Did the massive scale of death in the Americas following colonial contact in the 1500s affect atmospheric CO2 levels? That’s a question scientists have debated over the last 30 years, ever since they noticed a sharp drop in CO2 around the year 1610 in air preserved in Antarctic ice.

That drop in atmospheric CO2 levels is the only significant decline in recent millennia, and scientists suggested that it was caused by reforestation in the Americas, which resulted from their depopulation via pandemics unleashed by early European contact. It is so distinct that it was proposed as a candidate for the marker of the beginning of a new geological epoch—the “Anthropocene.”

But the record from that ice core, taken at Law Dome in East Antarctica, shows that CO2 starts declining a bit late to match European contact, and it plummets over just 90 years, which is too drastic for feasible rates of vegetation regrowth. A different ice core, drilled in the West Antarctic, showed a more gradual decline starting earlier, but lacked the fine detail of the Law Dome ice.

Which one was right? Beyond the historical interest, it matters because it is a real-world, continent-scale test of reforestation’s effectiveness at removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

In a recent study, Amy King of the British Antarctic Survey and colleagues set out to test if the Law Dome data is a true reflection of atmospheric CO2 decline, using a new ice core drilled on the “Skytrain Ice Rise” in West Antarctica. //

Scientists estimate that about 60 million people inhabited the Americas before European contact. There’s archaeological evidence for numerous cities and settlements, such as miles of now-overgrown urban sprawl that was recently mapped in Amazonian Ecuador, or the city of Cahokia in Illinois, which is estimated to have been larger than London was at that time, or Llanos de Mojos in Bolivia. The Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana also described seeing cities in the Amazon in 1542.

Even today in overgrown parts of the Amazon, vegetation carries the imprint of past occupation in an overabundance of cultivated species such as Brazil Nut trees.

A century after the first European contact, some 56 million people had died according to one widely cited estimate. “What we're looking at here is first contact, and [then] 100 years when 90 percent of the population, basically, dies,” said Professor Mark Maslin of University College London, who was not involved in King’s study. They succumbed to wave after wave of pandemics, as smallpox, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, malaria, diphtheria, typhus, and cholera spread through populations with no natural immunity. People who survived one disease outbreak died in the next. With too few people to work them, cities and farms were abandoned and overgrown. //

Wheels Of Confusion Ars Legatus Legionis
15y
65,758
Subscriptor

Magog14 said:
A strong argument for limiting the human population to under one billion.

We're talking a drop of ~10ppm CO2.

If it happened today it would get us roughly back to where we were in the year 2010.

swiftdraw said:
I have a modest proposal in regards to the population…
Then we must act Swiftly! //

Ushio Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
13y
6,642
Felix K said:
I can’t believe how much death and destruction my ancestors unleashed on the natives of the Americas. It must be the greatest genocide in history.

Not really sure what to do with the feelings it brings up except that none of this land is ours. It is all stolen.
Was it a genocide when it was accidental? The first people from Europe to land in the America's didn't set out to genocide anyone. Yes conquering and killing but when it was done in Asia and Africa there wasn't genocide.

Genocide's seem to be more a 19th century onwards thing with Native Americans and Aboriginals getting the worst of it long after the USA, Australia and New Zealand had been fully formed. //

A_Very_Tired_Geek Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
1,290

freitzkreisler said:
Egad <Racist Rant Lacking evidence or merit and doesn't bear repeating>

Could you be any more trollish or racist?

Native Americans were humans, and none of them were these 'heathen savages' that Eurocentric arrogance saw them as. They engaged in warfare just like the rest of the world. But what you're going off on is demonstrably untrue while the rest is bigoted unsupportable opinion. Spiritually inferior? Seriously this is BS I'd hear spouted in some throwback fundamentalist Christian church (and why I became an atheist because I unfortunately grew up in such).

The fact of the matter is that Native Americans taught the European immigrants how to grow native crops in this land because many of their European techniques, plants, and livestock wouldn't work or grow here without changes. It's to the world's detriment that Europeans weren't more receptive to what they had to teach because slash and burn along with hunting species to extinction is mainly a European thing. Most of the modern agricultural advances used today are NOT from the colonial era. They are innovations that came out of America's Dust Bowl during the Great Depression (arguably caused by colonial era practices) while some are revivals of tenants of Native American or Aboriginal practices - don't screw with the natural order. (Who knew predators improves the general ecology of an area? Native Americans. Who knew beavers improved the soil and water quality on farm lands? Native Americans. And on and on...) //

A_Very_Tired_Geek Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
1,290

Mad Klingon said:
Besides reforestation, having 10s of millions of people die and stop using firewood and coal for cooking and heating probably had something to do with the CO2 drop.

