RECORD BREAKING SEPTEMBER HEAT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Australia has broken all the wrong
records this year—we broke over 120
extreme weather related records in the
2012/2013 summer. We experienced
the hottest January on record, the
hottest summer and the hottest day
ever recorded in Australia. We have just
experienced the warmest September
in Australia’s history, as well as the
warmest 12-month period, and we are
on track to break yet another record
for the warmest calendar year ever
recorded in Australia.

Climate change means that we
are experiencing hotter days, and
heatwaves are becoming more frequent
and more severe. Heatwaves have a
wide range of negative impacts on
human health, agriculture, industry and
many plants and animals.

KEY FACTS:

This September is the warmest in Australia’s history, with the national average
temperature for the month 2.75 degrees above the long-term (1961–1990)
average. September 2013 also set a record for the largest positive anomaly
(difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average) for
any monthly average temperature.

The average temperature for Australia for the 12 months from October 2012
to September 2013 was 1.25°C above the long-term average. This was 0.17°C
warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013.
The frequency and severity of hot days and heatwaves is increasing as average
global temperature is rising.

Although Australia has always had heatwaves and hot days, climate change is
increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heatwaves and more extreme
hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions. There have been more
than 100 heat-related records broken over the past year, and this year is on
track to become Australia’s warmest year on record.

Hotter days, occurring more frequently, present wide-ranging risks for human
health and wellbeing. Good community understanding of climate change
risks is critical to ensure we take appropriate action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and to put measures in place to prepare for, and respond to, extreme
weather.

It is essential to reduce CO
emissions rapidly and deeply to stabilise the
climate and halt the current trajectory towards more extreme weather events
and hotter average temperatures.

WHAT HAVE WE SEEN THIS SEPTEMBER?

The Bureau of Meteorology’s report today (BoM, 2013) stated
that not only is this September the warmest September
on record; but it is the warmest September by the greatest
margin of any recorded monthly temperature increase we
have experienced in Australia.

Currently 2013 is tracking to be the hottest
year on record for Australia. The average
temperatures for the previous 12 months
surpasses that of any 12 month period
prior to 2013 by 0.17°C. Previously the
hottest year on record was 2005. Globally,
the hottest 10 years on record have all
occurred during the last 15 years (NASA, 2012).

This September is part of a series of
records broken over the last 18 months
as Australia experiences persistent heat
continent-wide. There have been fewer
cold days and consistent above-average
temperatures. Widespread record warmth
has also been recorded in the oceans
around Australia.

The latest report from the Bureau of
Meteorology highlights the large number
of mean temperature records that have
fallen across Australia in the last year,
including:

• Australia’s warmest month on record (January)

• Australia’s warmest September on record

• Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)

• Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)

• Australia’s warmest January to September period on record

• Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)

• Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013.

(see link)

THE CLIMATE CHANGE LINK?

Hot weather has always been common in
Australia. However, in the past few decades it
has become more common and severe as global
temperatures have risen.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap
heat, so the more greenhouse gases there
are in the atmosphere, the more heat is
trapped. The increase in temperature
observed around the world in the
atmosphere and in the ocean is directly
connected to the increase in greenhouse
gases from human activities (IPCC, 2013).

There has been a significant increase
in the frequency of hot days (days over
35°C) and hot nights over the last 50 years
in Australia (CSIRO and BoM, 2012). The
frequency of record hot days has been
more than three times the frequency of
record cold days during the past ten years
(Trewin and Smalley, 2012).

Australia’s average temperature has
already risen by 0.9°C since 1910 (CSIRO
and BoM, 2007). This is consistent with
the global trend of increasing average
temperature.

Although a temperature increase of
0.9°C may seem modest, small changes
in average temperature can have a
significant impact on the frequency
and nature of extreme weather events.

When the average temperature shifts,
the temperatures at the bottom and top
of the temperature scale shift too. As
the average temperature increases, the
distribution of the range of temperatures
shifts to include a greater likelihood of
more extreme hot temperatures and less
extreme cold temperatures. For example,
the number of record hot days across
Australia has doubled since 1960 despite
an average temperature increase of only
0.9°C (CSIRO and BoM, 2007).

Many more record hot days will occur if global warming progresses unabated during the 21st century.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF AUSTRALIA HEATING UP?

More frequent and more severe hot days and heat waves
affect human health, and plant and animal well-being.
We have seen the impacts of several heatwaves over the
last decade. For example, during the 2009 heatwave in
Melbourne, there were 980 heat related deaths—that’s 374
deaths more than would have normally occurred.

Heatwaves are the most significant natural
hazard in Australia in terms of loss of life.
Humans can only survive if our core body
temperature remains within a certain,
limited range. When we experience
prolonged and unusually intense heat,
our ability to cool ourselves through direct
transfer of our body heat to the air and
through sweating becomes less effective.
This results in heat exhaustion, which
can then lead to heatstroke and death.
The elderly, very young, people who work
outdoors and people with existing health
conditions are the most vulnerable to
extreme heat.

The impacts of extreme heat do not only
affect humans. As we saw during the
Melbourne heatwaves, increased heat
damages critical infrastructure including
energy transmission and rail transport.
Heat also affects the agricultural sector,
with animals more likely to suffer heat
stress and large increases in temperature
reducing the yield and quality of many
crops. Natural ecosystems are also affected
by extreme heat, with the large number
of deaths of flying foxes and cockatoos
during severe heatwaves being prominent
examples.

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/cc.offthecharts1.pdf

Don’t forget our record September rainfall.

In 1935, if I had said that the hottest average global temperatures ever recorded had all happened in the last 5 years, would I have been wrong?

morrie said:

In 1935, if I had said that the hottest average global temperatures ever recorded had all happened in the last 5 years, would I have been wrong?

In the cooler conditions of the time, would anyone care?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

In 1935, if I had said that the hottest average global temperatures ever recorded had all happened in the last 5 years, would I have been wrong?

In the cooler conditions of the time, would anyone care?

Droughts and heat waves were common in the 1930s. The 1930s are remembered as the driest and warmest decade for the US (the Dust Bowl years) and the summer of 1936 was the most widespread and destructive heat wave to occur in the Americas in centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

In 1935, if I had said that the hottest average global temperatures ever recorded had all happened in the last 5 years, would I have been wrong?

In the cooler conditions of the time, would anyone care?

Droughts and heat waves were common in the 1930s. The 1930s are remembered as the driest and warmest decade for the US (the Dust Bowl years) and the summer of 1936 was the most widespread and destructive heat wave to occur in the Americas in centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

Yes. In Australia also some record temperatures were recorded and lots of dust blew but at the same time the same place that John Oxley recorded as the most inhospitable place he had ever seen, recorded three times the average annual rainfall, in 1930

wow, seems Ian has plenty of time on his hands now he’s lost his job with the Climate Commission

The_observer said:

wow, seems Ian has plenty of time on his hands now he’s lost his job with the Climate Commission

Do you have anything constructive to say?

>>Do you have anything constructive to say?<<<

Oh, pretty washing maiden actually spoke to me.

must be my unlucky day

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

In 1935, if I had said that the hottest average global temperatures ever recorded had all happened in the last 5 years, would I have been wrong?

In the cooler conditions of the time, would anyone care?

Droughts and heat waves were common in the 1930s. The 1930s are remembered as the driest and warmest decade for the US (the Dust Bowl years) and the summer of 1936 was the most widespread and destructive heat wave to occur in the Americas in centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

You were comparing the average global temperatures in the 1930’s, not individual countries. As today’s temperatures exceed those times, than obviously those days must have been cooler, and much cooler in some other countries at that time to bring the average down. Last year for the US was also an extreme period with high temperatures and drought.

In the 1930’s people had had a very stable climate for hundreds of years and such increases were written off as a “once in a hundred year event” (you may still hear such comment today from local, state and national government representatives when trying to calm the public). Today however, such events are no long hundred year events, plus we now have some idea of more permanent weather changing events that are taking place. So people in the 30’s would be saying how long before the drought breaks, today they might say I hope the drought breaks and this is not becoming a permanent situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

“…Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using carbon-14-based dendrochronology (tree ring dating). The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode….”

i think solar variation via sunspots has been thoroughly ruled out as a contributing factor in climate change.

>i think solar variation via sunspots has been thoroughly ruled out as a contributing factor in climate change..

Yeah, I wasn’t making any claims.

The_observer said:

wow, seems Ian has plenty of time on his hands now he’s lost his job with the Climate Commission

No spare time at all actually. I banged this post out in 5 mins at 2 am before collapsing into bed.

Oh.. and I don’t actually work for the new Climate Council (if you’d been at all attentive you would have noticed that the right wing nut bags that we now have for a government tried to delete the climate problem by deleting the specialist Commission) I merely fund it.

BTW here is your chance to help out as well..

Donations by cheque:
Address cheques to Climate Council of Australia Ltd.
Mail to Climate Council Australia, Level 1 550 Lonsdale St Melbourne Vic 3000

Donations by direct deposit:
Climate Council of Australia Ltd.
BSB 063 104
ACCOUNT 1049 9610

The Climate Council is a not-for-profit organisation and does not receive any money from the Government. We rely on donations from the public. We really appreciate your contributions and will use them as efficiently as we can. We will hire a small team of staff and volunteers to power our work, including expert researchers to help produce our reports. Your donations will also help fund the design, printing and distribution of our reports, and core overhead expenses for the organisation.

https://secure.climatecouncil.org.au/

Thanks for your support.

Yeah, I wasn’t making any claims.

so really there was no point in posting it. nothing to do with the topic.

>>>you would have noticed that the right wing nut bags that we now have for a government<<<

there’s the barrow.

why do we need a climate council when we have, & fund, the IPCC ?

A: selling the dream

Well i guess the catholic church has the Pope as head

& we have Cardinal Pell to spread the word here

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri

& Tim Flannery

The_observer said:

Well i guess the catholic church has the Pope as head,

Charlie Koch as bank

& we have Cardinal Pell to spread the word here

along with The Observer

Yeah, I agree.. it must be a hollowed out, burning inside, existential misery hanging with that lot.

>so really there was no point in posting it. nothing to do with the topic”

Maybe.

Just had a bottle of this:

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/oude-gueuze-tilquin-a-lancienne/144762/

It was quite different to any beer I have had before. Very tart.

oops…

sorry

>In the 1930’s people had had a very stable climate for hundreds of years

No they hadn’t. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

morrie said:

>In the 1930’s people had had a very stable climate for hundreds of years

No they hadn’t. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Perhaps you might like to show the evidence of this ?turbulent period?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>In the 1930’s people had had a very stable climate for hundreds of years

No they hadn’t. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Perhaps you might like to show the evidence of this ?turbulent period?

Considering your overbearing stance on these issues, your general knowledge is sadly lacking.

“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Ups and downs for 400 years.

Thank God the mining companies are still funding me to post this stuff.

Within the last thousand years the Vikings settled on Greenland. They lived on raising cattle. The growing season was long enough for them to collect and store enough hay to keep them over winter.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>In the 1930’s people had had a very stable climate for hundreds of years

No they hadn’t. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Perhaps you might like to show the evidence of this ?turbulent period?

Considering your overbearing stance on these issues, your general knowledge is sadly lacking.

“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Ups and downs for 400 years.

You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s. We all know about the little Ice Age in the UK, which is why I stated only a few hundred years. However the weather in Briton is highly dependent on the Gulf Stream and any variance in that flow will severely affect temperatures in the UK. So weather in that period or other cold periods in Briton is not good evidence and I am surprised you did not know this, especially with you vicious sarcastic tongue for any who disagree with you.

http://www.agroclimate.org/climate_change/

morrie said:

Thank God the mining companies are still funding me to post this stuff.

What rubbish?

party_pants said:

Within the last thousand years the Vikings settled on Greenland. They lived on raising cattle. The growing season was long enough for them to collect and store enough hay to keep them over winter.

A little early for the period being discussed.

>>The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There is no evidence that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the Inuit Greenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 CE<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps you might like to show the evidence of this ?turbulent period?

Considering your overbearing stance on these issues, your general knowledge is sadly lacking.

“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Ups and downs for 400 years.

You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s. We all know about the little Ice Age in the UK, which is why I stated only a few hundred years. However the weather in Briton is highly dependent on the Gulf Stream and any variance in that flow will severely affect temperatures in the UK. So weather in that period or other cold periods in Briton is not good evidence and I am surprised you did not know this, especially with you vicious sarcastic tongue for any who disagree with you.

http://www.agroclimate.org/climate_change/

Hopefully the link knows how to spell Britain.

Climate changes, always has, always will. The climate models are woeful…strike that… absolutely fucking woeful. Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to mitigate human influence on the environment, but claiming that all climate change is anthropological is just stupid.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Within the last thousand years the Vikings settled on Greenland. They lived on raising cattle. The growing season was long enough for them to collect and store enough hay to keep them over winter.

A little early for the period being discussed.

>>The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There is no evidence that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the Inuit Greenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 CE<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, hunting sea mammals and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.

The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, hunting sea mammals and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.
———————————-
The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, conducting scientific research and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Considering your overbearing stance on these issues, your general knowledge is sadly lacking.

“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Ups and downs for 400 years.

You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s. We all know about the little Ice Age in the UK, which is why I stated only a few hundred years. However the weather in Briton is highly dependent on the Gulf Stream and any variance in that flow will severely affect temperatures in the UK. So weather in that period or other cold periods in Briton is not good evidence and I am surprised you did not know this, especially with you vicious sarcastic tongue for any who disagree with you.

http://www.agroclimate.org/climate_change/

Hopefully the link knows how to spell Britain.

Climate changes, always has, always will. The climate models are woeful…strike that… absolutely fucking woeful. Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to mitigate human influence on the environment, but claiming that all climate change is anthropological is just stupid.

I didn’t think anyone was ‘claiming that all climate change is anthropological.’ I certainly was not.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Within the last thousand years the Vikings settled on Greenland. They lived on raising cattle. The growing season was long enough for them to collect and store enough hay to keep them over winter.

A little early for the period being discussed.

>>The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There is no evidence that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the Inuit Greenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 CE<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, hunting sea mammals and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.

Please read the complete paragraph.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

A little early for the period being discussed.

>>The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There is no evidence that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the Inuit Greenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 CE<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, hunting sea mammals and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.

Please read the complete paragraph.

I did.

the earth has never experienced the level of carbon dioxide and temperature increase for 400,000 years

we have never detected another inhabitable world like earth

if we did discover it we would never be able to reach it

do we really want to gamble away our only life support system without having any plan B?

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

The Inuit are a different culture. They live off the sea, hunting sea mammals and fishing. They have never lived through farming domesticated land mammals.

Please read the complete paragraph.

I did.

Perhaps you need to go to the site quoted.

wookiemeister said:

the earth has never experienced the level of carbon dioxide and temperature increase for 400,000 years

we have never detected another inhabitable world like earth

if we did discover it we would never be able to reach it

do we really want to gamble away our only life support system without having any plan B?

Only when it might interfere with the extravagant lifestyle of some people .

http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/08/23/the-body-snatchers-of-israel

or

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/31/israeli-bodysnatchers/

Investigations in New Jersey, have proved that Rabbi Levy-Izhak (Isaac Rosenbaum) from Brooklyn and other rabbis have run for years networks to sell the kidneys of Palestinian martyrs in the US black market. Patients in the United States paid up to US$ 160,000 per kidney. In 2003, a medical conference showed that Israel is the only country in the world in which the medical profession does not condemn stealing human organs and does not act against those involved in such a crime. On the contrary, and as was revealed by a Dagens Nyheter report on December 5, 2003 and the Aftonbladet report of August 17, 2009, prominent doctors in major Israeli hospitals steal and transplant organs routinely. When asked about the number of bodies sold by rabbi Rosenbaum, he answers proudly, “we are talking about a very large number,” and that his company has worked in this field “for a long period of time”.

Francis Delmonici, professor of transplant surgery at Harvard University confirms that organ trafficking is widespread in Israel and believes that there is sufficient evidence to ask the International Criminal Court to investigate Israeli crimes. Israeli media have turned the results shown by Aftonbladet’s investigative report into a diplomatic crisis between Sweden and Israel instead of demanding an end to this atrocious crime and bringing those corrupt criminals to justice.

wookiemeister said:

the earth has never experienced the level of carbon dioxide and temperature increase for 400,000 years

we have never detected another inhabitable world like earth

if we did discover it we would never be able to reach it

do we really want to gamble away our only life support system without having any plan B?

Point 1. In the time line of the earth that’s like saying I haven’t had a pimple in the last minute or so.

Point 2. That’s completely irrelevant.

Point 3. See point 2.

Point 4. I happen to agree. Let’s mitigate what we do to the environment. That’s called risk management.

sibeen said:

wookiemeister said:

the earth has never experienced the level of carbon dioxide and temperature increase for 400,000 years

we have never detected another inhabitable world like earth

if we did discover it we would never be able to reach it

do we really want to gamble away our only life support system without having any plan B?

Point 1. In the time line of the earth that’s like saying I haven’t had a pimple in the last minute or so.

Point 2. That’s completely irrelevant.

Point 3. See point 2.

Point 4. I happen to agree. Let’s mitigate what we do to the environment. That’s called risk management.

risk management as we know it is normally buck passing by the company and a de facto transference of responsibility from employer to employee.

eg

you can’t work on a switchboard if its powered

go and work on that switchboard – ps this switchboard must always be powered and if you don’t do the job you get fired

if I had my way the world would be powered by solar power from solar cells or the like

burning coal and oil is a defunct way of making power.

wookiemeister said:

if I had my way the world would be powered by solar power from solar cells or the like

burning coal and oil is a defunct way of making power.

Gonna be interesting what happens in world affairs if America becomes independent of foreign oil, or at least, not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil. House of Saud must be worried.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

if I had my way the world would be powered by solar power from solar cells or the like

burning coal and oil is a defunct way of making power.

Gonna be interesting what happens in world affairs if America becomes independent of foreign oil, or at least, not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil. House of Saud must be worried.

they’ll go back to camel herding instead of funding religious wars around the world

wookiemeister said:

risk management as we know it is normally buck passing by the company and a de facto transference of responsibility from employer to employee.

eg

you can’t work on a switchboard if its powered

go and work on that switchboard – ps this switchboard must always be powered and if you don’t do the job you get fired

You really must work in some form of parallel universe. No company does this anymore, OK, perhaps none is a bit strong, but certainly no company that wants to be around for any long time. Company directors are liable for the directives of their company and if it was found that an employee was given an order to work on a live board and injury or death resulted…find yourself in gaol.

In fact, the larger the company the more draconian will be the OH&S requirements, such that if a sparky is now found on-site without his helmet, protective eyewear, and now days gloves, there will be a warning issued. Second offense may result in dismissal.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

if I had my way the world would be powered by solar power from solar cells or the like

burning coal and oil is a defunct way of making power.

Gonna be interesting what happens in world affairs if America becomes independent of foreign oil, or at least, not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil. House of Saud must be worried.

I thought they were almost there with fracking and CSG.

sibeen said:

wookiemeister said:

risk management as we know it is normally buck passing by the company and a de facto transference of responsibility from employer to employee.

eg

you can’t work on a switchboard if its powered

go and work on that switchboard – ps this switchboard must always be powered and if you don’t do the job you get fired

You really must work in some form of parallel universe. No company does this anymore, OK, perhaps none is a bit strong, but certainly no company that wants to be around for any long time. Company directors are liable for the directives of their company and if it was found that an employee was given an order to work on a live board and injury or death resulted…find yourself in gaol.

In fact, the larger the company the more draconian will be the OH&S requirements, such that if a sparky is now found on-site without his helmet, protective eyewear, and now days gloves, there will be a warning issued. Second offense may result in dismissal.

xsrata

xstrata

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

if I had my way the world would be powered by solar power from solar cells or the like

burning coal and oil is a defunct way of making power.

Gonna be interesting what happens in world affairs if America becomes independent of foreign oil, or at least, not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil. House of Saud must be worried.

I thought they were almost there with fracking and CSG.

They are almost there, a few more years to establish market chains, ensure some business continuity, make sure supplies are robust, let contracts run out their terms etc.

You really must work in some form of parallel universe.

pity it isn’t causally disconnected.

Course then OPEC will have lakes of the stuff and will start discounting like mad, but that will have domestic implications for them. Interesting times.

Skunkworks said:

Course then OPEC will have lakes of the stuff and will start discounting like mad, but that will have domestic implications for them. Interesting times.

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

a lot of the electrical work I do is normally nursing along decrepit equipment

normally by the time I get there the work ethos safety arrangements have been thrown out the window – its the law if the jungle with voluminous “risk assessments”

the most dangerous places I’ve ever worked in where no form of safety is ever practiced have large risk assessments

the safest places have none

>You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s

How could I have missed that?

From the graph it is so obvious.

sibeen said:

Skunkworks said:

Course then OPEC will have lakes of the stuff and will start discounting like mad, but that will have domestic implications for them. Interesting times.

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

Chains, you want chains? We can supply, no plobrem.

Just as a matter of interest, on that graph…why use the 1961-1990 average for the comparison?

And a further question. If you used a different 30 year average, would the graph look different?

buffy said:

Just as a matter of interest, on that graph…why use the 1961-1990 average for the comparison?

It’s the BoM standard; they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.

>>It’s the BoM standard; they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.<<

just seems really arbitrary to me.

buffy said:

And a further question. If you used a different 30 year average, would the graph look different?

The shape wouldn’t, but the magnitude of difference from it would.

morrie said:

>You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s

How could I have missed that?

From the graph it is so obvious.

Yes it is, but not what you said. Morrie I have tried to be civil with you despite your nasty vindictive backbiting. If you want a gloves off, all in brawl I’ll give you one, if not please refrain from character assassination and we shall get along just fine.

buffy said:

>>It’s the BoM standard; they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.<<

just seems really arbitrary to me.

Yes, but it’s what they use so at least everything is equally arbitrary… Sadly for DV, climate isn’t an SI unit.

>>they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.<<

Or was it just some figures that they had? And when did they start moving the weather stations around? I know several around the Western district are not in the same place they were 50 years ago, so are not really comparable. Hamilton, Casterton. Weather stations moved from the town centre to the local airports, which are about 10km out of town and frequently have different weather from the town.

buffy said:

>>It’s the BoM standard; they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.<<

just seems really arbitrary to me.

Would any other average be less arbitrary? It only moves the line up or down. The graph stays the same.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s

How could I have missed that?

From the graph it is so obvious.

Yes it is, but not what you said. Morrie I have tried to be civil with you despite your nasty vindictive backbiting. If you want a gloves off, all in brawl I’ll give you one, if not please refrain from character assassination and we shall get along just fine.

Really, morrie, your vitriol in your last post against Jack was totally uncalled for. Jaysus, man, ya cannot be using facts! FFS!

the easiest way to stop climate change is to stop buying into the problem

stop investing into companies that produce fossil fuel products and start investing in companies that invest into renewable energy

you can do this with your superannuation

i’ll be dead before I ever get my super so in the meantime I don’t allow them to use my money to wreck the planet

Perhaps it would be less arbitrary to use an average of all years of records. I have no idea what that would do to the graph.

buffy said:

>>they thought it represented a period of not-too-extreme weather.<<

Or was it just some figures that they had? And when did they start moving the weather stations around? I know several around the Western district are not in the same place they were 50 years ago, so are not really comparable. Hamilton, Casterton. Weather stations moved from the town centre to the local airports, which are about 10km out of town and frequently have different weather from the town.

Well they had good data but still had to decide arbitrarily which data to use.

As for moving stations, happens at various times for various stations. Not sure why, if only we had an avatar for such things…

I stopped listening to the intellectual gymnastics of climate denial and stopped buying into the problem

>>As for moving stations, happens at various times for various stations. Not sure why<<

When they get changed to automatic weather stations, I think. The ones in town were read by a very dedicated person each day and the results phoned in. Or something.

buffy, it doesn’t matter if you use the last ice age as the data, the shape of the graph will be exactly the same (same as a graph in Kelvin vs Celsius).

10,000 walruses pack Alaskan beach because they can’t find any sea ice
The Pacific Walrus have been coming ashore on an island 700 miles northwest of Anchorage since mid-September
In recent years the sea ice has receded north to deeper water where walrus cannot dive to the bottom
Young animals are vulnerable to stampedes triggered by a polar bear, a human hunter or a low-flying airplanes

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441589/Pacific-Walrus-10-000-stranded-marine-mammals-packed-Alaskan-beach.html#ixzz2geps3B4W
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s

How could I have missed that?

From the graph it is so obvious.

Be your own man sibeen and not a toe-rag to the abusive.
Yes it is, but not what you said. Morrie I have tried to be civil with you despite your nasty vindictive backbiting. If you want a gloves off, all in brawl I’ll give you one, if not please refrain from character assassination and we shall get along just fine.

Really, morrie, your vitriol in your last post against Jack was totally uncalled for. Jaysus, man, ya cannot be using facts! FFS!

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>You might like to read the following link and please note the dramatic change in global temperatures starting in the 1930’s

How could I have missed that?

From the graph it is so obvious.

Yes it is, but not what you said. Morrie I have tried to be civil with you despite your nasty vindictive backbiting. If you want a gloves off, all in brawl I’ll give you one, if not please refrain from character assassination and we shall get along just fine.

Really, morrie, your vitriol in your last post against Jack was totally uncalled for. Jaysus, man, ya cannot be using facts! FFS!

Now listen here. I am qualified in the use of vitriol. If we need any electrical input, I will let you know!

I may be too tired to think this through. But if more data were used to generate the average, wouldn’t/couldn’t the average be different and then the departure from average of the measured temperature would be different?

sibeen said:

Skunkworks said:

Course then OPEC will have lakes of the stuff and will start discounting like mad, but that will have domestic implications for them. Interesting times.

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Stealth said:

sibeen said:

Skunkworks said:

Course then OPEC will have lakes of the stuff and will start discounting like mad, but that will have domestic implications for them. Interesting times.

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

party_pants said:

Stealth said:

sibeen said:

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

And Brookfeild are shutting two more Tier 3 grain lines down on Oct 31, because Barnett can’t be arsed keeping them usable. More trucks on the road yah!!!

When I read about stuff like the Timor Fields, Mongolia, Venezuala, Russia still largly unknown and untapped, off shore and sea resources, tar sands etc, I get the impression energy will be the least of our problems in the future. Which is a huge difference from the expectations from not many years ago.

Where is peak oil situated now?

party_pants said:

Stealth said:

sibeen said:

Supply chains. That’s where WA, our good mates there over in WA, have a great advantage.

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

sibeen said:

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

If they need a nut or a bolt to keep the gig running, it gets shipped up by road.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Stealth said:

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

One may smile, and smile, and be a villain

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Stealth said:

(checks the official list of friends of WA… sorry no Sibeen here, nor Victoria or NSW or QLD) “Lets not make a scene OK, just walk back out the door quietly”

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

“No, no that is not quietly… I understand that you are upset that you can’t come in but you should have thought of that years ago when you kept taking everything WA made for your selfish eastern states selves…”

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

If they need a nut or a bolt to keep the gig running, it gets shipped up by road.

Oh great, first Barnett shuts down all the rail lines and puts more trucks on the road. And now you say he is putting ships on the road too?

Stealth said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Supply chains? We haven’t even got a bloody railway linking the resource-rich areas with the cities in the south. Only a couple of narrow shitty roads where every truck driver has a story about clipping mirrors with a truck coming the other way.

Fuck off, as iif they want to supply perf. China, Taiwan, Japan, Singers, that’s where the action is baby. Fuck you and your little provincial hamlet down south.

