40°C in August? Why is Australia so ridiculously hot right now?
Blaming the heat on global warming is absurd. It is mere unprovable assertion. And note that is was as hot in 1910, long before the modern industrial economy was widespread
It’s winter in Australia, but as you’ve probably noticed, the weather is unusually warm. The top temperatures over large parts of the country this weekend were well above average for this time of year.
The outback town of Oodnadatta in South Australia recorded 38.5°C on Friday and 39.4°C on Saturday — about 16°C above average. Both days were well above the state’s previous winter temperature record. In large parts of Australia, the heat is expected to persist into the coming week.
A high-pressure system is bringing this unusual heat — and it’s hanging around. So temperature records have already fallen and may continue to be broken for some towns in the next few days.
It’s no secret the world is warming. In fact 2024 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. Climate change is upon us. Historical averages are becoming just that: a thing of the past.
That’s why this winter heat is concerning. The warming trend will continue for at least as long as we keep burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. Remember, this is only August. The heatwaves of spring and summer are only going to be hotter.
The Bureau of Meteorology was expecting many records to be broken over the weekend across several states. On Thursday, bureau meteorologist Angus Hines described:
A scorching end to winter, with widespread heat around the country in coming days, including the chance of winter records across multiple states for maximum temperature.
The amount of heat plunging into central Australia was particularly unusual, Hines said.
On Friday, temperatures across northern South Australia and southern parts of the Northern Territory were as much as 15°C above average.
Temperatures continued to soar across northern parts of Western Australia over the weekend, with over 40°C recorded at Fitzroy Crossing on Sunday. It has been 2–12°C above average from Townsville all the way down to Melbourne for several days in a row.
Bear in mind, it’s only August. As Hines said, the fire weather season hasn’t yet hit most of Australia, but the current conditions — hot, dry and sometimes windy — are bringing moderate to high fire danger across Australia. It may also bring dusty conditions to central Australia.
And for latitudes north of Sydney and Perth, most of the coming week will be warm.
What’s causing the winter warmth?
In recent days a stubborn high pressure system has sat over eastern Australia and the Tasman Sea. It has kept skies clear over much of the continent and brought northerly winds over many areas, transporting warm air to the south.
High pressure promotes warm weather — both through clearer skies that bring more sunshine and by promoting the descent of air that causes heating.
By late August, both the intensity of the sun and the length of the day have increased. So the centre of Australia can really warm up when under the right conditions.
High pressure in June can be associated with cooler conditions, because more heat is lost from the surface during those long winter nights. But that’s already less of an issue by late August.
This kind of weather setup has occurred in the past. Late-winter or early-spring heat does sometimes occur in Australia. However, this warm spell is exceptional, as highlighted by the broken temperature records across the country.
The consequences of humanity’s continued greenhouse gas emissions are clear. Australia’s winters are getting warmer overall. And winter “heatwaves” are becoming warmer.
Australia’s three warmest Augusts on record have all occurred since 2000 — and last August was the second-warmest since * 1910 *. When the right weather conditions occur for winter warmth across Australia, the temperatures are higher than a century ago.
The warmth we are experiencing now comes off the back of a recent run of global temperature records and extreme heat events across the Northern Hemisphere.
This warm spell is set to continue, with temperatures above 30°C forecast from Wednesday through to Sunday in Brisbane. The outlook for spring points to continued above-normal temperatures across the continent, but as always we will likely see both warm and cold spells at times.
Such winter warmth is exceptional and already breaking records. Climate change is already increasing the frequency and intensity of this kind of winter heat — and future warm spells will be hotter still, if humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions continue.
***************************************************
Kamala Harris Would Destroy Pennsylvania Energy Jobs
For the first time since she ascended to the top of the Democratic ticket last month, Kamala Harris is on the defensive. That’s not because members of the media have asked her a single difficult question. They haven’t. It’s not because her running mate, Tim Walz, is a radical. Although, he is. No, the reason that Kamala Harris is coming under fire is because more and more Americans are learning about her radical record, and the more they get to know her, the less they like her.
