Abetz is Colonel Klink.
We were talking about Melbournes temperature, nothing else.
In all seriousness the bom website has a lot of information on climate and past weather.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
Graphs, charts, reports, summaries, outlooks the works.
Things like this are explained as well.
Over the past century, the Bureau has expanded, developed and advanced its network of observing sites. In 2011, the Bureau had 774 temperature recording sites and nearly 6000 rain gauges operating across Australia.
There are the main ones you see on the weather charts but there are also lots of others!
Also;
A large number of factors affect the consistency of the temperature record over time. So many, in fact, that raw temperature recordings are not always suitable for characterising long-term changes in our climate. For this reason, a carefully prepared dataset such as ACORN-SAT is vital for climate research.
While considerable effort is made to keep observational practices consistentâand to keep a careful log of changes at each siteâeach change in methodology or technology can leave its mark on the record.
Climatologists carefully analyse records to find any evidence of spurious artefacts in the data, which introduce changes over time that are not related to climate variability.
These include artificial changes in the record due to the replacement of thermometers or changes in observing practices, such as the change from imperial to decimal units in the middle of last century.
Carnarvon weather station Observations began in 1910 at the Post Office in Carnarvon, Western Australia, and after several moves it has operated as an automatic weather station since 1996.
The network itself has also changed over time. As the population has grown and expanded into remote parts of the continent, so too has the Bureauâs station network. As Australia is so large and contains a rich variety of climates, climatologists need to carefully account for changes in the network. They need to make sure, for example, that the expansion of the network into the hot desert interior and tropical north have not produced biases in Australian-average temperature over time.
Changes in infrastructure also affect the Bureauâs network. Over time, towns and cities grow, new roads and airports are built, and rural land use changes. These developments can force the movement and replacement of thermometers and other equipment.
Each site relocation has the potential to disrupt the continuity of records, since no two sites have exactly the same climate.
The Bureau employs world-leading methods and analysis techniques to account for such changes so that records can be confidently compared from one period to another throughout the last century.
The old CBD measurement of wind speed was always comically low. I used to just average it and the Melbourne Airport one (which is generally much worse than the rest of Melbourne).
Labour about to keep us in the dark (and cold) like the lefties on this thread.
VICTORIANS could face gas and electricity shortages over the next five years, a new report from the nationâs energy market regulator has warned.
PRIME MINISTER TO DISCUSS VICTORIAâS SKYROCKETING POWER COSTS
Victoriaâs gas production is set to drop 38 per cent between this year and 2021, which could lead to âdomestic gas shortfallsâ, the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned.
The annual Gas Statement of Opportunities report, released on Thursday, said Victorians could face winter gas shortages in 2019 if an underground gas storage facility is not refilled.
Electricity supplies could also be at risk as there may be shortages for gas-powered electricity generators, the report said.
It comes after influential crossbencher Nick Xenophon warned Victoria of âdisastrousâ consequences if the Andrews Government adopts a renewable energy target without replacing the âback-upâ that will be lost when Hazelwood shuts.
Senator Nick Xenophon has warned Victoria could be in for an energy crisis. Picture: AAP
The South Australian senator said the closure of the coal-fired Hazelwood power station, which supplies 22 per cent of Victoriaâs energy, could trigger an energy crisis which âwill be a contagion that spreads across the countryâ.
He fears small businesses will be crippled across southern Australia if Victoria follows the lead of his home state and pursues target of 40 per cent a state-based renewable energy by 2025 without adequate base-load power.
âThe Victorian Government â if they go ahead with a renewables scheme without having back-up power â it will be a disaster for South Australia in terms of increased prices and more energy insecurity,â Senator Xenophon said.
But Victorian Energy Minister Lily DâAmbrosio said Senator Xenophon was âwrongâ and should âstick to issues he understandsâ.
âOur renewable energy and storage measures will bring on more supply, ensuring the grid remains resilient and power prices are kept in check,â she told the Herald Sun.
how illuminating! A quote from X.
A disaster, for South AustraliaâŚ
Meh
Hmm, wonder why there would be a gas shortfall? We produce the second most in the world. Surely shouldnât be a problem. Whereâs it all going?
Then it goes on to say something Nick said about the dilapidated coal plant thatâs closing. Handballing SAâs own gas market woes onto us.
Calling Hazelwood âbackupâ belies a misunderstanding of how coal plants work on Xâs part.
Starting up any coal power plant is extremely costly, let alone an ancient one like Hazelwood. Plus it takes more than seven hours to start up a relatively modern coal plant if it has been out of action for more than a few days. And then it takes a further three hours to get it to full capacity.
I donât have the numbers for Hazelwood but I imagine it would be much more - another estimate for large subcritical coal plants suggests anywhere between 12-48 hours. Hazelwood is very large, very subcritical and very old, so it would probably be at the higher end of that scale.
Very rarely can you accurately forecast shortfalls that far out, meaning youâd have the plant sitting there eating up money almost all of the time.
A much cheaper and more effective âbackupâ would be a demand response system, where participating (mostly large industrial) consumers would be paid to reduce their power requirements on expected high load days.
These are in place around the world, but nobodyâs really driving its implementation in Australia. Possibly because the companies that would be introducing it - retailers and distribution networks - make their money from people using more power, and they donât want to stop that.
Donât worry - only really impacts the little people out in the suburbs and in the country.
And they are all bogans anyway so meh.
Yes, the report is from 2013 but obviously the date of the report has no impact on what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I thought that was reasonably obvious not to be stated.
Again the climate was just as âwarmâ between 950 and 1250 AD and was for decades. Arctic ice was actually increasing in 2013 - not decreasing - defying once more the predictions of the doomsayers.
Humans have endured endless scare campaigns re the end of the world for centuries. Each time people were arrogant enough to think they had found something and each time they were wrong.
Iâll back history to be right once more.
The only backup X is concerned about is the VIC/SA inter-connector for when the market regulators conveniently forget to service their backup gas plants in the middle of summer and canât switch them on to supply for peaks (and make a tonne of cash in the process).
People would treat you with more respect if you actually took the time to read their responses to your posts. The brief 2013 âpauseâ in Antarctic ice melt has been utterly reversed. Iâve posted articles on this and pointed you to it several times as has HM. Do you not pay attention? Or do you just ignore stuff that is contrary to your position.
Lol. The report was talking about Antarctic SEA ice increasing which occurred briefly on annual average because it was falling off the glacial ice at the pole. Itâs now shrinking again. No one is stupid enough to think arctic ice is growing on average over time.
Secondly, the Medieval warm period is know to have occurred at a time when volcano activity was low and solar radiation was high, effecting specific locations including the north atlantic and the arctic. The tropics actually cooled around the same time. Estimates are that in global average terms temperatures would have been more like the first half of the 20th century.
But, cherry pick, obfuscate and troll away my good man.
People would treat you with more respect if you actually took the time to read their responses to your posts. The brief 2013 âpauseâ in Antarctic ice melt has been utterly reversed. Iâve posted articles on this and pointed you to it several times as has HM. Do you not pay attention? Or do you just ignore stuff that is contrary to your position.
Have you even thought about why it paused and how that flew in the face of most predictions?
Have you even thought about why it paused and how that flew in the face of most predictions?
Maybe HM about 40 posts up said whyâŚ
And you realise that since then we know WHY this happened - that a lot of CO2 went into acidifying the oceans (so affecting marine ecology earlier and worse than expected) and a lot of heat went into warming the deep oceans (destabilising deep currenls earlier and worse than expected) and the arctic, causing loss of pack ice earlier and more severely than expected?
In Tripâs world if you donât get every detail exactly right from the start you just chuck it all in and forget about it.
One thing I find really annoying in this thread is how our resident climate change deniers try to frame the debate in terms of left / right politics. As if having respect for the science of climate change instantly makes you a âleftyâ (whatever that is in 2017).
Denialism tactics. Frame it out of context and arange it as a false dichotomy. âYour side is the ungodly side.â Or, âyour side is an extreme political ideology.â
One thing I find really annoying in this thread is how our resident climate change deniers try to frame the debate in terms of left / right politics. As if having respect for the science of climate change instantly makes you a âleftyâ (whatever that is in 2017).
Errr - thatâs because it generally is a left/right thing. As a general rule, the lefter you go in politics the more strident people are in regards to climate change. The righter you go the more sceptical you become.
When you look at the profiles of the two it makes sense anyway.
Left:
*Will support anything that involves government regulation.
*Are more concerned with âappearingâ to do something than actually doing something.
*Are not interested in results based outcomes.
*Tend to over-dramatise events.
*Have a tendency to label people - ie misogynists, denialists, racists, bogans etc.
*Are not generally impacted by their own solutions, ie students who live at home with Mum & Dad, inner city lawyers who can afford any extra costs, public servants who are basically immune from job cuts.
Right:
*Have faith in peoples intelligence/initiative to work out problems.
*Interested in solutions that actually achieve results.
*Are impacted first hand - families, blue collar workers in the suburbs, lower paid white collar workers.
*Generally live outside the white, wealthy inner city bubble.