Australians are spending $77 million a week to try to replicate the stable climate we had with CO2 at 280ppm. So just how ideal was that climate? Newspaper reports of the times were filled with stories of droughts, then floods, bitter cold, and fires that wasted the land. Hmm. Something to aim for then?
And what did the scientists of the day say then? Back before anyone had a hand-calculator or a satellite, the choices were: Orbits, natural cycles, magnetic effects and man’s influence. How times have… not really changed all that much.
Published in 1860 The Sydney Morning Herald.
THE following paper was read at the fortieth monthly meeting of the Australian Horticultural and Agri- cultural Society, on Tuesday evening, by Mr. Robert Meston.
If the 60 year PDO cycle is sketched backwards we would expect temps to be cooler in the 1790’s and 1850’s and hotter in the 1820’s and 1890’s.
During the “perfect” climate of the preindustrial era — apparently there were still floods and storms. (?!)
“To begin with British observations. 1697-98-99 were three bad years—years of floods and storms. 1700 proved hot and dry during sum- mer, and 1703 was the last of what are technically termed the seven dear years. 1740 was memorable for its great flood, and was distinguished as the rainy harvest (wetty harvest). 1701-02-03 came in as dear years again. Next 1768, and its great floods, in which year Britain imported 1,300,000 quarters of wheat. 1769 was noted for its mild winter ; 1782 as the snowy harvest in Scotland, and 1784 as the year of abundance. 1799 brings another great flood, and 1800 a dry year, with wheat 110s. a quarter. 1802 is remarkable for the great shake of September 10th, and severe frost of the 13th following. February 14th of 1811 is recorded as the coldest in a century, the thermometer falling two degrees below 0. 1822 is famous for a general snow storm, and 1828 as a most abundant year for Scotland, but very dry in England. Then we note 1829 as the recurring great flood, and next mention the three bad years of 1837-38-39, fore- told by Captain McKenzie six years before their advent.
“For hurricanes of wind, the great gale of October 10th, 1838, and of January 8th, 1839, have only been matched by the wind storms on the British coast in 1859. At midday, previous to the gale of 1839, the barometer fell to 26½.
“In course of our flood predictions, reports of floods in 1856 were anticipated years ago over Europe and Britain. Nor were our forebodings unfulfilled. To beg or borrow a term, some of these form the greater phenomena, and other observers may be able to fill up gaps which, very probably, have been overlooked or omitted in the compiler’s memoranda.
The Sydney Morning Herald 1860
In the earliest days of European settlement in Australia (circa 1780’s) there were dry days, then a flood so big in 1806, the writer doubts the accuracy of the height recorded: 97 feet!
“Turn we now to Australia, only in the 73rd year of its nonage ; consequently the greater part of our meteorological observations are only of late registration, as none of these extraordinarv events were written in the chronicles of the chiefs, during the early histories of this colony. Dry seasons for some time prevailed, and the Hawkesbury, by these mighty men of renown, was considered as the king river of the new settlement. Several minor floods have been enumerated, but the great and memorable floods of March, 1806, eclipsed all other known antecedents ; although the greatest height announced of ninety-seven feet, rather sounds problematical, as ” a tale of the times of old”
Then 1815 – 1820, more of that stable climate: The country transforms from droughts to floods then in the 1820’s more droughts, then more floods in the 1830’s, and so on droughts in the early 40’s but floods again in the late 40’s. In 1849, “the country was wasted by fire.”
“1813 to 1815, two years of drought. 1817, a great flood over the then known parts of the country, as far west as the Lachlan. 1820, the first ascertained flood in the Hunter. 1823-4, drought ; only about twenty-seven inches of rain fell on the east coast in twelve months. A veritable person told me, some weeks ago, that a shower had not fallen within the circle of his range, for nearly three years. Blackwattle Swamp quite dry. 1830, high floods generally. 1832, ditto ; in the Hunter particularly. 1837-8-9 droughts again very severe inland. About the end of 1839 and beginning of 1840, general floods, which began in the south and advanced north. January, great Maitland flood ; also floods in the Namoi and other rivers This year may be adopted as a general flood period. 1841-42 droughts in the northward and interior, but only slightly felt southward. 1848, constant floods in the northern rivers. The Richmond river thrice rose 32 feet between its lofty banks. Nearly ten weeks of rain. 100,000 sheep perished over New England and Liverpool Plains. Very hot and dry about Sydney, Maitland, Port Phillip, &c. 1849, dry, the country wasted by fire. The minimum of 21 inches rain especially distinguishes this season. 1850, secondary -[text unreadable]- of general floods in the north.
Things were bitterly cold in 1856 in New England: “ice an inch thick” from frosts.
“The winter of 1856 was considered the coldest our oldest residents had ever endured in New England. Ice an inch thick was formed on Beardy Plains by frosts of one night. The whole year was considered rather wet in that district, and so continued until the great floods of the following year ; emptied the cloudy rain-containing buckets. First week of December, called thunder week. The first maximum flood heard of in the season was from Moreton Bav, about May the 20th, 1857.
Then in the early 1860’s, more damn floods.
The Brisbane and Bremmer paid rather unceremonious visits to the folks in Ipswich, who have a hydrophobic antipathy to overmuch water.
After a lapse of about twelve days fell the Clarence flood, which on the sixth of June rose in South Grafton as high as the eaves of many of the houses. The heavy rains began to descend about the second of said month.
Then came the Hunter flood of June 16-17, thus shewing a progression from north to south. About a week thereafter, the skies began to clear ; wind westerly, and long due, as the easterlies had continued constant for nearly nine months.
August 20th—A terrible flood on the Hunter— rather moist in the north, but scarcely any flooding, unless on the Peel. In 1858, while droughts were wasting the western districts, the north enjoyed most refreshing rains. The end of this year remark- able for thunderstorms of local intensity.
1860.—Rain ! Rain ! Southern floods and general rain. In January, it was predicted that rain, more or less, would fall on to the March equinox, and then the weather would clear, two days before or two days thereafter. It settled two days previous, in New England.
History repeats
The meterologists of the day discussed their theories on the climate — basically, orbital effects, natural cycles, magnetic influences, and man-made influences.
Was it a 30 year cycle and did it have something to do with orbits?
“The basis of the McKenzie theory was, that with a lunar cycle of nineteen years, and a solar of twenty eight, when these luminaries occupy the same places within an hour and a half, and relying on their sup- posed influences, he calculated that similar seasons as those which had been experienced fifty-six or fifty- seven years previously would recur again. In connection with this period he also calculated by certain proportionals, (whether aliquots are not well ascertained,) which were termed minor cycles,—9, 17, 28, &c, or thereby being some of them.
“From authentic sources we find that in North Britain, between
1740 to 1768, elapsed . . 28 years
1768 to 1799, elapsed . . 30 years
1799 to 1829, elapsed . . 30 years
1829 to 1856, elapsed . . 28 years
Is civilization to blame? Some suggested it — maybe it was the cows
“Notwithstanding the lamented Dr. Leichhardt’s opinion to the contrary, attentive observers must re- cognise chances, and ascribe some great changes, to the advent of what that traveller was pleased to term civilised society. I appeal to all intelligent flock owners of long standing, and to old hands, where they can be found, if this assertion is not borne out by facts.
“The mutations resulting from man himself directly are in truth infinitesimally small ; yet indirectly, the beast of his pastures, in conjunction with natural cooperations, have in all occupied homes or stations effected many and important alterations.
“How many thousands of water-covered acres are now firmly dry, by surface drainage of cattle tracks alone ? Not a few of said tracks by the washing of running waters have been converted into deep gullies of all widths and lengths. How many of our creeks and rivers are now filled up with sand and gravel to the depth of two, three, or four feet through the washed surface soil, as loosened by sharp-hoofed sheep and treading of horses or cattle. A considerable part of our old waterholes are looked for in vain. The secondary agent of ter- restrial changes, water, when descending with the force of juxta-tropical rams, seizes on the loose soil, sweeps it into the creeks, and this universal leveller deposits the earthy matter in every hole and hollow.
One writer speculates on the forces of magnetism in climate
“Mr. G. A. Rowell, in his theory of evaporation and formation of rain, plainly shews the great part elec- tricity plays in most operations of dame Nature. That terrestrial magnetism produces electric currents few philosophers can doubt. Mr. Faraday says that such is the facility with which terrestiial magnetism evolves electricity, that a single piece of metal could not be hammered—not even moved—without its development. Many years ago I was convinced that all atmospheric changes obtain their origin and increments, for the most part, from the earth ; clouds being only apparent indications of evaporation, electric forces, alterations of temperature, and direction of winds.
