18 January 2013

Hottest January day. Ever.

| johnboy
Join the conversation
43

The ABC has the intriguing news that today has been hotter than any other recorded day in January at 41.6 degrees.

The all time record is for a February day at 42.2 in 1968.

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Jethro said :

So what you are essentially arguing is that if you as a non-scientist don’t understand the science being out out then you can only accept the science through faith?

I think this is actually an important point.

Science is most definitely not a religion but there are people who, usually from their own ignorance, have faith in science the same as any religious person has faith in their own beliefs.

Educating the public about science and the scientific method are always the best way to fight people’s general ignorance about what scientific discoveries actually mean.

And too many decimal points are never enough.

LSWCHP said :

Gungahlin Al said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

[ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

But the Statistics! Fantastic use of statistics! 14.09%!!!! That’s Gold!!! Words fail me, but exclamation marks don’t!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that 67.249% of statistics are just made up.

Cimexus said :

Another interesting thing about today is the diurnal range. The low this morning was 13.6, and the high was 41.6, for a difference of 28 C.

That is exceptionally large and indeed only 0.4 C off the all-time largest diurnal range measured in Canberra (which is tied by two days: 8.8 to 37.2 on 6/1/1950 and 8.9 to 37.3 on 5/2/1952, both being 28.4 C ranges)

+1

That’s some Kairosphilia you’ve got going there.

Gungahlin Al said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

[ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

But the Statistics! Fantastic use of statistics! 14.09%!!!! That’s Gold!!! Words fail me, but exclamation marks don’t!!!!!!!!!

wildturkeycanoe said :

It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God.

Ah look…no. I don’t want to hurt your feelings or anything, but no.

“Science” is simply a technique for finding out how things work in the world. In essence it involves forming a hypothesis about something, and then conducting experiments to confirm or deny the veracity of the hypothesis. There is no faith involved. There is no element of “belief”. It simply involves observing reality. And while not perfect, that technique works. It tends to iterate towards The Truth. It’s taken us from abysmal ignorance, and given us the understanding (incomplete though it may be) that we currently have about how the universe works. It’s A Good Thing. And it’s just a technique…a way of doing things. Claiming to believe or not believe in science makes no sense.

“Belief in God” is not a technique. It’s an unfounded belief in the minds of some people, without any evidence, that a being exists and has absolute power over everything in the universe.

One is a technique, or method of doing things. While some of the results are fallible due to flawed methodology, the technique of the scientific method (ie Science) is a universal truth. The other is a set of interesting beliefs. There is no comparison.

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

So what you are essentially arguing is that if you as a non-scientist don’t understand the science being out out then you can only accept the science through faith?

I don’t claim to understand the complexities of most scientific theories and discoveries. With the AGW theory I have made sure to educate myself as well as possible on the issue and have a fairly good understanding of it. However, I am happy to admit that most of the mathematics being presented in the scientific literature is beyond me.

However, that does not mean that my accepting climate science is nothing more than a religious act of faith. I understand how the scientific method works and understand that the science being published has been rigorously analysed and tested, unlike claims of a deity, which cannot be tested.

When I post this message on the riotact website using my tablet device and wireless Internet connection, I don’t understand how it works, but accept that it works because of science. By your logic I should be equally willing to view this technology as pure wizardry because I don’t understand the science that makes it possible.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:29 pm 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Jethro said :

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

This is why you are not a scientist.

Gungahlin Al8:22 pm 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

The end of the world is nigh and I too believe in Armageddon.
Accordingly, Armageddon pissed tonight…

wildturkeycanoe5:49 pm 19 Jan 13

Jethro said :

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God.

You must think modern technology is wizardry and witchcraft.

