Australia 0.7 degrees warmer over past 50 years: scientists

Mar 15, 2010
A sheep dog watches over merino sheep as they search for feed on a dry and dusty property near Parkes in rural New South Wales in January. Australia's top science body said on Monday temperatures had risen about 0.7 degrees Celsius (0.44 Fahrenheit) in the last 50 years, describing the finding as "significant evidence" of climate change.

Australia's top science body said on Monday temperatures had risen about 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 Fahrenheit) in the last 50 years, describing the finding as "significant evidence" of climate change.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) head Megan Clark said warming had occurred across the country and during all seasons, with the last decade the hottest on record.

"We are seeing significant evidence of a changing climate," she told ABC public radio.

"If we just take our temperature, all of has experienced warming over the last 50 years. We are warming in every part of the country during every season and as each decade goes by, the records are being broken.

"We are also seeing fewer cold days so we are seeing some very significant long-term trends in Australia's climate."

The joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology report follows renewed debate over after flaws were found in evidence from a key UN panel before and after December's world environmental summit in Copenhagen.

"There is a thirst for good quality climate science and our two organisations are proud to publish this," said Greg Ayers, the Bureau of Meteorology's director.

The bureau has been observing Australia's weather for 100 years, and CSIRO has been conducting atmospheric and marine research for more than 60 years.

Their "State of The Climate" report shows sea levels rising seven-10 millimetres (0.3 to 0.4 inches) a year around Australia's north and west, while rainfall is sharply higher in some regions and lower in others.

"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," Clark said.

"We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."

change is likely to be a major issue in elections due this year in Australia, the world's top per capita carbon polluter, after the government's flagship emissions trading laws were defeated twice by the Senate last year.

Explore further: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia getting hotter and drier

Oct 02, 2007

A new climate change study in Australia predicted the country will be 5 degree Celsius hotter and 40-80 percent drier by the year 2070.

Causes of methane growth revealed

Sep 09, 2005

Following an international study into how methane levels in the atmosphere have evolved during the past 2000 years, atmospheric scientists have a new insight on methane, one of the world's most influential greenhouse gases.

Permafrost carbon content double the old estimates

Sep 12, 2008

New research indicates that the amount of frozen organic carbon locked away in the world’s permafrost regions – a major potential source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) – is double ...

Marine ecosystems get a climate form guide

Nov 27, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first-ever Australian benchmark of climate change impacts on marine ecosystems and options for adaptation is being released in Brisbane today.

Recommended for you

Pacific summit to urge action on climate change

3 hours ago

Pacific island leaders will renew calls for meaningful action on climate change at a regional summit opening in Palau on Tuesday, amid fears rising seas will swamp their low-lying nations.

US plans widespread seismic testing of sea floor

Jul 26, 2014

(AP)—The U.S. government is planning to use sound blasting to conduct research on the ocean floor along most of the East Coast, using technology similar to that which led to a court battle by environmentalists in New Jersey.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Loodt
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2010
If the rainfall is higher in some areas, let's just hope that some balancing is taking place. Traditionally, before the advent of the AGW cult, dams were built to store water from year to year, and dry cycle to wet cycle.

For some reason the AGW warmists believe that just by raising taxes by magic water will appear.
zielwolf
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2010
All for it. I dont even need the CSIRO and the BOM to tell me Australia is getting warmer. I can tell just by looking outside at yet another extraodinarily fine, sunny, 30-something degree day in Melbourne in the middle of March, thinking about turning on the A/C yet again (I know the fan is better but it's so hot inside). And considering it is the 12th month in a row where the monthly average has been 2 or more above the long-term normal. Not even news. What is news is that Australians are the per capita biggest carbon emitters globally. Not something we're hearing much of amidst Tony Abbot's loud exclamations that climate change is just so much "crap" and Steve Fielding's insistence that God created the earth in 6 days. Oh well, get what you pay for I guess, elected reps included.
ET3D
4 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
I looked at the report, and unfortunately the warming figures are for average increase per decade and graphs of number of record days. Would have liked to see some graphs of actual temperatures over the years.
Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2010
That's not possible. A temperature measurement is microscopic and indirect and an integrated indication of energy and bulk specific heat.
anonyfront
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2010
0.7 degC == 0.44 degF ??
joefarah
2 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2010
.7 deg C = 1.25 deg F
However, note that there is an absence of references here. Here's how to force GW:

1) Do the measurements in all countries around the world.
2) Throw out the results of the coldest 80%.
3) Publicize the results of the warmest 20%.

Now the public sees multiple examples of warming.

To be more authentic, look at various trends: temperature, record days, rainfall, etc. Pick the ones that are most striking and publicize those - throw away the rest.

To reach IPCC level of GW authenticity you need to do two more things:
1) claim its due to human activity
2) fudge the graphs and data to be even more convincing.
When the snow clears from D.C., tell them all about GW - but wait until a hot week.
deatopmg
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2010
If the authors are incapable of reasoning that 0.7 deg C is obviously NOT 0.44 deg F (& does anyone know how to use significant figures in calculations these days??) how are we to believe they are any better at reasoning out other more difficult technical issues?
e.g. How is it possible that sea levels are higher by 7 to 10 mm/yr (that up to 0.5 meter!!! in those 50 yrs) in the N and W without seeing any rise elsewhere?? Sounds like more pathological science.
And notice how methane has been dropped into the equation now that CO2 driven Al Gore Warming has been shown to be anthropologically driven.
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2010
I see the "denial" types are at it again, as usual.

One more time.

a) Nothing in "climategate" refuted AGW. A few minor revisions to Mann's conclusions, no significance, and a few catty infighting emails not at all unusual in real research.

b) If denialists want to refute Mann's conclusions based on the way he assembled and used the data, why doesn't one of them publish an alternative dataset in a credible reviewed research journal which backs up their own hypothesis?
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 15, 2010
It is not just the emails, len. There are thousands of other documents in the climategate collection. It is the other documents that are more damning. You might find the experts' review of the TAR more of interest, including direct charges of using fraudulent figures, exaggeration factors of between 4 and 6, and so forth.
JayK
3 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2010
And which blog contains those "experts' reviews"?

As soon as Anthony Watts is an expert of anything other than backyard BBQ, you might have a point.
Loodt
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2010
Interesting that the fact that the Australian rainfall has increased (which is sadly a good news story) has not been reported or commented on in this article. Could that just be an alarmist and advocacy reporting bias?

See the Andrew Bolt Blog at the Herald Sun for more details about the CSIRO story
JayK
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2010
Yes, Andrew Bolt, the guy that denies the "Stolen Generation" should be trusted to report scientific facts about global climate change.

His blog page has multiple links to Anthony Watts' Blog of BS on the front page. That screams credibility, Loodt.
jonnyboy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2010
All for it. I dont even need the CSIRO and the BOM to tell me Australia is getting warmer. I can tell just by looking outside at yet another extraodinarily fine, sunny, 30-something degree day in Melbourne in the middle of March, thinking about turning on the A/C yet again (I know the fan is better but it's so hot inside). And considering it is the 12th month in a row where the monthly average has been 2 or more above the long-term normal. Not even news. What is news is that Australians are the per capita biggest carbon emitters globally. Not something we're hearing much of amidst Tony Abbot's loud exclamations that climate change is just so much "crap" and Steve Fielding's insistence that God created the earth in 6 days. Oh well, get what you pay for I guess, elected reps included.


I don't understand how you can admit that you are part of the problem "turning on the A-C, AGAIN" and still whine like an AGW believer.
JayK
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2010
Ah, jonnyboy, showing the average ignorance and presupposition of an American. Good job making your country proud with such tripe, johnny.

Maybe when you are old enough to travel out of the country and get an idea of how people from other countries view AGW and the usage of natural resources you might learn from your own ignorance, but in the meantime, I'll just make fun of you for it.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2010
@johnnyboy,
Gotta agree with JayK on that one.

Anyway, I doubt if there are any of us that are not "part of the problem", as you put it. That doesn't change anything. This problem isn't going to fix itself, so who does that leave? US.

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
-Ayn Rand

Like that one?
JayK
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2010
I've been in outback homes without AC in January. It isn't a pleasant place. 42degC, no breeze and the humidity approaches record lows. Then there are the populated areas, where energy costs are much more realistic and actually do have an effect on the decisions that many lower class workers and/or retiree's have to make, daily.

The massive heat-related deaths in France a little while back aren't due to their "cheese eating" or any other derogatory terminology, it was due to the fact that they don't use A/C in many of their homes/apartments, usually because they haven't needed to, or because energy costs are prohibitive. When gas costs over $8 a gallon (up to $15) they didn't even buy cars with A/C installed, or they just never used it.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2010
And which blog contains those "experts' reviews"?

As soon as Anthony Watts is an expert of anything other than backyard BBQ, you might have a point.


It is not a blog that contains the information, and it certainly did not come from Watt. It is a file that came directly off a CRU server. Look for it. It is an interesting read.

Had it not been for climategate, few would havebeen aware of it and the public would be clueless as to what happened behind the scenes. :)
dachpyarvile
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2010
No, I would not expect that the Outback is a pleasant place to live year-round. It does get pretty hot there. Of course, it pretty much always has been much hotter there than along the coast. I suppose that is why a lot of people prefer to live nearer the coasts.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Nice of them to include a picture of their consultant mathematician, but Rover got his sums wrong:
0.7C=1.26F, not 0.55F ie 1C=1.8F
fixer
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2010
Certainly the outback is hot and most Aussies live on the coast but the tide is getting higher and land is being lost!
Australia is the lowest continent on earth and we notice these things so we are being forced to move inland.
The migration has already started, I am one of them.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2010
@fixer
Someone who is experiencing it firsthand.
Over here in the US, we don't hear these stories.
We get to hear about Tiger Wood's inability to keep his dick in his pants. Maybe if the problem was causing people to have to abandon their homes in the Hamptons, there would be more pressure to do something about this, in political and economic terms, here in the US.
Hope you are high and dry down there. For what it's worth, we're working on it.
ormondotvos
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2010
I guess the deniers will never catch the difference between climate and local weather. Nor will they ever understand that more energy in the earth system means wilder swings of temperature and humidity (warm oceans, more water in the air, duh), since it would refute their own self-satisfied mumblings. The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on. Enjoy the new kinds of weather, kids. I'll be long gone.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2010
Hmmm... I thought Antarctica was the lowest continent on earth.

I just pulled up sea level trend data for Australia. I find it interesting that there are areas that are rising faster than the global average and others that instead have a negative sea level rise trend.

I think there are geological factors involved that are not being accounted for somewhere. This might be something to look into further.
frenchie
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2010
do you ever link your data?

"i just pulled up sea level trend data for Australia."

Link or go away. Wait let me try it.
I just pulled up large amounts of data on dachpy's bs. I find it interesting that a few times he makes a good point while most of the time he's just blowing hot air.

Cheers mate.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2010
frenchie,

Yes, I do link my data--when there is data to be linked, that is. And, I may or may not choose to link it at my preference, even if it is available publicly. A careful reading of my posts all over the site will show the careful reader that.

Are you so clueless that you cannot just obtain scientific information without having to get a link from an internet source?

That is the sort of thing that MikeyK sockpuppets do. Maybe the source of the information I pulled up is not on the internet. Maybe it is. Must I always do your homework for you? Certainly you could locate the data just as easily as I can, can you not?

http://www.enviro...2003.pdf

Crap! This took all of a few seconds to find. It is a summary of the kind of data I looked at but it is a publicly available source. Word of advice: I never make an assertion without something factual underlying it. Foot-in-mouth...again...
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2010
By the way, I want to announce the fact that the report to which I just linked contains data that is believed by the website owners to be contaminated data because it contains negative trend data in a few places. Just thought I would mention that to be fair and in the interest of clarity.

Thing is, that sort of thing can be seen in data all over the place. Some places the sea levels are rising. Some places they are not. In some places there was evidence of sea level decline, such as in the Maldives a couple years ago.

Geological processes seem to me to go a long way in explaining differences like that. They are worth looking into at any rate.
frenchie
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2010
1)I'm not the one using a source so yes..if you dont quote it, i'm gonna ask for it.
2) What's a MikeyK sockpuppet?
3) Thanks for the link

4) My issue with your lack of links is generated from your broad statements. Geological processes as a cause for sea level rise measurements is not supported by the paper (not disproved).

Moreover, data contamination is not, as you lead readers of your post to believe, caused by the author finding a negative data point or trend. Rather he points to a couple + & - points as unreliable (Port Adelaine / Burnie) AND counts all "doubtful" data points for a net rise of 0.9 mm.
Overall the data shows 28/31 stations with positive increases. Your statement of "some rise some fall" is invalid and misrepresenting a real upward trend observed. He also points to the need for vertical land movement monitoring

Finally let me address the maldives statement
frenchie
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2010
No doubt you are refering to Mr. Morner who published the Study:

Again what you fail to mention is that the further studies did not support these finding:

Yet again you state these studies as facts instead of as possibilities, deluding lament readers (or those who dont want to spend 30 minutes looking for articles).

I can do research just fine thank you. I just dont have time to look for every report every other skeptic quotes but never links because its already been disproven
hence my annoyance with: "I never make an assertion without something factual underlying it."
frenchie
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2010
Grrr keep getting errors when i try to put in my links and now i can't edit anymore:

#1) Morner - New perspectives for the future of the Maldives, Feb 2005

#2) Woodworth - Have there been large recent sea level changes in the madive Islands? doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.04.001
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2010
frenchie,

Nowhere have I said that geological processes account for all sea level rise or differences. Read above and note that I mention "places" where some levels are falling and some rising. This is true.

