Australian city's hottest night in 108 years

Oh those liberal whining Aussies and their global warming hoax. I'm sure that very soon Gee-sus will come back to fix everything.

Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!

For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida. Also, it is entirely possible to have "record cold" for a couple weeks and "record warmth" for months on each side of the cold event. Therefore, no single event can be a valid excuse for either side of the debate to claim a victory. IMHO, it all comes down to personal and corporate responsibility. If people and corporations behaved responsibly regarding their waste products, government intervention would not be necessary. Even now, if the responsible parties would do so voluntarily, the government could stay out of it altogether.

Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!

Let's get this straight: The article DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE WORD about global warming. So, saying that someone is basing an argument on global warming (or saying that something like an argument on global warming is implied) by this is just plain silly.

However, if you look at the recent articles on the cold spat in the US pleny of people have (erroneously) used this as an excuse to denounce global warming. So I think you can figure out yourself which side is being hypocritical (hint: it's the ones who don't even read the articles)

So that is where all our heat went.
Record cold in the north, record heat in the south averages to normal.

1. This is in a city. Urban heat island effects are well known and documented (such as by the 1000s of unacceptably placed weather stations the IPCC uses for data), this record is meaningless for that reason alone.
2. Night time temperature is dependent on humidity.

Combine 1 and 2 and this is a dually meaningless record. Please people, get a clue.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell anitalias (or parsec, for that matter) they refuse to understand that their greenie culture is on the wane. This is what happens to a philosophy that overreaches itself and tries to run the world from one, narrow, viewpoint.

Unfortunately, I believe that the good work done by these groups such as cleaner air and cleaner water might suffer due to the backlash that is bound to occur as the truth comes out about the AGW farce they have tried to promote.

Thanks a lot Al Gore, and Michael Moore as well, and most of all, thank you to all you liberal arts majors who took over our national press in the last 40 years and used it to pursue your leftist manifesto.

I am glad that the above article does not speak of 'global warming.' Short and to the point that they had their hottest night since 1902.

Now, note something that should have careful attention paid to it: "since 1902."

It was hot in 1902 (the overnight minimum was 87 degrees F on Feb. 1, 1902 and I am told that this hot night equalled that one) and there was no CO2 back then on the level of what it is today.

CO2 is not the culprit for this hot night. It is fitting that it should not be mentioned by the above article.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell anitalias (or parsec, for that matter) they refuse to understand that their greenie culture is on the wane.

Repetition has never made a good argument (and that is all you have). Look at the data. Read the papers. Look at who does them. The picture is pretty clear after that.

And even if it were all a hoax (which it is not). Is it so reprehensible to make a better planet instead of drowning in our own waste? No one in the world (except maybe in the US) cares about Al Gore (who is he anyways?) Mixing politics with science seems to be a US-phenomenon.

Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!

Of course you, defuncdeity, marjon & others will read into this whatever you want. Don't worry about what the article actually says, just presume it really means whatever you want.

This article happens to be about my city & yes it was a very uncomfortable night. But it is not just "one record high temperature" deatopmg, as the last line of the article notes. Did you get that far?

The Bureau of Meteorology recently also noted that 2009 was the 2nd hottest year since quality records began in 1910, after 1998.

And Melbourne has just had it's 13th straight year of below average rainfall. The last 4 years have all been in the lowest 10% of readings from 155 years.

Would you like to nominate a point at which "weather variability" becomes a trend?

Hottest since 1902.
Given the urban island effect, I suggest the 1902 temperature is more significant.
What was the trend in 1902?
'Hottest on record'. How long is that?

The Bureau of Meteorology recently also noted that 2009 was the 2nd hottest year since quality records began in 1910, after 1998.

And Melbourne has just had it's 13th straight year of below average rainfall. The last 4 years have all been in the lowest 10% of readings from 155 years.

Would you like to nominate a point at which "weather variability" becomes a trend?

Four years do not constitute a trend in anyone's book. The minimum I've seen is 10 years and, given the trends over the last 2000 years, that is probably far too short.
Another problem is that of what is being called The Bolivia Effect where temperatures from one measuring station is substituted for a station that has gone away.
http://chiefio.wo...-effect/

Add Climategate to that and you start to find articles questioning the integrity of the Australian weather reporting:
http://icecap.us/...mer_yet/

Four years do not constitute a trend in anyone's book. The minimum I've seen is 10 years and, given the trends over the last 2000 years, that is probably far too short.
Another problem is that of what is being called The Bolivia Effect where temperatures from one measuring station is substituted for a station that has gone away.
http://chiefio.wo...-effect/

Did you not read my post properly?

The past 4 years have been amongst the lowest 10% of records. Rainfall has been below average for 13 straight years - so I guess that makes it a trend if you have seen a minimum of 10 years used.

Perhaps I should not have mixed comments on temperature and rainfall in one post - or are you claiming that the urban heat island effect is now also the urban drought island effect?

Of course you, defuncdeity...will read into this whatever you want.

LMAO!!

Helio, again please get a clue.

I didn't read anything into anything. These are facts I'm talking about here, I noticed you didn't outright dispute what I said (because you can't) but even to say I'm reading into it is flat out retarded. I realize you feel personally attacked for some incomprehensible reason, when I trivialized your hot night. But, dude, you either don't have the first bit of a clue about meteorology or are just plugging your ears and going "LALALALA!!" because it makes you feel good.

Furthermore, UHI is well known to effect precipitation though exactly how is dependent on surrounding geography and latitude. What I can tell you (if one believes in physics that is, which judging from your earlier comment you may not) warmer air holds more water i.e. rain would occur less often under constant "historical" air moisture availability/content.