Accepting evidence based science that is constantly tested and refined is nothing like faith-based belief in an invisible man who lives in the sky.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:33 am 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God. I’m sure there is compelling evidence to back up the claims of Christian theology too, but non-believers won’t hear a word of it because “science” is right. Just because you can’t see God, doesn’t mean He isn’t real. Just because you can’t see hole in the ozone layer, doesn’t make it a myth. There are clues and signs, signs and wonders, for all of us to see and feel, to make up our own minds what we perceive to be real.

I don’t think you understand what science is.

Climate change denialists should be pitied, the same way as you would pity the bloke walking down the street yelling at his hands, or the cat lady who smells like urine. It’s a disease and they cannot help it.

The ones who should be brought down are the pollies who rationalise inaction but why should we be surprised? We legitimise their position when we keep bitching and moaning about any attempt to do something about it that causes us any inconvenience whatsoever.

Big generalisations I know (the last para not the first, climate denialists are barking mad loons)

wildturkeycanoe5:52 am 19 Jan 13

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God. I’m sure there is compelling evidence to back up the claims of Christian theology too, but non-believers won’t hear a word of it because “science” is right. Just because you can’t see God, doesn’t mean He isn’t real. Just because you can’t see hole in the ozone layer, doesn’t make it a myth. There are clues and signs, signs and wonders, for all of us to see and feel, to make up our own minds what we perceive to be real.

So all thepPeople who live in denial of global warming and climate change, why not just be nicer to the environment anyway. So you may lose some convenience, cost a little more now and if you were right no big loss. If you are wrong, things could get bad. Of course then again you probably all think you’ll be long gone by then anyway so why bother?

My views are that humans can affect the climate and probably have. Does this mean all the predictions are right? probably not, but it does mean we should do whats right, rather than find out the hard way.

bryansworld said :

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

+1. You trust scientists to design and test the cars and aircraft in which you travel for safety. You trust them to ensure your food is safe. But you think the foil hat brigade can do a better job of collecting and analysing climate change. “Sceptic” is to gentle. It is denial, and it is madness.

Sorry, that should have been “..and analysing climate change DATA. “sceptic” is TOO gentle.” Denialism remains a madness, or disingenuous at the very least.

bryansworld said :

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

+1. You trust scientists to design and test the cars and aircraft in which you travel for safety. You trust them to ensure your food is safe. But you think the foil hat brigade can do a better job of collecting and analysing climate change. “Sceptic” is to gentle. It is denial, and it is madness.

Ooops, should be “collecting and analysing climate change DATA”. Sorry. I still think climate change denialism is lunacy. Or at least disingenuous.

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

+1. You trust scientists to design and test the cars and aircraft in which you travel for safety. You trust them to ensure your food is safe. But you think the foil hat brigade can do a better job of collecting and analysing climate change. “Sceptic” is to gentle. It is denial, and it is madness.

desertdreaming said :

The severity of the recent run of high heat and low humidity is frequently illuminated by comparisons to the ‘records’. If our weather records in southern Australia reliably go back some 160 years(or less?), how do we know that the summers of 1761, 1712, 1681 and 1659 weren’t just as hot or hotter? It seems like we are always framing the climate change arguments against weather records that go back a few hundred years (and much less in Australia) so while we can reliably say the Earth surface temperature has warmed one degree since 1890, how do we really know that the Earth didn’t warm by 2 degrees in the 16th century, only to slowly cool by another 3 degrees to 1890,and then….? Would like that explained

This is actually a really excellent question. The short answer is whilst recorded temperature only spans a very short period, scientists can gauge what temperatures were over hundreds of thousands of years ago using what are called climate proxies (such as looking for certain isotopes in ice cores, fossil records, sediments, drilling etc.).

Most famous is the vostok ice core data, which was the result of analysing atmospheric bubbles trapped in antarctic ice cores, and shows temperature and CO2 concentrations spanning back some 450k years (very interesting because they are almost a mirror image).

Basically temperatures and CO2 concentrations varied hugely for most of the past 450k years, up until about the last 10-12k years, an epoch called the Holocene, where the temperature was uncharacteristically stable. It was this stable climate which allowed agricultural societies to develop, and civilisations to form.

The concern is that we’re currently pushing CO2 way out of any variation the planet has seen over the past 10-12k years, and temperature is likely to follow, which could be very, very bad for all the systems we’ve set up to run in a Holocene climate.

Roundhead89 said :

LSWCHP said :

So where are all the folks who pop up on cold days and rabbit on about global warming being bogus?

It seems to me that things are getting hotter around here. I don’t know how much is anthropogenic, and how much is just due to The Great Scheme of Things, but getting warmer it is.

No it’s not getting warmer. I have in my possession the Daily Telegraph dated 2nd Feb 1977 with the front page banner headline “FIERCE 40s FIRE HAVOC”.

It’s just a normal Aussie summer. We’re just noticing the sun and heat more this time because of the last two cold, wet La Nina summers.

I wonder if the Daily Telegraph was as full of sh*t back in 1977 as it is now .. the mind boggles.

desertdreaming said :

so while we can reliably say the Earth surface temperature has warmed one degree since 1890, how do we really know that the Earth didn’t warm by 2 degrees in the 16th century, only to slowly cool by another 3 degrees to 1890,and then….? Would like that explained

But but….we *do* know all that. Polar ice drilling, study of tree rings, long term record keeping and a bunch of other techniques give us reliable information about atmospheric composition, rainfall and temperature going back gazillions of years. Google for “Little Ice Age” for an example of detailed information regarding noticeable climate change extending from about 1550 – 1850.

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Ahh, it must be so pleasant living in the denialist bubble. It’s all so happy, you know best, and I’m sure your kids and grand kids will be totally unaffected by any climate change in the future. Hooray!

Hey, I also reckon scientists are making it up when they say toxic chemicals affect water and wildlife, so I’m just going to, like, dump a whole lot of poisonous crap in the lake.

It was hot, and windy.

And I lapped it all up by going on my exercise ride around 1pm for an hour.

Thank you Canberra. Thank you global warming.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:12 pm 18 Jan 13

desertdreaming said :

The severity of the recent run of high heat and low humidity is frequently illuminated by comparisons to the ‘records’. If our weather records in southern Australia reliably go back some 160 years(or less?), how do we know that the summers of 1761, 1712, 1681 and 1659 weren’t just as hot or hotter? It seems like we are always framing the climate change arguments against weather records that go back a few hundred years (and much less in Australia) so while we can reliably say the Earth surface temperature has warmed one degree since 1890, how do we really know that the Earth didn’t warm by 2 degrees in the 16th century, only to slowly cool by another 3 degrees to 1890,and then….? Would like that explained

How do we know the earth is round?

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

desertdreaming8:36 pm 18 Jan 13

The severity of the recent run of high heat and low humidity is frequently illuminated by comparisons to the ‘records’. If our weather records in southern Australia reliably go back some 160 years(or less?), how do we know that the summers of 1761, 1712, 1681 and 1659 weren’t just as hot or hotter? It seems like we are always framing the climate change arguments against weather records that go back a few hundred years (and much less in Australia) so while we can reliably say the Earth surface temperature has warmed one degree since 1890, how do we really know that the Earth didn’t warm by 2 degrees in the 16th century, only to slowly cool by another 3 degrees to 1890,and then….? Would like that explained

Oops! stuffed up the quotes in that last one, Dungfungus is the 1st paragraph, 2nd is me and Jethro has nothing to do with it.

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Thanks for that Grandpa, but saying that “scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data” is like saying that surgeons aren’t the only ones who can cut open a body. To discredit the global consensus of the scientific community regarding climate change on the basis that other unqualified (not to mention idiotic and denialist) people can draw their own bullshit conclusions from the data is like going to the butcher for triple-bypass surgery because, hey, surgeons aren’t the only ones who know how to cut up a body.

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer. I have in my possession the Daily Telegraph dated 2nd Feb 1977 with the front page banner headline “FIERCE 40s FIRE HAVOC”.