That’s especially true for Pennsylvanians, particularly those living in the energy-rich northern and western parts of the state. Why? Because Kamala Harris is the most radical anti-energy presidential candidate in American history.
In her failed 2019 presidential campaign, for example, Harris promised to completely ban fracking, telling CNN, “There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.” As a senator, Kamala Harris was one of the first co-sponsors of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s extreme Green New Deal, which mandates all Americans transition to 100% clean energy within the decade. And most recently, as vice president, Harris’ administration moved to take away Americans’ gas stoves, dishwashers and gas-powered cars.
Now, Harris is running away from her record. Late last month, in a complete reversal from her previous position, the Harris campaign announced that she would not ban fracking if elected. Since then, she has been quiet about her past as a climate crusader on the campaign trail. Her campaign aides say her energy policy is “strategically ambiguous,” which is a euphemism for “flip-flopping.” And, of course, the mainstream media hasn’t bothered to ask her about this complete 180-degree turn.
The Democrats are hoping that this half-hearted pledge will placate Pennsylvania voters just enough for Kamala to squeak by in this critical swing state. But setting aside the fact that Harris’ own record indicates she is lying through her teeth and will reverse course as soon as she enters the White House, don’t voters in the Keystone State deserve more than a meager promise that the president won’t upend an industry that is critical to their economy, culture and livelihoods?
The good news is that President Donald Trump offers a better energy agenda. During his first term, Trump unleashed the power of private industry and restored America’s energy dominance by rolling back unnecessarily burdensome environmental regulations. He made us the No. 1 producer of oil in the world while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He ended Obama’s war on coal, replacing the job-killing Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule. And he led America to energy independence as U.S. energy exports passed imports for the first time in nearly 70 years—including a five-fold increase in exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, which the Biden administration subsequently attempted to ban.
If he’s re-elected, Trump is likely to restore these policies. One of his top five priorities according to his Agenda 47 platform is to: “MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!” And his past success suggests that he is the man for the job.
That would be welcome, especially in Pennsylvania, which tops the nation in liquified natural gas production, behind only my home state of Texas. In Pennsylvania alone, the natural gas industry powers 50% of homes, contributes $44.5 billion to the economy every year, directly employs 26,000 workers, and supports an additional 300,000-plus jobs across the state, not to mention the benefit that cheap energy has on reducing inflation.
Anyone who has lived in a part of the country where energy production is an essential part of the economy—such as southern Louisiana (where I grew up) or Texas (where I raised my own family)—knows that these numbers represent more than raw economic data. They are evidence of a way of life that has been around for generations. And they are indicative of communities such as Bradford County, Pennsylvania, that represent some of the best of what America has to offer: hard work, resourcefulness and making the most of the bountiful land that God has given us.
Kamala Harris is at war with this way of life found throughout the Rust Belt. Indeed, the vice president and other politicians who begrudgingly pledge not to ban and regulate these communities into oblivion always wind up breaking that promise once they’re in office. And why wouldn’t they? They don’t believe in the dignity of these small towns, and by flip-flopping in the first place, they’ve already compromised their integrity.
By contrast, Trump was and remains a champion for Pennsylvania’s and America’s energy industry. While the media desperately try to defend Harris as she flip-flops on policy and runs away from her previous positions, Trump can simply stand on his record.
https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/kamala-harris-would-destroy-pennsylvania-energy-jobs
*************************************************Critiquing the Shifting Narratives in Environmental Discourse
The Yale E360 article titled “As Drylands Greening, Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Are Fueling a Climate Conundrum” offers a clear example of the shifting narratives that have characterized environmental discourse over recent decades
While the dominant concern once centered on desertification—an issue that shaped both environmental policy and public perception—the focus has now shifted to the phenomenon of “greening.”
This greening, attributed largely to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), would seemingly be a positive development, especially in regions historically threatened by desertification.
However, the article frames this development as a new source of anxiety, reflecting a broader trend in climate discourse where any environmental change, regardless of its nature, is often depicted as a potential crisis.
Here, I critique the article’s approach, highlighting its tendency to reframe environmental phenomena to perpetuate a narrative of continuous ecological danger, frequently at the expense of scientific nuance and objectivity.
The Most Realistic Game of 2024Join players around the world>
The Transformation from Desertification to Greening
Desertification, the process by which fertile land degrades into desert, was long regarded as one of the most significant environmental threats, particularly in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
It was a central concern in environmental science, policy-making, and education, where it was depicted as a looming catastrophe that could displace millions, exacerbate food insecurity, and trigger widespread social upheaval.
Yet, as the Yale E360 article discusses, recent observations indicate that many of these drylands are not succumbing to desertification but are instead experiencing increased vegetation cover—a phenomenon termed “greening.”
This change is primarily driven by the fertilization effect of rising CO2 levels, which enhances plant growth.
Intuitively, this should be welcomed, especially in arid regions where vegetation is crucial for preventing soil erosion, sustaining local agriculture, and supporting biodiversity.
However, rather than embracing this positive shift, the article portrays greening as a double-edged sword, speculating that it could lead to unintended ecological consequences, such as altered precipitation patterns or disrupted ecosystems.
This narrative shift is not merely a rebranding of environmental concerns; it reflects a deeper tendency within climate discourse to reinterpret positive environmental changes through a lens of fear and uncertainty.
The Problematic Framing of Greening as a Crisis
The Yale E360 article’s framing of greening as a “climate conundrum” illustrates a broader issue in environmental journalism and advocacy: the persistent portrayal of environmental changes as threats, regardless of their actual impact.
By casting greening as a potential crisis, the article aligns with a narrative that seems determined to maintain a state of alarm, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.
This approach is problematic for several reasons. First, it undermines the opportunity to present a balanced view of environmental changes. Greening in drylands, driven by CO2 fertilization, is not without its complexities, but it also brings undeniable benefits, such as increased agricultural productivity and improved soil stability.
In fact, in 2007 the IPCC claimed that “yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020” in Africa. As usual, they got it exactly backward.
However, these positive aspects are often overshadowed by speculative concerns about potential negative outcomes, which are frequently presented without substantial empirical evidence.
Second, this framing risks alienating the public and eroding trust in science. When every change is framed as a crisis, it creates a “boy who cried wolf” scenario, where genuine environmental threats may be met with skepticism or apathy.
The constant reframing of environmental phenomena to fit a crisis narrative can also stifle scientific debate, as dissenting views or alternative interpretations are marginalized in favor of maintaining a singular, often alarmist, perspective.
https://principia-scientific.com/critiquing-the-shifting-narratives-in-environmental-discourse/
****************************************************Evidence Shows Great Barrier Reef Grew in Waters 4C Warmer 8,000 Years Ago
In February 2022 the green billionaire-funded Carbon Brief reported that a rise of 0.3ºC in the current global temperature would kill off 99.8% of coral with the rest going as a result of another 0.5ºC of warming.
The increasingly unpopular prints are full of similar tosh, despite the fact that sub-tropical corals grow happily between 24ºC-32ºC.
Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC rather than 2ºC would likely be the difference between the complete decline of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), reports the Guardian, quoting a United Nations report.
What decline we might ask following three stonking years of embarrassing record growth? Such great click-bait stories are endemic throughout the mainstream media – it’s just a shame about the facts.
A newly-published science paper reveals massive increases in coral on the GBR from about 8,000 to 6,000 years ago at a time when sea surface temperatures were 4ºC higher.
The Most Realistic Game of 2024Join players around the world>
The coral story, of course, is an excellent example of the numerous fear-mongering swindles being perpetrated to push the insanities of Net Zero.
Three years of record growth on the GBR – the highest in nearly 40 years of constant observation on the world’s largest Reef system – have simply been ignored by the mainstream media.
Even worse, there were attempts to deflect the excellent news this year by running a nonsense story from Nature that claimed “climate change” posed an “existential threat” to the GBR.
Temperatures at the Reef were said to be at their highest level for 400 years. All of this stuff is published when it is known that gentle and tiny rises in overall sea surface temperature are more likely to benefit coral than cause it long-term harm.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment