Weather Abbott’s latest G20 humiliation!

Curse that Brisvegas heatwave:

unnamed

Add the Brisvegas humidity and lot’s of world leaders will be sweating profusely as they scurry for air-conditioned alcoves to discuss global warming behind Tony Abbott’s back.

Mostly joking!

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Brisbane is always hot though…it’s why Queenslanders are all a bit loopy, the sun fries their brains.

    • Wonderful News ! Bring on the heat -I hope ALL those visiting wankers fry their a$$es off !

      The Australian tax payer has to pay almost a billion $ to host these posing clowns —

      An uninhibited island would have been a better idea !

      • $1 Billion dollars in the middle of a “budget emergency”

        I really hope Australia gets some benefit out of hosting this economic soiree.

  2. Damn, the missing heat turned up, it was in BrisVegas all along! I bet the cold dark matter is in TAS somewhere.

  3. Forget the heat – did you miss his press conference where he said 16 years from now is the “far, distant future” and repeated “now, right now, what matters now” about 20 times?

    here is your leadership Australia. Well done.

  4. Sunday 39 degrees

    That is hot even for Brissy. Wet sheets all round.

    The leaders of course will be in air conditioned comfort, unless the power goes out……. Right now.

    • Definitely hot for Brisbane.

      Average maximum November temperature in Brisbane is 27 degrees.

      Average days over 35 degrees = 0. The record maximum temperature in November is just under 35.

      Worth keeping in mind when we hear the cries of “it’s always hot in Brisbane”.

    • The power won’t be going out so long as the grid is fed with solid baseload provided by steam or water turbines. Start replacing it with too much of a hodge podge of windmills and solar and watch the outages rise.

      Whoopdy doo it’s hot is Brisbane in Summer. Just like it’s now snowing in Minnesota. None of it is evidence for the presence of or lack of global warming.

  5. If there’s one politician who deserves a heatwave at a G20 he’s hosting its Abbott.
    If there’s one politician who deserves a monster El Nino on his watch its Abbott.
    If there’s one politician who deserves a 1-in-100 year drought during his term its Abbott.

    • It will. We should be welcoming these increased temperatures that will mean beach weather all year round. Who doesn’t want that?

      More and more people will have waterfront properties, even those not near the coast now, so house prices will go up.

      Plus, without ice it will be much easier to build mines in Antarctica.

      Everyone is a winner!

      • arescarti42MEMBER

        We’ll be growing oranges in Tasmania!

        Too bad for everyone living in the oven north of Bass Strait.

      • Might be time to buy some IPs in Hobart!

        The new sunshine state.

        As long as that overdue next ice age cycle thingy, doesn’t happen. Back to Queensland then.

        Maybe it’d be safe to hedge against all Climate Chang out comes and buy, IPs on several different latitudes.

        😉

    • Sparkle ? 3d have you ever spent a summer in Brissy?

      The humidity is like a hot wet sponge , It is hard to even breathe, the only difference between night & day is the lights come on & the mossies come out.

      • “Balls! We get the opposite in Melbourne, comes later (if at all) and lasts a week.”

        I’m not sure which Melbourne you’re living in, but it’s not the one on Port Phillip Bay.

        http://theconversation.com/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505

        February was also consistently warm in many parts of the southeast; some places in northern Victoria had 20 or more consecutive days above 30°C, and Melbourne equalled a record by having 14 30-degree days in the month.

        http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3927578.htm

        CARL BRAGANZA: Yeah, quite a few sequential day records, so duration of the heat records have been set across the state and we’re probably looking at about 20 of those going around, around the state.

        We’ve got a sequence of days above 41, so we have to go back to 1908 to see if something comparable, and this event is probably an analogous to that event, where we have five days over 40 and four of those days were over 41, but broken up by a 40 in the middle.

        ALISON CALDWELL: So the longest heatwave in a 100 years?

        CARL BRAGANZA: Yeah these things probably come along probably, you know, once in a lifetime. Certainly in days gone by, so during the first half of the 20th century, you didn’t see that much of this. But in the last 10 years or so when we look across the whole of Australia and the south-east included, we’re seeing you know quite a clustering of these extreme heats.

      • http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/summer-heatwave-2013.shtml

        The heatwave contributed to an unusually warm three months, with spring 2012 Australia’s third-warmest spring average maximum temperature.

