body heat could be the cause of global warming.

Akrasia

ch750536 wrote: »

Am I missing something? We don't make CO2 when we breathe, we just remove the oxygen?

Our cells respire and CO2 is a byproduct of respiration. The CO2 is carried away from our cells in our blood to the lungs, When we breath, we exchange the CO2 in our blood with oxygen from our lungs, and we exhale the CO2 as a waste product.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense has absolutely zero understanding of the science behind this, it's laughable, in a different thread he seriously suggested that human body heat could be the cause of global warming.

Please, at the risk of back seat modding, deal with the post, not the poster.

I do recall asking what happens when you fill an auditorium with people.

No one answered.

It is plausible to suggest the room temperature is affected.

As we are constantly reminded that we are living in a greenhouse, adding 8 billion sources of heat and their heat generating activities to that greenhouse is worth considering in the context of alleged tenths of degree regional temperature fluctuations.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Our cells respire and CO2 is a byproduct of respiration. The CO2 is carried away from our cells in our blood to the lungs, When we breath, we exchange the CO2 in our blood with oxygen from our lungs, and we exhale the CO2 as a waste product.

Do you agree with Prof Sweeney in that it is part of the problem then?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The massive difference between co2 released by breathing, and co2 released by burning fossil fuels, is that all the CO2 we release by breathing comes from the food we eat, which had only recently absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere. Our breathing is carbon neutral, we breath the co2 that plants sequestered when they were growing.

CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is completely different, it is taking carbon that was sequestered under ground and releasing it back into the atmosphere at a rate far greater than the natural carbon cycle can sequester it.

CO2 atmospheric concentrations have gone from 280ppm to over 400ppm. There is absolutely zero doubt that this is anthroprogenic (from burning fossil fuels and changing land use) from anyone who has any credibility on this matter.

(this is really basic stuff, I'm genuinely surprised that Gaoth Laidir posted that)

Sorry, I forgot to put the [sarc] [/sarc] tags around my post...

I was merely highlighting the ridiculousness of the idea that a climate spokesperson mentioned in public.

Akrasia

Ok, fair enough.

Regarding John Sweeey's alleged comments to Pat Kenny, I didn't bother checking before, but I had suspected that Dense might have been misrepresenting Prof Sweeney.

I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence.

Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, fair enough.

Regarding John Sweeey's alleged comments to Pat Kenny, I didn't bother checking before, but I had suspected that Dense might have been misrepresenting Prof Sweeney.

I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence.

Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.

I admit I didn't read or listen to the conversation so hands up.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, fair enough.

Regarding John Sweeey's alleged comments to Pat Kenny, I didn't bother checking before, but I had suspected that Dense might have been misrepresenting Prof Sweeney.

I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence.

Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.

PK: Of course even as we are conversing here together we are breathing out co2 so,

JS: We are, we are indeed, and that is part of the problem.

But of course a lot of that will end up in the Artic a lot of that will cause the problems we've been discussing.


http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

PK: Of course even as we are conversing here together we are breathing out co2 so,

JS: We are, we are indeed, and that is part of the problem.

But of course a lot of that will end up in the Artic a lot of that will cause the problems we've been discussing.


http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures

He was interrupted mid sentence by Pat Kenny who made a throwaway comment about breathing out CO2. You are acting as if he brought up, on his own the idea that humans breathing is causing climate change.

Anyone can be quote mined this way by someone looking to discredit them rather than honestly try to represent their views.

And of course, you repeated this claim multiple times so that now, instead of us talking about climate change, you've successfully derailed the thread into analysing the exact sentence John Sweeney said in a radio interview on newstalk 2 years ago.
Success?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

He was interrupted mid sentence by Pat Kenny who made a throwaway comment about breathing out CO2. You are acting as if he brought up, on his own the idea that humans breathing is causing climate change.

Anyone can be quote mined this way by someone looking to discredit them rather than honestly try to represent their views.

And of course, you repeated this claim multiple times so that now, instead of us talking about climate change, you've successfully derailed the thread into analysing the exact sentence John Sweeney said in a radio interview on newstalk 2 years ago.
Success?

You're right that Pat Kenny made a throw away comment.

But the national expert grabbed it and ran with it, all the way to "the Artic" for maximum effect.

What he said stands, as I have quoted.

Now, any luck with substantiating your claim that "the majority of professional climatologists in Ireland, and also the majority of professional meteorologists" share his apocalyptic views?

Or was that just more makey-uppey stuff?

And by the way, the interview was from sometime in the last couple of months, not 2 years ago.

Gaoth Laidir

I've listened to it now and for me it was a fairly decent discussion. Kenny wasn't doing the sort of "denialist" stuff that John Gibbons of thinkorswim claims he does. He was more neutral/pro AGW in that he teed up the different discussion points for Sweeney to talk about.

Sweeney was fairly moderate and non-alarmist for the most part, but I still don't understand what he meant about the exhaling point. You may say it's a throwaway comment, but taken in the context and tone of the discussion it could easily be understood to be a fact, that our breathing is affecting the Arctic. So for that reason I disagree with that comment.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence.

Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.

Just pointing out you are engaging in the exact same "cherry picking" and out of context quoting in the above. Bit rich.

dense

Thanks.

There are very few places where one can highlight some of the the waffle and noise being force fed to the unwitting Irish public by those on the Irish climate change bandwagon.

Boards is one of those places. Take a bow.

What is cause for worry is that so many have become so immured in the hubris and now appear to be unable to critically analyse the stupid claims being made.

On a more positive note, some readers may recall that I have contacted a number of Irish climate change bloggers and "climate charities" enquiring what percentage of climate change is attributable to Ireland and what percentage Ireland can avert by divesting ourselves of fossil fuels.

The bloggers and charities wouldn't answer.

But the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change did.

The response was honest and interesting.

Mountainsandh

I just like to read everything, and my mind is never fully made up on this topic.
A lot of interesting posts in this thread.

Don't thank me Dense, I often think you're over the top or nonsensical on some points, just like I often think the other side are manipulating and alarmist.

No offense intended.

There are plenty of posters to point out when your posts or points seem disingenuous or nonsensical, so I think it's only fair to point out readers can also note manipulation or weaknesses in other posts.

Just going back to reading now.

dense

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I just like to read everything, and my mind is never fully made up on this topic.
A lot of interesting posts in this thread.

Don't thank me Dense, I often think you're over the top or nonsensical on some points, just like I often think the other side are manipulating and alarmist.

No offense intended.

There are plenty of posters to point out when your posts or points seem disingenuous or nonsensical, so I think it's only fair to point out readers can also note manipulation or weaknesses in other posts.

Just going back to reading now.

No offence taken.

Atlantic Dawn

When we get 5 straight years of colder weather what cards will the players then play? They have been found out about saying the earth was warming.

Will the government need to give grants for V8s?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The climate predictions for Ireland are for wetter summers on the west, but drier summers on the east, so Claremorris is in line with this, and we should expect a drier trend from a town on the eastern part of Ireland

Only the opposite would appear to true based on recent trends. Charts showing No. of consecutive dry days and frequency of wet days at Dublin Apt since 1900:





(from the EDA&D)

As you can see, these graphs suggest that not only is the number of 'wet days' showing a gradual, if moderate upward trend at Dublin Apt during the summer months, but also that the frequency and intensity of drought conditions are on a very steady decline during the season.


Regarding Prof Sweeney's comments on 'The Big Wind', I don't agree. Ireland is placed on a well documented storm track, and it not out of the bounds of reason to suggest that severe storms such as that in 1839 naturally happen on occasion. Also, I do recall that he alluded to 'Storm Darwin' back in 2014 as being a result of climate change on the same program, which is strange, given that Darwin was not an exceptional storm historically speaking. Misleading in the extreme, and his 'qualifications' stand for nothing if this type of disingenuous narrative is being pushed by him and those of his ilk who have them.

I'm no scientist, but basic meteorology would suggest that with an Arctic region warming faster than the mid or tropical latitudes, that Atlantic storms would become less frequent and less intense, given that the basic ingredient that leads to such storms developing, and that is, strong thermal gradients, is being eroded all the while, and this is what we are actually seeing being played out in the stats, which I have alluded to more than once on this forum.

Oneiric 3

Just reading back about comments regards human breath warming the Arctic up.

Same could be said for Vegans:

https://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-and-healthy-diets-may-actually-be-worse-for-the-environment-study-finds

http://www.medicaldaily.com/vegetarians-cause-more-greenhouse-gas-emissions-meat-eaters-worst-foods-environment-365398

The petty gripes of the bourgeoisie never ceases to amaze me...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nigerian-children-starve-to-death-2017-nigeria-africa-help-unicef-international-community-aid-a7546176.html

dense

Here's an interesting history of weather in the British Isles being naughty in the 18th century.

Naughty, non conforming weather is not a new phenomenon.

http://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/weather.html

sryanbruen

If the current downward rate of solar activity continues through 2018 then we will be just abouts in solar minimum by the end of the year.

The interesting part is what will the global impacts be? After all, the Earth’s temperature dropped .3c due to exceptional low sunspot activity in 2009 - but then rose significantly back up in 2010 and it was the warmest year on record for the globe at the time (helped by a moderate El Nino event).

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Regarding Prof Sweeney's comments on 'The Big Wind', I don't agree. Ireland is placed on a well documented storm track, and it not out of the bounds of reason to suggest that severe storms such as that in 1839 naturally happen on occasion. Also, I do recall that he alluded to 'Storm Darwin' back in 2014 as being a result of climate change on the same program, which is strange, given that Darwin was not an exceptional storm historically speaking. Misleading in the extreme, and his 'qualifications' stand for nothing if this type of disingenuous narrative is being pushed by him and those of his ilk who have them.

What are his qualifications?

None are necessary to make stupid and misleading statements.

I know he's a Lead Author for the IPCC and according to An Taisce's Climate Change Spokesperson, the activist John Gibbons, must represent the "97% scientific consensus" when he now claims that co2 exhaled in human breath is not carbon nuetral and causes climate change.

http://www.thinkorswim.ie/page/6/



Being obsessed with climate justice should immediately disqualify him from holding any official advisory position if it's causing him to publicly make stupid and misleading claims like that.

He appears to be unhinged, personally obsessed with climate justice, and will say anything to promote his personal obsession, to a brainwashed audience that obviously lacks the mental ability to check his claims.

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

What are his qualifications?

None are necessary to make stupid and misleading statements.

I know he's a Lead Author for the IPCC and according to An Taisce's Climate Change Spokesperson, the activist John Gibbons, must represent the "97% scientific consensus" when he now claims that co2 exhaled in human breath is not carbon nuetral and causes climate change.

http://www.thinkorswim.ie/page/6/



Being obsessed with climate justice should immediately disqualify him from holding any official advisory position if it's causing him to publicly make stupid and misleading claims like that.

He appears to be unhinged, personally obsessed with climate justice, and will say anything to promote his personal obsession, to a brainwashed audience that obviously lacks the mental ability to check his claims.

In that piece on his communications to Ray Bates, Gibbons freely admits (as suspected) that he is not qualified to comment on climate science, but only sees himself as a science communicator, i.e. lobbyist. Yet he sees fit to shout down someone whom he admits IS an expert. What's his agenda, I wonder?

To conclude: both of us know that climate change is a huge problem and both of us presumably agree that BAU is simply not an option. I think we could both agree that the Irish media largely ignores this story, and when it is covered, often focuses on dissent rather than consensus. As a journalist, citizen and parent, I feel compelled to do what I can to try to improve our understanding and communication of climate change, and will happily work with anyone to that shared end. Unlike you, I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be. I occupy that ill-defined niche of a science communicator.

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In that piece on his communications to Ray Bates, Gibbons freely admits (as suspected) that he is not qualified to comment on climate science, but only sees himself as a science communicator, i.e. lobbyist. Yet he sees fit to shout down someone whom he admits IS an expert. What's his agenda, I wonder?

You tell me?

I say Climate justice, ala Mary Robinson and Marie Figueres, transforming the global economy.

I will persuade you eventually Gaoth Laidir, because you are now reading the same climate waffle that I am and beginning to ask the same questions

It's social climate justice with a sprinkling of weather thrown in.

BTW Gibbons is lying if he calls himself a "science communicator".

He's a propogandist running a propogandist blog and won't publish comments unless they tally with his views.

These people (Sweeney and Gibbons, An Taisce) are responsible for creating national policy on climate change.

So is the Citizens Assembly.

But at least the Citizens Assembly has acknowledged in an email to me that the efficacy of it's various recommendations suggested by its activists has not been assessed.

When I asked the Citizens Assembly what affect their initiates will have on averting climate change, the answer was, and I quote "the Assembly has not carried out that assessment."



Yet it's pushing ahead with all sorts of ill thought out recommendations with no assessment of what they're supposed to achieve.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-votes-for-radical-moves-to-tackle-climate-change-1.3281006?mode=amp

Nor (as you'd expect) does it have any information on the percentage of climate change attributable to Ireland.

In responding to the Citizens Assembly recommendations:

"Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Denis Naughten said the results of the assembly demonstrated that “as a nation we are engaged and ready to move on from the model we inherited from the Industrial Revolution."

If that last line rings any bells Gaoth Laidir, and it should, it's because it tallies exactly with what I've been saying here about the UNFCCC wanting to implement socialist policies and quoting UNFCCC voices saying here:

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

"3 February 2015 - The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement."

(No doubt someone, no prizes for guessing who, will pop up to try to say I'm now taking Minister Naughten and Miss Figueres comments completely out of context.

To that I will say, bullshït, you tried to deny what Professor Sweeney said and now you'll try to deny what the Minister has said.)

Both the Minister and the UN have made virtually identical statements.
Both are in the context of climate justice.

The two of them are saying the same thing.

Their agenda, what is it?
There's no science now after Sweeney's recent clanger and there's little enough about "climates" in any of it either.

The "agenda"?

What do you think it is?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In that piece on his communications to Ray Bates, Gibbons freely admits (as suspected) that he is not qualified to comment on climate science, but only sees himself as a science communicator, i.e. lobbyist. Yet he sees fit to shout down someone whom he admits IS an expert. What's his agenda, I wonder?

John Gibbons has never claimed to be a scientist and he doesn't claim to be producing research, but you don't need to be a scientist yourself to notice that Ray Bates' position on global warming and climate sensitivity is out of step with the majority of other experts in that field, and it is a very legitimate question to ask why the public should believe a contrarian opinion over and above the published statements from bodies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and countless other highly respected scientific organisations.

On what basis do you think Ray Bates' study on climate sensitivity is more likely to be true than the vast majority of other studies that show a climate sensitivity of between 1.5c and 4.5c

One of the major issues is that he bases his research on the UAH Satellite measurements, which were always an outlier when compared with the other temperature datasets, and which have since been shown to have been wrong and had been underestimating warming because they didn't account for Diurnal Drift. So if Ray Bates bases his research on flawed data, why should anyone trust his findings more than the research based on more reliable data?

He also relies heavily on discredited papers by Lindzen and Choi and an unproven mechanism known as the 'iris effect'. He claims that the Iris effect has been validated by Mauritsen, T., and B. Stevens (2015) but this is another misrepresentation of the science. The Mauritsen paper showed that if certain model parameters are tweaked just the right way, that an Iris effect can form, but their research also showed that the effect only has a very slight overall cooling feedback and their paper showed that even with their model runs showing the strongest iris effect, a 2.8c climate sensitivity would be reduced to about 2.3c.

When you watch Bates talk, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Mauritsen paper completely vindicated Lindzen and Choi, and his own paper, but in reality, his study is based on a lot of unproven assumptions, and several that are highly questionable given that they rely on poor quality satellite data.

In fact he was challenged on this at the end of his talk that he gave at UCD where he said he is aware of the controversy with the UAH satellite measurements, but he says that the conclusions are still valid because they match the RSS trend, but the UAH and RSS datasets do not match, Bates just waved away the controversy.


http://whenexpertsdisagree.ucd.ie/ray-bates-ucd-climate-sensitivity-the-primary-area-of-uncertainty-in-physical-climate-science/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/the-return-of-the-iris-effect/

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'm no scientist, but basic meteorology would suggest that with an Arctic region warming faster than the mid or tropical latitudes, that Atlantic storms would become less frequent and less intense, given that the basic ingredient that leads to such storms developing, and that is, strong thermal gradients, is being eroded all the while, and this is what we are actually seeing being played out in the stats, which I have alluded to more than once on this forum.

It's more complex than that. The Jet Stream seems to be losing some of it's power already, and is meandering more, this is dragging cold arctic air further south, where the fronts come into contact with much warmer tropical systems which can drive extreme weather events such as the blizzards that have hit the USA last month.

When the Arctic is ice free in summer, there will be all kind of changes to atmospheric and oceanic currents which could have unforeseen impacts on our weather. Actually, I'd be interested in what the weather experts on here think the impact of an ice free arctic summer will be on Irish weather.

The NAO seems to be swinging more violently which has seen its variability double over the last century and could lead to more extreme weather events in these parts.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

When you watch Bates talk, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Mauritsen paper completely vindicated Lindzen and Choi, and his own paper, but in reality, his study is based on a lot of unproven assumptions, and several that are highly questionable given that they rely on poor quality satellite data.

Poor quality satellite data?

What about the poor quality "proxy data"?

Or the vast globe-covering non existent "gray (sic) areas data" that NOAA derives temperature data from?

None of "the data" is fit for purpose as far as I can make out from what you're now saying.

It is all built on a hill of "poor quality" data.

Any luck with that survey of Irish meteorologists and professional climatologists that would show us that the majority row in behind Sweeney and Gibbons on all of this apocalyptic stuff?

No? We can put that imaginary claim to bed then.

Apologies for all the questions, I'm just trying to put some perspective on the amount of highly questionable poor quality data which is being relied upon.

Its useful whilst I attempt to identify an agenda that is being pushed by Gibbons and Sweeney and those who'd claim that Sweeney didn't say what he said to Pat Kenny.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

It's more complex than that. The Jet Stream seems to be losing some of it's power already, and is meandering more, this is dragging cold arctic air further south, where the fronts come into contact with much warmer tropical systems which can drive extreme weather events such as the blizzards that have hit the USA last month.

When the Arctic is ice free in summer, there will be all kind of changes to atmospheric and oceanic currents which could have unforeseen impacts on our weather. Actually, I'd be interested in what the weather experts on here think the impact of an ice free arctic summer will be on Irish weather.

The NAO seems to be swinging more violently which has seen its variability double over the last century and could lead to more extreme weather events in these parts.

Thanks for that. Will have a look at the NAO stats later, but for our own patch at least, with mean minimum temps tending to rise faster than maxima over the last 15 years or so, I would have thought with regards temps at least, our weather is becoming less extreme.