Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

One of my hobby horses is how people with agendas cherry pick facts or distort facts or simply lie. When I see so-called facts about climate change (previously referred to as global warming) I try to look a little further to see if there is a hidden agenda. Bear in mind that this agenda can be as little as "I don't want to stop driving my gas guzzling V8." I have to say at this point that it looks highly unlikely I will now ever own a V8 engined car run on petrol and as such a there will be a significant void in my development: I may as a result never have the credentials to join a men's shed when I get old!

But I digress as I wished to point out one or two points to be aware of when discussing temperatures, the possibility of Climate Change and any other associated business:

1. We are not talking about the last twenty years. The period of concern is the last two hundred years: In fact since the start of the industrial revolution, which to my mind commenced in the early 19th century. Consequently any body who starts off a discussion by saying they experienced high temperatures when they were a child has missed the point entirely. When they were a child, it was already happening: Just not as severely as we may be experiencing now. Only people in excess of two hundred years old can use the argument of it has happened before.

2. Around 97% of scientists concur that climate change is a reality. Why do the denialists chose to believe the 3% that fly in the face of their scientific comrades? Who is sponsoring that 3%.

3. Man is possibly exacerbating climate change rather than being the sole contributor. There are many natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, that potentially contribute to warming. Consequently we could really do without man's contribution.

4. Frequently it has been pointed out that the earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before, but most of the people that put this argument forward either don't know or deliberately neglect to mention that man was not going to put his foot on the planet for several more millions of years. Mankind has never had to contend with these CO2 levels.

5. It took an awful long time (>200,000 years) for modern man to reach a population of one billion. It only took another two hundred years to reach the current 7.7 billion. It has increased exponentially since 1800 (see the graph below).There is a big question as to whether the planet can sustain a population that is projected to reach 11 billion by the end of the twenty first century. Actually that may be by 2050: I am not quite sure. Please verify this as I may have an agenda that even I don't acknowledge.

6. Trees do indeed absorb and thrive on CO2, but "HELLO" vast, vast tracts of former bushland and forest have been felled. The USA, South America, Australia and Indonesia all once had vast forests and now they don't and so they are no longer the carbon store on which we once heavily depended. It is cycle from which we cannot for the moment extract ourselves. Grass is a carbon store, but certainly here in Australia we are in drought and we can't grow anything. I heard recently that 95% of the forests in Australia have been removed since Capt. Cook arrived.

7. Lastly, and this a slight diversion from climate change, man seems hell bent on destroying his own planet: Doing quite unmentionable things in his own nest. I heard last night that microscopic size plastic particles are showing up in Krill.I know of somebody who has an eight years contract to investigate this abomination.


Even if man has not contributed to climate change, climate is certainly changing, even in Katoomba as Brett has testified. If Katoomba is hot, everywhere else is like an oven. Can we withstand this change? Clearly not at the moment. The ground is barren where we ordinarily grow crops and burnt out when we have not yet had time to chop down the trees.

I find it disgraceful that our politicians are not big enough (I include all sides of politics here) to acknowledge that a disaster is looming, that they need to do something about it in both the short term and the long term and that they need to have a plan (arguably a dynamic plan to allow for changing information) in place to cope with as many foreseeable contingencies as possible.

Thank you Brett for pointing out that climate change has apparently reached The Blue Mountains and let's hope that one or two other people step up with their statistics. Here in Millmerran we have had no record high temps. We had our first 40 deg day only two days ago, but we have had temps between 35 degs and 39degs almost relentlessly since December and much of November too. Almost no rain to speak of and certainly no significant rain for a long time.

Regards
Paul

World_population.png

Geez, so much to respond to overnight - good to see I can still prod everyone awake

Originally Posted by RossM

I really hope this is a tongue in cheek comment.

I believe you'll find it was not t-i-c.

