Sydney temperature record smashed: 45.7c

Prior to today the highest recorded temperature for Sydney was 45.3.

That record fell a little before 3pm today, the temperature reaching 45.7c.

 

 

About these ads

42 thoughts on “Sydney temperature record smashed: 45.7c

  1. [...] 2013/01/18: WtD: Sydney temperature record smashed: 45.7c [...]

  2. john byatt says:

    What – despite the record increase in atmospheric SO2 during this period – is responsible for the “slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing”?

    the forcing is the sum of both positives and negatives,

    go and learn the basics

  3. catweazle666 says:

    Have any of you Warmists got any comments on the Met Office HadGEM3 model projection – released on 24/12/2012, curiously – which appears to reduce future predicted temperature by 36% over the 2011 projection?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/i/c/fcst_global_t4.png

    The section post-1998 is enlightening, as it seems to demonstrate little or no warming.

    Does the downtick at the end appear suggestive of the future trend?

    I also find interesting the latest paper from James Hansen, here’s an extract:

    Global Temperature Update Through 2012

    J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

    15 January 2013

    Summary.

    Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

    It seems that “natural variability” has the potential to suppress anthropogenic influence over decadal periods.

    What – despite the record increase in atmospheric SO2 during this period – is responsible for the “slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing”?

    How long do you consider the period of flat or declining global temperature requires to be to properly falsify the high sensitivity positive feedback AGW hypothesis?

    • Dr No says:

      The next El Nino event should push the temperatures to new highs. Probably within the next 3 years is my guess.

    • zoot says:

      You seem to be ignoring this bit:

      Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies.

      • catweazle666 says:

        Oh, and ACC has long ceased to be a hypothesis. .

        Really? Even Avogadro’s Hypothesis – despite massively more confirmation than the AGW hypothes has had or ever will have, remains just that – a hypothesis.

        Also, it seems you are incapable of distinguishing between a 2012 Met Office publication, a paper published in 2012 by one of the World’s pre-eminent climate scientists and “most blogs”.

        I’m not impressed.

        You lot just can’t help it, can you?

      • john byatt says:

        evidence for AGW is just as strong as evidence for evolution,

        throws in hand grenade and slips away

        .

      • zoot says:

        When I went to school I was taught Avogadro’s Law.
        It’s much more than “just” a hypothesis – see Wikipedia.

      • catweazle666 says:

        Noun 1. Avogadro’s hypothesis – the principle that equal volumes of all gases (given the same temperature and pressure) contain equal numbers of molecules

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Avogadro%27s+hypothesis

      • zoot says:

        I know Avogadro’s Law. (I told you I was taught it in school)

    • Quote mining the Met Office and Hansen isn’t going to change physics. In the meantime have a read of http://www.skepticalscience.com/was-2012-hottest-la-nina-on-record.html.

    • Oh, and ACC has long ceased to be a hypothesis. Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a hypothesis. It is a robust theory, referred to as “settled fact” by scientists.

      Per the National Academies of Science, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (pp 44-45):
      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      If you must argue otherwise, be aware the National Academies has higher standing than most blogs.

    • Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a hypothesis. It is a robust theory, referred to as “settled fact” by scientists.

      Per the National Academies of Science, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (pp 44-45): “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

  4. Westerner says:

    Much hotter 300 million yrs ago!

    • zoot says:

      300 million years ago the only life form on the planet was blue-green algae.

    • The Sun was also was a bit dimmer 300 million years ago. So if it was much hotter then, can you tell us why?

      • john byatt says:

        dimmer sun
        This is one of the reasons for taking notice of james hansen, while runaway greenhouse Venus syndrome is virtually discounted,
        the question is moot if people believe that we would still be here watching the oceans boil, we would all be dead many thousands of years prior, but it does lend support to hansen

    • john byatt says:

      So should we try to equal that?

      • Oale says:

        I’m starting to think a good way to counter these sorts of claims would be to demand evidence so the ‘skeptics’ would actually need to read a bit of science instead of copypasting arguments from 2007 SkS trashcan.

  5. john byatt says:

    The heatwave does not count, apparently there was a reason for it.

    No shit sherlock

  6. It is always instructive to listen to the views of experts – in the example below a meteorologist working for the BOM:

    ‘‘The current heatwave – in terms of its duration, its intensity and its extent – is now unprecedented in our records,’’ the Bureau of Meteorology’s manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones, said.

    ‘‘Clearly, the climate system is responding to the background warming trend. Everything that happens in the climate system now is taking place on a planet which is a degree hotter than it used to be.’’

    As the warming trend increases over coming years, record-breaking heat will become more and more common, Dr Jones said.

    ‘‘We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.’’

    Source: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/get-used-to-recordbreaking-heat-bureau-20130108-2cet5.html#ixzz2IN6Oa0ff

    When there is no cold weather somewhere on the planet (for deniers to point to) then our climate will have changed so much as to imperil our civilisation. The experts tell us that there will still be some cold records set at the end of this century (though there will be many more hot records) so there is plenty of time for deniers to play the disingenuous game “it is not warming because it is cold somewhere on the planet”.

