Comments:Sydney experiences hottest March day in 35 years

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Hello everyone,

I live in one of the most hostile and hottest places in the US where we are lucky to have 115F in the shade. The hottest day on record in Phoenix was a staggering 122F. Like Sydney's weather station at the airport, the Phoenix record was taken at Sky Harbor Airport. To this day it remains disputed as a record. Turns out the official weather station was right next to a very black asphalt runway scorched with aircraft tire rubber. It would interested to see exactly where the Sydney weather station is with regards to the surrounding structures and runways.

I tried to find information, though I'd imagine they don't put the sensors right on the tarmac, the Sydney Airport is considered an urban heat island (UHI) to some extent. Here's a discussion called "A tale of two Sydneys". While this can throw into question what the temperature would have been there without the airport, it should still be the highest temperature in 35 years, etc. All the historical data was gathered there as well, so it should be similarly skewed. What about airport expansion, one might ask, but they built the new runways into the Botany Bay. Also, the mere fact that it is near a large body of water should also limit the UHI effect, unlike at Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Another interesting fact about Sky Harbor, there is no terminal 1. They have 2, 3, and 4, but no 1. That just goes to show you how ***-backward we are here.

That's normal for growing airports to have a missing terminal. You build 2, 3, and 4 and tear down 1. It would be silly to rename them all. JFK Airport is always missing a number ... right now there's no terminal 3, but there's the rest of 1 through 8.

Well there is some talk about bringing back Terminal 1 in the far, far future. Terminal 4, was named after Sen. Barry Goldwater. You actually see it in "Jerry Maguire" before the terminal opened. If they were to bring Terminal 1 back it would be named after Sen. McCain - like a lot of things. The guy isn't even dead yet and they are planning on putting his name on a number of things.

I would be interested to see if the Navy names a ship after him. The current USS McCain Destroyer is actually named after his father, the same father that would have gotten him out of Hotel Hanoi. When he goes, my guess is they will shutdown the city.

As for the UHI, I know personally several researchers that have published journal articles cherry picking high growth areas where the official station is in a bad location to support their Global Warming theories. They were completely non-apologetic about it and even bragged about it.

I'd be curious to see some of those; it strikes me as the sort of sensational rumor that spreads quickly regardless of whether or not it's true (which I would suspect to be behind that recently reported study saying that fake news spreads faster than real news: fake news is likely to be more sensational). I can, for that matter, imagine situations where it would be legitimate to look at skewed data points like that, as well as, obviously, situations where it would be cheating.