Also, several of the groups practiced planned burns as part of their crop and living space management. When they died off, no more planed burns.

The planned burns were more to keep nature from doing it for them when the underbrush collected to the point where it could begin with any random dry lightning strike. Native peoples weren't stupid. People died from uncontrolled wildfires then as now. Planned burns minimizes the loss of life in the short and long term. That way they could plan to move their village if needed. Wildfires could come up unannounced. That could cause panic and panicky people die in fires.

Edit to add: I don't think the planned burns were a major factor in CO2. They would have occurred naturally regardless and in greater range and intensity. Rather it's probably somewhat (although how much I wouldn't guess) CO2 from cooking, midden, and perhaps to a lesser extent religious rites fires.

That said, what bothers me is that the researchers seem to be assuming the CO2 content in the atmosphere is uniform, and it's not. It would have varied even in Antarctica in different areas simply due to atmospheric movements and what those areas are downwind from even if it's 10,000 mi downwind. (Example Dust from the Sahara regularly blows all the way to North America. Or the Deccan traps would have spewed megatons of sulfur into the air millions of years ago, but particularly any areas directly downwind on the jet streams would have had high sulfur oxides, carbon oxides, etc in any sediment layers.) It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that CO2 levels varies in ice cores. What matters is having enough point data to form valid statistical analysis rather than relying on the data from a handful of point sources as if they are broad indicators. //

This graph shows the number of sunspots seen each year for 400 years (from 1600 to 2000). There were almost no sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. During the Dalton Minimum, there were fewer sunspots than normal. //

The first written record of sunspots was made by Chinese astronomers around 800 B.C. Court astrologers in ancient China and Korea, who believed sunspots foretold important events, kept records off and on of sunspots for hundred of years. An English monk named John of Worcester made the first drawing of sunspots in December 1128. //

It would appear that sunspots not only have a connection to geomagnetic activity at Earth, but they play a role in climate change as well. In the last thousands of years, there have been many periods where there were not many sunspots found on the Sun. The most famous is a period from about 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum. This period corresponds to the middle of a series of exceptionally cold winters throughout Europe known as the Little Ice Age. Scientists still debate whether decreased solar activity helped cause the Little Ice Age, or if the cold snap happen to occur around the same time as the Maunder Minimum. In contrast, a period called the Medieval Maximum, which lasted from 1100 to 1250, apparently had higher levels of sunspots and associated solar activity. This time coincides (at least partially) with a period of warmer climates on Earth called the Medieval Warm Period. Sunspot counts have been higher than usual since around 1900, which has led some scientists to call the time we are in now the Modern Maximum.

Study tracks the past costs of climate events and projects them into the future

In 2023, China really knocked the wind out of the sails (hah) of the renewable-energy crowd. In that year, China built some new coal-fired electrical generation facilities. In fact, they built a lot of coal-fired electrical plants — as in...more than twice that of the rest of the world combined.

China ramped up coal power capacity last year, according to new analysis, despite a pledge to "strictly control" the dirtiest fossil fuel.

The country added 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in 2023, more than double the amount added by the rest of the world combined.

What is the Nenana Ice Classic?

The Ice Classic is Alaska's greatest guessing game!

In Nenana during1917 a group of engineers surveying for the Alaska Railroad bet $800 putting in their guesses when the river would break up. This fun little guessing game has turned into an incredible tradition that has now continued for over 100 years!

Buy and turn in your $3.00 ticket between February 1st and April 5th to be involved in this long running Alaskan tradition.

The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women's rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address "critical gaps" in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial. //

The court's judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could "influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK," the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally. //

In a partly dissenting opinion, ECHR judge Tim Eicke warned that there could be a downside to the ECHR ruling creating "a new right" to “effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change.” Climate litigation attempting to force states to act could end up bogging down government, Eicke said, proving "an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the national and international authorities, both executive and legislative, in that it detracts attention from the ongoing legislative and negotiating efforts being undertaken as we speak to address the—generally accepted—need for urgent action."

Ryan Maue
@RyanMaue
·
Follow
Wow. Guyana's president tells the climatists to shove it.
Anas Alhajji
@anasalhajji
A must watch!

This is my hero!

He is Mohamed Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana.

#Oil #Guyana
Embedded video https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1773813984015127005
4:46 PM · Mar 29, 2024 //

BBC host Stephen Sackur essentially asked him during an interview isn't it a bad thing for you guys to extract $150 billion of oil and gas off your coast because of the carbon emissions that would ultimately be released into the atmosphere?

Ali's response is just pure gold. He stops Sackur cold and then just rips him a new one. //

First, Ali tells him they have a huge forest in Guyana that basically makes them carbon neutral because of how large it is, "a forest we have kept alive."

Sackur says, "Does that give you the right to release all of this carbon...."

Ali interrupts him, "Does that give you right to lecture us on climate change?"

"I will lecture YOU on climate change!" he said, pointing his finger at Sackur. Then he ripped him to pieces, using their own terms on him.

"Because we have kept this forest alive, that stores 90.5 gigatons of carbon. That you enjoy. That the world enjoys. That you don't pay us for...That you don't see a value in...Guess what? We have the lowest deforestation rate in the world." He said even with the greatest amount they could extract, they would still be "net zero." //

There was a little bit more that didn't make the above clip, where Ali explained the importance of paying for the development of the country.

Sackur complained that Greenpeace said the world needs to keep the majority of the world’s remaining fossil fuels in the ground.

But Ali was not having it.

“You just said that we are 6-feet below sea level. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? Who is going to pay for the drainage and irrigation? Who is going to pay for the development and advancement of our country?” The President questioned. //

anon-pabn
a minute ago
That is perfect. We need to shame these climate alarmist, hypocrites. Set aside the current arguments, they are telling little Guyana not to drill after the rest of the world has drilled and prospered because of it. What balz! Drill, Baby, Drill. And congrats on your forest....better than any other countries efforts

The goal of the proposed “Nature Restoration Plan” is….Climate Neutrality by 2050. //

The last time I checked on the European farmers’ protests, it had appeared the continent-wide demonstrations made an impact, as the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, nixed some of its unrealistic green plans for a global utopia. Gone, for example, are rules to force the reduction of nitrogen (essential for fertilizers) and methane (generated by cattle) and plans to persuade European citizens to eat less meat.

The demonstrations have continued, and now a major European Union climate change plan for the 27-nation bloc has been postponed…indefinitely. //

What would “climate neutrality” even look like? Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history has examples of significant changes to the global climate, the vast majority occurring before the first hominid walked on the planet. //

The original environmental agency’s mission of reducing needless pollution is a reasonably achievable goal.

“Climate neutrality” is a faith-based quest that misuses science, creates cult-like behaviors, and generates destructive policies.

We all want a future where humans can thrive in a clean environment. But as the eye-opening documentary “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth” reveals, while we hear dire warnings that we must rapidly eliminate fossil fuels to avoid a climate catastrophe, we are manufacturing a humanitarian crisis of our own.

https://youtu.be/zmfRG8-RHEI //

Wealthy countries built their economic resilience on coal, oil, and gas. Denying the same benefit to poor countries for the sake of hypothetical climate risk is immoral.

As Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser bluntly puts it, “It’s all a crock of crap.”

The documentary shows that the goal of energy policy should be to provide clean, reliable, and resilient power to raise standards of living, both in America and overseas.

That means maintaining an energy mix that can handle nature’s curveballs. It means maximizing our options, not banning entire categories of energy the world still needs. But as environmentalists seek to ban fossil fuels, they are raising the price of electricity for some and depriving others in emerging economies of that valuable resource.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/colonization-antarctica-ice

Correlation does not equal causation, and King is leaning on correlation and, worse, inference. Ice cores can, yes, provide some interesting data on CO2 ratios and, very broadly, trends in temperature. But that's quite a lateral arabesque to go from "CO2 ratios changing," which has happened continually since the Earth formed, and "CO2 ratios changing due to human activity," which to my modest scientific background can't be concluded from the data presented here.

Science is supposed to be data-driven. If one's data doesn't support the hypothesis, one changes the hypothesis and then it's back to the drawing board. This article - not a peer-reviewed journal article, but a consumer piece for popular consumption - makes a lot of logical leaps that the data and the original study just don't appear to support.

Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available HERE, and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends. https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf //

Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:

Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”

The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”

But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it. //

Oracle | October 20, 2023 at 9:35 am
Freeman Dyson spent one year studying global warming and came to the same conclusion- in the mid 90’s (though his big controversial interview was about 2005?). //

Zachriel | October 20, 2023 at 1:12 pm
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures.

The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed. Nor does it offer a “real analysis.” The analysis doesn’t even attempt to account for greenhouse gases or combine those effects with other drivers of climate. The paper also cites approvingly several claims that have already been shown to be in error, while discounting or ignoring the findings of scientists far outside their own field of study.

