It is a pity I have been unable to contact John J. Ray, since I could show him
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e5759/e575928708ea00c6ed363691cf08f4b3f97bfc28" alt=""
Hobart’s climate has dried out from anthropogenic global warming so much that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e24a/6e24a1b4235fa4a04f88441d441b67045043dffc" alt=""
Even the claims about 2008 being a cool year are false. Here in Melbourne it was yet again among the warmest ten percent of years since 1910, whilst over Central Australia where the monsoon did not penetrate as between 1997 and 2001 it was similarly warm compared to historic temperature records. Only over the
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ef6ae/ef6ae88c82049273122712d8dfb2b3cbb413f8b3" alt=""
Such anomalies, noted in the first Annual Climate Statement I read back in 2000, are in fact more common than even the Bureau makes them out to be. They are most notable for the dry years of 1905, 1928 and 1935, which all rank among Australia’s eight driest years on record, but would be perceived as distinctly wet by most Australians (see for instance the Hobart table above).
All in all, rainfall and temperature data for 2008, even if the Eucla and Goldfields have hardly maintained their excessive rainfall of the 1997 to 2006 decade, is no evidence against man-made global warming.
Strangely, one is hearing no claims that it is the “Asian Haze” that has cause the drying of Melbourne’s dams (though I imagine at least some laymen do believe this): it is possible that the “Asian Haze” could reduce rainfall over Victoria and Tasmania, though I cannot believe it could do so to the extent seen since 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment