The Meeting Place

Australia’s hottest day? Not 2010, but 1828 at a blistering 53.9 °C

Back before man-made climate change was frying Australia, when CO2 was around 300ppm, the continent savoured an ideal preindustrial climate, right? (This is the kind of climate we are spending $10bn per annum to get back too?)

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 1800’s 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.

Silliggy (Lance Pidgeon) has been researching records from early explorers and from newspapers. What he has uncovered is fascinating. — Jo

Read more

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/

 ——————————————————————————————————-

12345NextLast(page 1/5)
57 comments

This is one of the reasons why the highly paid scientists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change .. 

The earth is experiencing an imbalance from human overpopulation and destruction of nature.

1. Where can I find a HIGHLY paid scientist?

2. My first experience of proposals in this area at the BOM in the late 1970s, involved the suggestion that human behaviour was causing a global warming trend which would be accompanied by greater extemes of heating, cooling and stormy weather. So both terms, Global Warming and Climate Change, were used from the beginning

Hubby has always been of the opinion that climate change is caused by movement of the teutonic plates.  Plenty to be found on the subject by a search.

Strangely enough someone wrote to the paper today on this subject which is why it came to mind.

They're teCtonic plates, and yes, in the very long term, the changes in ocean currents, and creation of very high mountains such as the Himalayas do influence climate.

What's happening now, with human induced climate change, is a much more rapid effect.

 

What caused the past ice ages .

No coal mines

Rick, why do you ask?

I suggest you check out the Wiipedia article on "Ice age". It's a good, well referenced article. (References are the key to Wikipedia.)

It's a complex and not perfectly understood topic. But a fascinating one.

There seem to be many people on here with high scientific qualifications . 

It interests me as to what in your opinion caused previous ice ages and subsequent warmings. 

Rick, why did you ignore my previous post?

I suggest you check out the Wiipedia article on "Ice age". It's a good, well referenced article. (References are the key to Wikipedia.)

It's a complex and not perfectly understood topic. But a fascinating one.

had a few VERY hot days here in melbourne,    was SO glad when the cooler change came,    dont hink i would have lasted another day,      pity the poor africans,  lol, 

Ahh not a very accurate or informative article. It reckons QLD has the highest official temp but its SA that has it, Oodnadatta 50.7C. Sturt was not a scientist or a professional of any kind unless one calls a soldier a professional. 2 years exploring does not relate to proper or correct records nor indications of climate conditions over decades but musings in a diary. May as well read Monkton the sham lord and well numerated sceptic. The supplied link site has an article or whatever by the goose as well.

Yes, the article is pretty sloppy scientifically. It's a classic example of a single, cherry picked, seeming exception to the rule , being used to try to convince people that all modern science is rubbish.

That, of course is rubbish.

Australia is a big place. Many different tempertures at any given time.

The figres maintained by the BOM are recorded according to strict protocols, something I doubt applied on Sturt's expeditions.

Maybe some of you experts that believe CO2 can cause catastrophic Global Warming can tell me why BOM changed  the hotest day in Australia from Cloncurry then to Bourke and then to Oodnadatta. 

BOM has no strict protocols. They do whatever they feel like. They are however changing previously hot temperatures. Maybe a little research into Dr Jennifer Marohasy's Blog. would help. She discovered BOM was manipulating  temperature Data and got the ABC to get BOM to come and discuss with her those assertions on TV. BOM didn't turn up. Nothing to hide eh??

By the way I'm 75 and never heard BOM use the term Climate Change and Global Warming in the 70's.

Anybody that can believe .04% of the atmosphere being CO2 of which humans are responsible for only 4% of that number, That equals .000064%  is controlling the Climate. you need a new hobby.   Good luck with that thought. By the way Australia's contribution of CO2 in the Atmosphere is .00000096%.

Every major climatic event happened 100's of years ago when the CO2 level in the atmoshere was around 280PPM.  Co2 does not control climate.

Too much nonsense there to tackle it all. I'll just ask for some evidence of the claim in your first sentence please.

Interesting post Climate Tragic. later when I'm less  jet lagged I'll go into it more.

They go on about climate change – being caused by pollution and cows farting in paddocks, they go and allow all the fireworks / Fracking /oil drilling = oil spills ruination of the planet via a throw away society and so also the  destruction = extinction of wild life the burning and chopping down of the lungs of the earth  (the trees) = the Amazon etc The Climate has changed over and over again, once there used to be forest in the centre of Aussie –oceans where mountains now are now and used to be able to walk to Tassie from the bottom of Aussie too. I say look after and RESPECT the planet and all things on and in it and problem solved!

Get on the net and do your own research.

Everything I mentioned is available on the NET and is Fact unlike your utterly bogus claim that BOM was talking Global Warming in 1970.

For your information not only was there no talk of GW the opposite is true. John Holdren, now employed as Obama's Climate Czar advocated putting soot on the arctic to aid melting the ice because the scientists of the day were worried about an on coming  ice age. You have absolutely no credibility on this subject. Just over opionionated.

I mentioned .04% of the atmosphere is CO2, that  is a Fact. I also mentioned that humans were responsible for only 4% of that CO2.  That is a fact.  Therefore humans are only responsible for .000064% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is a fact. unlike your Global Warming nonsense in the 1970's.

You will find on the NET that Cloncurry recorded a temperature of 53.1 in 1889. That is a Fact.

You will find on the NET that Bourke recorded a Temperature of 51.7 in 1909. That is a fact. It was BOM who change these temperatures under the guise of homogenisation. Only then did Ooodnadatta become the hottest day. Result of BOM intervention.

Check out DR Jennifer Marohasy's site. 

It is a pity you call someone elses view nonsense when the only nonsense has come from your side.

 Maybe you can show me one headline from the 1970 speaking of Global Warming. Because I've searched the NET and can't find one.

Climate Tragic - I worked at the BOM in the late 1970s. I simply know what was said there at the time. You don't. 

I am sticking with science and the facts I know. 

And I don't want a fight with an angry, irrational denier.

Just had a cursory  look on the internet and came up with this


The term ‘global warming’ was first used in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. He wrote a paper called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”. (Note the use of the term ‘climatic change’). Here’s NASA historian Erik Conway on the significance of the term:

"Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact onclimate had called it "inadvertent climate modification." This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, whilegreenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge".

The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance. Within another decade, the term ‘climate change’ was in common use, and embedded in the name of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in 1988.

UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the UN in which she used the term 'climate change' a year later in 1989. It’s worth quoting, since the paragraph in which it appears is as relevant today as it was then:

“In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take. But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level. It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. We have to look forward not backward, and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort”.

Source NASA

Hi Barak,

i was going to relpy when I had some spare time. Obviously you couldn't  wait to get personnal. I will reply  tomorrow and  I will not insult you as you have just insulted me.. Had you not called the things I said nonsense, maybe  the correspondence might have been different.

You have however behaved just like most warmists, disallow anyone to have a different view point to your own. 

I did not begin the insuIts here. In your second sentence you spoke of my "utterly bogus claim". It's personal, hardly polite, and definitely wrong.

Why did you write that?

Hi Barak,

Sorry but you are unable to even get the sequence of correspondence correct. In my reply to your Ahh Oodnadatta assertion I didn't mention anything about bogus claims. I did get pissed off in my next correspondence when you said and I quote " Too much nonsense to tackle here" thus showing off your superior pompus attitude. Hopefully I've cleared up your miss conception.

Good Morning Barak,

Re your Broecker correspondence. 

Thank you for a most informative and at that stage a conciliatory reply. (Before it all went down hill)

Your mentioning of Broecker (have to admit never heard of him) was valid point. However we could go on Tit for Tat mentioning/quoting countless experts from either side in an effort to support our case. I'm sure in the end we will agree to disagree without being called silly names.

I'm a simple man and look at matters in the light of cause and effect. Needless to say I belong in the group that believes its all happened before  when we didn't roam the planet and it will happen again, If you have visited Melbourne climate/weather changes 4 time in one day.

You claim to have been a BOM employee and in that light you might explain to me why the worst ever disasters happened when CO2 levels were 280PPM in  the atmosphere. Worst Hurricane hit the Antilles in 1780, killing 25000 , Worst ever Typhoon in the late 1800's stretched from Vietnam to the Philippines killing 300.000 Co2 at that time was 280PPM. The latest floods in England reported by Met Office as the worst ever. However close scrutiny of meticulously kept records show that the floods were worse in the late 1700's and late 1800's.

I can come up with countless such examples with Co2 at 280PPM  levels.  

I'm going to bore you one more time with data that is available on the internet and cannot be disputed.

Co2 is .04% of the atmosphere. A fact.!!

Humans are responsible for 4% of that .04% A fact.!!

Please explain how .oooo64% of the atmosphere can control climate and cause catastrophic Global warming. Australia's contribution of CO2 is 1.5% of .000064% which means we are responsible for .oooooo96%. To illustrate this in meaningful terms, this represnts the thickness of a human hair in one kilometre of road. 

Leaving aside BOM NASA GISS THE MET manipulate data, please allow me to concentrate/rely on Satellite temperature data that shows temperatures have leveled now for 10 to 15 years . During this time we have pumped up a Trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere for no temperature increase. For a simple man and I just can't get my head around that.

As an expert I invite you to explain  some of my query's and I leave you with the following thought.  We cannot control 96% of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere but we are going to control the climate of the planet by contolling .000064% with a solar panel and a wind farm. Sorry but that leaves me a little preplexed.

By the way there are 2300 coal powered electricity stations on the planet with a further 1300 on the drawingboards in 59 countries. Good luck with controlling CO2 emmissions.

Co2 is not the culprit.

 

 

Broecker? Huh? Never heard of him. (Or is it her?) What ARE you talking about?

Noncense? Like the rest of that post?

Please list your personal scientific qulifications that allow you to talk with any authoriy on the matter of climate.

12345NextLast(page 1/5)
57 comments