Any other nuggets you want to offer up?

Of course you, defuncdeity...will read into this whatever you want.

I didn't read anything into anything. These are facts I'm talking about here, I noticed you didn't outright dispute what I said (because you can't) but even to say I'm reading into it is flat out retarded. I realize you feel personally attacked for some incomprehensible reason, when I trivialized your hot night. But, dude, you either don't have the first bit of a clue about meteorology or are just plugging your ears and going "LALALALA!!" because it makes you feel good.

Any other nuggets you want to offer up?

Oh font of all knowledge, please excuse my preference to believe a Bureau of Meteorology.

...Mixing politics with science seems to be a US-phenomenon.

I was not aware that the CRU and the Met were based in the US. Thanks for clearing that up for us. :)

Seriously, though, there is good reason to suspect a number of readings from the Australian stations because of data substitution from other stations that show sharp increases when other stations went defunct.

Heat Island Effect is quite strong in a number of places within city boundaries. Readings from these integrated into the other data can seriously skew the overall results on the order of several degrees.

"For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida"

I live in sunny Florida and I can assure that the last couple of weeks have been record breaking cold with temperatures well below freezing. There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

Not to worry though.

The planet is fine. It's the people that are F@@ked!
George Carlin

I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....

The heat in the Southern Hemisphere is from Hot Air and NOT the sun! Because of the extreme cold in the Northern Hemisphere the less dens air gets compressed by the cold dense air and that's why!!

But be aware!! You will soon get the coldest winter since 1902. Please read about our sun and it's cycle!!

There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

I didn't know iguanas were native to FL.

"For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida"

I live in sunny Florida and I can assure that the last couple of weeks have been record breaking cold with temperatures well below freezing. There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

Not to worry though.

The planet is fine. It's the people that are F@@ked!
George Carlin

Please check the latest news and trends of the Sun. Check also "Maunder Minimum" and see what to expect!

1902 was one of the coldest winters in South Africa and compare it with Solar minimum activities it makes sense! The sun is the only and only reason for our climate, without it there will be life!It is funny where Britain is on the brink of economic collapse, they talk about global warming LOL!! That's because with CO2 emissions they can get taxes!!!

I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....

Depends on where you get your satellite data. NASA/GISS says it shows a warming (probably after adding 'value' since Hansen is involved.) RSS and UAH show a cooling. The satellite data was excluded from determining the 2009 global average temperature because it didn't go in the correct direction.
http://icecap.us/...rature1/
http://icecap.us/...ata_set/

Neither the high temp in Melbourne nor the lows in Florida are statistically significant. BUT,one is more important than the other. The low temperatures in Florida were not confined to a small area, in fact covered an entire continent. The temperature in Melbourne was a high recorded in a metropolitan area. Large metro areas tend to be influenced by the mass of concrete and asphalt and tend to be warmer than would be if the city were not present.
The cold in Florida was unusual as noted by the die off of fish and manatees. How many trees killed is yet to be seen.
Anthropogenic global warming is true but has very little to do with CO2 in the air. Coal fired plants and indigenous'camp'fires in China emit particles that find their way to the Arctic decreasing the albedo of the snow. Thus the snow absorbs more heat, melting easier.
The reduction of ice in the Antarctic is much less and has more to do with less precipitation than any significant increase in temp. Overallcoolingisagoodbet.

"In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Related Internet Links

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Loss of the Himalaya Glaciers by 2035 was officially assessed at 90% or greater odds. Three powerful states rely on that water, making this an extremely dangerous event, if it were true.

http://www.timeso...1177.ece

Title above: "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown"

Zeke65,

It turns out that another source of the soot particles is the ubiquitous use of diesel-powered generators in the Arctic by Inuit and others who live in those parts. People do not often hear about such uses of generators up in the far north. But, they are a contributing factor to ice melt and decreasing albedo.

Actually it does "explain why there wasn't massive Arctic ice melt during the industrial revolution when all that soot from the satanic mills must have caused melting on a huge scale(how many mills with huge amounts of particulates, how many diesel generators burning a cleaner fuel)."

Well, maybe not the 'satanic' part, or your excessive hyperbole. If you look at the path the jet stream usually takes you will find that it blows north into the Arctic from the northern areas of China and Alaska into the Arctic, then turns South across the American continent. It carries the particulate matter from burning coal, wood and dried dung with it. The increase in snow melt in the Arctic has been dramatic because of this.

Increase in global atmospheric CO2 has generally been equal without a corresponding increase in ice melt in the Antarctic.

CO2 in the atmosphere is a very minor player in the overall temperature of the planet at only 380 parts per MILLION!

Nice try, MikeyK, at continually misappropriating my username but I do not hang out at blogs and do not have a blog myself. I realize that might date me a bit in this electronic age but there it is.

dachpyarvile_ (with an underscore and actually another of several sockpuppets of MikeyK) does not speak for me and has little to counter with the evidence now that the reputation of the IPCC is suffering with so far two major snafus at the root.

I actually agree that CO2 appears to be a minor player in the scheme of things.

I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....

Except the satellite data is normalized to match ground station measurements. Use your own name Mikey, the 3 minute edit limit is not beyond reason.

"Black Soot Might Be Main Culprit of Melting Himalayas" by Andrea Thompson at Live Science supports the view that particulate matter is responsible for most of the melting in the Arctic and the Himalayas. This makes sense. CO2 increasing 100 parts per million in the atmosphere being responsible for 100% of the ~1C warming does not make sense.

The effort to curb CO2 gas emissions at an almost incalculable cost does not make sense, especially by scientists that almost certainly know better. So the question becomes; Why would they support this view?