-7 overnight

johnboy 1 September 2012 47

So the Bureau tells us it really was extremely cold last night hitting a ballcracking -6.8 at the airport at 6:17am.

We’re hearing it’s the coldest spring day on record, ever.

Enjoy!


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
47 Responses to -7 overnight
Filter
Order
Jethro Jethro 7:10 pm 03 Sep 12

Conan of Cooma said :

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

Conan of Cooma said :

I’ve never heard anyone argue either side successfully, mostly because none of them have a clue what they are on about.

I’m generally interested to know where you think my ignorance lies. Aside from one comment which implied that CO2 is the only reason for the difference in temperature between the Earth and the moon, when there are clearly a host of atmospheric gases that contribute to the planet’s ability to retain heat, I can’t see how my contribution to this debate has been based on anything but the basic facts behind climate change. Obviously I have not written explicitly detailed comments, but I was only ever attempting to provide a simple overview of the general lines of evidence that link human activities with global warming and climate change.

Are you implying that because my contributions are based on my readings of the scientific literature, as opposed to my own scientific experiments and observations that my contributions can only be based on ‘hearsay’ and are therefore irrelevant? This would suggest that no-one can lay claim to any knowledge or understanding that didn’t originate solely from them. That’s a strange way to look at the concept of knowledge, as it suggests that hardly anybody knows anything and the only contributions to all debates that are valid are those based on discovered knowledge; acquired or learned knowledge is seen as equivalent to ignorance.

Or are you suggesting that I simply have a limited ability to understand what I’ve read in the scientific literature? As I said, I’m interested to know where my ignorance lies, as the whole climate change issue is one that I’ve really endeavoured to learn about and one to which I have devoted a lot of time to studying. I don’t claim to be an expert but did think I had a fairly good general knowledge and understanding of the topic. So, if you can explain what I’ve got wrong, I would greatly appreciate it.

Conan of Cooma Conan of Cooma 3:12 pm 03 Sep 12

HenryBG said :

If that’s your analysis of what’s going on it means you aren’t paying attention.

These guys have a good collection of informative articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

It’s my analysis of the climate change debate, and it’s 100% accurate. If you look closely my previous post mentioned nothing in relation to the science of the debate, simply the debaters themselves.

I’ve never heard anyone argue either side successfully, mostly because none of them have a clue what they are on about.

Truthiness Truthiness 2:41 pm 03 Sep 12

dismissing people based on their interest in conspiracy is a terrible thought pattern to fall into. There are clearly multitudinous actual conspiracies, as LIBOR and Trap wire demonstrate, indeed the very concept of government secrecy is in and of itself a conspiracy. Does merely being interested in the extent of one’s own deception automatically disqualify any other discussion or insight?

I for one am firmly convinced of the scientific reality of climate change, and am simultaneously deeply skeptical of carbon trading schemes thought up by the same financial geniuses who brought us the gfc.

The whole green washing of government and industry has been so insincere and ineffective, is it any wonder so much of the public doubts their sincerity? I mean, since when did Margret thatcher care about anyone? And yet we are meant to believe she cares about the environment?

The whole idea of greenhouse gas trading reeks of further capitalisation and ownership of our collective natural resources, it may help climate change to some small extent, but it also heralds an age where corporations own and sell the very air we breath and the rain before it ever hits the ground.

If governments actually cared about stopping climate change they wouldn’t keep logging and fracking. I put it to you that carbon trading schemes do almost nothing to actually stop climate change, and instead serve almost exclusively as a means to make money off our collective demise.

Bom records guru Bom records guru 1:14 pm 03 Sep 12

davo101 said :

Bom records guru said :

we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set

How did you tie the maximum temperature series together? The overlapping period suggests that the relationship is not stationary. I was wondering if there was a better way than just ignoring this and carrying on anyway.

Full details of this are at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/ (both as a summary document and a detailed technical report).

HenryBG HenryBG 12:47 pm 03 Sep 12

Conan of Cooma said :

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

If that’s your analysis of what’s going on it means you aren’t paying attention.

These guys have a good collection of informative articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Conan of Cooma Conan of Cooma 12:16 pm 03 Sep 12

I love climate change arguments.

