Australia Endures Hottest Day on Record (bbc.com) 166
Australia has experienced its hottest day on record with the national average temperature reaching a high of 40.9C (105.6F). The Bureau of Meteorology (Bom) said "extensive" heat on Tuesday exceeded the previous record of 40.3C set on 7 January 2013. From a report: Taking the average of maximum temperatures across the country is the most accurate measure of a heatwave. The record comes as the nation battles a severe drought and bushfire crisis. Forecasters had predicted the most intense heat would come later in the week, meaning the record could be broken again. As hundreds of fires rage, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been criticised for his response to the natural disasters and his government's climate policies.
Highest average temperature (Score:2)
I'm sure this little fact won't cause any controversy at all on this website.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Highest average temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
But interestingly the highest temperature record in Australia was not broken. The quaintly named town of Oodnadatta set a record temperature of 50.7C on 2nd Jan 1960. I'm sure this little fact won't cause any controversy at all on this website.
It's average for the country versus a local temperature Even says it right in the summary.
Most people would consider that significant. Can you explain why it isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's just saying that the deniers will cherry-pick this data point to "prove" that science is wrong.
Hard to tell which side he's on. But that's plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
It's average for the country versus a local temperature Even says it right in the summary.
And I'm sure that average has been calculated exactly the same way for the last century and a half (cough).
Not like the "global average", where they change up the methodology on a regular basis and constantly "correct" the data. To make it "more accurate" of course (even though it is an arbitrary measure to begin with).
Re: (Score:2)
It's average for the country versus a local temperature Even says it right in the summary.
And I'm sure that average has been calculated exactly the same way for the last century and a half (cough).
Illlustrate your surety. Show us the data. Your day to be the expert.
Not like the "global average", where they change up the methodology on a regular basis and constantly "correct" the data. To make it "more accurate" of course (even though it is an arbitrary measure to begin with).
I see. So the original hypothesis must never be altered, or updated as new data comes in. Sounds like we're stuck with the universe being created in 4004 BCE.
Re: (Score:2)
You alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
Sounds about right. If the models and the observed data disagree, the data must be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
Sounds about right. If the models and the observed data disagree, the data must be wrong.
Go back and read what I wrote. You alter the hypothesis to fit new data as it comes in. That's how science works.
I'll help you, because I get a kick out of how denialists twist and turn and not very skillfully lie.
I wrote- and you check what I wrote - if you think I'm lying. "So the original hypothesis must never be altered, or updated as new data comes in. Sounds like we're stuck with the universe being created in 4004 BCE. "
Shall I structure the sentence for you? Sure I will break down the sente
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how science works.
They do a lot of things that are not how science is supposed to work.
and my greatest hope is to piss you off.
Sorry, it would be wrong to confuse me with someone who gives a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people would consider that significant. Can you explain why it isn't?
Because the country is an island, and there is no reason to presume significance of having similar weather on the whole island on a particular day. Maybe that is significant, maybe it isn't, but if so nobody has even attempted to establish what exactly that significance is. Other than numerologically; it does involve round numbers, and extant humans did orient their faces in the same direction when it was presented within their line of sight. Some of them even clicked.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, Australia has several different climate zones - Tropical, subtropical, dry Mediterranean, and Temperate - with a transition zone in some areas.
https://www.gostudy.com.au/aus... [gostudy.com.au] Yeah, it's an island, but it's not a small one.
Re:Highest average temperature (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap, can you not see that if the average patient temperature for a hospital were significantly elevated over normal, that would indicate a very serious problem with the entire hospital?!? Climate deniers are as bad as flat earthers when it comes to logic.
Re:Highest average temperature (Score:4, Interesting)
Holy crap, can you not see that if the average patient temperature for a hospital were significantly elevated over normal, that would indicate a very serious problem with the entire hospital?!? Climate deniers are as bad as flat earthers when it comes to logic.
That's because they get their science education from politicians owned by fossil fuel companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We are witnessing a pandemic, but that truth is too overwhelming to accept for most.
Re: (Score:2)
(simply) not possible ... except ...
Makes pretty clear that it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit lies from fossil fuel industry think tanks are transparent. This shit has been debunked so many times, it lies in flat earth territory. Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
You can investigate on your own. But you won't.
I like science. It pains me what passes for it nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
I have, and the science is on my side. You just keep making ridiculous claims with no evidence, and calling it "science." Stop.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how awe inspiring you find the science, I won't be joining your doomsday cult.
Anyone who thinks they can predict what life will be like in a century is every bit as clueful as people in 1920 were about today.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, nobody is trying to predict the entirety of society, or what "life" will be like. This is like trying to predict if water will boil if you put it in a kettle and turn the flame on high. It's dead simple.
But your side, of course, ARE making predictions. Climate deniers are predicting everything will be peachy, if and only if we ignore climate change. You are predicting that if we do face climate change, we will bankrupt ourselves. And you are doing so with no evidence or theory. Just a gut feeling that
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, nobody is trying to predict the entirety of society, or what "life" will be like. This is like trying to predict if water will boil if you put it in a kettle and turn the flame on high. It's dead simple.
Well it has warmed 1.1C since 1850, and it is an interglacial, so predicting warming is not rocket surgery. Without looking at any science at all I would predict warming to be far more likely than cooling, so no points for that.
If Greta had been around in 1850 I'm sure that she would have predicted humanity would all be dead by now, but in fact that period just happens to coincide with the greatest improvements in the human condition in history by most all relevant metrics - access to food and water, sanit
Re: (Score:2)
.....I'm not convinced that is any more true today than it was in 1850.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. First, science reporting is what you are criticizing when you make those "only 10 years" claims. Not science. Blame the sensationalist media.
As for predictions, climate scientists have ALWAYS predicted warmer climate, and that's what we've seen. Falsify THAT, you filthy casual.
At least try. I can't take these half-assed attempts seriously. It makes me think you are just trolling and don't care about or believe the things you write.
Re: (Score:2)
I linked to the United Nations' prediction from 1989. That's not "sensationalist media", is it? But good to know, our opinions of Washington Post match.
What "warmer climate"? TFA talks only about weather — not climate...
Some of these supposed "scientists" are already telling us [theconversation.com], their discipline's methods "aren’t always necessarily falsif
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot thinks "raw data" is where you learn something.
I can haz data science?
Re: (Score:2)
If you make corrections, and then decide you don't like them and want to make different corrections, it's good to be able to start from the beginning
Re: (Score:2)
Climate deniers are as bad as flat earthers when it comes to logic.
Explain this logic...
Doomers say we have to do everything to stop global warming. Nuclear power is suggested as part (and I will emphasize part) of the solution. They then say we must do everything, but we can't do that ! So, how big of a threat is global warming if we cannot even consider nuclear power? We can debate matters of cost and such, but at least have the debate. Nope, the debate is over.
Okay Doomer. I'm guessing that if we can't have nuclear power to save humanity from the greatest threat i
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of serous environmentalists support nuclear power. I'm one. Modern nuclear power is safe and clean, with much less waste. So your premise is false to begin with. Why should I take anything else you say seriously, when your primary tactic is to make up straw men?
Re: (Score:2)
What straw man? Australia has a ban on nuclear power. Australia mines uranium and exports it, a lot of it. Australia has a zero carbon goal like Germany and California, with a "no nukes" policy, and seeing similar results. They are seeing rising energy costs, CO2 emissions rising or unchanged, and power outages becoming longer and more frequent. This is driving people off the grid, only to get their electricity from generators that burn fuel oil or natural gas. Are there people getting more batteries
Re: (Score:2)
Australia's problems are very, very similar to ours here in the USA. Actually, the root is just one problem, named Rupert Murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
Flat Earthers have excellent logic
Normal: "The Earth is flat."
Flat Earther: "You can't absolutely prove that, because there is no objective foundation for human knowledge."
Normal: "Durrr, yes I can! My teacher said so, so it is true!"
Flat Earthers don't claim to have proof, they claim nobody has proof. And they're right; humans have no A priori knowledge at all, and no way to collect any. We cannot directly perceive the world. You have to believe your own eyes from Faith, or a lack of alternative methods f
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking troll took a single philosophy class in highschool, thinks he's deep. You're as deep as a mud puddle and half as clear. Arguing with you would be pointless, as you'd just attempt to challenge what the meaning of "is" is. Just another pedantic elitist pseudo-intellectual with an inflated sense of his own intelligence. Your type are a dime a dozen on the Internet these days. A perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action, you're too dumb to understand that just stringing together fancy word
Re: (Score:2)
Which is about as meaningful, as an average patient-temperature for a hospital...