In fact, perhaps you might want to take a look at the following paper, which is more recent than Woodworth.

http://staff.acec...shed.pdf

Take a look at page 159. Even there the authors acknowledge that regions differ in sea level trends and that where some are rising others have fallen, and that there are some that are rising more than others. Notice the map all around Australia.

Now, take a look and compare the region where the Maldives are located with the map and the TOPEX/Poseidon data. Sea level rise and trends are lower in that region. In the TOPEX/Poseidon chart a line intersects the southern Maldives. Note the coloration and scale.

Woodworth only partly addresses Morner, namely the 30mm drop, and has no field data.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2010
And, for the record, I have not quoted from Morner. Admittedly, my information overlaps him a tiny bit but I never cited him or his data. Even the study I did link above in the directly above post shows differences in sea level trends in that region. Of course, even trends can be affected by such conditions as La Nina/El Nino, and so forth.

That is all I am saying. Please try not to read into what I write things I do not say.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2010
Now, with that out of the way, please also see:

http://www.eos.ub...0139.pdf

Pay close attention to the statements on pages 4 and 5 of this PDF file version of Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, which is cited by Woodworth. I will quote from part of the text from those pages below.

It is also worth noting that the whole Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the past decade. In contrast, Figure 7 shows that sea level has been dropping in some regions (eastern Pacific and western Indian Oceans), even though in terms of global mean, sea level has been rising.


Now, take a look at figure 7 and note the differences in regional sea level rise and decline. I should not have to mention that the Maldives are located in the western Indian Ocean, where declines in sea level have been observed.

Something also of note discussed in the article is the fact of high levels of uncertainty in tidal guage observation....
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2010
Forgot to mention that the directly above linked paper is cited by Church et al., 2006.
Benier_Duster
Mar 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mary_hinge
Mar 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mary_hinge
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2010
Why do climate septics not only deny AGW but also sea level rise, adverse effects of deforestation and, presumably the next in line will be gravity (it's Angel Glue man.)
Lets look at the facts, the graph for GLOBAL MEAN sea level is very much on the up, this via a neutral website, http://sealevel.c...bal.jpg.
Maybe some think astrology is to blame http://legis.stat...009P.htm , I will stick with the 95% of scientists who go with AGW.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2010
Decline in quality? Yes, that usually happens when the sockpuppets come out in force after someone gets unexpected data and does not know what to do with it. If anyone needed proof of the ubiquitousness of MikeyK sockpuppets, we got an eyefull just now...

Of course global mean sea level has been rising. But, it does not change the fact, as confirmed by TOPEX/Poseidon and by Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, that sea levels have also been rising in some places and falling in other places, which is what I said above.

Come to think of it, that is what Morner said about the Maldives, too (after doing actual fieldwork), and he was laughed at by the AGW camp for saying it. Who knew? :)

Now, Benier_Duster and mary_hinge, while mean global sea level has been going up there are areas on earth that have experienced sea level decline or zero sea level rise. True or false? (Hint: See figure 7 of Cazenave and Nerem, 2004).
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2010
Now, this is interesting. I found this at the NOAA's Sea Level Trends website:
Nikiski, Alaska
9455760
The mean sea level trend is -9.80 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.50 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1973 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -3.22 feet in 100 years.


That is quite a sea level drop by comparison to Australia!
mary_hinge
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2010
At least we now have an admission that global sea levels are rising...progress! Next step an admission that global sea, land and air temperatures are also rising...
Why just assume that geological processes are responsible? By far the biggest factor in general in local/regional variations is the change in temperature and the resultant changes in thermal expansion. Off course some localised changes are due to land rising due to removal/thinning of a huge block of ice such as in...err Alaska?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2010
Now, explain the western Indian Ocean...

Depending upon where in that region the waters are observed, sea levels have fallen in that region between -2 mm and zero and in other parts of the region, such as the Maldives (depending upon where), zero sea level rise.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
...Why just assume that geological processes are responsible? ...Off course some localised changes are due to land rising due to removal/thinning of a huge block of ice such as in...err Alaska?


Interesting that you would discourage thinking geology and then bring up an example possibly involving geological processes! Thanks for that admission... :)

P.S.: You still have not explained the western Indian Ocean's sea level drop of -2mm to 0mm / year in the region around the Maldives. I have no explanation and wondered whether you might.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2010
At least we now have an admission that global sea levels are rising...progress! Next step an admission that global sea, land and air temperatures are also rising...