Two groups arguing hearsay that was reported to them by someone else.

davo101 davo101 11:39 am 03 Sep 12

Bom records guru said :

we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set

How did you tie the maximum temperature series together? The overlapping period suggests that the relationship is not stationary. I was wondering if there was a better way than just ignoring this and carrying on anyway.

HenryBG HenryBG 10:34 am 03 Sep 12

Felix the Cat said :

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

Uh, cancer researchers *know* how to cure cancer but they would lose money if they revealed the cure publicly, don’t you know?

The mentality of the “global warming is a hoax” crowd is really quite interesting.
Some of them are complete morons with a ridiculously over-estimated confidence in their own abilities (eg Alan Jones, John McLean, Mr Gillespie).
Some of them are clever but apparently caught tight in a web of ego-driven self-delusion. (Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Tony Abbott)
And some of them are simply a bunch of “me-to”-ers who’ve for some reason picked an ideological tribe to belong to and believe they have to hold certain views in order to remain good members of that tribe (Anthony Cox, Nick Minchin, Dungfungus).
The rest are the serial conspiracy-theorists who are completely unable to conduct a balanced analysis of anything. (Snapperjack, Joanne Codling and other “nutjobs on the internet”).

You may have noticed they’ve all shut up about “cooling since 1998”.
In fact, I think the whole climate change denial thing has lost a lot of steam with a good few people realising they were backing the wrong horse and withdrawing their ill-informed commenting from the “debate”.

Bom records guru Bom records guru 10:30 am 03 Sep 12

davo101 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

By the way, the disappointing lack of good minuses seen over the last decade were due to the UHI effect from the growing concrete jungle around the old obs site set up in 1939 and dismantled in 2008 and replaced by the new one further south well away from the RAAF base.

The move to the new site was at the end of 2010. The minimum temperatures at the new site are an average of 0.5°C cooler than the old site (comparing the two year overlap) and doesn’t appear to change with temperature. So I don’t think we can blame the rash of minuses on the station move (ie: we’re not just sneaking a few slightly plus days into just under under zero days).

It makes a difference at the margins but not a huge one. In addition to the raw numbers, we maintain a data set for use in climate change work which is corrected for things like site changes; in that adjusted data set, Saturday ranks second lowest behind a day in September 1982.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 10:08 am 03 Sep 12

I know these arguments have gone around in the same way as the cyclist/car thing, but every time I hear someone state that Australia is only a minor contributor to greenhouse gases, I get annoyed. I immediately liken such arguments to – I only pissed in the pool a bit or well it’s just one chip packet I threw on the ground, the guy down the street dumped a trailer load of rubbish. Never mind that Australia has the ability to help set a better stand for reducing pollution for the rest of the world.

davo101 davo101 9:55 am 03 Sep 12

Mr Gillespie said :

By the way, the disappointing lack of good minuses seen over the last decade were due to the UHI effect from the growing concrete jungle around the old obs site set up in 1939 and dismantled in 2008 and replaced by the new one further south well away from the RAAF base.

The move to the new site was at the end of 2010. The minimum temperatures at the new site are an average of 0.5°C cooler than the old site (comparing the two year overlap) and doesn’t appear to change with temperature. So I don’t think we can blame the rash of minuses on the station move (ie: we’re not just sneaking a few slightly plus days into just under under zero days).

Jethro Jethro 5:40 pm 02 Sep 12

Felix the Cat said :

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

I’m also sure the government would much prefer climate change wasn’t real. It is a policy nightmare that has contributed to the downfall of 3 Prime Ministers.

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 4:27 pm 02 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

How is the funding arangements you speak of any different in any other scientific organisation such as CSIRO or ANU? Where do you think the funding comes from for research in those places? Santa Claus perhaps, or maybe the Easter Bunny? Is the science relatingto all non-climate/global warming all dodgy as well?

tuco tuco 3:23 pm 02 Sep 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

Or, do you not accept that data that shows the amount of infrared heat radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere at the wavelengths captured by CO2 has decreased?

Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Jethro, there is no point asking them questions they have no chance if understanding. You are talking to people that use the logic of IT WAS COLD LAST NIGHT SO THAT MEANS GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX JUST ASK HADLEY OR JONES.

You have very little chance of convincing the dumb to believe in science.

