BirdForum

BirdForum (https://www.birdforum.net/index.php)
-   Conservation (https://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=118)
-   -   Record high temperatures in Australia (https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=372189)

locustella Friday 18th January 2019 13:21

Record high temperatures in Australia
 
Highest temperatures on record in Australia. Not only some people landed in hospitals, but also many bats have died and fruit orchards got spoiled.
https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/world...yJd?li=BBr8HnF

Nutcracker Friday 18th January 2019 17:03

Interesting additional point: with 48.3 in Australia (Tibooburra, NSW), and -57.5 in Russia (Delyankir near Oymyakon), both at 06.00 UTC today, over 105 difference between the hottest & coldest :eek!: :eek!: :eek!:

MJB Friday 18th January 2019 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by locustella (Post 3808333)
Highest temperatures on record in Australia. Not only some people landed in hospitals, but also many bats have died and fruit orchards got spoiled.
https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/world...yJd?li=BBr8HnF

The amount of energy in these steep mean increases over a huge area (and also large increases in minimum (overnight) temperatures is phenomenal. Maybe someone on Bird Forum with the expertise can do a useful approximation?
MJB

litebeam Friday 18th January 2019 18:32

Did you bother to research global areas that are enduring record or near-record cold? Alaska has been in the grips of extreme, bitter cold for weeks now.

The media isn't too forthcoming about those opposing stats because those facts undermine their AGW theology...

fugl Saturday 19th January 2019 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3808428)
. . .The media isn't too forthcoming about those opposing stats because those facts undermine their AGW theology...

Paranoid drivel. . ..

mjh73 Monday 21st January 2019 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3808428)
Did you bother to research global areas that are enduring record or near-record cold? Alaska has been in the grips of extreme, bitter cold for weeks now.

The media isn't too forthcoming about those opposing stats because those facts undermine their AGW theology...

There has been plenty in the science and in the media about how climate change is leading to increased occurrence of extreme weather events (colder colds, hotter hots, wetter wets....) while the overall climate trend is warming

fugl Monday 21st January 2019 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjh73 (Post 3809219)
There has been plenty in the science and in the media about how climate change is leading to increased occurrence of extreme weather events (colder colds, hotter hots, wetter wets....) while the overall climate trend is warming

Indeed, but try to get that through the head of the average AGW denier. . ..

litebeam Monday 21st January 2019 07:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjh73 (Post 3809219)
There has been plenty in the science and in the media about how climate change is leading to increased occurrence of extreme weather events (colder colds, hotter hots, wetter wets....) while the overall climate trend is warming

Of course there is plenty in the media. You're reading exactly what 'they' want you to read!
And don't get me started on colluding, corrupt 'peer review' scientists. They are a joke.
Many people (AGW 'deniers' included) believe that the planet has warmed to some extent. It is the causation that remains in question.
The ebb and flow of colder colds, hotter hots, and wetter wets has been cycling for millennia, driven primarily by solar flares (and conversely, solar inactively) and volcanic actively.

And I personally won't hold my breath waiting for the media to put forth information that doesn't unequivocally promote anything but AGW theology. They refuse to print AGW controversy and contratry opinion. Much like the tactics of some on this very forum, dissenters are targeted, mocked, marginalized and discredited, regardless of their experience or expertise.

DMW Monday 21st January 2019 10:08

I'm extremely pessimistic about the survival prospects of a number of Australian bird species thanks to climate change. I visited parts of inland Victoria and NSW in 2016, and it was clear that quite a few species were at a very low ebb thanks to long-term drought.

Of course, droughts are nothing new in this part of the world, and indigenous birds are adapted to drought conditions, but the duration, intensity and frequency have increased to the point that may exceed their capacity to survive. Couple this with chronic overgrazing from livestock and unnaturally high populations of kangaroos (thanks to artifical water sources), and landscape-level fires resulting from inadequate controlled burn regimes, and you have a perfect storm.