Explain. Any given country can have wild variations in temperature on any given day. But if you have an anomalously high average temperature over an entire country like Oz, it does mean something.
By the way, if a whole hospital of patients have anomalously high temperatures, that indicates something is loos in the hospital that needs addressed pronto. So you non-meaningful assertion kinda falls flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a single patient has over 40 degrees fever, that's a problem for the patient. If the average patient in the hospital has over 39 degrees, it's an epidemic.
Re: (Score:2)
If a single patient has over 40 degrees fever, that's a problem for the patient. If the average patient in the hospital has over 39 degrees, it's an epidemic.
And if half the patients have a fever and half are hypothermic, the average says it's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a scenario you'd have to paint for me.
Re: (Score:3)
An unexplained rise in average patient temperature in a hospital would likely lead to a CDC lockdown.
If your above brilliance is any indication of your capacity for reasoning, this is a big ask- but I'll do it anyway:
Don't take this to be an ad hominem point, but merely an observation. I think you're probably a dumbshit.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the hospital is small?
What if, unlike other hospitals, this one in particular is distant from other hospitals, and so small that it is almost an island unto itself?
If your hospital has only one bed, are you eternally in CDC lockdown?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the hospital is small?
Yes?
What if, unlike other hospitals, this one in particular is distant from other hospitals, and so small that it is almost an island unto itself?
Yes, what if?
If your hospital has only one bed, are you eternally in CDC lockdown?
Well, now that you've tried platonically reason that into absurdity.
For your reference:
An unexplained rise
Emphasis added to help anyone else who may have thought we were building an analogy for the climate of Bermuda instead of the continent of Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Na.
People who gaslight should be treated as they act. Like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And you failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Any one weather event is not climate. A whole lot of them are. It's average ten[perature any ways, not extremes.
It is when the one time extremes become the new normal, it's not so good.
Re: (Score:2)
If a definition does not exist, it is the claim itself that fails.
There is no reason to think that because it is undefined, we must then prove it doesn't exist. That is exactly backwards.
If a definition of an event doesn't exist, then claims that it "is" significant at (any level) are all false. The concept of significance has a default value; lacking any claim of significance, it is not significant. This is necessary because there exists unanswered questions in the Universe, and so there are always lots of
Re: (Score:2)
There is a spot in Nevada that had temperatures exceeding the heat of the sun for a few seconds. (when they did nuclear bomb testing) but that isn't the national average.
Highest AVERAGE temperature, vs. Peak temperature at one location.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be interesting? The average temperature is more important than extremes (as long as the extremes aren't not catastrophic, although higher averages will make higher extremes more likely), certainly for plants and critters. Statistics are important.
Re: (Score:2)
The average temperature in one location over units of time that align with the normal oscillations of the signal, sure.
The average over the whole planet, sure.
But the average arbitrarily in one "country" is unlikely to have much value, since the political boundaries that humans use follow inconsistent rules and have large local variations in composition.
If all of Australia had a heat wave at the same time, and then a cold spell at the same time, there is no obvious reason why that has a different set of eff
That's not a high.... (Score:2)
Crikey, it's like the whole damn continent's been thrown on a barbie! It's so hot my vegemite is running!
Fosters!
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hot my vegemite is waltzing my Matilda and I'm too busy doing the Aussie salute to break in.
Why worry? (Score:2)
They are on the other side of the world
Re: (Score:2)
(49.9ÂC Ã-- 9/5) + 32 = 121.82ÂF (Score:2)
Google says: (49.9ÂC Ã-- 9/5) + 32 = 121.82ÂF
(49.9C x 9/5) + 32 = 121.82F (Score:2)
(49.9C x 9/5) + 32 = 121.82F
did you have a point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
6*9 + 6 + 9
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if I've got this straight. (Score:3)
They have hundreds of fires burning across the continent during a heat wave. So they averaged the temperature measurements from the stations across the continent. And we're supposed to be surprised that this is six-tenths of a degree C over the previous record high of similar averages.
Did they include the measurements from stations that were on fire? If so, were there more of them then when they did the previous record average?
Re: (Score:2)
Deniers (Re:Let's see if I've got this straight.) (Score:2)
Yup, you've got it straight. You're confused why yet another record heat temperature is a problem? Have you read anything about climate change?
I read plenty about global warming. The phrase "climate change" was coined by the opposition to dismiss global warming as a natural process, because the climate always changes. Don't fall into their trap and give them leverage. How is the climate changing? It's getting warmer from the release of CO2 caused by human activity, therefore it's global warming that is the concern.
That said, it is quite odd for Australia to express so much concern about global warming wile simultaneously maintaining their ban
Re: (Score:2)
I will believe Australia is taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear fission power plants. Until then they are science deniers.
Our federal government sure are deniers. Voters however are (finally) starting to notice the lack of policy they are running when it comes to energy and global warming. Whether that's enough to change voting behaviour is yet to be seen - it hasn't been so far.
The biggest problem I encounter is that 'Australia is so insignificant when it comes to emissions, why should we mess up our economy to do anything when China / India / USA aren't doing anything?'
Re: (Score:2)
Did they include the measurements from stations that were on fire?
I would not immediately dismiss the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see you also provide some calculations about the calorific outputs of the forest fires that would cause this.
I'd be happy to see some numbers even if they were in watts or joules. :)
Heck, this is slashdot, we accept coulombs.
Re: (Score:2)
They have hundreds of fires burning across the continent during a heat wave. So they averaged the temperature measurements from the stations across the continent. And we're supposed to be surprised that this is six-tenths of a degree C over the previous record high of similar averages.
Did they include the measurements from stations that were on fire? If so, were there more of them then when they did the previous record average?
Your supposition, that fires can increase average temperature measurements, is silly. Direct heating effects will be utterly negligible -- do some math on the amount of heat that would have to be produced in order to appreciably warm a continent. And obviously, they're going to discard the measurements from any weather stations that are actually on fire (assuming they could even get the measurements).
On the other hand, large forest fires produce enormous quantities of smoke. For example, it's not uncomm
Can we talk solutions? Please? (Score:2)
Yet more Doomer talk over a weather event to "prove" global warming. Even though these same Doomers will state often that weather is not climate. Tell me something, if we set a new low temperature record in Australia in 6 months is this "proof" of global cooling? Or would that be considered a data point to prove global warming? Or is that just a weather event? Forget that though. I don't care about proving global warming, or just how bad global warming is. I care about seeing people take the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Yet more Doomer talk over a weather event to "prove" global warming.
Weather? I'm not sure where you're seeing weather. I'm seeing a continental average compared in the summary to peak over time. I.e. climate.
But yes we should solve the problem. We can start with everything other than what Australia is doing. Except Nuclear. We'll only look at that once cheap solutions are exhausted.
Re: (Score:2)
How many record years do you think they have had since 1850?
Re: (Score:2)
But yes we should solve the problem. We can start with everything other than what Australia is doing. Except Nuclear. We'll only look at that once cheap solutions are exhausted.
Right, we should look at the safest option last.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/def... [iaea.org]
https://badgerherald.com/news/... [badgerherald.com]
https://nuclear.duke-energy.co... [duke-energy.com]
Is that last source unbiased? Of course not. They are biased towards energy that works, they want energy that is cheap, safe, and reliable just like anyone else. If there's some kind of lie on the safety of nuclear power then I'd like to see someone bring their own source.
Re: (Score:2)
"For transportation we will need nuclear powered ships,"
Why not 'wind-powered' ships?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not 'wind-powered' ships?
Economics. It's real hard to make money on even a large iron hull sailing ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Experiments on nuclear powered cargo ships were considered failures at the time because fuel oil just got too cheap, there were some issues with the specific implementations, lesser value on reducing pollution, and the technology was still developing quickly at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Maritime Administration placed her out of service in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship.
Since the Savannah was removed from service we've gained a lot of experience with building and
What about fuel loads ? (Score:2)
We had a couple of days here in Perth when it was just nudging over 40 degrees. Not common for Dec but common enough in our summer.
40 degree days in Sydney = end of the world scenario.
