Australian city's hottest night in 108 years

Jan 12, 2010
The Australian city of Melbourne has sweltered through its hottest night since 1902, with temperatures topping 34 degrees Celsius, meteorologists have said.

The Australian city of Melbourne has sweltered through its hottest night since 1902, with temperatures topping 34 degrees Celsius (93 degrees Fahrenheit), meteorologists said Tuesday.

Millions tossed and turned in the overnight heat in Australia's second city, with power cuts exacerbating the problem in some areas and some people even resorted to nocturnal trips to the beach to cool off.

"It's probably the most uncomfortable night I've ever had Down Under," said Andrew Jefferson of Ballarat, west of Melbourne, who emigrated from Britain in 2001.

Thousands of homes were without power as electricity companies' equipment failed in the heat. The city was also hit by hundreds of train cancellations on Monday, enraging commuters.

said earlier this month that the last decade was the hottest on record in .

Explore further: Dam hard: Water storage is a historic headache for Australia

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate may increase heat-related deaths by 2050s

Sep 27, 2007

While some uncertainty does exist in climate projections and future health vulnerability, overall increases in heat-related premature mortality are likely by the 2050s, according to a recent study by Columbia University’s ...

July heat wave almost breaks record

Aug 08, 2006

July was the second hottest month, averaging 77.2 degrees in the 48 contiguous states of United States, just below the record of 77.5 set in 1936.

Electricity blackouts: A hot summer topic

Aug 09, 2006

It is a common misperception that blackouts are caused by power shortages, but in any given year, about 90 percent of the power outages that customers experience are due to problems with the local distribution ...

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Selling and buying water rights

2 hours ago

Trying to sell or buy water rights can be a complicated exercise. First, it takes time and effort for buyers and sellers to find each other, a process that often relies on word-of-mouth, local bulletin boards, ...

Researchers track ammonium source in open ocean

19 hours ago

To understand the extent to which human activities are polluting Earth's atmosphere and oceans, it's important to distinguish human-made pollutants from compounds that occur naturally. A recent study co-authored ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rproulx45
5 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2010
Oh those liberal whining Aussies and their global warming hoax. I'm sure that very soon Gee-sus will come back to fix everything.
deatopmg
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2010
Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!
LariAnn
4.5 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida. Also, it is entirely possible to have "record cold" for a couple weeks and "record warmth" for months on each side of the cold event. Therefore, no single event can be a valid excuse for either side of the debate to claim a victory. IMHO, it all comes down to personal and corporate responsibility. If people and corporations behaved responsibly regarding their waste products, government intervention would not be necessary. Even now, if the responsible parties would do so voluntarily, the government could stay out of it altogether.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2010
Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!


Let's get this straight: The article DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE WORD about global warming. So, saying that someone is basing an argument on global warming (or saying that something like an argument on global warming is implied) by this is just plain silly.

However, if you look at the recent articles on the cold spat in the US pleny of people have (erroneously) used this as an excuse to denounce global warming. So I think you can figure out yourself which side is being hypocritical (hint: it's the ones who don't even read the articles)
marjon
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
So that is where all our heat went.
Record cold in the north, record heat in the south averages to normal.
defunctdiety
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2010
1. This is in a city. Urban heat island effects are well known and documented (such as by the 1000s of unacceptably placed weather stations the IPCC uses for data), this record is meaningless for that reason alone.
2. Night time temperature is dependent on humidity.

Combine 1 and 2 and this is a dually meaningless record. Please people, get a clue.
jonnyboy
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
It doesn't matter how many times you tell anitalias (or parsec, for that matter) they refuse to understand that their greenie culture is on the wane. This is what happens to a philosophy that overreaches itself and tries to run the world from one, narrow, viewpoint.

Unfortunately, I believe that the good work done by these groups such as cleaner air and cleaner water might suffer due to the backlash that is bound to occur as the truth comes out about the AGW farce they have tried to promote.

Thanks a lot Al Gore, and Michael Moore as well, and most of all, thank you to all you liberal arts majors who took over our national press in the last 40 years and used it to pursue your leftist manifesto.

dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2010
I am glad that the above article does not speak of 'global warming.' Short and to the point that they had their hottest night since 1902.

Now, note something that should have careful attention paid to it: "since 1902."

It was hot in 1902 (the overnight minimum was 87 degrees F on Feb. 1, 1902 and I am told that this hot night equalled that one) and there was no CO2 back then on the level of what it is today.

CO2 is not the culprit for this hot night. It is fitting that it should not be mentioned by the above article.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2010
It doesn't matter how many times you tell anitalias (or parsec, for that matter) they refuse to understand that their greenie culture is on the wane.

Repetition has never made a good argument (and that is all you have). Look at the data. Read the papers. Look at who does them. The picture is pretty clear after that.

