Shadow Minister

You make a categoric statement for something you have no proof of.

Ant,

Your petulant response is groundless. The facts are:

1 In 1896 nearly 500 people of a population of 500 000 died of heat related issues, and even if your whimsical presumption that early Sydney was burdened with invalids, this was the worst weather related event in Sydney's history.
2 The closer one is to the coast the more temperate the climate, and the highest temperature in Sydney is usually measured in Penrith. This means that excluding Penrith and the Western suburbs would reduce the temperature measured.
3 You try and dismiss the event because of some inconsistencies in measurement but also have no proof that the measurements weren't completely accurate.

The IPCC just recently doubled the time it estimated to reach a certain theshold which clearly indicates that the science is not nearly as settled as most claim.

Shadow Minister

You stated " ... The IPCC just recently doubled the time it estimated to reach a certain theshold which clearly indicates that the science is not nearly as settled as most claim."

I rather doubt what you stated in relation to the IPCC.

From Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-draft/warming-set-to-breach-paris-accords-toughest-limit-by-mid-century-draft-idUSKBN1F02RH

Quote:

"OSLO (Reuters) - Global warming is on track to breach the toughest limit set in the Paris climate agreement by the middle of this century unless governments make unprecedented economic shifts from fossil fuels, a draft U.N. report said.
The draft, of a report due for publication in October, said governments will also have to start sucking carbon dioxide from the air to achieve the ambition of limiting temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times."

And:

"The draft, by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of leading scientists and obtained by Reuters, says average surface temperatures are about 1C above pre-industrial times and that average temperatures are on track to reach 1.5C by the 2040s."

There are factors that we do not know how fast they are going to progress; the thawing of permafrost is one of those factors, there is objective evidence that it is happening. The cryosphere was hardly dealt with in the last IPCC Report:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/

Quote of first sentence:

"In Bethel, Alaska, walls are splitting, houses are collapsing, and the main road looks like a kiddy rollercoaster. In the coastal town of Kongiganak, sinking cemeteries prevent Alaskans from burying their dead in the ground."

Other references:

http://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/575905776/while-the-eastern-us-freezes-its-too-warm-in-alaska

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTQJ6gCwMw

Shadow Minister

What I have been pointng out in relation to measuring temperature in 1896 is that it was not done in a standardised way; hence, the accuracy of the measured temperatures is in doubt.
I have no doubt that if I take temperature around my home at different spots that I would get a number of different temperatures. Even something as mundane as a garden hose shows how temperature varies; a hose in a sunny spot will initially provide quite warm water, while a hose in a shady spot will not provide such warm water.

Ant,

I know that you would like to ignore events that conflict with your dogma, but the people measuring temperatures in 1896 were not cavemen. They didn't leave the thermometers in the sun. They measured the temperatures in the shade, and while they did not all use the screen, the difference would be in fractions of a degree, enough not to meet the rigorous standards applied later, but sufficiently accurate for the man on the street and this debate.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/

"Thermometers were non-standardized in 1896. Some of the extraordinary temperatures come from thermometers with descriptions like (“under passion tree vine.”) There it got to 123 in Ultimo in Sydney on January 14. Though some thought the vine thermometer was actually more accurate “ namely, that what is known as the true shade is the shade afforded at the Observatory by one of the loveliest little summer-houses, almost buried in foliage, but with lattice-work all round, so that the breeze may play upon the thermometers, but where the sun’s rays can by no means be admitted.”

Shadow Minister

Many weather stations were/are operated by lay people.

A reference I provided clearly indicates that temperature was not measured in a standardised way in 1896. The reference provides experiences of people involved with taking temperature in the 1890s.

The Bureau of Meteorology was not created until after Federation.

Standardised measure of temperature in the 1890s is not supported by comments from Clement Wragge:

"… are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences. Such exposures (not to mention the several remarkable instances of thermometers being placed and observed indoors) give results which are not only not intercomparable and so valueless to meteorology, but which are affected by artificial and secondary conditions, giving misleading values."

The reference also commented that in the early years the Stevenson Screens were not properly maintained and gave inappropriate temperature measures which were too high through too much sun entering them.

So, we have the experience of people in the 1890s, set against speculation.