So Hot in Southern Australia, and In 1900
Posted by jennifer, January 29th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
IT has been very hot in southern Australia. I have been waiting to hear someone blame global warming and it came, but only today, and I’ve only heard it from Climate Change Minister Penny Wong: ”The scorching weather across southern Australia proved the accuracy of warnings by climate change scientists.” [1]
Of course it’s been hot before in southern Australia. Following is text published on January 1, 1900. [2]
“THE oppressive heat was a major talking point of the vast and drought stricken country of Australia.
“While cyclonic winds have been lashing the coast off Townsville, the temperature today soared to 112 degrees Fahrenheit (44.4 C) in Adelaide and Broken Hill, and 104 (40C) in Melbourne.
“So dry is much of Australia that the riverboats on the Murray have come to a stand still. On a cattle station in central Queensland, it is reported that the kangaroos are too weak to hop and the kookaburras can no longer fly.
“In Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, the New Year sees these State’s battling to recover after recent bushfires. But if its not fires it would be floods, and if not floods it would be drought.
“In the north the odd cyclone adds a bit of interest by knocking down a few towns, or sinking the fishing fleet. Australians are used to having nature knock them off their feet every so often.
“The country has battled through the long droughts, and seen the downturn in the bush rush right to the doors of the city banks. But the crashes of the nineties are behind as the New Year [1900] comes near.”
*********************
1. Heatwave shows climate scientists are right, Wong says, January 29, 2009. The Canberra Times. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/heatwave-shows-climate-scientists-are-right-wong-says/1419596.aspx
2. Chronicles of Australia, Ed John Ross, Legrand 1993. Above quote via Alan Asbarry – much thanks.
Picture taken by Peter near Longreach, western Queensland, in July 2004.
Nature’s whim determines whether the climate cools or warms.
It is foolhardy to think that Man can control weather.
Only nuts believe computer models can peer into the future. Did any
computer model in the financial industry predict the present global financial
meltdown? Wake up, dunderheads.
David seems keen to use record figures to prove ‘global warming’.
Tit for tat figures alone from countless record lows available from the current long standing big freeze in the US.
Grand Forks, ND: New record of 37deg. below beating prev. record by 6 deg. set in 1979.
Flint, Mich: 95 yr record of minus 10 smashed by minus 19!.
Key West, Florida: 47deg. shatters long term low of 52deg. set in 1961.
Now according to David’s reasoning, this sort of extreme and extended coldwave is due to global cooling, and is a mathamatical fact.
And, when is David going to ‘out’ himself?
Sid – I’d have to say that there has been little protest about power station construction in Queensland from my recollection.
Dams are a different matter – the proposed SEQ Wolfdene Dam was defeated by NIMBYism moire than green politics. Similar to Traveston Crossing protests. NIMBYism. NIMBYs may often be National Party farmers. Not to discount issues with special fauna on the Mary River.
You should see the large growth of near-river storages in the upper MDB over recent decades. Greens???
And may we also say – Cohenite – your hyperbole is tiresome; is this some sort of egotism? That is, we [meaning you and the other denialists/pseudo-sceptics] have to have the biggest and the worst; there really is some sort of neuroticism operating here; try and have some sort of balance will you?
Gordon: “Which one out of the infinite number of possibilities for temperature do we pick as ‘the’ global temperature?”
Early today at a reasonable time before breakfast I checked the didital thermometer on my desk again and it was a nice 21.3 C. Outside on the trusty max/min I estimated in my usual way it was truly 18.0 then so I went down to the car in the carport to double check and found that indicator was steady on 19.0C.
When we took our latest wagon out for a spin along Ginninderra Road it fluctuated about 2 C before riising steadily as the sun came up. Yes that’s two whole degrees depending on the breeeze. Now any one who knows this road could expect the temperature to be the same as Belconnen which is often quoted in the media as the official temp for the area but as one poster suggested my place in particular could always be on the high side for argument sake.
When it comes to trends, experience teaches us to take just one thermometer and ignore the rest, given they all work OK.
Experience also teaches me to ignore all those who want to be pedantic about other people’s data sets. One thermometer is good enough to track weather and climate change in a given area. Producing stats on the other hand is the job of professionals and not the domain of mugs on blogs.
If Luke was about, he would appreciate us moving today from jazz to folk with “Gurrumul” after watching on TV a record breaking tennis match in the “Open” overnight.
I must object luke; what hyperbole have I demonstrated? I would have to say that if there was a contest for the least hyperbole I would win it; that would be a world wide contest which would take into account all future events and expressions of non-hyperbole; in short I would predict that my record of non-hyperbole will never be lowered; except possibly by brain-dead or comatose people, but why bring the labour party into it.
Noted. I withdraw – Wes is much worse
“The probability of a heatwave this extreme has been substantially increased due to global warming. This is a mathematical fact.”
The probability of the pope’s hat blowing off is also substantially increased by fitting a venturi to a 5 legged cow’s backside & concealing said cow in the hat. This is a mathematical fact.
“It is foolhardy to think that Man can control weather.”
No one has said we can control the weather.
An unintended consequence of our burning in a few centuries the accumulated carbon that was stored under the ground over millions of years is that the climate is changing. We are just trying to rectify that unintended consequence.
Sid
This David has a lot of explaining to do as well as outing himself. Somehow his imperious statement that it is mathematical fact, has in the end got to account for the fact that just because there is a high in the Tasman Sea causing air flow over our mainland to be from N=S, doesnt mean that it is AGW sourced and driven, no more so than when the weather changes and the air flow is from the South and bloody cold.
It may indeed be that case that some extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be adding energy to the system, but they have yet to show that it is human derived Co2 that is soley responsible for all the extra. It is as likely as not that the human part is relatively small, has little effect and doesnt hang around for long
BTW I know this because David down at the local told me so– and he pretty smart. I wonder !
Luke,
Joh was prepared to confront and buck the NP nimbys in order to build a much needed bit of infrastructure but in order to win Kev. Lingard’s seat in Beaudesert in ’89, YKW suggested to Goss to scrub the Wolfdene Dam.
Lingard held his seat [and still does] but Goss won power and had to keep his promise.
It was neither nimbyism nor green politics. Just cynical knavery with no consideration for the consequences.
Gavin,
How’re those sea levels goin’ down at the Ille du Mort?
cohenite,
That 45c and 46.6 back in Jan 1939 is interesting. It seemed to last for a few days, too.
gavin “Experience also teaches me to ignore all those who want to be pedantic about other people’s data sets”.
I was trying to understand your use of the term ‘pedantic’. Hopefully, I chose the appropriate phrase from the dictionary, in this case, “unduly emphasizing minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge”. Hmmm. There are maybe three recognized groups in the world presenting their studies of world temperatures. One of them, NASA GISS, is known to tweak the record and are known activists. A recent supervisor of GISS has accused the leader, James Hansen, of embarrassing NASA. One of the other groups, Hadley, are urging us to ignore the recent cooling because it’s just an anomaly. Both of these groups seem to have a vested interest in the world getting warmer. Why would I not be suspicious of their data sets and the mathematics they used to arrive at their average values?
Currently, people are questioning the ‘averaging’ of world temperatures, and Ross McKitrick, an economist who understand averages, is questioning whether a global average means anything. That’s the question I’m asking but you see it as emphasing minutiae.
In the book ‘Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation’ (Bohren & Clothiaux), Bohren makes this statement about global temperature:
“Global mean temperature is another example of a dubious concept and for more than one reason. As we have seen, infinitely many mean temperatures are possible, and each one is different. But more important, a single number for an entire planet cannot possibly capture the consequences of temperature changes to human health, wealth, and happiness. As with shoe sizes, one needs the entire distribution, which in this context means everything related to weather: spatial and temporal distributions of temperature, rainfall amount and distribution in time and space, winds, duration, timing, and strength of storms – the list goes on and on. If you live in Minneapolis and were to choose your clothing every day on the basis of the global mean temperature you’d likely be uncomfortable most of the time (or possibly even perish)”.
Bohren describes several different averaging methods, including the mean, the mode, the median, the root-mean-square, etc. Each average has a different value and a different meaning. What is the meaning of the average we have been handed, that the global average temperature has warmed 0.6 C in a century? Thankfully, people like Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org and Anthony Watts at wattaupwiththat, have taken on the high priests of global warming and challenged their data. They have exposed flaws in the data, although AGW advocates have attacked them rather than accepting the flaws.