Essentially, what the paper does is look at the curve and say that it could be natural because natural changes can cause large fluctuations. While true, that doesn’t mean that the current warming isn’t due to greenhouse gases. ...

Interestingly, no eco-activists are blockading the roads into Reinhardswald (site of Sleeping Beauty Castle), or tying themselves to trees to protect the “old growth forests” //

The energy suicide of Germany is rapidly becoming legendary.

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that the nation shuttered its last nuclear power plant in 2023. The German government decided to double down on net-zero dreams and renewable energy promises.

Germany is already big on wind: with nearly 30,000 onshore wind turbines, the country trails only the US and China.

But it’s not enough to meet the country’s climate goals. Today, only 0.8% of Germany’s land area is approved for onshore wind energy. By 2032, the government wants to have 2% of land area allocated for onshore wind power. This means installing between 1,000 and 1,500 new turbines a year, or four to five a day by 2030, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently said.

Germany needs wind energy to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2045, a target it’s currently in danger of missing, according to multiple studies. The country also missed its emissions reduction targets the last two years in a row, according to think tank Agora Energiewende. //

A large area of Reinhardswald, an ancient German forest featured in the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, is being partially cut down in favour of 241-metre tall wind turbines.

Following a months-long construction freeze, administrative courts have allowed heavy machinery to raze parts of the forest, including some trees that are more than 200 years old.

Around 120,000 trees in the 200km² mountainous woodland in the Weser Uplands in the district of Kassel, Hesse, are said to have been condemned to the axe. //

Germany passed legislation in 2019 to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, and last year the country shuttered the last three plants in its once-formidable nuclear fleet (in 1990 nuclear provided a quarter of Germany’s electricity).

As a result, the country has been forced to import electricity and natural gas at substantially higher prices. Germany has recently been delaying planned closures of coal plants and is now also planning new gas plants as well, but the damage has been done. Germany now has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world.

As a result, the entire German economy is in the doldrums. Growth forecasts for this year were recently slashed to just 0.2%, and as inflation is forecast to come in at about 2%, that implies actual economic contraction. Other indicators are also dire, with orders at German engineering firms and overall foreign investment dropping dramatically. //

The study found that the older a tree is, the better it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, the research suggests that almost 70 per cent of all the carbon stored in trees is accumulated in the last half of their lives. //

smooth | March 12, 2024 at 8:51 am
But the climate extremists always say plant more trees to remove CO2 from the air? //

smooth | March 12, 2024 at 9:40 am
France has 56 nuclear power sites. All EU countries combined have over 160 active nuke power sites. Germany going to boycott them all?

The Gentle Grizzly in reply to smooth. | March 12, 2024 at 9:57 am
Yes. Because the master race knows better. Why do things simply with existing technology when one can do it the German way: needless complexity for the sake of it, and then call it “precision engineering”. //

Apparently, normalcy has been restored to NYC to the point that Mayor Eric Adams has approved controversial rules regulating the amount of delicious, smokey aroma generated from the area’s pizzerias.

Democrat Mayor Eric Adams has approved a new green plan that requires facilities using wood- and coal-fired stoves to cut their smoke by 75 percent.

More than 130 businesses will be impacted by the law, including many famed pizza joints. Businesses can apply for an exemption from the mandate – which goes into effect on April 27 – but they must prove they can not financially meet the requirements.

Still, business must then cut their emissions by 25 percent. //

The costs of the ventilation control systems are enormous, and they are likely to force many pizzerias to close. //

To cook pizza in the traditional way, ovens need to reach 1,200 degrees. Only coal-fired ovens can reach such high temperatures. //

From April 2020 to July 2022, Gotham’s population fell by nearly a half million people, or 5.3% — wiping out almost three-quarters of the gains over the previous decade, DiNapoli reports, citing Census figures.

That was more than double the state’s 2.6% drop, and it came while the nation overall was expanding by 0.6%.

Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
This city of Honolulu is suing oil and gas companies for bad weather, accusing them of causing climate change.

The Hawaii Supreme Court - who said the 2nd Amendment “violates the spirit of Aloha” green-lit the absurd case.

It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix this.

Alliance For Consumers @for_consumers
Replying to @for_consumers

Pay attention to this new cert petition coming out of the Hawaii Supreme Court...

It's a golden ticket that just got placed before the Supreme Court, at least for those of us who want to see the Left’s public nuisance campaign grind to a halt:

https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-947/301676/20240228105935605_Sunoco_pet.pdf

Background: Honolulu is suing energy companies for their alleged role in driving climate change. There are two dozen other cases making these types of claims in other states.

What makes this case interesting is that it’s the first big-ticket climate change case where a state supreme court conclusively weighed in on the merits of how these cases should work…

The Hawaii Supreme Court said that these claims can go to trial in state court irrespective of federal law.

The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent – it allows a single judge or jury in state court to weigh liability for global greenhouse gas emissions and assign billions in fines, effectively steering energy policy for the rest of the country. And it did so based on its own reading of federal law.

Make no mistake, lawsuits like this one are designed to reshape entire sectors of the economy.

Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, said as much in a decision dismissing Oakland’s climate-nuisance suit….

8:34 AM · Mar 6, 2024

Here’s something the Biden administration and CA Gov. Gavin Newsom haven’t talked about: electric cars actually emit more soot and particulate matter than their gas-powered counterparts—because of their tires. //

the WSJ writers argue that tire wear from the far-heavier EVs is more contaminating:

Where do most particulate emissions attributed to cars come from? California speaks as if their primary source is the tailpipe. That was true in the past. But today most vehicle-related particulate matter comes from tire wear. Cars are heavy, and as their tires rub against the road, they degrade and release tiny, often toxic particles. According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.

Through the European Green Deal, European bureaucrats are ignoring citizen opposition in deindustrializing Western Europe and reducing its agricultural production.

They’re using climate laws to attempt to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The agricultural policy provisions of these laws—the euphemistically named Farm to Fork Strategy—have European farmers uniting in protest like never before.

These laws are driving up food prices and reducing agricultural jobs while having practically no effect on the planet’s temperature. Using calculations from government models, even if the European Union had no emissions at all, it would only make a difference of 0.13 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Why is nuclear power Green today when it wasn’t yesterday?  Because it was never about the science.

Nuclear power has been the NetZeroiest energy on Earth since the sun formed from collapsing interstellar gas. Nuclear plants don’t produce any CO2 at all, but that wasn’t good enough because it was never about CO2 either. It was always about power and money and profits for friends.

And the best friend of a bureaucrat is a captive-dependent-industry, one that survives on handouts. Those in need of Big Government largess always lobby for Big Government, donate to Big Government causes and cheer on everything Big Government wants them to cheer on, even if it’s a naked man in high heels.

Yesterday gas was a fossil fuel, but today it’s a sustainable one:

In a radical move, the French government has quietly dropped their renewables targets from their draft energy bill, risking being seen as unfashionable losers in billionaire ski clubs. The nation that, forty years ago, built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years has decided they just need to build another 6 to 14 new nuclear plants to reach “Net Zero” by 2050. This puts them in danger of being one of the only nations on Earth that might reach their target.

This, of course, is terrible for the renewables industry as it risks exposing the wanton frivolity and utterly superfluous nature of the wind and solar subsidy farms. If France can do this without the bird chopping, the slave labor and the lithium bombs, so can nearly everywhere else.

It’s a big change from 2014 when France aimed to reduce nuclear power to just 50% by 2025.

If coal is a planet wrecking problem, if it really mattered, about 30 countries are beating themselves up in acts of grandiose public flagellation, while one country is wrecking the planet and nobody cares. The truth is that no one is behaving like they think CO2 is causing a crisis. All over the West everyone wears the hippie-care coat while buying the cheapest fridges, phones and fashion they can get from the global coal furnace.  And China nods the nod then keeps on adding coal power plants.

In Carnarvon yesterday the Bureau tells us that the temperature was “a record” 49.9 degree day (almost 122 Fahrenheit). But in 1896 the Brickhouse Station just 15 kilometers north of Carnarvon hit 121 Fahrenheit in the shade, and there were reports of birds dying and other measurements “in the shade” that were as high as 125F. Somehow man-made emissions have been heating the planet for 128 years but the current freakishly hot days are about the same as the ones when no one in Australia owned a car and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were still under 300 ppm.

Lest we forget, there are hundreds of thermometer records from the pre-1908 era that are apparently worth nothing to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Climate change threatens all life on Earth, so you’d think climate scientists would be excited about the longest historical records they can find, but for some inexplicable reason they show little interest in the historical records from 1896 when a heatwave struck and 437 people died across Australia.

Temperatures hit 50C in the shade in many places in January 1896.  In locations hundreds of kilometers apart, people were reporting similar temperatures. Perhaps they were all wrong?