It’s just a normal Aussie summer. We’re just noticing the sun and heat more this time because of the last two cold, wet La Nina summers.

So you’re standing behind a Daily Tele headline from forty years ago? I wouldn’t wipe my gentle under regions with the Telegraph, let alone use it as the foundation of a scientific argument.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:55 pm 18 Jan 13

LSWCHP said :

So where are all the folks who pop up on cold days and rabbit on about global warming being bogus?

It seems to me that things are getting hotter around here. I don’t know how much is anthropogenic, and how much is just due to The Great Scheme of Things, but getting warmer it is.

Let’s be honest. Those people are halfwits who don’t believe in science, even when backed up by hard facts.

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

It is indeed getting warmer. This can be measured objectively (global average surface temperatures show a significant and consistent upwards trend in the last century, accelerating in the last few decades). This is of course the data that actually means something – single hot or cold days/weeks/months in specific locations doesn’t mean anything.

But even without that, there are plenty of websites out there that collate temperature records (daily, monthly and all-time records) and will generate you a list of “records recently broken”. Yes you still get cold records falling (e.g. last month in Canberra we broke the coldest December minimum on record), but heat records (across any duration of time) outnumber cold records roughly 2:1, and this is consistent across all areas on earth.

The world is warming and a significant proportion, if not all, is due to human activity. I’m not one of the complete alarmists that foresees cities falling into the ocean or the 6+ C rises predicted by some, but it’s warmed 1 C over the last 100 years and it will rise at least another 2 C this century, probably more. This doesn’t mean everywhere warms equally – some will warm more, some less, some not at all. But even a fraction of a degree is highly significant when you’re talking average global surface temperature – these figures are based on tens of thousands of locations and millions of data points, so any local anomalies cancel each other out and you are left with a definite trend upwards.

LSWCHP said :

So where are all the folks who pop up on cold days and rabbit on about global warming being bogus?

It seems to me that things are getting hotter around here. I don’t know how much is anthropogenic, and how much is just due to The Great Scheme of Things, but getting warmer it is.

No it’s not getting warmer. I have in my possession the Daily Telegraph dated 2nd Feb 1977 with the front page banner headline “FIERCE 40s FIRE HAVOC”.

It’s just a normal Aussie summer. We’re just noticing the sun and heat more this time because of the last two cold, wet La Nina summers.

Cimexus said :

Another interesting thing about today is the diurnal range. The low this morning was 13.6, and the high was 41.6, for a difference of 28 C.

That is exceptionally large and indeed only 0.4 C off the all-time largest diurnal range measured in Canberra (which is tied by two days: 8.8 to 37.2 on 6/1/1950 and 8.9 to 37.3 on 5/2/1952, both being 28.4 C ranges)

Large indeed. I was out watering my tomatoes about 7am and it was bloody lovely. Then I went out to get some lunch about 12:30, and it was hotter than the hubcaps of hell. And it’s not exactly chilly at the moment either.

I believe tomorrow is predicted to be fairly mild with a top around 28, and that will be very welcome.

So where are all the folks who pop up on cold days and rabbit on about global warming being bogus?

It seems to me that things are getting hotter around here. I don’t know how much is anthropogenic, and how much is just due to The Great Scheme of Things, but getting warmer it is.

Another interesting thing about today is the diurnal range. The low this morning was 13.6, and the high was 41.6, for a difference of 28 C.

That is exceptionally large and indeed only 0.4 C off the all-time largest diurnal range measured in Canberra (which is tied by two days: 8.8 to 37.2 on 6/1/1950 and 8.9 to 37.3 on 5/2/1952, both being 28.4 C ranges)

Interesting time for stats. Last month the following happened

December 6, 2012
Coldest December morning on record
“”The mercury in Canberra plummeted to 0.3 of a degree overnight – the coldest December minimum on record….””

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.