Special thanks to Lance Pidgeon (Siliggy), Chris Gillham, and Ian Hill.
Just thought i would get in before Smith could not stand giving him the satisfaction
00
The pointlessness of only going back to 1860 to look for a stable record to sit our climate analysis on is mind boggling.
We know that past ice ages, and recoveries, have been very regular in their pattern in the absence of our human interference and the periodicity of these occurrences at tens of thousands of years suggests orbital mechanics of the solar system and galactic factors rather than human or biological factors.
We are well aware of the weather changes that come from the interaction of our Earth with the solar system and the periodicity: daily, monthly and seasonal(3 monthly ) that we associate with those changes.
The continued focus on the 1860 start period suggests an agenda rather than scientific exploration of possible reasons for weather being so variable.
All sensible assessments quantify human factors as being of no consequence in working out why the climate changes.For answers look to the heavens.
00
Absolutely. There is also the issue for our politicians and leading “climate sciolists” of where they go from here. The ignore history (it’s anecdotal guff), they ignore the raw data (it’s just empirical data).
Does anyone want to place bets for the first high profile Australian politician to change their view on AGW? e.g. “I was conned”, “its a scam”, “I trusted those rogue scientists and economists”, “we have been gullible idiots” etc.
Somehow, I have trouble imagining the retreat.
00
How you holding up Rereke?
http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/large-earthquake-wellington-nz/
00
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/international/epa-clean-air-to-end-coal-in-the-us/
So, please, no more nonsense of us being way out in front of the rest of the world.
Besides climate change GHG emissions are acidifying the oceans.
00
California’s Emissions Trading Scheme starts on July 1st next year.
To put that in context, California’s economy is about 5 times bigger than Australia’s.
It is good that the EPA is regulating green house gases, but the U.S. could save itself a heap of money if it just had a national carbon price with trading between states.
00
No such thing as the ocean acidifying, if all the co2 in the atmosphere went into the ocean it would still be above pure water. Adam smith is a donut or maybe he wants the oceans to be caustic?
00
Peter
There are 50 tonnes of CO2 in the oceans for each tonne in the atmosphere. “Worst case” would make it 51 tonnes.
You’re right – the argument is spurious.
Cheers,
Speedy
00
CO2 enrichment of the Oceans is loved by phytoplankton everywhere, (and hence the food chain and the oceanic biosphere).
REF: Phytoplankton Growth Response to CO2
CO2 can be found bubbling up in plumes at coral reefs without harm to the reef.
REF: Coral with a CO2 Plume lives happily everafter
CO2 enrichment of the Oceans provides raw materials for organisms with shells to build – resulting in enhanced shell growth.
REF: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Press Release with Alarmist Fig Leaf at end
Are you still sure that Ocean Acidification is a real issue – really?
Or is it just another (backup?) scare in case the world didn’t warm due to CO2 emissions?
00
What about zooplankton, Present Coolist?
00
California is broke. It is a morass of self serving, hypocritical entertainment elites, naive environmentalism and philosophical nihilism. You couldn’t have chosen a worse example on the mainland USA. The EPA have exceeded their mandate IMO and time will tell whether they will be allowed to continue on what is a very partisan political crusade. I suspect they won’t.
00
To put THAT in context, California is bat shit crazy bankrupt, as bad as Greece and will do anything for tax money.
00
Hi Adam,
You keep saying that…
And yet California’s GDP is approx $1.8T, and Australia’s is a shade over $1T. So at most you should claim that California’s economy is twice (2 times) the size of Australia which would be correct in a ball park approximation sense.
Happy to be refuted if you have any evidence that California’s economy is indeed 5x that of Australias.
00
Adam Smith says:
Always happy to speak half-truths, aren’t you Adam?
It is BAD that the US EPA is doing this. So stupid and bad in fact, that the next couple of election cycles are going to be very interesting here in the US. Anyone working for the EPA might have a job security problem in the next few years. One thing you can count on here in good-ole-USA is that we don’t like any government body circumventing the process.
The “save a heap of money” is complete bull crap too. My electricity costs .08 cents per kWH or less. Your ideas aren’t going to save me any money. Everything you spout WILL COST MORE MONEY!
Damn lying, doublespeaking Adam, goddamn Keynesian, commie, agenda 21, Adam. No wonder he kicked you out of the Garden of Eden…….
00
The US may be reducing it’s use of Coal however the rest of the world has been stampeding towards Coal.
Briefly…
REF: Coal Juggernaut
And now noted Green Journalist George Monbiot, laments that the US will “again” become and oil state.
REF: We were wrong about Peak Oil
Warmists must be weeping at all that opportunity to enrich the atmosphere with biosphere enhancing CO2 while delivering cheap reliable energy to lift the poor and oppressed out of the bonds of economic servitude to self appointed elites.
00
The Court of Appeals decision in favour of the EPA’s view of CO2 and the other GHG’s is discussed here.
This decision is an appalling vindication of the flawed and disengenous ‘science’ which supports AGW and which the EPA relies on. There were 3 heads to this ‘science’, all of them egregious; for instance:
This is disgraceful; the computer modelling has not come close to confirming empirical and observational evidence; Koutsoyiannis has conclusively shown this.
Perhaps the counsel opposing the EPA were badly prepared; it seems incredible that a proper attack of the EPA’s claim could not succeed.
00
Thanks for the link. The MSM news here in the US has been silent on this.
00
Reply to Maxine
Wrong in so many ways!***
Can you say “natural gas”? “Fracking” Things change. The most economical manner of producing reliable electric power in the USA today and in the near future is not coal. The US-EPA is late to the game and its ruling has almost no practical effect. Aussies will have to embrace fracking and natural gas and get out in front by following along this track.
And about “acidifying the oceans”: Can you say “buffered”? The oceans are not acidic. They won’t be in your lifetime, or that of your children, your grandchildren, or their . . . and so on. Not being up-to-speed on this issue, you might want to start here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/30/noaas-pacific-marine-environment-laboratory-carbon-program-goes-overboard-on-ocean-acidification/
Links in David Hagen’s comment @10:27 A.M. are helpful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** It is the 4th of July here in the USA – Independence Day. And I’m heading out to celebrate. Interestingly, The July 4th date is not a correct date even for our declaration of independence and as the “birthday” of the United State — it is off by many years! That would be Sept. 13, 1788, or maybe March 4, 1789, or pick your own definition.
CAGW is a scam (see Agenda 21). Don’t be conned – be a proud Skeptic.
00
John,
July 4, 1776 is the date on The Declaration of Independence. We celebrate the adoption of that document and it says, July 4, 1776. Historians debate all sorts of details but the date on that piece of paper forever nails down the celebration.
Happy 4th of July, everyone.
Roy
00
My issue with the original comment (by Maxine) is that details matter. Sometimes there is disagreement about words. An example would be what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. [See W. J. Clinton] I did not take exception to Maxine’s thought: “. . . EPA has real teeth. It has just taken a huge bite out of the future profits . . .”
This seems to be written with glee. Why? No profits. No taxes. No funding for the EPA or anything else. Unless government owns the means of production – think Greece – then profits produce the wealth, pay the salaries, and drive innovation. My comment focused on the shift from coal to gas in the US electric generation segment. This shift is driven by economics and the EPA’s focus on CO2 is a waste of money and talent. Maxine seems to be on a different planet.
Now to the date: Roy – You use the word “on” and I agree. However, it is called a “declaration” and a common sense use of this suggests “declared” as operative in “the when” of it. In the following link, note the wordings for
July 2 – [declares]
July 4 – [adopts]
July 6 – [prints], and
July 8 – [public reading]
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/timeline.htm
On the web, note all the references to “Happy Birthday, America” but the event being celebrated is much like the date of a couple agreeing to get engaged and celebrating that as a wedding day still 12 years in the future. Independence could not be declare by the USA – it did not exist.
~~~~~~~~
And to Jo,
Thanks for all you do and for allowing these tangents as they escape the theme of the post.
00
Maxine, Adam Smith,
You have only to wait a while for the results of the policies you now promote. It won’t take very long. Then we’ll all see whether you crow or cry. 🙁
00
.
Jo – misprint.
In the section “Was it a Thirty Year Cycle . . .”
1640 to 1768 should be 1740 to 1768.
—-
Ta. Thanks Fixed. — Jo
00
You think we have weather extremes?
Have a look at this:
A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events, by James A. Masurek (2010)
The chronology covers weather events from the years 0 to 1900 A.D. It’s fascinating reading and puts the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (officially ended in 476 AD) into an entirely new light (at least for me).
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf (15.4 MB)
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/
At any rate, having lived in cold climates for virtually all of my life, I have a hard time seeing a bit of warming (if we only were to have some of it) as a threat, but cold kills! If you don’t believe that, have a look at how bad things got when they turned cold in places that today we consider to be nice and warm. You are in for some surprises.
Anyone who thinks that things were not that bad in Australia should do a search in that PDF file for “Australia”.
00
Great PDF!
Only once have I seen birds dropping out of trees(in VIC). It was 47C.
00
This is tremendous research. It is a very full record of weather events over an extended period which indicates how nonsensical the scaremongering that AGW scientists and their lay fellow travelers indulge in.
It is the sort of weather event record that should be compulsory reading for all “wet behind the ears” climate alarmists, scientists and their propagandists.
00
I don’t have the graphics skills but “someone” should take a picture of a roller coaster such as this one:
http://uncrate.com/p/2012/04/scale-roller-coaster-xl.jpg
Do an “IPCC Projection” that comes off the long ramp up and just keeps on going with a blurb underneath that says the government is going to close the roller coaster because IPCC projects anyone riding it would eventually run out of oxygen and die because extreme altitude.
00
I’d like to add some observations made in past times…First a bushfire in Victoria.
Then in Brisbane… sorry if it is long.
Needless to say were the 2 (TWO) 1893 floods in one week in Brisbane both higher than the 1974 flood.
As well, I remember reading a Dickens novel in which he describes a gale that smashed every chimney pot and fell every big tree in England. He must have experienced such an event as he was a keen observer of things he wove into his writing.
So yes, the climate scientists only need to pick up a few history books to gain a real understanding of how extreme weather/climate can be and continues to be.
00
Elva are you kidding ? the climate scientists don’t know how to read they can only play computer games /sorry of the sarc and I agree totally 🙂
00
.
Europe is now burning coal at the fastest rate since 2006 and increasing!
Coal grew by 3.3% last year while gas dropped by 2.1%!
The reason – USA is using coal seam gas and are discounting coal & exporting.
GILLARD & COMBETS green Europe are dirty, dirty polluters!
Burning more coal than ever! Why do you need more coal you ask?
Because the windmills and solar don’t provide anywhere near enough power 24/7!
The more their Carbon Credits collapse – the more coal will be burnt! GREAT NEWS!
ALP sprout that Europe leads the world -Another COMBET & GILLARD LIE!
00
Could that be because Germany arbitrarily shut down all of their Nuclear generation following the Japanese Tsunami?
00
.
Rereke,
This rate has increased since 2006 – but The Tsunami & German Nuclear closing is only recent – but will surely increase this rate from now on!
00
.
Why Electricity prices are rising!
•Federal Labor’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) (34 per cent)
•additional generation costs, (5.5 per cent )
•additional network costs (poles and wires), (55 per cent)
•retail increases in billing, marketing and metering, (5.5 per cent)
So for every $1.00 increase – 34 cents is a result of Federal ALP – They LIE about the impact of CO2 tax a every point.
Now this is prior to this $23.oo per tonne CO2 TAX – so wait – the increase in electricity cost is going to rapidly increase! The Federal government believes the average impact of pricing carbon to be $3.30 per week on the average weekly power bill. Recently annouced price increase suggests this number is way below the mark.
This little pie chart explains the amount of stupid GREEN ALP CO2 TAX:
Contribution of green schemes to the average NSW electricity bill of $2,101
In practice this percentage varies between retailer. The specific carbon impact on price increases is as follows:
•EnergyAustralia 49.4 per cent of a 19.2 per cent increase or $158 of $338
•Integral Energy 92.2 per cent of a 10.3 per cent increase or $167 of $182
•Country Energy 44.8 per cent of a 17.6 per cent increase or $170 of $381
So COMBET & GILLARD are not telling the truth – time will tell!
00
That is very interesting!
I notice that you have done the research and calculations for NSW. Is there any chance you could do it for the other states as well?
00
.
Only got NSW at the momment Rereke!
00
Combet admits ‘modest’ price rises because of carbon (sic) tax:
Combet then threatens $1.1 Million dollar fine for anyone who blames carbon tax for price rises:
Egad! The insane are in charge of the asylum.
00
This is extremely misleading because the Coalition (Liberals and Nationals) voted for the RET as well as the Labor government.
00
Christ they are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!
00
.
This is before ALP’s intro of the CO2 TAX – The RET’s are also a con trick by Labour by retaining them at the same time as introducing a CO2 TAX!
Double dipping by Labour Liars!
00
can’t recall anyone posting this in recent days, but sorry if it’s been posted already:
29 June: NYT Green Blog: John M. Broder: E.P.A. Official Who Resigned Over ‘Crucify’ Comment Joins Sierra Club
Al Armendariz, who resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency at the end of April after it came to light that he had suggested that the agency “crucify” polluters to deter others, is joining the Sierra Club to work on its campaign to end the use of coal…
Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, unearthed and publicized a 2010 video of Dr. Armendariz speaking to local business and government leaders about his approach to enforcing regulations on hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas extraction.
“’It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean — they’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” he said on the tape. “’Then that little town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”…
Senator Inhofe, a harsh critic of the Obama administration’s approach to environmental regulation, said on Friday: “I would like to congratulate Dr. Armendariz for his new job as a key player in the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. At least at the Sierra Club he won’t get into so much trouble for telling the truth that their true agenda is to kill oil, gas and coal.”
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/e-p-a-official-who-resigned-over-crucify-comment-joins-sierra-club/
only 4 comments, but all are, unsurprisingly, with Al.
00
Before now I had noted Australia land average hot years 28 years apart, in the series 1998, 1970, 1942, 1814, 1886 ( then subtracting 28s) 1858, the going to the McKenzie theory in UK in the header, we pick up again at 1856, 1829, 1799, 1768, 1740.
I have no idea of the meaning or significance of this, but when one can run through data and find 10 anomalies in a row (less perhaps a couple that are less convincing), then one would be inclined to investigate a 28 year cyclicity – especially as part is in England and part in Australia or settled areas of early Australia.
Let’s see, going forwards from here, if 2016 is warm. McKenzie would have been fascinated, I think.
00
.
An average butcher shop – 6 to 10 employees has an annual electricity bill of over $30,000.
Freezers, Hot Water, Air Con, Lighting, Power for machinery, general power, Extraction mechanisms, etc etc
So the increases here will be huge! Thanks to COMBET & GILLARD – only $5.00 per week – get real!
Save and cut power usage – Thats why sausage sandwichs will be cheap – they’ll be rancid!
00
I wonder how much methane will result from those rancid sandwiches passing through peoples systems.
00
Another real scientist fighting back. Must be one of the 3%.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/04/nobel-laureate-ivar-gieavaer-asks-is-climate-change-pseudoscience/#more-66772
00
Considering there is NO evidence and quite contrary that CO2 has anything to do with the temperatures at any given epoch. WTF is the point of any of this.
Actual empirical evidence Solar events CONTROL the climate. There’s only 2 possible sources of atmospheric energy input. Solar and terrestrial heat. As is now, post earth formation, solar wins. NEXT.
00
I show some aspects of a respected long range forecaster around the turn of the 20th Century, Inigo Jones. He was more believed by farmers than the weather bureau. The latter, at the time and even today, were antagonistic to his views yet even they had to admit to ‘cycles’ in weather/climate in the end.
[1]
00
That 35 year cycle should have made Canberra warm in 2009 and did.
00
108.5º in Canberra? That’s hard to believe, but no doubt possible. Clearly ‘weather’ and not ‘climate’ (whatever that is, since I have diffenent ‘climates’ in my front and back yards!
00
“Clearly ‘weather’ and not ‘climate’ ”
Clearly more extreme weather than we get now.
00
[…] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate hysteria, dioxycarbophobia, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Pierre Gosselin: Prepare For Climate Change-Related Public Health Scares – New Paper Exposes The Warmists’ Next Mind Games […]
00