Originally Posted by crowie

NO GLOBAL WARMING IN NEW ZEALAND
It damn cold and wet, wet, wet. Woodworking mates in the USA have feet of snow as early as

Yes, and I have had a jacket on all day yesterday and so far this morning after a record hot day 2 days ago. What about the melting glaciers in the Antarctic, Greenland et al? What about the 3 newly discovered islands in the Arctic Ocean?

CC is not about spikes - it's about long term trends - constantly breaking records is a long term trend.
17 of the hottest 18 years on record have been within 2000 to 2017 - that's a trend, and a seriously disturbing one.

Originally Posted by cava

When I was growing up in Sydney in the 60’s, it was so hot that the newspapers used to have competitions for readers to report the highest temperature. The daily prizes was a lottery ticket. Pavements were buckling, and this happened 2-3 times on front of our own house on successive years. We lived in Haberfield. i remember recording 113F and ringing the newspaper to report it. Didn’t get the prize as it was not the highest temperature for the day. A review of the BOM records today, does not have these high temperatures listed. They appear to have been deleted.

George, unfortunately that is only anecdotal evidence, and dependent upon what type of thermometer (accuracy), was it calibrated correctly, was the temp taken correctly etc. I remember buckling roads too - everyone does - but have they changed the mixture/techniques for roadbuilding to counteract this phenomenon? You'd have to think that they should have. That evidence most certainly does not prove that CC does not exist (which I think is what you are hinting at).

The thing about recording temperatures is that Stevenson Screens have only been in use since the late 1800s and didn't become a standard until quite some time after that. This means that old temperature records are not reliable - very unfortunately.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

... time will judge who is right,

But Ray, what if it is ultimately proven that the deniers were wrong all along, and that it is then TOO LATE to do enough about it to stop the catastrophic, irreversible damage?
What are the deniers going to do or say then? "SORRY"?
That just won't cut it.

You see we have to take into account the lag in accumulating data before we can be certain, and there is now quite a cluster of scientists who are saying two things:
1. Temp increase forecast may be seriously understated
2. IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE! You can be quite sure that they hope they are wrong about this.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

as I said there has been both warming and cooling over eons of time

But nobody disputes that. Nobody at all.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

but there is also the scenario that there is a finite time for earth regardless of what we do, hence, humanity and its ever searching questioning character will always push boundaries either physical or theoretical.

Do you mean because of The Rapture or because of scientific reasons. In either case, I see no reason to do our very best to accelerate towards the cliff edge....rather the opposite.

Furthermore, if you mean for scientific reasons, then that "finite" period of time is well beyond the next hundred years or so, and yet as things are progressing vast amounts of the planet will be uninhabitable within 100 years. That is just a few seconds in the geological time scale, and yet we have managed to do it.

This is a really good example of how those with an agenda seek to distort the science by deliberately misrepresenting it and quoting studies to try and further their position. (and it's also an interesting read) see the comment by Mike Wallace and the reply.

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Originally Posted by Glider

Lots of their nonsense makes sense to people who don't want to acknowledge the facts, like CO2 being only 412 parts per million. Try eating a microgram of plutonium and see how you travel. It matters.

I'm glad you brought that up Mick. If I was to tackle Alan Jones about this he would cut me off because I would be about to dispel his ridiculous bloody argument as mathematically fallacious and illogical, and we can't have that can we?

The point is as follows:
Yes, CO2 is a miserable little % of the atmosphere - we know - we can measure it.
We know as an irrefutable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known it for 160 years.
We also know how much CO2 we are putting out (call it quantity "x").
Jones ridiculously says that because the % of CO2 is so small, whatever we do just doesn't matter.
I can only say that he must be arithmetically challenged, because the SMALLER the % of existing CO2 is, the worse the effect of putting that finite amount into it is.

For those who cannot grasp what I am saying there:
If I have a litre of water and I add 10mls of dye to it, it will be a 1.0% solution, of a certain colour density. If I add that same 10mls of dye (representing the CO2 that we add) to a smaller amount of water, then the water will look darker, won't it? So adding that finite amount "x" of CO2 to an even smaller amount in the atmosphere only makes the increase greater, therefore putting things more out of balance than if the 0.04% was a larger number.

Therefore, to dismiss our additions of CO2 as inconsequential, because the original amount is so small at 0.04%, is completely and utterly illogical because the argument defeats itself! It's a bloody idiotic argument.

Furthermore, according to Yale University CO2 was just 0.03% in the mid-20thC. That means we have increased it by a staggering 33% in about half a century. That does NOT fit into the timescale of geology. Even an increase of 5% in that time would be radical - 33% is outrageous.

Originally Posted by cava

When I was growing up in Sydney in the 60’s, it was so hot that the newspapers used to have competitions for readers to report the highest temperature. The daily prizes was a lottery ticket.

Pavements were buckling, and this happened 2-3 times on front of our own house on successive years. We lived in Haberfield.

i remember recording 113F and ringing the newspaper to report it. Didn’t get the prize as it was not the highest temperature for the day.

A review of the BOM records today, does not have these high temperatures listed. They appear to have been deleted.

Jeez - there is no conspiracy!!

I can put my thermometer on the back deck and "record" 65C in the shade. This does not make it a reliable reading and it won't be added to official records. The BoM data has been available for decades and used in many papers. The data has remained the same.

We know that the world is running out of oil and coal. We have ~50 years worth of oil, and at current rates, 150 years of coal. Looking at the more critical (time wise) of the two means we will need a very good alternative motor for vehicles to be up and running totally efficiently by, shall we say, 20 years from now so that we can have a smooth transition period. It is obviously not viable to run out of fuel and only have started developing an alternative too close to the end.

And so it is the case: we have started to transition into electric vehicles, but have ONLY just started. They will not be broadly viable for a good while yet, and that is mainly due to batteries and their limitations.

Over time, that will change, and in probably not a lot of time.

Make no mistake - electric vehicles are not totally clean - there is the lithium problem just for a start. However, better scientific minds than mine have determined that electric vehicles are the way forward.

So has industry.

As far as coal is concerned - we may have 3x the time reserves, but the changes in the electricity industry that are already happening will see an end to the filthy dirty crap as a natural consequence of development of electric vehicles, home solar et al. So if it is going to be phased out as a result of economics, why not get on with it apace, and take up the insurance of cleaning up the CO2 emissions....you know....just in case CC is actually a real planet threatening thing.....

Coming to the part that I just don't understand:
What IS it exactly that CC deniers are so concerned about? I mean really, what is it?
We know that petroleum/diesel powered vehicles are on a hiding to nothing and WILL be replaced pretty soon. Once the infrastructure is up and running with simple quick recharging you will NOT be able to sell your petrol vehicle for anything more than scrap value or possibly antique value if it is mint.
Are they (CCDs) concerned about jobs? If so then oh puh-lease , this is like the argument in the 70s about computers taking all our jobs - the jobs that were superceded were replaced by jobs in....guess what...the IT industry! Or the really crappy jobs were gone, and people got better jobs. Unemployment is within the same realm as it always has been (i.e. <10%). New industries create businesses and new jobs....it's as simple as that.

If it's not jobs that is the problem, then is it the cost? As near as I can tell the $100,000 Tesla has about the same luxury standard as most other $100,000 vehicles. There is not a great deal of difference in value for money, as I understand it, and that is an industry in absolute infancy - it can only get better and more affordable.

So cost and jobs just won't be issues. What else is left that is objectionable about acknowledging Climate Change? Is it just pure bloody minded stubbornness in having to admit error?

Industry is crying out for some certainty in Govt policy so that they can invest - Industry believes in CC (errrr, 'cept those industries that have a rather large vested interest in perpetuating lazy Coal as good). Jaysus, even the Tobacco industry has invested hugely in eCigs because they see tobacco as on the way out (and don't believe half of what you read about eCigs...I have first hand experience - they are nowhere near as damaging as tobacco - unless you continually inhale the biggest possible lungful as part of an official competition....only in 'Merica). Won't be long before the oil companies start investing in Solar and electric vehicles. They have to, or go out of business within 50 years.