One cause of the increased fires is the lack of back-burning or proscribed burning that used to happen so fuel loads on the ground are increasing but that's being ignored and the entire issue is being marked as "climate change" because it's a chance to beat the Federal Government over the head with a stick. A changing climate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How could you resist making this "boil bats' brains in Brisbane"?
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped reading your post at https://www.fox.../ [www.fox...]
The best fair and balanced news source from the top 0,1% that is very effective at keeping the bottom 50% busy with conspiracy theories, titties, wild police chases and most importantly: IN LINE
Re: (Score:2)
Faux News has titties? I've been missing out!
Re: (Score:2)
Faux News has titties? I've been missing out!
How do you think they reeled in the Moral Majority viewers?
Showing lots of titties while tittering and pretending they're shocked. And fretting over all the morally delicate people who would be offended if they saw the thing they just showed you. Those people would feel guilty if they looked at titties without immediately hearing somebody denounce the debauchery of liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol you keep spamming this same comment. Your troll game is old and weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see. I am "trolling" because I am asking why the rich keep their extravagant lifestyles while the rest of us are bludgeoned with "climate change" articles. Got it. Thanks for the info!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen a politician who wasn't a completely self-centered hypocrite? That's generally why they go into politics, in case you hadn't figured that out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen a politician who wasn't a completely self-centered hypocrite?
Sure, I've been voting for Senator Wyden and Representative DeFazio since the `90s.
If your guy is a self-centered hypocrite, maybe vote for somebody else?
Re: (Score:2)
The law.
Re: (Score:2)
It is reasonable to be envious of people who have piles of money buying vacations homes.
Your emphasis that it is an ISLAND VACATION HOME carries an implication that it may be inundated by sea level rise and therefore inconsistent with Obama's positions on climate change. I just googled the house and found a Boston real estate reference: http://realestate.boston.com/n... [boston.com] which lists an elevation of 120 feet above sea level. Unsurprisingly, that totally disagrees with "Wattsupwiththat". If I were a betting ma
Re: (Score:3)
It is a great argument.
Person A tries to convince Person B that X is happening, due to Y, and that Z needs to be done to stop it.
Person A then tries to FORCE Person B to do Z.
Person A continues to do the opposite of Z, and continues to act as if X is not happening.
WHO THE FUCK WOULD BELIEVE PERSON A?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that President Obama isn't even a climate scientist?
Did you know that the truth of an idea is the same regardless of who says it?
You're worried about "believing" the "person," instead of the claim, so of course you don't reach logical results. You're not using logic. You're probably not even capable of logic, because you believe that truth is an attribute of the speaker.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they went on an expedition to show the edge of the earth.
Granted the amount of mathematics needed to navigate a flat earth model would be more complex then standard navigation methods, because the sun and moon would be flying circles around the earth. So carnal directions wouldn't be appropriate.
But the Science Deniers tout how much smarter they are over us normies I am sure they can figure it out.
Re: (Score:3)
carnal directions wouldn't be appropriate.
I vote for that as autocorrect-typo of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... it may be hot and dry (with fires) in Australia but 1,500 miles to the East (in New Zealand) I'm sitting here in 8 degree temperatures (sub 50 degrees F) just a few short days out from the longest day.
We've had wild storms that have felled trees and relentless rain that has produced flooding in many areas -- with no forecast of significant respite on the horizon.
I guess this means that for every up there's a down, for every hot there's a cold and for every dry there's a wet.
That's why the proper name
Re: cue ... (Score:2)
Here is data to refute the claim that this was the hottest day on record...records from 100 years ago that were hotter.
https://youtu.be/rxJTZvRl13Q [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure, if you want to get technical, but there wasn't any humans around 3.5 billion years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia just has the Scorched Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
But on the other hand, climate *is* climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather isn't climate is true. But a steady change in weather averages changes climate.
Oh look a cold snap, or a heat wave that happens every dozen years is just a weather variant. If we get the cold snap and heat wave consistently every year now then it is change in climate.
We have been hitting more record highs vs record lows lately. Causing the expected weather pattern to be changed. Thus climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather is a data point in climate, which is why we are talking about national averages for an entire country and referencing them over time to a previous high (not very long ago). Because *that* is climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather isn't climate
A sip is not a glass of water, and yet, a glass of water consists entirely of sips.