        The heat continued into the summer period, with an extended nationwide heatwave that began in the west just after Christmas and peaked during the first two weeks of January 2013.

        The start of autumn was marked by a third major heatwave event. This was especially pronounced in the southeastern states where numerous cities and towns including Melbourne, Mt Gambier and Launceston set records for consecutive hot days and warm nights (see Special climate statement 45).

      • Well the one I’m walking on commercial Road of is overcast as the eye can see and about 15 degrees in the middle of Nov. Which one you in?

      • “I’m not sure which Melbourne you’re living in, but it’s not the one on Port Phillip Bay.”

        I’m normally on board with a lot of what Migtronix has to say, but that statement is just beyond ridiculous (anecdotally and factually). Maybe he was being sarcastic or something?

      • “I didn’t make that statement”

        I think RobW was replying to my comment but talking about your original comment. Correct me if I’m wrong RobW.

      • “Which one you in?”

        The one where last year we had a record nine consecutive days over 30 (six of which were over 35 degrees). The one were a few years back heat caused trains to stop working (that was particularly fun) as well as power outages. Man, if the rest of summer is like today, I’ll stop complaining and accept your argument, but somehow I think Jan, Feb and March will be nasty.

      • Yeah I remember that week, poor bastards at the tennis. It was shit before and shit after. Until really late. Which is what I said.

      • I’m not providing any analysis and you’re the loon if you think I am. I’m just jealous of the non shit weather up in Brisbane. One day of sunshine every couple of weeks is pretty shit, especially when it’s not on the weekend.

    • @the beach, because that’s where everyone is headed till its over…

      Newman had to give orders for business to stay open…. Potemkin villages comes to mind…. snorty!!!

      Skippy… Occupy the Beach!!!

      PS. Blessed be the Pouch thingy…

    • 3d1khead: If it reaches the forecast 39C on Sunday it will be the hottest November day on record and break the previous record by more than 4 degrees.

      Appalling luck for Abbott, but is there anyone more deserving?

      • Agree lorax

        There is no one more deserving than he.

        Though I do find Christpher Pyne,equally, deserving of our contempt.
        And I consider both to be equally grubby.

      • Billions of blue blistering barnacles.

        They’re all just Dictatorial Duck-Billed Diplodocuses and gibbering antrhpoids.

      • Abbott, boomer.
        Pyne, gen X.
        Hockey and Hunt from ’65 are either or.
        Morrison, gen X.
        Brandis, boomer.
        Bernardi, gen X.

  6. “We should be welcoming these increased temperatures that will mean beach weather all year round.”

    Well it fits in their logic! CO2 is good because it helps create a liable climate, thus more CO2 is fine. Similarly, heat is good because it keeps us from freezing, so increasing temperatures must also be fine. Simples!

    • Wait, I shouldn’t be so quick to rubbish this line of thinking. Carbohydrates are good for me, thus increasing my intake must also be fine! I’m off to have a couple of pizzas!

      • Way ahead of you. Ever since I heard a glass of red wine is good for the heart, I’ve been going all out to protect it. My heart must be invincible by now.

  7. Most of the G20 leaders will enjoy the break from their coldest November on record::
    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/arctic-cold-outbreak-november-locked-20141110

    NH 14/15 winter is shaping up to be bitterly cold:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/11/11/winter-weather-midwest-plains/18841809/

    Early snow in Siberia supports bitter NH winter forecast:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-06/harsh-winter-outlook-made-a-bit-more-dire-by-early-snow.html

    • Yep, Rick and those record cold temps are a DIRECT RESULT of global warming.

      It’s because of wavy jetstreams. The jet stream movements are impacted by warming poles. Research shows that as the poles warm due to climate change, less drastic changes in temperatures occur between the poles and equatorial climates. This leads to weakened lateral winds and a wavier jet stream. Which leads to snaps of incredibly cold weather (Google “Polar vortex”).

      Is your tiny brain going to explode?

      • There you go with your science again. I hope you don’t think a coherent scientific theory beats a feel-pinion.

      • But they’re so much fun to engage with.

        You’re right though. As they say, never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

      • I notice that the referenced blog doesn’t actually compare the Acrtic summer of ’14 to any other summer, other than ’13 in an order to support the ‘coldest summer’ statement. As best as I can tell from the graphic, spring was warmer and more variable than the average, and summer very close to the average. Also, the link to DMI Centre for Ocean and ICe shows the temperature having been greater than the “long term” average ever since ‘short cold summer’ blog post was made.

      • I’ll dumb it down a bit for Ricky. From wikipedia:

        Arctic Rising temperatures

        According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world.” The period of 1995-2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1951-1990 average. Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada’s temperature rising by 3 to 4 °C (5.40 to 7.20 °F). This warming has been caused not only by the rise in greenhouse gas concentration, but also the deposition of soot on Arctic ice. A 2013 article published in Geophysical Research Letters has shown that temperatures in the region haven’t been as high as they currently are since at least 44,000 years ago and perhaps as long as 120,000 years ago. The authors conclude that “anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth.”

        Antarctica Climate change

        The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05 °C/decade since 1957. The West Antarctic ice sheet has warmed by more than 0.1 °C/decade in the last 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by fall cooling in East Antarctica, this effect is restricted to the 1980s and 1990s.

        Research published in 2009 found that overall the continent had become warmer since the 1950s, a finding consistent with the influence of man-made climate change.

      • RE:
        I hit back with data:
        http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report08/images/essays/atmosphere/a1.jpg

        Notice when your chart stops – at the hottest point some 6 years ago. If you are looking for curves that show warming on land you need to go back that far.

        If you want to find data showing warming at present you need to look out oceans below 3000m due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and heat passing from the warmer, but now cooling, upper layers. However the land masses overall started cooling in 1998. The ocean surface temperatures >100m peaked in 2008. As the globe cools the rate of rise in CO2 is falling despite accelerating use of fossil fuels. None of these facts fit the warming theory.

      • This is from the extract of the Screen/Simmonds paper referenced:
        “Disproportionately large warming in the northern polar regions compared with mid-latitudes—and associated weakening of the north–south temperature gradient—may favour larger amplitude planetary waves14, 15, 16, 17, although observational evidence for this remains inconclusive18, 19, 20, 21”

        As is usual with these fables the merit of the theory should not be clouded by the evidence.

        As far as the trend is concerned, use the date in the linked curve and trend from 1998 to present – temperature is trending down. Alternatively if you find the data that starts at 1900 or 1930 the trend is flat. If you go back a thousand or million years you can get widely varying trends depending on the starting time. Climate changes with the sun being the primary driver. Trends depend on the starting and end point. Recent trend with land temperature such as the last decade show a cooling trend.

      • “Use the date in the linked curve and trend from 1998 to present – temperature is trending down”

        1) As I said, you cherry pick. Cherry picking is not science, it’s propaganda, Rick (which you’d know if you’d studied real science and not political science) 🙄

        2) Look at my linked graph above again. Now look at the minima as well as the maxima. Can you see the trend, or are you blind as well as intellectually challenged?

      • The insistence that temperature records only began in 1958 is nonsense. They were recorded long before that. 1958 has been carefully chosen to support the idea of a warming trend – cherry picking at its best.

        I have plotted the last decade of HADCRUT4 global mean temperature anomaly with its trend. The trend with this data is clearly down:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/trend
        I am interested in the trend this century not what happened last century.

        If the warming theory was not a fable then there would be an upward trend over any decade, particularly the last as the temperature rise is predicted to be accelerating according to the warming theories.

      • If the warming theory was not a fable then there would be an upward trend over any decade, […]

        Why ?

      • The linked chart is on the epa site showing what the warming climate models predicted in 2000:
        http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/ScenarioTempGraph-large.jpg
        All predictions show a steady increase in temperature. Even allowing for the error bands there is no opportunity for the rising trend to fall over a decade. The temperature trend over the last decade is downward. The models are based on a fable that links atmospheric CO2 above 290ppm as being a significant driver of global temperature.

      • This statement is taken from the !PCC 2007 Working Group I page:
        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}”
        This is the link:
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

        Unambiguous statement that there will be 0.2C rise per decade under a business as usual scenario. This link shows reality for the last decade for the HADCRUT4 data set:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/mean:12
        If the rise had been 0.2C it would be off the chart.

        When the actual measured data does not match the hypothesis or guess then the guess is wrong. The guess that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rising from 290 to 400ppm would cause significant global warming is wrong. There is no data that supports it.

      • You still haven’t answered the question: why do you think *any* ten year period, regardless of when it starts, should *always* show an upward trend ?

        Your implicit argument is that any fluctuation must last less than ten years. What is the basis for this position ?

      • Re:
        “You still haven’t answered the question: why do you think *any* ten year period, regardless of when it starts, should *always* show an upward trend ?”

        The IPCC states that every decade will show a 0.2C rise. It clearly is not. the case. Their hypothesis is not true.

      • Realists do not think temperature records only started in 1973. That is just cherry picking. They know that reliable records go back much further than that. This is data from 1880:
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png

        It simply shows that temperature varies. The last 20 years has no particular trend. There have been long periods of upwards and downwards trends.

        The IPCC uses the upward trend from the 1970s to support its agenda. That period corresponds with the most active solar cycles of modern times. Now that the solar activity is falling the global temperature is starting to trend down. That will continue for at least another decade by which time it will be blindingly obvious to anyone who can assess data that the warming models based on CO2 concentration are nonsense.

      • The IPCC states that every decade will show a 0.2C rise. It clearly is not. the case. Their hypothesis is not true.

        Pretty sure the IPCC is saying that temperatures going forward will average 0.2C per decade over the long term.

        That is a VERY different statement to “any ten year period will see at least a 0.2C increase”.

      • It simply shows that temperature varies. The last 20 years has no particular trend. There have been long periods of upwards and downwards trends.

        Please make up your mind. Just before you were arguing the lack of a rise in any given decade refutes the science. Now you’re saying “temperature varies” and there are “long periods of upwards and downwards trends” ?

        According to your source, the last 20 years has an upward trend:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2014/trend

        The IPCC uses the upward trend from the 1970s to support its agenda.

        The graph you posted just above shows a comically obvious upward trend. You don’t even need to get a freakin’ ruler out to see it.

        But if you want it drawn for you:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:2014/trend

        That period corresponds with the most active solar cycles of modern times. Now that the solar activity is falling the global temperature is starting to trend down. That will continue for at least another decade by which time it will be blindingly obvious to anyone who can assess data that the warming models based on CO2 concentration are nonsense.

        You only get a downward trend if you start measuring to 2014 in 2001 – 2006. Start in any other year for the last thirty and the trend is upwards.

      • Re:
        “Pretty sure the IPCC is saying that temperatures going forward will average 0.2C per decade over the long term.”

        They do not contemplate a cooling trend over any decade. In their words:
        “Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5, 11.2–11.7, Figure TS-29}”
        From page 12 of AR4 Summary for Policymakers.

        It clearly states that the CO2 response will be “at least twice .. the natural variability”. So none of the models contemplate a trend of less than +0.1C/decade when natural variance is taken into account.

        The last decade shows a downward trend so IPCC modelling is unreliable at best. The IPCC is between a rock and a hard place with respect to natural variance. They cannot contemplate significant natural variance because it destroy the premiss for their fairy tale that CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the main driver of climate change. The models get a lot more complicated once the real influence of the sun is accounted for.

        In fact the basis of the models are unsound because they do not incorporate any solar influence other than the TSI, which is insufficient. Models also assume that the rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuel and the sink rate is constant. That assumption is incorrect. The net sink rate has risen from 2GtC/yr to 5GtC/yr in the last 50 years in response to rising temperature caused by increased solar activity. The best correlations of CO2 and temperature project that the net sink rate will continue to rise:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CO2-yearly-anthro-atmospheric-1959-2012.jpg

        The human production of CO2 through burning fossil fuel is only 6% of the global photosynthesis of carbon so it does not take much change in that to null the human input. Then there are a myriad of other ways CO2 is removed from and released to the atmosphere. Human impacts through burning fossil fuels is small.

      • This plot shows how the IPC screwed up:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to:2015/trend

        The green trend is what they used to predict the rate of rise beyond 2000. They did not take into any solar induced variation other than TSI to arrive at this projection. So natural variation was tiny. Note that from 1970 to 2000 the temperature did in fact rise 0.2C/decade. They then projected this forward and accelerated it due to increasing fossil fuel use. The resulting scenario gave a rise of 4 degrees by 2100 over 2000 levels. Hence, without controls on burning fossil fuel the models projected a 0.4C/decade rise but with accelerating rise later in the century.

        Over the last decade the trend is down without any significant controls on burning fossils fuels, which has continued to accelerate much in line with the IPCC worst case scenario. In fact even over the last two decades there is no significant trend when the data error is taken into account. The IPCC projections are based on inadequate understanding of what drives global climate.