  7. catweazle666 says:

    Once again the alarmist Watermelons demonstrate that they can’t tell the difference between weather and climate…

    • How much record breaking cold has Australia experienced in the last few years?

      • crank says:

        Catspiss 666 uses the old denialist trick of pretending that anthropogenic climate destabilisation is only about warmer temperatures, the ‘global warming’ shorthand invented by intellectually and morally challenged presstitutes in the Rightwing MSM. The trend, of course, is inexorably and rapidly up, but there will be increasingly great deviations from the recent past, including Northern Hemisphere cold, which has already been shown to be linked to the loss of Arctic summer sea ice and great changes in the behaviour of the jetstream. No doubt more research will illuminate this phenomenon further in years to come. We here face the usual dilemma with regard to denialists-are they just too dumb and ignorant to understand the science, even at an high-school educated layman’s level, do they really live in such a paranoid nightmare world that they genuinely believe that 95% plus of the world’s scientists are engaged in some gigantic conspiracy to take away their plasma TVs, 4WDs, McMansions, air-conditioning and Jetskis, or are they cynical liars and disinformationists driven by Rightwing psychopathology?

  8. Nick says:

    45.8,not 45.7… even the realists are downplaying the stats! ;)

  9. crank says:

    It will be beautiful to watch the helminthine contortions of the denialist invertebrates, as they attempt to belittle the importance of this horrifically historic day-then the reality will hit home.

    • Skeptikal says:

      When a cold record gets broken, that’s just weather… but when a hot record gets broken, that’s a historic day.

      The globe has apparently been warming at an alarming rate over the last few decades, yet it has taken until now for sydney to break the record set in 1939. Wow, that’s some serious warming going on.

      • crank says:

        Of course the word ‘moron’, of which Erlich is so fond, comes to mind, but there is the possibility that the imbecility is feigned and something altogether more wicked and sinister is at play-Rightwing psychopathy. How much longer will we tolerate these creatures driving humanity to Hell?

      • zoot says:

        How many cold record were broken in Australia last year?
        And how many hot records were broken?

      • Skeptikal says:

        zoot,
        Records are there to be broken and with Australia’s relatively short history it’s not unreasonable to expect both hot and cold records to be broken regularly. Last year started off with this….

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-12/cold-snap-hits-south-east/3768810

        While records were broken that day, I certainly wouldn’t call it a historic day.

        There’s always some place on the planet experiencing unusual extremes. It’s unusually hot in Sydney and at the same time it’s unusually cold in Bangladesh…

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-10/80-dead-as-temperature-hits-record-low-in-bangladesh/4460004

        Local events are not an indication of anything except what’s happening in that place at that time.

        If you want to find ‘global’ warming, you have to look for it in the global temperature record, not in a local event. Unfortunately for you, there isn’t a whole lot of warming happening in the global temperature record.

      • zoot says:

        There’s a lot of global warming still happening in the global temperature record: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html.
        If the planet is not warming we can expect a roughly equal number of hot and cold temperature records during a year. If, however, there are more hot records than cold (which happens to be the case) it is an indication of global warming.

      • Skeptikal says:

        zoot,

        That has to be the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.

        You probably didn’t realise this but when you bend and distort a temperature record to manufacture some warming, then it’s no longer worth anything…. it’s a joke.

        The temperature record is what it is… you can’t just remove the things you don’t like from it to make it show what you do like. It’s like me saying that if you remove the hot westerly winds (a natural variability) from Sydney’s temperature, then Sydney actually had a cool day today. You wouldn’t accept such a distortion to Sydney’s record heat, yet you readily accept such a distortion to the global temperature record.

        The only thing that amazes me more than the rubbish that SkS puts out is that some people actually believe it.

      • zoot says:

        It’s like me saying that if you remove the hot westerly winds (a natural variability) from Sydney’s temperature, then Sydney actually had a cool day today.

        In fact, it is nothing like that. But since you are apparently innumerate as well as obtuse there’s no point in arguing with you. You win.
        The Arctic summer ice reached its lowest extent ever in 2012, glaciers continue to retreat, permafrost is melting, species of flora and fauna are moving their habitats towards the poles, each decade of the last thirty years was hotter than the preceding one, most of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 and it’s all because global warming, for some mysterious reason, stopped in 1998.

      • Nick says:

        Skeptical the ratio of hot records to cold ones is clearly favoring hot….why?

        What ‘distortion’ to the global temperature record are you mumbling about? Most ‘distortions’ have been inadequate and dim-witted allegations by Wattsian fools. What don’t you understand about well-studied,well quantified global glacial retreat since the LIA? What does that tell you?

        Given what is well documented and well known to commenters here,your mutterings actually make you look stupid,not ‘skeptical’

      • Bernard J. says:

        When a cold record gets broken, that’s just weather… but when a hot record gets broken, that’s a historic day.

        When hot records are broken many times more frequently than are cold ones then yes, that is historic, and it is alarming.

        If you don’t have the intellectual nous to understand the significance of the data, that’s your problem. Of course global warming is everyone’s problem, whether they understand and accept it, or not…

  10. john byatt says:

    Cars windshield shatters in heat,

    note the shape

    is god trying to get through to the deniers?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4471652-3×2-700×467.jpg

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: