January 2013 breaks Australian record for hottest average temperatures

[gary]

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, journalist Peter Hannam reports that
with just a few more hours of data to collect, the average of maximum and minimum
temperatures throughout Australia for the month of January will be 29.7C degrees.
The article reports that tally was 1.79C degrees above the long-term average.

Originally Posted by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald

The monthly result means the September-January period was also the hottest on record, beating the previous three highest in 2002-03, 2006-07 and 2009-10.

Originally Posted by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald

One of the month's more notable records was Alice Springs, which notched up 17 days in a row over 40 degrees. In 1972-73, the previous time Australia experienced such a broad-based heatwave, the town managed 17 days straight over 39.5 degrees, Dr Trewin said.

Article here -
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/we...#ixzz2JWwJLbxc

[atkinsonr (Rich)]

While temperatures vary on a local and regional scale, globally it has been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.

From this SMH article, Jan 8th

[clive milne]

And let's not forget that 2012 was a La Nina year.

Even at this early stage, the economic impact of climate change is significant ($100 billion in the US for the last 12 months from crop loss and storm damage) No figures on costs associated with bush fires or floods in Australia as yet.

.... and the oceans are still decades away from reaching any semblance of thermal equilibrium with the changes we have precipitated.

ie) even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow,
the CO2 we have already pumped in to the air will guarantee us
double the global warming that we have already experienced.

[pgc hunter]

Certainly did not feel it here, infact this January is officially colder than last year's. If anything, this January had a lot of cold nights, lots of cold gusty evening seabreezes and southerlies and an endless parade of clear but hopelessly poor seeing nights. But then again, what else is new in Melbourne

All of Christmas, New Years and Australia day were cold here, far removed from anything resembling traditional Australian holiday weather.

Originally Posted by clive milne

And let's not forget that 2012 was a La Nina year.

Even at this early stage, the economic impact of climate change is significant ($100 billion in the US for the last 12 months from crop loss and storm damage) No figures on costs associated with bush fires or floods in Australia as yet.

.... and the oceans are still decades away from reaching any semblance of thermal equilibrium with the changes we have precipitated.

ie) even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow,
the CO2 we have already pumped in to the air will guarantee us
double the global warming that we have already experienced.

[2stroke (Jay)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

And let's not forget that 2012 was a La Nina year.

Even at this early stage, the economic impact of climate change is significant ($100 billion in the US for the last 12 months from crop loss and storm damage) No figures on costs associated with bush fires or floods in Australia as yet.

.... and the oceans are still decades away from reaching any semblance of thermal equilibrium with the changes we have precipitated.

ie) even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow,
the CO2 we have already pumped in to the air will guarantee us
double the global warming that we have already experienced.

You do know its a myth right and nothing more then a ploy to reap tax payers money? It's a massive debate and any real scientists will back that climate shift is a natural cycle of the planet and there is evidence upon evidence to prove this fact. You should think about just one volcano and the amout of CO2 it spews out vs china alone. Its like saying we should stop farting Carbon tax is just away around increasing the GST, and does it help the climate or government pockets?

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

The physics of climate change is straightforward....there is some additional energy in the climate system, and temperatures rise.

But policy makers are not fools, and they are pointedly doing nothing about mitigating climate change because policy has to be costed and measured and has to be effected over a specific period of time.....
you can't base policy on current climate models which are so poor that they cannot predict the amount of temperature rise and the timescale for the temperature rise.

In the absence of reliable predictions of how much temperature rise and over what period, which are 'actable" facts on which people will probably start to do something, climate change zealots resort to a generalized "we're all doomed" type of scenario.

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by 2stroke

You do know its a myth right and nothing more then a ploy to reap tax payers money? It's a massive debate and any real scientists will back that climate shift is a natural cycle of the planet and there is evidence upon evidence to prove this fact. You should think about just one volcano and the amout of CO2 it spews out vs china alone. Its like saying we should stop farting Carbon tax is just away around increasing the GST, and does it help the climate or government pockets?

Unfortunately, "myth" describes just about all you said there. There is no 'massive' scientific debate... There is a manufactured debate, with science on only one side, so-called 'skeptics' on the other. All the planet's annual volcanic CO2 emissions about match Florida's annual CO2 emissions. Volcanoes emit about 1% as much as humanity, even the biggest single recent eruption, Pinatubo, emitted 42 million tonnes as compared to humanity's 29 billion tonnes. I suspect you've read too much Ian Plimer and not enough real science.

The idea of 'natural cycles' always entertains, by having no natural physical mechanism by which the current massive increase in energy stored by the planet might be happening. And they neglect that we've already observed, using the incoming and outgoing spectrum of Earth (Harries et al 2001; Philipona 2004), that this energy imbalance is due to CO2. Our CO2 emissions. So these "natural cycles" (climate elves?) need to explain both the warming and why the 100-year old physics knowledge of CO2 is uniquely not working this time!

A consequence of an increased energy content is warming and more evaporation and precipitation. Australians, as much as anyone, can see some of these consequences in exceptional extremes of precipitation, drying and temperature. It's ultimately simple physics, but with serious consequences.

[simmo]

Hello all,

You only had to see the pictures from Beijing this morning to see why it's all going pearshape. Behind the reporter you could only just (and I mean just) see the skyscraper behind him which was probably only a block away.

They reported that the instruments that record the pollution levels can no longer keep recording as the levels have gone past the highest level of health hazard scaling.

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by 2stroke

You do know its a myth right and nothing more then a ploy to reap tax payers money? It's a massive debate and any real scientists will back that climate shift is a natural cycle of the planet and there is evidence upon evidence to prove this fact. You should think about just one volcano and the amout of CO2 it spews out vs china alone. Its like saying we should stop farting Carbon tax is just away around increasing the GST, and does it help the climate or government pockets?

That's interesting and it sounds like you've been listening to Plimer because the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes."

You may want to read this for a more balanced opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics

Plimers assertions are just piss and wind to assist a section of government (who funds his research by the way) and are keen to progress the economy before the environment. His data is flawed.

Climate change is myriad of things, but it is not just colder or hotter or more rain or less rain, it's cooler and drier for longer, it's wetter and warmer for longer (extreme el nino/la nina), it's extreme weather conditions caused by internal and external forcing conditions. The issue with your 'the planet has always witnessed these climatic shifts' is that they were part of the evolution of the earth, these might be, but if not these changes are irreversible. They won't change back. I don't think the data as it stands is conclusive. Most of the ice cores and pollen record point to cooling and then coming back to an average temp. There have been extended droughts, but they have always broken, this one won't.

I'm a fence sitter until I see some conclusive data, but I'm pretty sure the burning of fossil fuels must be having an impact on our atmosphere.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

When I was in Beijing 4 years ago, I couldn't see the next block! The pollution was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Its nothing new. Sure, something needs to be done, but sensationalising doesn't help
I agree with John (Varangian) that burning fossil fuels must be affecting the enviroment, but we do not as yet have viable alternatives apart from nuclear.

[astroron (Ron)]

The people who make up the deniers part of the debate seem to forget the 6.5 Billion people and counting on this Earth .
When the world had climate changes in the past it made very little to the inhabitants as there was not too many of them to worry about.
Climate change effects how we produce crops, sea level rises which effect low level countries like Holland ect,.
It is not something we can do to just sit back and do nothing in the hope that it will all turn out good in the end.
Cheers

[2stroke (Jay)]

Well i'll turn the A/C on high and open the doors and do my part to help the rest of the planet http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

I think the name of the site says it all, stop reading the news papers and start reading the papers.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by astroron

The people who make up the deniers part of the debate seem to forget the 6.5 Billion people and counting on this Earth .
When the world had climate changes in the past it made very little to the inhabitants as there was not too many of them to worry about.
Climate change effects how we produce crops, sea level rises which effect low level countries like Holland ect,.
It is not something we can do to just sit back and do nothing in the hope that it will all turn out good in the end.
Cheers

Quite right, Ron. The world is vastly over-populated, and we need to reduce population levels. It seems the chinese are the only ones doing anything in this vein. Question is, who do we kill off?

[2stroke (Jay)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Quite right, Ron. The world is vastly over-populated, and we need to reduce population levels. It seems the chinese are the only ones doing anything in this vein. Question is, who do we kill off?

The Americans as there broke anyway and own the rest of the world 57+ trillion.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by 2stroke

The Americans as there broke anyway and own the rest of the world 57+ trillion.

My ex is american, so go right ahead!

[Varangian (John)]

Changed my mind about posting what I posted.

[2stroke (Jay)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

My ex is american, so go right ahead!

Rofl, now the next useless country to target.

[entity62]

If the world is over populated, then who wants to put up there hand too leave.

[simmo]

Hello,

I think if you took all of the people in the world and put them in one place you'll find that we aren't really overpopulating. It's more of a fact that our 'footprint' is what is overpopulating the world.

If we gave up all this professionallism and technology that we play 'games' with it would have a drastic effect. Problem is that we are habitual creatures and the world we live in has a lot of comforts that people love.

The fear of the unknown is what stops many people from moving forward. What will tommorow bring if we give up what we have? Also the possibilty of having to do things the hard way turns people off. eg. who wants to walk 1000km in a month to the next city when we can just drive there in a day or fly in hours. (I did think it was ironic too that Al Gore who made such a documentary about the environment was pictured at the end spewing out carbon as he flew all around the world to show it).

And I dare you to turn off your computer and walk away forever. Sell your car tommorow and never drive again, its not going to happen.

Don't mind though I'm just as bad as you are so don't worry or double dare me.

About this time everyone gives up and just keeps going the same way as its easier and we will let fate decide our course even if it means the demise of existence.

If one steps out of the norm also are they not scolded by the norms. eg of this was in the 1790's, I think, when a guy invented a 'computer' but was laughed at by the norms and treated as a joke. I think recently somebody built it and it actually works. Nobody will laugh at him today and probably all would agree that he was a genius.

So maybe instead of deriding the challengers and inventors of our time we should embrace them and see what they can do for the benifit of those who follow.

If we can't turn back because of the very nature of ourselves then can we not then just redirect the flow of humanity in the right direction.

We can't forget either that you can't please everyone because everyone will end up hating you. So just like my middle child some of us (maybe me too) might need to be pulled along kicking and screaming only to find out they were really going somewhere cool.

Cheers
Simmo

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Simmo, we are definitely over-populating. Its not just the number of humans, but the number of food stock animals and birds required to feed the humans, plus the amount of natural forest being destroyed to grow crops, etc.
In previous times we had major wars like World Wars 1&2, which wiped out significant amounts of the population, particularly young men who would normally be fathering more children.This put a brake on population growth.
We really need some restriction on human breeding, otherwise we will continue to destroy the enviroment.