You can see the folly of this if you live in North America. The Arctic has warmed the most, but in winter, at night. There are parts of the United States that have cooled, like Alabama. The southern states have not changed noticably in temperature and other parts have warmed. When we speak of warming, however, we are talking about a few tenths of a degree C.
How significant is such a low level of warming and how much error is built into it? It seems ludicrous to be worrying about catastrophic sea level rises due to ice melting, droughts, severe storms, heat waves, etc., based on such a flimsy level of warming, which means different things in different parts of the world.
I don’t think it’s the minutiae used to attack the AGW theory that bothers you so much as the exposure of the weaknesses of the theory. Just as religious extremist are intolerant of attacks on their religions, AGW advocates are sensitive to any facts that expose their theory for what it is: a house of cards.
David,
I wonder how much hotter than Stevenson Screens those pre-1910 temps would be?
My comparison of differences between verandah thermometers and SS thermometers is generally not much either way and considering the vagueries and variations of modern SSs, it seems a bit unnecessary to do away with them.
Y’know, some of those old thermometers were kept in the bottom of the water bag!
What a rant Gordon – you’re a legend in your own imagination – pity about http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12 averaging seems to work eh?
zzzzzzzzz (next!)
Spanglers – I’ve seen 2C difference mentioned for very hot days.
Gordon Robertson
“What is the meaning of the average”
“when we speak of warming, however, we are talking about a few tenths of a degree C. ”
I wouldn’t expect a meaningful answer to these questions.
I have asked along those lines before and failed to receive a response, now not “being a player” as Luke put it to someone else, I take it, that I’m not worthy of a response, but I suspect that they have no answer to a simple but relevant question.
On the other hand, if you link to some obscure chart from some obscure “scientist”, now there is something they can debate at length to the smallest detail citing pros. and cons. and other references from “peer reviewed” sources.
“This David has a lot of explaining to do as well as outing himself. Somehow his imperious statement that it is mathematical fact, has in the end got to account for the fact that just because there is a high in the Tasman Sea causing air flow over our mainland to be from N=S, doesnt mean that it is AGW sourced and driven, no more so than when the weather changes and the air flow is from the South and bloody cold.”
“AGW sourced” is not the right way to look at it. A high in the Tasman sea is always going to happen. How high the temperatures go due to that high pressure system is what is of interest. Is there a ‘signal’ in there that the record heat wave is being influenced by AGW. Don’t forget, AGW doesn’t drive the climate as such, it is just driving the changes. A few degrees more, as we have seen, over three days, has a serious effect on life. Plants that have coped with years of drought have suddenly shown signs of severe distress.
“Don’t forget, AGW doesn’t drive the climate as such”
????
“Don’t forget, AGW doesn’t drive the climate as such”
Not in the sense that the question was put. “AGW” does not drive a high pressure system, they exist already quite outside any external drivers. AGW is claimed to increase their effect, if they are causing heatwave such as the South has just experienced. However, as Luke has said, once incident does not constitute convincing evidence, there has to be a pattern observed over a length of time for the claim to be considered proven. As an example, IIRC, he said that the number of extreme temperature events is being watched, and seems to indicate there is a pattern emerging.
SD; yes, 116F in the old language; the 39 heatwave began in the first week of january and was washed out on the 21/1/39; somewhere between 2-3 weeks.
luke; you are still peddling that WFT graph showing similar trends; what about this one?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-0.146/mean:12/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/mean:12/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/offset:-0.238/mean:12/trend
Let’s face it folks, when Qld gets a good summer with a mild blocking high in the Tasman and a weak low in the Coral Sea and our resulting Easterlies go on for weeks, giving us those fabulous, gentle, sea breezes that blow night and day with just enough gradient to defy the continental effect, keeping us cool at night, not needing a/c and most importantly of all, allowing us to sail up and down the coast with minimum effort, Mel and Ad cop the shit.
That’s fair enough isn’t it?
Nothing to do with AGW!
Yes thanks for playing Cohers – so picking the best satellite RSS and the less controversial HADCRU – the basic trend is similar and the annual variation is similar. Something about populations of large numbers. Is your opinion greatly changed by all this. No. The satellite pretty well mirrors the ups and downs of the HADCRU data. BTW if you disagree never ever talk about long term global warming or cooling here again as you have no basis.
Obviously spanglers – God is a Queenslander – and we have ports, big lunch and Windsor sausage to prove it.