Jethro – perhaps the reply might run like this …
It’s nature, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe, and,? uh … No, that’s it. It’s the vibe

Deref Deref 1:54 pm 02 Sep 12

Jethro said :

It boggles my mind how vastly stupid some humans are.

“Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein

bundah bundah 11:23 am 02 Sep 12

Jethro said :

Actually, re-reading your answers you did answer them, in your own round-about way.

You don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it occurs naturally.

You don’t accept the Earth is warming despite the huge amount of data that says it is, because you were cold last night.

And you don’t accept the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, basically you are a moron.

Moron and Mr.G in the same sentence,surely not after all there is approximately a 5% chance he might be right.

Jethro Jethro 11:13 am 02 Sep 12

Actually, re-reading your answers you did answer them, in your own round-about way.

You don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it occurs naturally.

You don’t accept the Earth is warming despite the huge amount of data that says it is, because you were cold last night.

And you don’t accept the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, basically you are a moron.

Jethro Jethro 11:06 am 02 Sep 12

Mr Gillespie said :

Truthiness said :

Australia does not contribute a great percentage of overall emissions, but we do emit more than any other country per capita, and unlike most countries we are in a position where we can reduce our emissions. If anyone ought to be taking the lead on this, its us.

It’s the “per capita” bit you use in your argument that fails to justify why we have to join the Carbon Tax bandwagon and go along with the global warming/climate change/greenhouse gas bullshit. If you want to argue the “per capita” case in support of why we “have to cut back climate changing emissions in order to save the world”, then we should instead be cutting back on the number of “capita” not degrading or lowering the standard of our lifestyle down towards the second or third-world standards because we have it “too good” in the first world, spending other people’s money doing so.

Jethro said :

I have a few question for the denialists.

(1) What part of the science don’t you accept?

Do you not accept that CO2 acts as a significant greenhouse gas with incredible heat-trapping abilities? If not, why not? Its ability to capture and radiate heat can be demonstrated through repeatable experimentation and is proven by the fact that the Earth is about 35 degrees warmer than the moon.

CO? is also the stuff that we humans, as well as other animals, produce when we exhale air. It is the stuff that plants breathe, in order to make the oxygen that we breathe.

Jethro said :

Or, do you not accept that human activities have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%, even though the data clearly shows this increase has occurred, and that isotopic analysis of the carbon in the atmosphere shows that the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere is the same type that is released by burning fossil fuels?

How about we increase the number of CO?-breathing trees instead of the number of people there are in the world?

….Or, do you not accept that the temperature is actually changing, even though the data shows it is changing at a rate so far outside that caused by natural variation that current temperature increases are occurring 10X faster than the temperature increases that brought us out of the last ice age?

That’s why we’re having more of these frosts, so that argument is rather weak I’m afraid…..

Jethro said :

Basically, by denying the theory of AGW you are denying basic laws of physics and chemistry. What evidence do you have to disprove these fundamental laws of nature?

Some of the theories are either bullshit, difficult to prove, or misguided. So far I have seen NO effort to arrest the world’s ever-increasing population. No schemes to reduce fertility. Instead, all we keep hearing about is how we need to cut back on fossil fuel use, while the increasing population continues to go unchecked.

You did not in any way respond to my questions.

nobody nobody 10:31 am 02 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

As pointed out to you a few times before, the Climate Change denialists who are intelligent and able to look at the facts as they are, have mostly now accepted climate change is real, happening now, and is human caused. The most notable are Richard Muller, Bjorn Lomborg, Dmitri Medvedev, and many others. Why are you still advocating your discredited position?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

http://theweek.com/article/index/206686/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-their-minds

bundah bundah 10:19 am 02 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

bundah said :

SnapperJack said :

Whatever happened to global warming? If anybody still believes that crap they need a lobotomy pronto!

In that case perhaps we should start with all of the staff in NASA followed by CSIRO.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Heather2graph_CMAR_indiv/High_Resolution.gif

You forgot the Bureau of Meteorology. Government bodies which tell their bosses what they want to hear out of fear that they will lose funding or their jobs if they do otherwise. About as credible as the climate change scientists who rely on government research grants so they can keep telling the people who fund them what they want to hear.

Wow so there’s more than one Kate Jackson out there.Well i never!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site