And even if it were all a hoax (which it is not). Is it so reprehensible to make a better planet instead of drowning in our own waste? No one in the world (except maybe in the US) cares about Al Gore (who is he anyways?) Mixing politics with science seems to be a US-phenomenon.
Helio
4 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
Implied: this one record high temperature is due to global warming but the northern hemisphere experiencing record cold is just weather variability. HMMMM!

Of course you, defuncdeity, marjon & others will read into this whatever you want. Don't worry about what the article actually says, just presume it really means whatever you want.

This article happens to be about my city & yes it was a very uncomfortable night. But it is not just "one record high temperature" deatopmg, as the last line of the article notes. Did you get that far?

The Bureau of Meteorology recently also noted that 2009 was the 2nd hottest year since quality records began in 1910, after 1998.

And Melbourne has just had it's 13th straight year of below average rainfall. The last 4 years have all been in the lowest 10% of readings from 155 years.

Would you like to nominate a point at which "weather variability" becomes a trend?
marjon
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
Hottest since 1902.
Given the urban island effect, I suggest the 1902 temperature is more significant.
What was the trend in 1902?
'Hottest on record'. How long is that?
GrayMouser
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2010

The Bureau of Meteorology recently also noted that 2009 was the 2nd hottest year since quality records began in 1910, after 1998.

And Melbourne has just had it's 13th straight year of below average rainfall. The last 4 years have all been in the lowest 10% of readings from 155 years.

Would you like to nominate a point at which "weather variability" becomes a trend?

Four years do not constitute a trend in anyone's book. The minimum I've seen is 10 years and, given the trends over the last 2000 years, that is probably far too short.
Another problem is that of what is being called The Bolivia Effect where temperatures from one measuring station is substituted for a station that has gone away.
http://chiefio.wo...-effect/

Add Climategate to that and you start to find articles questioning the integrity of the Australian weather reporting:
http://icecap.us/...mer_yet/
Helio
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2010

Four years do not constitute a trend in anyone's book. The minimum I've seen is 10 years and, given the trends over the last 2000 years, that is probably far too short.
Another problem is that of what is being called The Bolivia Effect where temperatures from one measuring station is substituted for a station that has gone away.
http://chiefio.wo...-effect/

Did you not read my post properly?

The past 4 years have been amongst the lowest 10% of records. Rainfall has been below average for 13 straight years - so I guess that makes it a trend if you have seen a minimum of 10 years used.

Perhaps I should not have mixed comments on temperature and rainfall in one post - or are you claiming that the urban heat island effect is now also the urban drought island effect?
defunctdiety
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
Of course you, defuncdeity...will read into this whatever you want.

LMAO!!

Helio, again please get a clue.

I didn't read anything into anything. These are facts I'm talking about here, I noticed you didn't outright dispute what I said (because you can't) but even to say I'm reading into it is flat out retarded. I realize you feel personally attacked for some incomprehensible reason, when I trivialized your hot night. But, dude, you either don't have the first bit of a clue about meteorology or are just plugging your ears and going "LALALALA!!" because it makes you feel good.

Furthermore, UHI is well known to effect precipitation though exactly how is dependent on surrounding geography and latitude. What I can tell you (if one believes in physics that is, which judging from your earlier comment you may not) warmer air holds more water i.e. rain would occur less often under constant "historical" air moisture availability/content.

Any other nuggets you want to offer up?
Helio
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2010
Of course you, defuncdeity...will read into this whatever you want.


I didn't read anything into anything. These are facts I'm talking about here, I noticed you didn't outright dispute what I said (because you can't) but even to say I'm reading into it is flat out retarded. I realize you feel personally attacked for some incomprehensible reason, when I trivialized your hot night. But, dude, you either don't have the first bit of a clue about meteorology or are just plugging your ears and going "LALALALA!!" because it makes you feel good.

Any other nuggets you want to offer up?

Oh font of all knowledge, please excuse my preference to believe a Bureau of Meteorology.
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2010
...Mixing politics with science seems to be a US-phenomenon.


I was not aware that the CRU and the Met were based in the US. Thanks for clearing that up for us. :)

Seriously, though, there is good reason to suspect a number of readings from the Australian stations because of data substitution from other stations that show sharp increases when other stations went defunct.

Heat Island Effect is quite strong in a number of places within city boundaries. Readings from these integrated into the other data can seriously skew the overall results on the order of several degrees.
Fmagyar
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
"For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida"

I live in sunny Florida and I can assure that the last couple of weeks have been record breaking cold with temperatures well below freezing. There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

Not to worry though.

The planet is fine. It's the people that are F@@ked!
George Carlin
VeIanarris
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2010
I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....
Titto
1 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2010
The heat in the Southern Hemisphere is from Hot Air and NOT the sun! Because of the extreme cold in the Northern Hemisphere the less dens air gets compressed by the cold dense air and that's why!!
Titto
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2010
But be aware!! You will soon get the coldest winter since 1902. Please read about our sun and it's cycle!!
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

I didn't know iguanas were native to FL.
Titto
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2010
"For the record (!), the high temp discussed in the article is a real record. For the "record cold" to be comparable, I'd think the temps would have to be at zero or below in Florida"

I live in sunny Florida and I can assure that the last couple of weeks have been record breaking cold with temperatures well below freezing. There have been iguanas dropping from trees and fish dieing in our canals. Not to mention the economic devastation of our citrus crop.

Not to worry though.

The planet is fine. It's the people that are F@@ked!
George Carlin

Please check the latest news and trends of the Sun. Check also "Maunder Minimum" and see what to expect!
Titto
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2010
1902 was one of the coldest winters in South Africa and compare it with Solar minimum activities it makes sense! The sun is the only and only reason for our climate, without it there will be life!It is funny where Britain is on the brink of economic collapse, they talk about global warming LOL!! That's because with CO2 emissions they can get taxes!!!
GrayMouser
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2010
I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....

Depends on where you get your satellite data. NASA/GISS says it shows a warming (probably after adding 'value' since Hansen is involved.) RSS and UAH show a cooling. The satellite data was excluded from determining the 2009 global average temperature because it didn't go in the correct direction.
http://icecap.us/...rature1/
http://icecap.us/...ata_set/
Zeke65
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2010
Neither the high temp in Melbourne nor the lows in Florida are statistically significant. BUT,one is more important than the other. The low temperatures in Florida were not confined to a small area, in fact covered an entire continent. The temperature in Melbourne was a high recorded in a metropolitan area. Large metro areas tend to be influenced by the mass of concrete and asphalt and tend to be warmer than would be if the city were not present.
The cold in Florida was unusual as noted by the die off of fish and manatees. How many trees killed is yet to be seen.
Anthropogenic global warming is true but has very little to do with CO2 in the air. Coal fired plants and indigenous'camp'fires in China emit particles that find their way to the Arctic decreasing the albedo of the snow. Thus the snow absorbs more heat, melting easier.
The reduction of ice in the Antarctic is much less and has more to do with less precipitation than any significant increase in temp. Overallcoolingisagoodbet.
Shootist
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2010
"In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Related Internet Links

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Loss of the Himalaya Glaciers by 2035 was officially assessed at 90% or greater odds. Three powerful states rely on that water, making this an extremely dangerous event, if it were true.

http://www.timeso...1177.ece
Shootist
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2010
Title above: "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown"
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2010
Zeke65,

It turns out that another source of the soot particles is the ubiquitous use of diesel-powered generators in the Arctic by Inuit and others who live in those parts. People do not often hear about such uses of generators up in the far north. But, they are a contributing factor to ice melt and decreasing albedo.
dachpyarviIe_
Jan 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zeke65
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2010
Actually it does "explain why there wasn't massive Arctic ice melt during the industrial revolution when all that soot from the satanic mills must have caused melting on a huge scale(how many mills with huge amounts of particulates, how many diesel generators burning a cleaner fuel)."

Well, maybe not the 'satanic' part, or your excessive hyperbole. If you look at the path the jet stream usually takes you will find that it blows north into the Arctic from the northern areas of China and Alaska into the Arctic, then turns South across the American continent. It carries the particulate matter from burning coal, wood and dried dung with it. The increase in snow melt in the Arctic has been dramatic because of this.

Increase in global atmospheric CO2 has generally been equal without a corresponding increase in ice melt in the Antarctic.

CO2 in the atmosphere is a very minor player in the overall temperature of the planet at only 380 parts per MILLION!
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2010
Nice try, MikeyK, at continually misappropriating my username but I do not hang out at blogs and do not have a blog myself. I realize that might date me a bit in this electronic age but there it is.

dachpyarvile_ (with an underscore and actually another of several sockpuppets of MikeyK) does not speak for me and has little to counter with the evidence now that the reputation of the IPCC is suffering with so far two major snafus at the root.

I actually agree that CO2 appears to be a minor player in the scheme of things.
Phelankell
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2010
I suppose those still trying to convince us (/themselves?) about UHI being the reason for apparent global warming are forgetting about satellite data showing the same warming as the land station measurements....

Except the satellite data is normalized to match ground station measurements. Use your own name Mikey, the 3 minute edit limit is not beyond reason.
Zeke65
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
"Black Soot Might Be Main Culprit of Melting Himalayas" by Andrea Thompson at Live Science supports the view that particulate matter is responsible for most of the melting in the Arctic and the Himalayas. This makes sense. CO2 increasing 100 parts per million in the atmosphere being responsible for 100% of the ~1C warming does not make sense.

The effort to curb CO2 gas emissions at an almost incalculable cost does not make sense, especially by scientists that almost certainly know better. So the question becomes; Why would they support this view?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.