Slashdot Mirror
Australia's Hottest Summer Beats Previous Record by 'Large Margin' (brisbanetimes.com.au)
As Australia welcomes the first day of autumn with a sigh of relief, the summer statistics have arrived from the Bureau of Meteorology confirming suspicions that the country just sweated through it's hottest-ever summer. From a report: The national mean temperature for summer smashed the 1961-1990 average by a whopping 2.14C, almost a full degree above the previous hottest summer on record (2012-2013), which was 1.28 degrees above the old average. The mean maximum temperature also beat the 2012-2013 mean maximum by a similar margin (2.61 degrees above average compared to 1.64 degrees above). "It was exceptionally warm across most of the country," the weather bureau's summary states, with NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory all recording their hottest-ever summer as severe and lengthy heatwaves spread across much of the country in December and January.
Translation: Help me bury my head in the sand!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I have a tried and true Australian strategy for counteracting this. Put a tax on the temperature.
New Zealand just had it's third hottest January on record.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I haven't seen any reports of a repeat of the South Australian Blackout of 2016. I guess there has been some sort of technological improvement since then.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
No links, no mention of where temperature recordings were made.
If full links were provided to all the data, would you believe them ?
If no, why ask for links ?
If yes, then why are you doubting the conclusion ?
Whenever you ear a report of a hot or cold spell, I recommend visiting University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer site to look at the temperature anomaly maps. This gives you a far better picture of what's going on globally than local reports do.
For example in this winter's bitter cold spell in North America, you would have seen extremely high temperatures in places like Svalbard Norway. This shows that the cold temperatures in the US midwest weren't the *globe* being colder, they were in fact the consequence of the incursion warm air from the temperate latitudes into the Arctic. Since temperatures mix very slowly on a global scale, the cold Arctic air was displaced southward into central North America. When those cold temperatures "disappeared" a few days later, to be replaced with record warm temperatures, they actually just moved to a different place (e.g. the North Atlantic).
Of course this is still weather, but it's weather compared to a long term climate *baseline* -- 1979-2000. If you make a habit of visiting this data site you'll get used to seeing the globe mostly *orange*, meaning hot compared to the baseline. Eight of the past ten years are among the ten hottest years in the instrumental record. Nine of the last ten were among the hottest when they happened. To see an extensively *blue* (cool) map, you'll have to wait for the next major La Nina event, although in all probability that will still be hotter than baseline most of the time.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For chrissake, global warming is about mean temperatures. And when an entire continent sees temperature shifts, no that's not fucking weather.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Record snow falls in the mid west are a result of global warming.
Or how do you think the snow got there? Hu? It is winter!!! But the ocean is still warm, hence it creates clouds, hence they snow down.
Can't really be so hard to grasp simple principles.
100 years ago, the ocean would have been colder: hence less snow.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Some sort of Australian Seasons Savings? On my calendar the equinox is March 20.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
For chrissake, global warming is about mean temperatures. And when an entire continent sees temperature shifts, no that's not fucking weather.
When climate shifts, so does weather... so it's both. Which is why it's so sad when people say "it's not climate, it's weather" ... Saying it's weather doesn't rule out it being climate as well in any way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You were fine up to clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space, so more clouds = global cooling. So you see, it's not as simple a line of reasoning as you think it is.
This is the problem with the arguments of a lot of global warming alarmists. They've crafted their arguments so that warmer temperatures are evidence of global warming, and cooler temperatures are also evidence of global warming. To be scientifically valid, a theory has to be falsifiable. If you concoct your argument so that no matter what happens it supports your theory, then it is not falsifiable, and either your theory or your argument is flawed. (This is the problem with string theory - nobody has presented a way to disprove it. So it remains forever stuck in the realm of maybe true but who really knows.)
Stick with the emphasis on mean temperatures rising. That's pretty well established. Don't try to pass off cold weather events as evidence supporting global warming, because anyone with an iota of common sense will call out your BS. The way I figure it, global warming increases the average energy state of the global weather system, resulting in greater temperature extremes (hotter and colder). But it's impossible to say if any specific hot or cold temperature event is a result of global warming, or just natural weather fluctuations. The mean temperature OTOH is a combination of millions of temperature measurements. That statistically averages out the fluctuations, giving you a reliable measure of what the system is doing over time.
There are links right there in the article to the State of the Climate 2018 report from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The report addresses most of your issues, and has plenty of embedded references that you seem to have missed because they weren't all bundled up in the end-matter.
But you probably didn't have time to look into that without sacrificing first post.
In New Zealand it has felt like a very short and not-so-hot summer. For the past week, late-summer temperatures have been as low as 5 degrees in the morning and topping out at a not-so-flash 19 degrees around here (we're talking Celcius for you 'mericans) during the day.
Even today, there's a cold Southerly and I went back to wearing jeans (instead of shorts and a teeshirt) well before the end of February whereas in years-past, it's been safe to keep wearing my summer gear through to near the end of March.
Of course this may be just an anomoly (in which case it's just "weather") but it might also mean that the bloody Aussies stole our summer in order to get their "hottest ever" weather. Bastards! :-)
"The last 5 years or so have been some of the coldest in my 50 years of life."
That's just aging.
Clouds reflect sunlight back into space [slashdot.org]
That depends on several factors. Clouds also trap IR trying to escape from the Earth during night time. Type of cloud, altitude, and place all matter for the exact balance between the two.
You're right, fortunately both countries publish historical data which show a distinct upwards trend over the years despite the very short polar vortex weather event you just cited.
This is the problem with the arguments of a lot of global warming alarmists. They've crafted their arguments so that warmer temperatures are evidence of global warming, and cooler temperatures are also evidence of global warming. To be scientifically valid, a theory has to be falsifiable. If you concoct your argument so that no matter what happens it supports your theory, then it is not falsifiable, and either your theory or your argument is flawed. (This is the problem with string theory - nobody has presented a way to disprove it. So it remains forever stuck in the realm of maybe true but who really knows.)
Well the problem is that climate change evidence appears in the form of both rising global means and increasing global variance of temperature. The problem with this from a PR perspective is that variance (or standard deviation) is a complex statistical concept. How you do communicate that to the public? You can't so they simply point at extreme weather events as evidence (they are). And since that includes both warm and cold events and there are stupid people on both sides, you get dumb absolutist arguments. You sounds scientifically literate pointing out falsifiablity but your simplistic reduction to a binary situation allows you to both be completely wrong and sound scientifically accurate at the same time. You are wrong because we can measure variance and it is increasing which gives us even more evidence that climate change is happening. But you are right that the public wouldn't understand that more subtle point and would be unable to see the fallacy in the binary reduction you used. Either you understand PR well, or you are the victim of PR...
PS The term variance is abused in other fields like data science to mean even more vague but complex things (like error rate or uncertainty).
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Because New Zealand has records going back hundreds of years, eh?
I'm not sure what your point is. Historical meteorological records for New Zealand go back almost 150 years.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yet in the article they claim Australia's heat is evidence of global warming.
Indeed. Weather is not climate. Weather doesn't affect an entire continent at once for a combined duration of several months at a time.
Especially now that here in the Midwest we are seeing record setting snowfalls and record setting low temperatures.
Now speaking of weather you just managed to compare an entire summer dataset to the polar vortex which was a weather event, one with a very short duration and on the whole the US has had quite a mild winter. *golfclap*.
Now in the meantime if you care to look at historical data you'll see upwards trends in both countries. If you care to go to the detail you'll find the hottest daytime temperature record wasn't actually set during the hottest continental summer either. But I get it, weather and climate are difficult to separate.
If anyone insists that this is indicative of global warming then every record low temperature must be counted as evidence against it.
That is not how trend lines work. Come back when America actually has had the coldest year on record and the previous record was the year before it, and the record before that was also in the past 4 years.
Then I guess we'd better get hot ... no pun intended ... on some technological solutions.
(Perhaps the saltwater cloud guy from earlier today.)
Hand wringing, scolding, and name calling don't seem to be doing the trick.
Because New Zealand has records going back hundreds of years, eh?
Do you even know what "on record" means, Anonymous Coward?
... that the first day of Autumn offered no relief. It was 38degC in the Victorian Central Highlands where I live and looks like being not much cooler than that today.
A YouTuber I follow is at the Avalon Airshow, just south of Melbourne. Not only is it pushing 40, it's windy, that hair-dryer hot wind that makes 40-ish temperatures even worse. In the meantime we've just had the coldest February ever here in Vancouver.
...laura
Right. Because nothing is more scientific than researchers refusing to share data. Proprietary information is bedrock of scientific progress; don't break it.
No links, no mention of where temperature recordings were made.
If full links were provided to all the data, would you believe them ?
If no, why ask for links ?
If yes, then why are you doubting the conclusion ?
Links? We got links! https://edition.cnn.com/2019/0... https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25... https://phys.org/news/2019-01-... https://www.standard.co.uk/new...
Pages and pages of links.
I'll just note that I haven't found one Fox News link yet, as they are busy showing that Global warming is a hoax........
It snowed in Seattle, you know.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Right. Because nothing is more scientific than researchers refusing to share data. Proprietary information is bedrock of scientific progress; don't break it.
Have you considered moving to the other side of the flat earth? I have zero tolerance for people like you - The Data is right out there, a simple web search away, but you apparently either have a political reason of denial, or are new to the intertoobs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well then, it's not much of a point, if what he thinks that means there is no evidence New Zealand has warmed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No links? The article that was liked to contained links to both the report summary, from which you can download the full report, and also a sub-site where you can get the data. It might be worth reading the whole article and checking your facts rather than just posting your unchecked reactions.
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
You were fine up to clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space [slashdot.org], so more clouds = global cooling. So you see, it's not as simple a line of reasoning as you think it is. ... so some idea about clouds coming from warm oceans reflecting more sunlight making it cooler is completely irrelevant. Insert comata where you wish.
It is winter there
Don't try to pass off cold weather events as evidence supporting global warming, because anyone with an iota of common sense will call out your BS. ... so much to common sense. If the vortex was not there, it would not be cold. If it would not be cold it would not be snow. If global warming had not shifted the arctic vortex .... and so on. Very simple line of principles and logic.
Yes, because they are idiots. Idiots != common sense. The change in climate pushes the arctic vortex south over north america: hence it is colder in central north america, what you idiots call "mid west". And because the oceans are still warm enough to produce enough rain/snow you have more snowfall
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You mean other than every day this winter since global climate change sent the arctic air to North America?
Ooo, CNN and NPR links. Why don't you link globalwarmingisreal.com while you're busy wasting your time with fake news.
In other word, you got nothing. Congratulations on making a fool of yourself.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The whole of the USA has had a "mild" winter?
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Correct..
Written records going back to the 1700s, physical evidence from Tree ring samples going back over a thouand years, geological records going back millions.
Like, how far back do you really want to go?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Why do you want them to lie? The science is very simple, observable and repeatable. Energy enters the system and warms air. The heat , following very basic and predictable thermodynamic increases the differential between high and low pressure regions, and thus thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy. Again, as predicted with simple high school level physics. You get storms. Storms give you cold regions, as any child can tell you.
Why keep asking for evidence. There are tens of thousands of extensive studies, hundreds of thousands of papers. Millions of hours of work.
The evidence is so conclusive, and it has been conclusive since the 1800s when scientists first worked out what was going on when they realised CO2 created banding in the IR spectra and started warning that the industrial era, at the time in its full coal belching swing could create rises of 4 or 5 degrees over time. 150 years later those earliest models have been shown to be somewhat accurate, and as more discoveries have come on line , importantly from ice cores, tree ring studies and geological studies, observational evidence and physics have lined up to provide a picture of a future with extreme highs and lows and vastly more turbulent climate and acidified ocean.
You can be skeptical, but it doesn't matter, the laws of physics don't care about your opinion, because science is not a democracy. Its up to you if you want to be deluded. The earth isn't flat. Vaccines wont give you autism, evolution is real and the climate is warming, and those facts are utterly independent and indifferent to your personal whacky belief system.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure.
Why limit our scope to the climate history of the Earth? I'm sure there are older planets in the galaxy with hotter atmospheres. Or compare it to stellar atmospheres for that matter?
In the context of the history of industrial fossil fuel use, 150 years is significant.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah they did. For all your freakout about a bit of cold weather the January average surface temperature was 3 deg higher than the 51-80 baseline. Incidentally this was almost exactly the same temperature as Jan last year since although you didn't get your polar vortex up the mid west, the golf region had a cold snap last year.
But hey a small circle near the great lake is a -1 deg compared to the 51-80 baseline so quick let Trump know so he can use that as "evidence" that global warming isn't happening, right?
Because that claim is a load of bollocks.
1) Bristlecone pines only
2) Only after 1970
3) Only in northern hemispheres
4) every other proxy keeps up, including other tree ring species
5) It's well understood why: pollution. Which is more in the NH.
For global warming, a slight increase in temperature results in a large increase in standard deviation. Higher highs and lower lows with a small increase in the average. It's a normal phenomena that the more energy there is in a system that has a cold and hot side, the wilder the self-forming structures in an attempt for physics to equalize. Energy distribution is not uniform.
I keep hearing on how weather is not climate. Especially now that here in Australia we are seeing record setting heatwaves and record setting high temperatures. Yet in your post you claim "The Midwest's" cold is evidence of global cooling.
So what if "The Midwest" saw record low temperatures? This is a weather event, not global cooling.
If anyone insists that this is indicative of global cooling then every record high temperature must be counted as evidence against it. Now, make up your mind. Is weather the same as climate? If so I got lots of burned, brown and dry evidence of global warming in my front yard for you to see. Is weather different than climate? Then this record setting temperature in "The Midwest" is a local news event at best. I shouldn't care about "The Midwest's" cold any more than they care about my bushfire casualty numbers.
Oh, great, another anonymous troll trying to undermine solid science with bullshit and deflection. It's past time to continue being polite to cocksuckers like you.
Fuck off and die of cancer.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.