What is it?
Anybody?

Hi,
A couple of hundred years ago they said we would all have drowned in horse droppings by now, then some dick head invented the internal combustion engine and saved us all.
Now there's a thought.

It is a great irony to see this thread running after nearly two years. Up until now the ccders have been able to look you in the face and say, to quote Tony Abbot "Climate change is crap!" but not any more. Not when we all realise as a country that the scientists were right when they said that the destruction from fires and drought and other disasters would be degrees of magnitude more expensive than getting on with transition away from fossil fuels. Now we have the proof and this is just the beginning. It is going to get worse and lets not say that we weren't warned. Two huge warnings that I am aware of...
1...The worlds biggest re-insurance companies (now Swiss-Re and Munich-Re) announced in 1974 that they were building the future cost of global warming into insurance costs. No ideology involved, purely money calculated with forensic actuarial precision.
2...The British parliament commissioned a very serious senior public servant to write and exhaustive study on every concievable aspect of global warming. The report called 'The Stern Report' was released in 2006. In it hundreds of pages detailing the science and the likely consequences with the conclusion that global warming is real and the effects are going to be disaster piled on disaster.
Now here we are. If you are still in denial it matters very little except that you become an increasingly foolish figure. The rest of us are waking from our slumber and see what we have to get a real leader into power who has an idea of how to shape this new future. We have been blinded by Murdochs propaganda machine and the right wing think tanks for too long.

Originally Posted by A Duke

Hi,
A couple of hundred years ago they said we would all have drowned in horse droppings by now, then some dick head invented the internal combustion engine and saved us all.
Now there's a thought.

It was (supposedly) about 100 years ago. and "They" were not a scientific consensus, but (again, supposedly) urban planners. You are talking about the myth often called "The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894". This is alarmist nonsense dreamed up and spread on the Internet by a guy called Stephen Davies, to promote some of his ideas in a right wing American so called "think tank"(FEE). Despite people looking, there is no evidence of any of this being true - no article in the Times and no urban planning conference. Made up by a guy to promote is story; he provided no references and no other evidence beyond his assertions. FEE seems to be an institution that tailors a message in return for a fee (pun intended).

There is evidence that people of the time were concerned with manure as a problem (e.g. see this from 1893 The Horse-world of London - William John Gordon - Google Books) but no panic & no dire predictions can be found.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

George, unfortunately that is only anecdotal evidence, and dependent upon what type of thermometer (accuracy), was it calibrated correctly, was the temp taken correctly etc. I remember buckling roads too - everyone does - but have they changed the mixture/techniques for roadbuilding to counteract this phenomenon? You'd have to think that they should have. That evidence most certainly does not prove that CC does not exist (which I think is what you are hinting at).

The thing about recording temperatures is that Stevenson Screens have only been in use since the late 1800s and didn't become a standard until quite some time after that. This means that old temperature records are not reliable - very unfortunately.

it.

Fully understand where you’re coming from, however I know for a fact that, back in the day, journalists verified claims and stories.

In this case it would have been with the BOM. So even though our amateurish temperature reading by a non-NATA calibrated thermometer, may not have been spot-on, it would have been within cooee of the real figure.

We had a close family friend that was associated with the newspapers as an editor (or some such position), and slander/here say/lies etc was big on their list of telling the truth.

The single greatest factor in these current fires is the build up of fuel on the ground which is the direct result of the tree huggers having made it almost impossible to do low intensity burns which the aboriginals practiced for thousands of yrs in alternate seasons together with a forest worth of red tape, paper wielding bureaucratic public servants justify there existence at all levels of government and the closure of fire trails or minimal maintenance of them. I have travelled the fire trail that went from the Putty Rd, up over Gospers Mnt and to Newnes/Rylston, it used to be the training ground for the army and remote terrain air strip training for the RAAF, but the tree huggers have made sure its almost obliterated and now we are waiting to hear if we have lost the one natural habitat of the Wollemi Pines.
There are many documented cases of farmers having lost crops, livestock, sheds, homes because they are no longer allowed to clear fire breaks. They have stopped the farmers from grazing cattle in the high country of the Snowy which has led to an excessive fuel build up.

There's been a lot of blame cast on the "tree huggers" by the Murdoch gutter press and the lunar right of the National and Liberal parties, and this has been picked up by people who can't be bothered to check the facts. It's claimed that they have prevented fuel reduction burns that would have reduced the severity of the fires.
I don't carry any brief for the Greens; they can be as crazy and corrupt as any other political party, but let's have a look at some facts.
The Greens NSW currently have 58 councillors on 32 local councils around NSW. There are 158 councils in NSW.
So they are averaging less than two greens on the each of the small number of councils on which they have any representation. Most of the councils on which they are represented are inner city ones, which have very little bush in which to carry out fuel reduction burns. Even in our area, which surprisingly, has two Green councillors, they have had no influence over the burns that have or have not been carried out. In my area, they attempted four hazard reduction burns, but only one could be carried out. Three had to be cancelled, not because of any opposition, but because of weather conditions.
Responsibilities for the burns lies across the Rural Fire Service (72000 volunteers, 900+ state government staff), Forestry Corporation of NSW (owned by the NSW Government) and National Parks NSW ( a NSW Government department). In the state parliament, the Greens have 3 out of 93 seats in the Legislative Assembly, and 3 out of 42 in the Legislative Assembly - hardly a position of strength from which to control, or even influence, policies on burn offs.
The only paperwork involved in preparing fire breaks is there to make sure they're done safely. Before the current safeguards, it wasn't uncommon for a burn done by a farmer to get away, and even during the current bushfires there have been several cases of illegal backburns. Farmers can be as stupid as anyone else.
It's easy to blame public servants, because they can't answer back. Just because you aren't allowed to do whatever you want doesn't mean they are wielding what little power they have improperly. They have to carry out the laws that the politicians you elect make, and where they have the power to make decisions, there's hell to pay if they get it wrong. Can you imagine the uproar the Daily Telegraph or Herald sun would make if a fire started from an authorised burn-off by a farmer.
It would be more helpful if people checked their facts before blaming "greenies" and "tree-huggers".

Not that cold in NZ, apparently.
New Zealand bushfires flare amid fears country becoming more ‘flammable’ | World news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by cava

When I was growing up in Sydney in the 60’s, it was so hot that the newspapers used to have competitions for readers to report the highest temperature. The daily prizes was a lottery ticket.

Pavements were buckling, and this happened 2-3 times on front of our own house on successive years. We lived in Haberfield.

i remember recording 113F and ringing the newspaper to report it. Didn’t get the prize as it was not the highest temperature for the day.

A review of the BOM records today, does not have these high temperatures listed. They appear to have been deleted.

The reason your "record" isn't in the BoM records is because it wasn't recorded in a standard weather station. There are very specific standards for these including, for temperature records, the height of the instruments and the design and colour of the Stevenson screen in which they are housed. If you hold a thermometer out in the sun, you will not record the air temperature, you will record the temperature of the thermometer, which is effected by the radiant heat from the sun. If you hold it low down near a bitumen road you will record the temperature of the road, again, not the air temperature.
I can assure you that if you take the trouble and pay some money for the time you are wasting, you can go to the original records and compare them to those freely available on the BoM website. In almost every case they will be the same, and where there are differences the reasons, and the method used to make the changes, will be documented.

Originally Posted by AlexS

Responsibilities for the burns lies across the Rural Fire Service (72000 volunteers, 900+ state government staff), Forestry Corporation of NSW (owned by the NSW Government) and National Parks NSW ( a NSW Government department).

And how much money has been gouged out of the NSW NPWS budget by the Premier? National Parks are nowhere near as important as rebuilding concrete stadia that are just 20-30 years old. (somewhat ironic that the justification for tearing down the Sydney Football Stadium was because of fire risk....)