My dear mary_hinge, I have always maintained that global sea, land and air temperatures have been rising...since the so-called Little Ice Age. That is a given. That is a no-brainer.

What I question is the level of man's potential involvement--if there be any at all. The science is not settled and I have yet to see something truly earth-shattering and convincing enough to see the truth behind such an assertion.

So far, levels of confidence are not good enough to convince me of that--yet. For instance, when I see things like confidence levels that are about as much as the claimed change, it means that there still is too high a margin of error to make an accurate assessment as the IPCC, CRU and others of their ilk have tried to press upon us via screwing with the numbers.
dachpyarvile
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2010
Still no explanation of sea level drops in the western Indian Ocean? Hmmm....
Benier_Duster
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
Mary, I wouldn't bother trying to engage with this troll, though by the fact you haven't responded to his 'question' (even though I see you have previously actually pre-answered the point) shows you have probably learned.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
Perhaps Benier_Duster would like to address the question instead of slinging his usual compliment of unsavory epithets?

Why is sea level dropping and/or not rising in the western Indian Ocean?
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
There is something else of significance that I have noticed about the rising sea levels on the north side of Australia. I noted the other day that much of the current that brings warmer water back to the Atlantic around Africa also passes this way in the same location where sea level was determined to be rising more rapidly here in the TOPEX data than elsewhere around Australia.

Apparent sea level rise caused by thermal expansion rather than actual sea level rise? Or, is it something else? Benier_Duster and/or mary_hinge want to take a stab at it? Or, does JayK want to log on as himself to attempt a cogent response?

We at least know it cannot be land snapping back after glacial melt on Australia. There are no glaciers I know of there that could do it or be responsible therefore.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2010
It is possible that increased evaporation, coupled with the coriolis effect in the Indian Ocean basin may be playing into the scenario.

As in- as more water evaporates from the Indian Ocean, Australia acts as an obstruction to it's re-filling, and water tends to "pile up" on it's eastern verge, before siphoning off to north and south.

However, if this were the case, it would be expected that sea level would fall somewhat in places, at least, along the more western coast, and that sea level would again rise in the western verges of the Indian Ocean, as well- the African coast, for instance.

Speculation on my part, but to at least some extent possible, perhaps even likely.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2010
Interesting thought. Trying to make something stick again? Well, at any rate, there was a recent study that showed that the level of evaporation needed claimed by Morner, who before you also proposed evaporation as a key process for this happenstance, is a physical and meteorological impossibility.

Geologically, I cannot see where the other part of your hypothesized combined process could apply to the situation. In addition, I have seen no evidence that sea levels have caught up with the rest of the indian Ocean.

I do find it a fascinating happenstance that the area around Australia where the highest sea level rises have been observed coincides with where the conveyor current that resupplies the Atlantic around the Cape of Good Hope. It is a most curious situation to be sure.
mary_hinge
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2010
Thanks for the advise Ben. You are right, I learned a while back not to feed the trolls, can spot them a mile off now! A good example is the 'new kid in town' above. Style looks very familiar so not going there ;-)
I would just say for those actually interested in science instead of anti-science that the Indian Ocean Dipole is a major factor and is yet another example of climate change occuring http://www.agu.or...04.shtml
mary_hinge
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2010
No response to IOD, PDO etc.?
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
Ah, looks like dachy has found himself a new login and is accusing (projecting) his faults on others.

I've never focussed on rising sea levels as any sort of indicator, as the data appears to be a little confused, so I'll just have to wait for the East Anglica refined version so I know what to think.
Caliban
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
Reminds me of the scene in "A Fish Called Wanda" where Kevin Kline is standing in the quick-drying cement, watching the tick, tick, ticking approach of Michael Palin on the steamroller, and saying "Look- it's K-K-K-Ken! And he's c-c-c-coming to kill me!".
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2010
Yep, I created a new username as a result of all the dachpyarviie sockpuppets. I am dachypyarvile. However, I needed to adopt a name that had no I or L in it so you could not clone me any longer. I no longer post under dachpyarvile, however, because of your rampant sockpuppeteering.

Aside from this, however, what do the proxies say about the Dipole? Nothing to see here--at least not yet. :)
Caliban
not rated yet Apr 20, 2010
Dipole=oscillation. In a thermodynamic system, cyclical, partial heating will result= dipole/oscillation.

The two main factors that affect the oscillation are the heating delta, and the solute delta. Both are at play here, and changes in the deltas will predictably cause changes in the deltas.

What is your point?

Thanks for being up front about your username change, Skepticus R.