Chosun Juan Monday 21st January 2019 10:54

It's Hot ! Damn Hot !
 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJBbK2XNbE

This latest heatwave (in part triggering the huge fish kill in the Darling River) , and the one to follow next week, were caused by "blocking highs" in the Tasman Sea, allowing air to just sit in the centre of the country (largely rock and desert) and along with clear skies allowed the heat of mid summer solar radiation to just accumulate.

I don't know if these weather system phenomena are predicted by models (or linked to the deep ocean conveyor) -- but I'm sure one can be made to fit ;)

The country posted it's highest ever overnight minimum temperature of 35.9C (up by 0.4C) , however the highest ever recorded daytime temperature is still the 50.7C set way back in 1960.

Marble Bar (in WA) also posted 160 days in a row over 1923/1924 of over 37.9C (100F in the old money) ...... how people survived that I have no idea. No hypothesized "AGW" effects back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia

I wonder what effect the large areas of land clearing and open cut mining, and widespread hydrological functioning disruption (capture of overland flows, degradation /destruction of wetlands, and the soil sponge, and intersection and draining of natural aquifers, etc) is having on the tendency of the country to store increasing heat) ........ ?? :cat:

This phenomenon is studied and understood in urban /suburban environments (Urban Heat Islands become Urban Heat Continents: https://www.news.com.au/technology/e...3b20da70968671 ), but if the broader landscape effect is studied in the scientific realms it is certainly not making it onto the mainstream media radar.

Nor is the contribution to the Great Barrier Reef die back events caused by excess fertilizer /nutrients, and sediment run off from cleared agricultural lands.

Seems like these are all "fertile" areas for scientific enquiry ......

Oh, and the biggest mystery around the incidence of Bushfires (or Brush or Wildfires as they are called stateside) is ...... which idiot started them ?! :storm: coz sure as heck the vast majority are NOT started by lightning ........




Chosun :gh:

fugl Monday 21st January 2019 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809270)
. . . Much like the tactics of some on this very forum, dissenters are targeted, mocked, marginalized and discredited, regardless of their experience or expertise.

Oh poor little snowflake, my heart goes out to you. . ..

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...l#.XEYVS4yIahA

litebeam Monday 21st January 2019 21:08

"Snowflake"...

That's worth a chuckle coming from you.... 3:-) And what heart?!

fugl Monday 21st January 2019 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809540)
"Snowflake"...

That's worth a chuckle coming from you....

“The pejorative sense of ‘an overly sensitive person’ arose from a still-common misconception that no two snowflakes are alike. ‘Snowflake’ as a derogatory term was popularized by its use in the 1996 novel Fight Club. . .but the insult had existed for a significant amount of time prior to this, although not in popular use. In recent years, the meaning has expanded from ‘a person who believes they are unique’ to also denote someone who is too sensitive and is easily offended, based on conceptions of snowflakes' fragility and weakness.”

Fits you like glove my friend, fits you like a glove. . ..

litebeam Monday 21st January 2019 23:22

Hmmm, more 'snowflake' rotten bait. Imagine that... 3:-)

Sniffs...swims on....

litebeam Monday 21st January 2019 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
...

The country posted it's highest ever overnight minimum temperature of 35.9C (up by 0.4C) , however the highest ever recorded daytime temperature is still the 50.7C set way back in 1960.

Marble Bar (in WA) also posted 160 days in a row over 1923/1924 of over 37.9C (100F in the old money) ...... how people survived that I have no idea. No hypothesized "AGW" effects back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia

..........
Chosun :gh:

Thanks for the insights and link, Chosun, it will likely go unaddressed here. It certainly doesn't fit the alarmist narrative.

fugl Tuesday 22nd January 2019 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809587)
Thanks for the insights and link, Chosun, it will likely go unaddressed here. It certainly doesn't fit the alarmist narrative.

Sigh. . .. An outlier or two proves nothing, its the general trend that counts. If you had the slightest grasp of statistical reasoning you would know this.

litebeam Tuesday 22nd January 2019 03:19

And if you had an ounce of unbiased parity in your thinking, you'd consider all of the facts....

fugl Tuesday 22nd January 2019 04:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809633)
And if you had an ounce of unbiased parity in your thinking, you'd consider all of the facts....

Dont be coy. How about some examples of these facts Im supposedly not considering?

Nohatch Tuesday 22nd January 2019 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809270)
And don't get me started on colluding, corrupt 'peer review' scientists. They are a joke.

Oh please do get started Litebeam: put your money where your big mouth is for once.


Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809270)
Many people (AGW 'deniers' included) believe that the planet has warmed to some extent.

'Believe' is irrelevant, you can just measure this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by litebeam (Post 3809270)
It is the causation that remains in question. The ebb and flow of colder colds, hotter hots, and wetter wets has been cycling for millennia, driven primarily by solar flares (and conversely, solar inactively) and volcanic actively.

This is factually incorrect. Read up here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...al-warming.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm

You call AGW a 'theology' and urge us to be 'unbiased' and 'consider all the facts'. Well, go ahead the and present to us your comprehensive scientific theory that satisfies all observations and our combined knowledge biogeochemistry, atmospheric physics, thermodynamics etc. The one put forward by my community of 'corrupt, colluding' colleagues stands. Now substantiate the hubris and show everyone you can do better.

Nohatch Tuesday 22nd January 2019 09:46

Hi Chosun,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
I don't know if these weather system phenomena are predicted by models (or linked to the deep ocean conveyor) -- but I'm sure one can be made to fit ;)

Not really as the models work on much bigger spatial and temporal scales. Going down to that kind of resolution requires computational power, advanced machine learning and a density of 'training' data we don't yet have available. However, advances are being made - have a look at this editorial in NPJ CAS https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0057-1
And I noticed your cheeky dig at the models ;) but validation is a critical part of any modeling effort, also outside climate science (medicine, finance, route planners etc etc). If your model can't fit what you've already observed it's not doing it right!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
The country posted it's highest ever overnight minimum temperature of 35.9C (up by 0.4C) , however the highest ever recorded daytime temperature is still the 50.7C set way back in 1960.
Marble Bar (in WA) also posted 160 days in a row over 1923/1924 of over 37.9C (100F in the old money) ...... how people survived that I have no idea. No hypothesized "AGW" effects back then.

A similar argument is often made about 1934 in North America. However, as already pointed out the extremes are part of the 'noise' around the general global trend. See also here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/193...cord-basic.htm (there's more info in under the 'intermediate' tab).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
I wonder what effect the large areas of land clearing and open cut mining, and widespread hydrological functioning disruption (capture of overland flows, degradation /destruction of wetlands, and the soil sponge, and intersection and draining of natural aquifers, etc) is having on the tendency of the country to store increasing heat) ........ ?? :cat:

I think we can all agree that the effects are unequivocally bad. Restoring natural habitats is one of the IPCC and UN recommendations, although whether national leaders have the foresight to put this into action remains to be seen. Personally, I'd love to see a big drive towards MAGA (Making America/Australia Green Again!) ;)
And on topic, you're probably interested in this as a starting point: https://www.skepticalscience.com/urb...and-effect.htm


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
This phenomenon is studied and understood in urban /suburban environments (Urban Heat Islands become Urban Heat Continents: https://www.news.com.au/technology/e...3b20da70968671 ), but if the broader landscape effect is studied in the scientific realms it is certainly not making it onto the mainstream media radar.

Nor is the contribution to the Great Barrier Reef die back events caused by excess fertilizer /nutrients, and sediment run off from cleared agricultural lands.

Seems like these are all "fertile" areas for scientific enquiry ......

Indeed they are and I can send you some papers to start you off if you like? The fact that it doesn't make it into the mainstream media doesn't mean much, and is understandable given that the research is often very technical & detailed - and highlights plenty of inconvenient truths...

Cheers,
Joost

DMW Tuesday 22nd January 2019 11:37

Litebeam, I am genuinely interested to understand how you came to your scepticism of AGW.

Let me explain to you why I accept the premise of AGW. I have a basic science background (zoology degree), and while I am in no way a scientist, I do have a reasonable understanding of how science “works” as a process, and I have faith in this process. This isn’t blind faith of a religious nature: the computer I’m typing this on, the kettle I just used to boil water, and the supply of electricity that powers both are all derived from the scientific process, as is just about every other aspect of modern life. Put simply, I trust the collective body of scientists and scientific research to do their job. I trust them to put forward the most compelling explanations of the natural world, and I trust them to keep looking for alternative explanations, and to change their collective minds when these alternative explanations are a better fit for the data.

This is why I accept the premise of AGW, despite never having read a single paper on the subject. Frankly, there would be little point in me doing so, as I would not be able to understand the science. As far as I am aware, no scientist who works in climate science or related fields disputes that AGW is the best explanation of the available evidence. I am positive that any scientist who could provide a robust alternative explanation would do so in a heartbeat: it would give them tremendous personal and professional prestige, not to mention great wealth. The oil companies would write them a blank cheque.

Yes, there are a very few scientists who refute AGW, but as far as I am aware, none of them actually work in the field of climate science. They are effectively dentists diagnosing a heart condition. And yes, there are a very few scientists who falsify or deliberately misuse data, but they tend to get found out and ostracized. Neither group are representative of the collective body of scientists.

In today’s world it is always a good idea to distrust anything you read in the media – look at how even the much-self-praised BBC peddled fake news in the recent Native American v white teens fiasco - but to be honest there comes a point where healthy scepticism turns into blind refusal to accept reality.

So that’s my narrative: what’s yours? What facts do you have that make you able to dismiss the collective body of climate-change scientists, and therefore the scientific process?

Chosun Juan Tuesday 22nd January 2019 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809308)
..... I wonder what effect the large areas of land clearing and open cut mining, and widespread hydrological functioning disruption (capture of overland flows, degradation /destruction of wetlands, and the soil sponge, and intersection and draining of natural aquifers, etc) is having on the tendency of the country to store increasing heat) ........ ?? :cat:

This phenomenon is studied and understood in urban /suburban environments (Urban Heat Islands become Urban Heat Continents: https://www.news.com.au/technology/e...3b20da70968671 ), but if the broader landscape effect is studied in the scientific realms it is certainly not making it onto the mainstream media radar....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nohatch (Post 3809691)
Hi Chosun,

..... I think we can all agree that the effects are unequivocally bad. Restoring natural habitats is one of the IPCC and UN recommendations, although whether national leaders have the foresight to put this into action remains to be seen. Personally, I'd love to see a big drive towards MAGA (Making America/Australia Green Again!) ;)
And on topic, you're probably interested in this as a starting point: https://www.skepticalscience.com/urb...and-effect.htm

Indeed they are and I can send you some papers to start you off if you like? The fact that it doesn't make it into the mainstream media doesn't mean much, and is understandable given that the research is often very technical & detailed - and highlights plenty of inconvenient truths...

Cheers,
Joost

Hi Joost,

If you have any cutting edge research to pass on regarding these microclimate /landscape effects of vegetation clearing /hydrological cycle damage and resultant heat storage, and what part this plays in the overall pie - I'd be very interested :t:

(I did request some papers through Research gate around Natural Sequence Farming techniques and follow on landscape scale studies, but my request is not coming through despite the author having apparently received it - and thanks to a browser hijacking and system reboot courtesy of an uninvited Samsung - all my bookmarks disappeared, and I have no idea what the titles /authors of the papers were - most annoying! :)




Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan Tuesday 22nd January 2019 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMW (Post 3809730)
...... Put simply, I trust the collective body of scientists and scientific research to do their job. I trust them to put forward the most compelling explanations of the natural world, and I trust them to keep looking for alternative explanations, and to change their collective minds when these alternative explanations are a better fit for the data.

