Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Because short term predictions are very different from long term predictions. That is basic logic and science.
The most sophisticated climate models incorporate weather models. It's hard to find a reference on the internet that specifically says this because I suppose it invites the Japie criticisms . Climate models would have a few more inputs but weather is what mixes up the temperatures and you need that for climate. You could say climate models are just weather models run for a very long time. They get out of step after a week or so but that doesn't matter if you ignore the specifics of the weather predicted on the 1/1/2100 and just average it all at the end of the model run.
Here's a page on climate modelling i found that does admit this.
www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
"In many ways, climate modelling is just an extension of weather forecasting, but focusing on changes over decades rather than hours. In fact, the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre uses the same "Unified Model" as the basis for both tasks."
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
It's an odd thing following threads like this and others which discuss climate change. What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. But is it that simple? What about perspective? As an analogy, two man are standing on a road facing each other. One faces the oncoming traffic and one the opposite way. The one facing the traffic is panicked and urges the other one on the emergency to move off the road. However the one looking the other way see's no such vehicle and retorts "relax, fake news, panic merchants" etc. Those that don't want to look at the evidence should best be left as "natural selection" candidates. The science is settled and those like the Tony Abbott's of the google world be left to relax in the middle of the road.
True. They will die out and the planet will fight back, whether the deniers accept it or not.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..Dr Karl summed it best IMHO. He doesn't believe in climate change. He accepts the science. I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Precisely. One can't "believe" in science but one can certainly "believe" that the current climate change is natural because there's no evidence for that.
The true hysteria is the denial of science and the claim that anyone who supports more comprehensive action is trying to destroy western civilisation.
I mean you have to be utterly insane to think that significant action will lead to collapse of civilisation or, you must be working for the status quo.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..IFocus said..Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Not trying to discredit you, but, not a doctor Karl spent five minutes explaining that bald tyres on the road are slippery unlike the bald tyres in motorsport, and that's why they're illegal. Truth is, bald tyres have better grip, until it rains or there's anything on the road, the real reason they're illegal
I have heard Dr Karl say a few things that are a bit dodgy but in the main he is up there particular in his realm of science.
Don't know the context about the bald tyre thing but there is no comparison due to the different compounds used. A normal treaded tyre that is bald has a compound that set for tread not for when its bald where as racing slicks compound is completely different and is set for the track conditions.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..psychojoe said..IFocus said..Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Not trying to discredit you, but, not a doctor Karl spent five minutes explaining that bald tyres on the road are slippery unlike the bald tyres in motorsport, and that's why they're illegal. Truth is, bald tyres have better grip, until it rains or there's anything on the road, the real reason they're illegal
I have heard Dr Karl say a few things that are a bit dodgy but in the main he is up there particular in his realm of science.
Don't know the context about the bald tyre thing but there is no comparison due to the different compounds used. A normal treaded tyre that is bald has a compound that set for tread not for when its bald where as racing slicks compound is completely different and is set for the track conditions.
I probably should have qualified this statement by mentioning that I rode superbikes for ten years, I got the nickname psychojoe when I moved to ultimate sport, that was twenty years ago.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..IFocus said..psychojoe said..IFocus said..Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Not trying to discredit you, but, not a doctor Karl spent five minutes explaining that bald tyres on the road are slippery unlike the bald tyres in motorsport, and that's why they're illegal. Truth is, bald tyres have better grip, until it rains or there's anything on the road, the real reason they're illegal
I have heard Dr Karl say a few things that are a bit dodgy but in the main he is up there particular in his realm of science.
Don't know the context about the bald tyre thing but there is no comparison due to the different compounds used. A normal treaded tyre that is bald has a compound that set for tread not for when its bald where as racing slicks compound is completely different and is set for the track conditions.
I probably should have qualified this statement by mentioning that I rode superbikes for ten years,
Impressive.................life on a edge at speed
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Chris 249 said..
Because short term predictions are very different from long term predictions. That is basic logic and science.
The most sophisticated climate models incorporate weather models. It's hard to find a reference on the internet that specifically says this because I suppose it invites the Japie criticisms . Climate models would have a few more inputs but weather is what mixes up the temperatures and you need that for climate. You could say climate models are just weather models run for a very long time. They get out of step after a week or so but that doesn't matter if you ignore the specifics of the weather predicted on the 1/1/2100 and just average it all at the end of the model run.
Here's a page on climate modelling i found that does admit this.
www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
"In many ways, climate modelling is just an extension of weather forecasting, but focusing on changes over decades rather than hours. In fact, the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre uses the same "Unified Model" as the basis for both tasks."
Ian rest assured I am under zero illusion as to the fact that human behaviour affects the planet on many different planes including climate.
What gets to me is the alarmism and the spurious claims that we are on the brink of extinction.
I was brought up in Africa and there is probably no better a place to see environmental degradation. At the same time I have also seen environmental recovery of astonishing proportions. One such example is a sheep station I used to holiday on with friends from school in the late sixties and early seventies. At the time it was rare to see wild life and what we did see was mostly treated as noxious and fair game for any of the large choice of weaponry available.
With the collapse of the wool industry the owners mucked around with fruit and ostriches until they went broke. I returned there in 2000 and the transformation was nothing short of astonishing, There was wild life everywhere. The most vivid was the return of vegetation which I have seen in different places.
I have been acutely aware of the impact of humans on the planet since the seventies. I studied ecology and fishery management. I will no longer eat any salmon or farm reared trout. The only aquaculture I believe is sustainable is seaweed and mollusk production, I despair at the damage inflicted on the sea by corporate fishing.
I live a life which. it you don't take into account the fact that I deliver concrete which would have to be one of the most environmentally destructive products around, which is simple to the degree that my "environmental footprint" is insignificant.
We've developed into a species which. in the words of Paul Levy who wrote Dispelling Wetiko, have been almost completely overcome with malignant egophrenia.
It is my firm belief that the only way in which we are going to evolve into the species we have the potential for is to address the problem from within.
Only then will we have the power and will to take care of our house in the manner in which it deserves.
It is also my firm belief that the people who are driving climate alarmism have a hidden agenda, I'm not going to elucidate on that because there are plenty of folk who know a lot more about it than I I and have written extensively about it.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
the fact that human behaviour affects the planet on many different planes including climate.
What gets to me is the alarmism and the spurious claims that we are on the brink of extinction.
Agreed, of all the things we do that have a side effect of stuffing up the planet, a little extra Co2 is most likely well down the list of what the planet has to get back in order when the population of people eventually crashes.
How the alarmism, now targeting Co2, plays out is going to be as interesting as how the science itself copes with whatever eventually happens.
But as you say nature is remarkably resilient. I heard a similar report from an area in the south Australian mallee. 90% of SA mallee, that used to dominate between the Vic border and Ceduna, has been cleared for sheep and agriculture. Met some ecologists in the Lameroo pub whose study area was a 100 yo old sheep station that had been acquired because it had a central depression that was useful for holding water that was being pumped in an effort to correct a salinity problem. The comeback of native vegetation, thought to be extinct in the area, quickly turned it into an ecologist's dream.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
My evidence that alarmists are full of it is all the failed predictions and massive exaggerations. All the failed models. The dodgy temperature gauges. The rejection of science for dogma. Hockey stick graphs.
Watch al gores movie again, it just gets better with time.
Greta wants me to act as if my house is on fire...... Should I be calling 000, should I be fleeing, where do I go if I am pretending every house is on fire, or is she just being an alarmists?
Select to expand quoteSpotty said..
So one mediocre scientist from a different area of science knows that almost all the scientists who actually work in that area are wrong. Yep. Sounds good??. Just as good as me telling AA and all the PWA pros that they know **** all about windsurfing
Oh, and the world's biggest industry , fossil fuels, run by people like the world's richest family, is a poor underdog. Yep. Totally logical. Just like saying that the Packers and Murdochs are poor underdogs compared to plumbers and teachers
Select to expand quoteSympathy with the rationales...
We need the microphone holder to have some interest in the topic and capacity for scepticism...
I listened half heartedly to a hottly presented. Chick bouncing the q and a as though they all had equal merit.
The only way to get some reality checks would be at her interest / comprehension level..in this cAse i would be asking her (=ally him) if they would take fashion advice from someone in trackkie dacks with their bum crack on display .. Bargaining the price done on clothing item from the reject bin... Chances are NOT!!!!!
So phd in plant dna. DR I have your point of view for a $. Should be filtered from the opinion makers spectrum.. Unfortunately the person with the dollar is smart enough to fund the opinion makers re election campaigns... Welcome to Australian politics.. The ultimate last larf will be when that laybye priest in waiting tony Abbott gets re-elected....
The likes of Monty Python have to have a genesis in something..
0 ppm CO2 freezing too cold
250 ppm stable g8 for human and current biosphere to live in
400 ppm too hot in most places for comfort.. But on the Brightside.. All the places newly under water will not be too hot. Bugger about the loss of almost everything as you know it...
Cheers
AP
Chris 249 said..Spotty said..
So one mediocre scientist from a different area of science knows that almost all the scientists who actually work in that area are wrong. Yep. Sounds good??. Just as good as me telling AA and all the PWA pros that they know **** all about windsurfing
Oh, and the world's biggest industry , fossil fuels, run by people like the world's richest family, is a poor underdog. Yep. Totally log
The poor underdog is the person on an average wage, maybe $75k a year who has to pay $100 a week in fuel to get to work, has to pay $200 a month for electricity and a bit less than gas.
This underdog is then told their fuel bill will go up to $150 a week, their electricity bill will double, their gas bill will treble. All of these price rises are needed to save the planet. Also their taxes will rise to help fix up all of the problems.
At the same time the decision makers jet around the world at someone else's expense, to work out more ways to save the planet.
I'd love to hear some of your opinions on this article from the wall street journal.
gohaynesvilleshale.com/m/discussion?id=2117179%3ATopic%3A3881059
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
The poor underdog is the person on an average wage, maybe $75k a year who has to pay $100 a week in fuel to get to work, has to pay $200 a month for electricity and a bit less than gas.
This underdog is then told their fuel bill will go up to $150 a week, their electricity bill will double, their gas bill will treble. All of these price rises are needed to save the planet. Also their taxes will rise to help fix up all of the problems.
At the same time the decision makers jet around the world at someone else's expense, to work out more ways to save the planet.
what i find frustrating is the total lack of leverage australia is getting from being no 1 coal exporter and no2 gas exporter in the WORLD.. 2 major eergy sources and we r keeping our heads above water but still squabblingabout $20 billion budget defeict.. totally myopically pluck ed
saudi arabia .. my electricity bill insted of $2500-3000 would be $2-300 if that..
we do not want to compete on labour costs but why we compete to have some of the most expensive power in the world is beyond sensible..
imagine what we could (imo should ) be dong with an equvalent budge surplace to a oil prodcing middle east country which has such a stabile place to do business.. we would be capable of so much in the alternate energyfield..social programs infra structure.. the only place in this country whre u can see that degree of unbrideled spnd is......
parliment house.. and look at what it has doe to the quality of the poitical decsion making since moving from the former building to the current...
the curve on entitlement over merit has toa large portion inverted... individually ooo g8 bloke or ok or ... but in the span of 20 years the short termism howcan i get re..ellected... meeeeh.
so sad we slip ackwards chained to our mediocre mentality because of the scope of our vision...
4ex.. where would we be now if enforced super had not become law.. so many benefits..
we just need more quality vision outcomes.. at least 2 per term of government
de.. rant tme goto 2 go 2 desk
be thoughtfulb4 opinionated = higher quality soapbox
cheers AP
Select to expand quotebjw said..I'd love to hear some of your opinions on this article from the wall street journal.
gohaynesvilleshale.com/m/discussion?id=2117179%3ATopic%3A3881059
Excellent article, thanks for posting
The Breakthrough Institute is interesting;
Breakthrough offered a new framework for thinking about climate change.
The key to dramatically cutting emissions would be to "make clean energy cheap."
In contrast to conventional approaches, focused on regulation and emissions targets and timetables, making clean energy cheap could reconcile the conflict between global economic development and climate mitigation.
It also made for better politics, offering a positive and proactive way to address climate change that could also meet the energy needs of billions of people still striving to live modern lives.
In service of that vision, Breakthrough conducts research focused on clean energy innovation, energy efficiency, and energy for human development.
Since the 2011 T?hoku earthquake and ****ushima nuclear accident, Breakthrough's energy work has focused heavily on the future of nuclear energy.
Along with a growing cohort of scientists, journalists, philanthropists, and environmentalists, we have made the case that addressing climate change will require abundant, cheap, safe, and reliable nuclear energy.