“No, no that is not quietly… I understand that you are upset that you can’t come in but you should have thought of that years ago when you kept taking everything WA made for your selfish eastern states selves…”

Now listen here, sonny, we were changing your nappies before you were born (sic). You people should be listening to your elders and betters and not be getting above yourselves.

Stealth said:

Oh great, first Barnett shuts down all the rail lines and puts more trucks on the road. And now you say he is putting ships on the road too?

Shipping goes by road, cargo goes by ship.

:)

One thing that is passing strange to me, the heat island effect.
Now both sides of the argument on AGW have decided that it should be compensated for, sure it’s not a CO2 issue but sure as in hell it’s a man made effect and should be allowed to stand and not adjusted for.
We are like an ant colony, we produce heat in our colonies and it should stand in the record of our imprint.

I haven’t got the time or energy to read the whole thread but it seemed to all SSSF (Seriously Side-tracked by Stupid Fuckers) with irrelevant debate about the long term climate of Greenland and and even more weird and irrelevant with some claims about Israeli body snatchers!

Peak Warming Man said:

One thing that is passing strange to me, the heat island effect.
Now both sides of the argument on AGW have decided that it should be compensated for, sure it’s not a CO2 issue but sure as in hell it’s a man made effect and should be allowed to stand and not adjusted for.
We are like an ant colony, we produce heat in our colonies and it should stand in the record of our imprint.

Not quite sure what you’re driving at here but obviously heat leaks out of the “islands” and effects the big picture readings.

Wiki states that the heat island effect is studied..

“Over the land the retrieval of temperature from radiances is harder, because of the inhomogeneities in the surface. Studies have been conducted on the urban heat island effect via satellite imagery.”

This graph of long term temperature anomalies for the US from NOAA is easier to decipher than the one posted earlier.

I’ve got the same problem with that graph….vertical axis “Temperature Anomaly”. Compared to what? At least the other graph told you where their baseline is.

Subject: >>>>> OFF THE CHARTS <<<<

>>>>>>RECORD BREAKING SEPTEMBER HEAT AND ***CLIMATE CHANGE*** <<<<<

Southern Hemisphere (SH)
.
1….hadcrut4 SH
.

.
.
2….hadcrut3 SH
.

.
.
3….crutem4 SH
.

.
.
4….crutem3 SH
.

.
.
5….hadsst2 sea surface temp SH
.

.
.
6….hadsst3 sea surface temp SH
.

.
.
7….nsidc SH (Antarctic) sea ice index
.

.
!

buffy said:

I’ve got the same problem with that graph….vertical axis “Temperature Anomaly”. Compared to what? At least the other graph told you where their baseline is.

Since we are interested in the trend, rather than the absolute values, it doesn’t really matter what the baseline is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ve got the same problem with that graph….vertical axis “Temperature Anomaly”. Compared to what? At least the other graph told you where their baseline is.

Since we are interested in the trend, rather than the absolute values, it doesn’t really matter what the baseline is.

Well, yes and no. In this case, the eye is drawn to the colour contrasts. We see red = hot. If the baseline was changed so that the area of blue equalled the area of red, it might convey a different impression.

>>Since we are interested in the trend, rather than the absolute values, it doesn’t really matter what the baseline is.<<

Well, it does really matter where the baseline is because that may change how much is above and how much is below. And it should be stated on the graph anyway, shouldn’t it? They could have used any arbitrary comparison level.

Which is what I said last night. It’s quite arbitrary and you need a good reason to use a particular 30 year/50 year/all of records comparison point.

buffy said:

>>Since we are interested in the trend, rather than the absolute values, it doesn’t really matter what the baseline is.<<

Well, it does really matter where the baseline is because that may change how much is above and how much is below. And it should be stated on the graph anyway, shouldn’t it? They could have used any arbitrary comparison level.

Which is what I said last night. It’s quite arbitrary and you need a good reason to use a particular 30 year/50 year/all of records comparison point.

If the point of interest is the trend, how does it change if the base line is changed? They could have used degrees C or K and still delivered the same information.

Just move the base line up to the top and colour all the bars blue if you are happier with that.