This is why I accept the premise of AGW, despite never having read a single paper on the subject......

'Scientists' also collectively regularly trot out all sorts of stuff about 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' despite very few I suspect having any sort of grasp of it whatsoever. It's probably those less immersed who stand back, hitch up an eyebrow, and say - "hang on ....." , that represent our greatest hope ! I wouldn't be at all surprised if a 100 or so years from now, the whole thing is looked back upon with about as much credibility as "luminiferous aether" ! :eek!:

I trust the scientific process to get it right ----- eventually, but jeez, there'll be a heck of a lot of 'silly walks' in between .....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wippooDL6WE

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMW (Post 3809730)
...... In today’s world it is always a good idea to distrust anything you read in the media ---- but to be honest there comes a point where healthy scepticism turns into blind refusal to accept reality.

This reminds me of an 'encounter' I had with my ex boss, who virtually implied that I was mad and was ripe for the funny farm, when I told him of an insight and position I held on some matter within our company. I will never forget his words and incredulity ..... "what! so you expect me to believe that 160 people including me are wrong, and you're the only one who's right?! That no-one else can see it, and every single one of them is wrong - and you're right?!? In hindsight my reply of "yep" only seemed to infuriate him more ........... funny thing was though, it turns out I was right, turns out I was the only one who was right, and 160 people got it completely wrong .............. o:)




Chosun :gh:

DMW Tuesday 22nd January 2019 15:43

"I suspect"; "It's probably"; "I wouldn't be at all surprised"... yep, we can all make statements like that, but I would rather base my viewpoint on the thoughts of people who are actually studying a subject in a proper systematic way doing actual science with actual data sets, than people who aren't but who "suspect".

As for your I was right and everybody else was wrong story, sure, maybe. But how many thousands of "They were right and I was wrong" stories are there for every contrarian who was right? Basing an opinion on the lone voice of a person who has no grounding in a discipline seems a poor strategy compared to listening to the consensus opinion of those who do.

The whole point of the scientific process is that people who have contrarian views have a very real platform to present them, and if they can deliver the evidence then they become the accepted wisdom. As I said before, any climate scientist who can produce a convincing model and data set to demonstrate that it's volcanoes or sun-spots or farting cows that cause global warming is going to hit the jackpot.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan (Post 3809787)
'Scientists' also collectively regularly trot out all sorts of stuff about 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' despite very few I suspect having any sort of grasp of it whatsoever. It's probably those less immersed who stand back, hitch up an eyebrow, and say - "hang on ....." , that represent our greatest hope ! I wouldn't be at all surprised if a 100 or so years from now, the whole thing is looked back upon with about as much credibility as "lumeniforous aether" ! :eek!:

I trust the scientific process to get it right ----- eventually, but jeez, there'll be a heck of a lot of 'silly walks' in between .....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wippooDL6WE


This reminds me of an 'encounter' I had with my ex boss, who virtually implied that I was mad and was ripe for the funny farm, when I told him of an insight and position I held on some matter within our company. I will never forget his words and incredulity ..... "what! so you expect me to believe that 160 people including me are wrong, and you're the only one who's right?! That no-one else can see it, and every single one of them is wrong - and you're right?!? In hindsight my reply of "yep" only seemed to infuriate him more ........... funny thing was though, it turns out I was right, turns out I was the only one who was right, and 160 people got it completely wrong .............. o:)




Chosun :gh:


Nohatch Tuesday 22nd January 2019 16:27

Hi Chosun,

The IPCC has made land-climate interactions one of its priority areas following the 6th assessment in 2015 and there will be a special issue forthcoming this year. Should make for an interesting read! https://www.ipcc-wg3.ac.uk/news_5.html

In the meantime I'll look for some papers for you. I hate publisher paywalls - the work was publicly funded so it should be freely available to all!

Cheers,
Joost


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:50.

Powered by vBulletin®, copyright ©2000 - 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BirdForum Ltd 2002 - 2018