Toward that end, Breakthrough has been a leading advocate for innovation in advanced nuclear designs and business models.
Select to expand quotebjw said..
I'd love to hear some of your opinions on this article from the wall street journal.
gohaynesvilleshale.com/m/discussion?id=2117179%3ATopic%3A3881059
great article
just a quote I found from the article that cant be agreed on in the Seabreeze Forums:
"In the real climate debate, no one denies the relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and a warming climate."
Here on Seabreeze the forum discussion cant even get up to this point. Let alone have an intelligent discussion on what happens next and how to mitigate the risks.
Not many people here deny the relationship between human emission of greenhouse gases and climate change.
I just believe it is a minor relationship.
I reject the alarmism, I reject green extremist. I reject the wasting of trillions of dollars. There are far more important environmental things that money could be spent on.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Not many people here deny the relationship between human emission of greenhouse gases and climate change.
I just believe it is a minor relationship.
I reject the alarmism, I reject green extremist. I reject the wasting of trillions of dollars. There are far more important environmental things that money could be spent on.
fricken hilarious! Soon you'll be telling us that global warming was actually your idea.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Not many people here deny the relationship between human emission of greenhouse gases and climate change.
I just believe it is a minor relationship.
I reject the alarmism, I reject green extremist. I reject the wasting of trillions of dollars. There are far more important environmental things that money could be spent on.
Some may find this interesting chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/ignore-the-day-at-your-peril/
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
The poor underdog is the person on an average wage, maybe $75k a year who has to pay $100 a week in fuel to get to work, has to pay $200 a month for electricity and a bit less than gas.
This underdog is then told their fuel bill will go up to $150 a week, their electricity bill will double, their gas bill will treble. All of these price rises are needed to save the planet. Also their taxes will rise to help fix up all of the problems.
At the same time the decision makers jet around the world at someone else's expense, to work out more ways to save the planet.
But the scientists who are saying we need to take action ARE among those underdogs you're talking about. The typical academic scientist earns 79k - pretty much the same as the $75 of your "average underdog". And the scientist has spent about 8 years studying full time, so they start their working life well behind most other people in financial terms. The scientists will suffer just as much financially as the other underdogs, so they have no motive to spin the facts as deniers claim they do.
The average person in the fossil fuel industry earn more than the "underdogs" or the scientists. People like oil company CEOs have a median salary of about $3 mill and the Saudi royal family which is worth about 2 trillion bucks. So the scientists who warn of AGW are among those "poor underdogs" and those from the fossil fuel industry are the ones with the big bucks and the power.
Claims that electricity bills will double because of emission reduction schemes appear to be greatly exaggerated. Under Labour's scheme they seem to have risen by 10%, not 100%, and there were offsets. Fuel increases were apparently about 6%, so it would be a rise from $100 to $106.
It's great to help the underdogs, but we can probably do that far better by reducing the greatly-increased inequality in our economy, rather than by ignoring the AGW problem. Just go out on Sydney harbour and see the number of 45-150 foot powerboats running around out there and you can see how the rich have gotten richer in recent decades, at the expense of the middle class "underdogs". It's fascinating, and horrifying, to see that the sort of 20-25 foot boat a typical middle-class family could have has almost vanished, replaced by tinnies and kayaks at one end and 40-120 footers at the other.
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..TonyAbbott said..
Not many people here deny the relationship between human emission of greenhouse gases and climate change.
I just believe it is a minor relationship.
I reject the alarmism, I reject green extremist. I reject the wasting of trillions of dollars. There are far more important environmental things that money could be spent on.
Some may find this interesting chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/ignore-the-day-at-your-peril/
So, you have no response when it was pointed out that the previous article you linked to was wrong and cherry-picked the data? If you are going to ignore flaws in some of your links, why should we look at your other links?
A quick check appears to indicate that the basic claim in your link is incorrect. Studies such as Davys et al (2016) do incorporate the effects of diurnal mixing etc.
Select to expand quotebjw said..
I'd love to hear some of your opinions on this article from the wall street journal.
gohaynesvilleshale.com/m/discussion?id=2117179%3ATopic%3A3881059
Sounds damn good to me.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Chris 249 said..
Because short term predictions are very different from long term predictions. That is basic logic and science.
The most sophisticated climate models incorporate weather models. It's hard to find a reference on the internet that specifically says this because I suppose it invites the Japie criticisms . Climate models would have a few more inputs but weather is what mixes up the temperatures and you need that for climate. You could say climate models are just weather models run for a very long time. They get out of step after a week or so but that doesn't matter if you ignore the specifics of the weather predicted on the 1/1/2100 and just average it all at the end of the model run.
Here's a page on climate modelling i found that does admit this.
www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
"In many ways, climate modelling is just an extension of weather forecasting, but focusing on changes over decades rather than hours. In fact, the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre uses the same "Unified Model" as the basis for both tasks."
The models may be the same, but the point is that an error in prediction at the scale of one day is not proof that the model doesn't give good predictions at the scale of four decades. It's similar to the fact that a forecast that say "seabreeze increasing from 5 to 25 knots during the afternoon" is not made invalid because there is a lull for one minute at one spot.
Email copied from an Alumni site:
Hello Jan,
Australia's Hottest Day on Record 1828
Not 2019, BUT 1828 - a blistering 53.9?C
Back before man-made climate change was frying Australia, when CO2 was around 300ppm, the continent savoured an ideal pre-industrial climate .
We are told today's climate has more records and more extremes than times gone by, but the few records we have from the early 1800s are eye-popping.
Things were not just hotter, but so wildly hot it burst thermometers.
The earliest temperature records we have show that Australia was a land of shocking heatwaves and droughts, except for when it was bitterly cold or raging in flood.
In other words, nothing has changed, except possibly things might not be quite so hot now!
Lance Pidgeonhas been researching records from early explorers and from newspapers.
What he's uncovered is fascinating! It's as if history is being erased!
For all that we hear about recent record-breaking climate extremes, records that are equally extreme, and sometimes even more so, are ignored.
In January 1896 a savage blast "like a furnace" stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks.
The death toll reached 437 people in the eastern states.
Newspaper reports showed that in Bourke the heat approached 120?F (48.9?C) on three days.
As reported at the time, the government felt the situation was so serious that to save lives and ease the suffering of its citizens they added cheaper train services. When our climate is "the most important moral challenge" why is it there is so little interest in our longest and oldest data.
Who knew that one of the most meticulous and detailed temperature records in the world from the 1800s comes from Adelaide, largely thanks to Sir Charles Todd.
The West Terrace site in Adelaide was one of the best in the world at the time, and provides accurate historic temperatures from "Australia's first permanent weather bureau at Adelaide in 1856".
Rainfall records even appear to go as far back as 1839. Lance Pidgeon went delving into the National Archives and was surprised at what he found.
The media are in overdrive, making out that "the extreme heat is the new normal" in Australia.
You're welcome....or as it is written nowdays Your welcome.
Baba
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..This underdog is then told their fuel bill will go up to $150 a week, their electricity bill will double, their gas bill will treble. All of these price rises are needed to save the planet. Also their taxes will rise to help fix up all of the problems.
Only if we keep propping up the coal and gas corporations.
If instead we transition to a renewable energy mass market, you won't have a fuel bill because your car will be electric, you won't have an electricity bill because your solar panels will power your house and charge your car and you certainly won't need expensive gas.
So if you wan't zero control over your expenses, keep buying fuel, buying coal fired power and using gas appliances.
Select to expand quoteDelFuego said..
^^ you really don't get it do you, the differences between climate and weather
Okay, you tell me.
What is the difference between climate and weather?
Weather that supports alarmists is climate.
Weather that does not is called weather
Dodgy surface temp data measuring weather is called climate
Satellite data measuring climate is called 'not science'.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Email copied from an Alumni site:
Hello Jan,
Australia's Hottest Day on Record 1828
Not 2019, BUT 1828 - a blistering 53.9?C
Back before man-made climate change was frying Australia, when CO2 was around 300ppm, the continent savoured an ideal pre-industrial climate .
We are told today's climate has more records and more extremes than times gone by, but the few records we have from the early 1800s are eye-popping.
Things were not just hotter, but so wildly hot it burst thermometers.
The earliest temperature records we have show that Australia was a land of shocking heatwaves and droughts, except for when it was bitterly cold or raging in flood.
In other words, nothing has changed, except possibly things might not be quite so hot now!
Lance Pidgeonhas been researching records from early explorers and from newspapers.
What he's uncovered is fascinating! It's as if history is being erased!
For all that we hear about recent record-breaking climate extremes, records that are equally extreme, and sometimes even more so, are ignored.
In January 1896 a savage blast "like a furnace" stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks.
The death toll reached 437 people in the eastern states.
Newspaper reports showed that in Bourke the heat approached 120?F (48.9?C) on three days.
As reported at the time, the government felt the situation was so serious that to save lives and ease the suffering of its citizens they added cheaper train services. When our climate is "the most important moral challenge" why is it there is so little interest in our longest and oldest data.
Who knew that one of the most meticulous and detailed temperature records in the world from the 1800s comes from Adelaide, largely thanks to Sir Charles Todd.
The West Terrace site in Adelaide was one of the best in the world at the time, and provides accurate historic temperatures from "Australia's first permanent weather bureau at Adelaide in 1856".
Rainfall records even appear to go as far back as 1839. Lance Pidgeon went delving into the National Archives and was surprised at what he found.
The media are in overdrive, making out that "the extreme heat is the new normal" in Australia.
You're welcome....or as it is written nowdays Your welcome.
Baba
Misleading rubbish from someone with an obvious lack of honesty (Pidgeon, not you). It's well known, both from modern sources and from old ones, that until the BoM was formed (and sometimes even later) temperatures were often wildly inaccurate. Many reports came from unscreened thermometers, sometimes exposed to the full sun. Some were under hot tin roofs. This is NOT some modern conspiracy - I've already shown a link where the BoM said IN 1908 that the earlier recordings were dodgy because the thermometers were not properly positions.
As far as Adelaide goes, even decades later there were complaints (available in old papers) that the measurements were way too high. Here's one as early as the 1880s; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/36323252?searchTerm=thermometer%20Adelaide&searchLimits= . There's also an expert opinion that the thermometers in the observatory that Pidgeon praises were reading too high, sometimes by 1.6 degrees, as early as 1898; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209128426?searchTerm=thermometer%20observatory%20screen%20Adelaide&searchLimits=
Here's a detailed piece from a bit later, noting that the Adelaide thermometers Pidgeon talks about were not screened by Stevenson screens until 1886; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/36322792?searchTerm=thermometer%20observatory%20screen%20Adelaide&searchLimits=
If Pidgeon was actually going through old papers as he claims he was, he would have noticed these reports that show how bad the old records were;
Here's an 1886 paper which says that no Stevenson Screens were used in oz until Clement Wragge introduced them; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/36322792?searchTerm=thermometer%20observatory%20screen%20Adelaide&searchLimits=
Here's a 1907 record where stations that did not have the proper Stevenson screens were recording SEVEN DEGREES too high; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/196159366?searchTerm=thermometer%20%22Stevenson%20screen%22&searchLimits=
Here's one from 1913, mentioning that the old thermometer was unreliable and read too high;
trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100885196?searchTerm=thermometer%20%22Stevenson%20screen%22&searchLimits=
Here's a 1908 piece about how unreliable thermometers were unless they were properly sited;
trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72806514?searchTerm=thermometer%20%22Stevenson%20screen%22&searchLimits=
Here's a piece where the head of the BoM said as early as 1929 that the high temperatures recorded in earlier days were probably due to "faulty exposure" of thermometers;
trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/244300915?searchTerm=thermometer%20%22Stevenson%20screen%22&searchLimits=
Here's a 1908 piece saying that the earlier thermometers were reading SEVEN TO EIGHT DEGREES TOO HIGH; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/10645889?searchTerm=thermometer%20%22Stevenson%20screen%22&searchLimits=
Intriguingly, the claimed all-time heat records from Bourke was recorded on the "Federal Refrigerator" according to contemporary reports, which may indicate that it was not recorded by a standard thermometer.
So the fact is that it's been known for over 100 years that the early recorded temperatures were often wildly inaccurate and often way too hot. This is not some modern conspiracy to erase old records, but a century-old fact. When the old papers Pidgeon was using contained clear and definite information about the unreliability of many of those temperatures, he should have said so. He's apparently a liar with an agenda.
It's also illogical to compare the heatwave deaths in 1896, when people wore heavy clothing, when there were few mechanical fans and no air-conditioning and few cold drinks. Pidgeon is just spinning bulldust.