SJT: “Not in the sense that the question was put. “AGW” does not drive a high pressure system, they exist already quite outside any external drivers. AGW is claimed to increase their effect, if they are causing heatwave such as the South has just experienced. However, as Luke has said, once incident does not constitute convincing evidence, there has to be a pattern observed over a length of time for the claim to be considered proven. As an example, IIRC, he said that the number of extreme temperature events is being watched, and seems to indicate there is a pattern emerging.”
Non sequitur.
Or expressed less dimplomatically, the posting of an,,,,,,,,,,
“Non sequitur.”
No, more a case of “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it.”
Actually luke, HadCrut and UAH have identical trends; RSS shows the greatest decline and GISS is being dragged kicking and screaming; as usual.
“Let’s face it folks, when Qld gets a good summer with a mild blocking high in the Tasman and a weak low in the Coral Sea and our resulting Easterlies go on for weeks, giving us those fabulous, gentle, sea breezes that blow night and day with just enough gradient to defy the continental effect, keeping us cool at night, not needing a/c and most importantly of all, allowing us to sail up and down the coast with minimum effort, Mel and Ad cop the shit.”
Thank you, spangles, your wisdom gained by living life directly is well worth repeating. That’s exactly the state of things, elegantly explained.
Today on my isolated property on the northwest corner of the New England plateau we had a little thunder storm that blew in from the east. Breezy, from the east all day and all night long. max T 28c, min T 13c. Minimum would have been cooler still but the breeze wouldn’t let the chill settle.
Meanwhile, a mate rang today from Rockhampton and said the weather was unusually cool today, tops 29c! Accompanied by lovely sea breezes too, night and day. Little wonder Victoria is the state on the move.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
OK Cohers – fair enough – so can we now drop this bullshit argument about global temperature averages – UAH and HADCRU about the same trend and wiggles. It does average out. A sample can be taken. There are not a gazillion possibilities.
GISS will be different attempting a sample estimate of a warming Arctic.
So is that the end of that tedious spurious diversion.
Gordon, the clever North American, observes with a clear head:
“There are maybe three recognized groups in the world presenting their studies of world temperatures. One of them, NASA GISS, is known to tweak the record and are known activists. A recent supervisor of GISS has accused the leader, James Hansen, of embarrassing NASA. One of the other groups, Hadley, are urging us to ignore the recent cooling because it’s just an anomaly. Both of these groups seem to have a vested interest in the world getting warmer. Why would I not be suspicious of their data sets and the mathematics they used to arrive at their average values?”
Gordon goes straight to the unmentionable dark heart of the matter!
Luke and the other choirboys (intellectually neutered to keep their altos fingernail-across-slate excruciatingly shrill) will, of course, sing Ode to the Conspiracy. Yet, the fact is the sacred consensus lying in state is now decaying far too quickly to be considered for canonization into the great hall of useful scientific theory.
“I don’t think it’s the minutiae used to attack the AGW theory that bothers you so much as the exposure of the weaknesses of the theory. Just as religious extremist are intolerant of attacks on their religions, AGW advocates are sensitive to any facts that expose their theory for what it is: a house of cards.”
So true! The choir of AGW castarati enjoy a good obfuscating hyperlink food fight over minutiae. Inquiring scholastics must know how many CO2 molecules can tap dance on the head of pin.
Please! Distract our gaze from the rational, conclusive, step by logical step processes, which could be brought to bear upon the hypothesis this very day. Where is the transparently reproducible causal evidence for the AGW hypothesis? No where, so it seems.
Instead, Gavin presents us with his tomato proxy, and his back porch thermumeter exquisitely calibrated. Luke, the nutless wonder, altos oxymorons spiced with sophomoric ad homs he’s already copipasted palimpsestically a thousand times…. and the newly anointed high priest “David” (funded by your taxes) consecrates our 4-day regional heat wave as a 1 in a 1,000 year event of cosmic significance! Assuredly, a sign from the heavens that we have sinned gravely and will be duly punished before the Holocene begins its slow descent into the next eon.
Oh Jen, deliver unto us an Amphitheatrum Flavium where we can slay these benighted eschatological dogmatists with simple pure swords of rational light.
Yes Wes, we don’t get it to that extent every summer but it has probably always happened and it’s so good that in spite of myself I occasionally feel guilty.
Wes; ”Oh Jen, deliver unto us an Amphitheatrum Flavium where we can slay these benighted eschatological dogmatists with simple pure swords of rational light”
Oh; so here we have another self made man who can’t stand on his own two feet hey
BTW when comparing references; my tomato proxy is as good as anyone here using tree rings and ice cores to justify their theme. Now; being such a clever blogger, did you even wonder how those scientists brought their samples home for calibration? Perhaps they can use a paper bag, a cardboard box even, a tin can to carry their collection.
We don’t here much on certification with this lot and readers should wonder why.
I reckon drilling ice cores in subzero temperatures is the eazy bit after melting all round the edges, just sitting at home in this heatwave. That brings me to say, we don’t see much on humidity measurement either. Due point is a major consideration for those without airconditioning via external heat exchangers.
What we have then is an exclusive club developing around climate change denial. Shooting the messanger is only the first stage.
Lets get back to some real figures. Temperatures from Canberra to Launceston have been nuging 40C for days recently and please note there is a lot of briny inbetween. It serves no usefull purpose to bring up Watts n Co arguments here.
I forgot to mention earlier; when I want metadata analysis I usually go to ABS, BRS csiro and others similar. These blogs are quite irrelivant in forecasting, tasking etc even helpful hints in the main
Tell you what Gavin – do reckon Wes walks around the house out there among the boulders blathering on like he does on here. Very tedious. Probably kills the local wildlife with acoustic torture. I have never heard someone go and on for hours and say absolutely nothing like our Wes.
BTW Wessy-wank – Hansen’s “ex-boss” hasn’t been there for what – errr … ummm … yonks. He’s a geezer like you – a codger…. so off you go now … carefully does it …
I should also point out that Jennifer has completely misrepresented what Penny Wong said in the source she has provided.
Jennifers “quote” from her reference.
What Penny Wong actually said.
No mention of ‘proving’ anything.
Sorry to spoil the fun, janama, but those weather stations aren’t used for climate monitoring.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/media01.shtml
Sure – the AVERAGE temperatures are calculated from the 127 non-urban stations We are talking about daily temperatures which are from these stations, Essendon Airport is another for Melbourne. How can you compare the temperature of Melbourne to Dandenong if you use a non-urban station?
“Sure – the AVERAGE temperatures are calculated from the 127 non-urban stations We are talking about daily temperatures which are from these stations, Essendon Airport is another for Melbourne. How can you compare the temperature of Melbourne to Dandenong if you use a non-urban station?”
It is the average temperatures that are of interest, they are the ones scientists are using to make claims about AGW. Day to day temperatures are of interest, but if they are not 100% correct are irrelevant to the science of AGW. Watt’s interest in them are a waste of time.
Wow, that some pretty egregious shit Jennifer. You can’t really blame the Canberra Time subbie either, as you claim to have “heard it from Climate Change Minister Penny Wong”.
Whenever you are using direct quotation marks, be really sure who you are quoting and make it clear to your readers who you are quoting – in this case, not the person you claimed to be quoting but some Fairfax hack’s drastic oversimplification.
So let me get this straight. According to the “Bimbo for Climate Change” and assorted “Gavins”, when the wind blows from Lake Eyre towards Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, it is evidence of climate change and when it blows in every other direction it is not evidence of climate change?
Awesome intellects. So if it blows towards Melbourne a little longer than “usual” then it is part of a gobal trend? Yeah, right. And of course the BoM, a.k.a. “Ministry of Climate Truth”, will confirm this because their selected sites are heavily biased towards the SE Corner of the country. So when a much larger part of NT and WA is not being warmed while Vic/NSW/SA are being warmed this will show up in the national mean as more evidence of global warming.
So when can we expect the climate data collection function to be seperated from the climate reporting function under principles of best practice?
Under this pack of spivs, not any time soon.
Ian, state borders are arbitrarily drawn lines on a map, they have little relevance to weather. WA goes all the way from the top to the bottom of Australia. Victoria is stuck on the tip of the SE. It makes much more sense to talk of regions, eg, the South of Australia, which is typically influenced by the Southern Ocean. That influence seems to be lessening.
Australia’s January 2009 mean temperature anomaly as calculated by BOM has been released.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=01
It is +0.36C.
That makes it the 23rd warmest January since 1950 (or the 38th coldest).
The January 2009 maximum temperature anomaly for Australia was +0.14C
That makes it the 33rd warmest January since 1950 or the 28th coldest.
You almost sounded intelligent there SJT but it didn’t fool anyone. State borders may not have a lot to do with weather but they clearly have a lot to do with BoM reference sites which have clear SE and SW corner biases. See http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
Nothern Territory = 6 stations for 135 million ha = 22.5 mha each
South Australia = 11 stations for 98.5 million ha = 8.95 mha each
Victoria = 8 stations for 22.8 million ha = 2.85 mha each
Tasmania = 7 stations for 6.8 million ha = 0.97 mha each
New South Wales = 22 stations for 80.2 million ha = 3.65 mha each
Western Australia = 21 stations for 252.5 million ha = 12.02 mha each
Queensland = 18 stations for 172 million ha = 9.56 mha each
So lets spell out the biases, or perhaps it would be better termed the “Climate Gerrymander”.
Each reference station for the Northern Territory covers an area the size of Victoria, which has 9 reference stations, or 3.3 times the size of Tasmania, which has 7 reference stations.
If every reference station had the same average area as the Tasmanian ones then Western Australia should have 260 reference stations, not 21, The Northern Territory would have 139 stations, not 6 and Queensland would have 177 stations, not 18.
The SE corner of South Australia with 5 stations over 18 mha for 3.6 mha each has a similar station density to the NSW average. But 20 of the 22 NSW stations are in the Eastern half of the state and they have an average area of 2.0 mha each. Furthermore, 9 of the 21 Western Australian stations are in the SW corner, covering only 10% of the state and an average area of 2.78 mha each.
So when BoM provides an Australia wide temperature trend they are talking complete bollocks because 49 (52.7%) of the 93 mainland stations cover less than 15% of the area.
And whenever the hot desert winds blow towards that 15% of the country, represented by 53% of the reference stations, surprise, surprise, they find what they call “evidence” of global warming. Well, just fancy that, folks, more gems from “the Ministry of Climate Truth”.
Ian,
Couldn’t be bothered doing the real numbers … but using your wet-finger-in-the-air logic the preponderence of SE/SW Mainland, Tasmania, and Antartica stations would kinda mean there’s a long term COLD bias in the CRN wouldn’t it ?
Ian,
I presume you understand that the average maximum temperature for Australia is not calculated by just averaging all the reference station data. This data is used to prepare an areal distribution across Australia.
See for example:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/watl/temperature/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&steps=0&map=maxanom&period=month&area=nat
Southeastern Australia had maximum temperature anomaly of +2-4C in January 2009 with isolated spots above 5C. If station density had anything to do with it, the anomaly for January would be at least +2 degrees when in fact it was just +0.14C
There are tried methods for converting the data, which resulted in this contour analysis, into an area weighted average. Having 10 or 100 or 1000 quality stations in Victoria won’t make any difference other than leading to a more accurate representation of the anomaly over that area.
In the January anomaly map, Southeastern Australia’s 2-5 degree warm anomaly is cancelled out by an area over NT and Queensland centred near Mt Isa which has a cold anomaly of greater than 6C. By eyeballing the chart you can see why the maximum temperature anomaly for January over Australia was so low at 0.14C
Len, my issue has always been with the accuracy and the potential for error is significant when reference points are used as a surrogate for areas 10 times the size of of other reference point areas.
And it is quite clear from comparing the reference station map http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml with the above anomaly map http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/watl/temperature/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&steps=0&map=maxanom&period=month&area=nat that there is a great deal of somewhat arbitrary “smoothing” going on in the anomaly maps.
A good example is the number of temperature hot spots that are entirely within a single stations reference area but do not actually intersect with that station. An example is the hot spot on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, with the nearest reference stations being at Ceduna to the West, Woomera to the North and Rayville Park on the Eastern Shore of Spencer Gulf. And one must ask, how would the data from the reference sites lead one to determine the extent of an anomaly in that location?
Another good example is the two hot spots in western NSW and Northern Victoria. Neither of them are anywhere near a reference station so any compilation of anomaly, especially an apparently “anomalous anomaly”, if you will, must be based on something other than reference station data.
There is also a very curious hot spot between Carnarvon and Meekatharra, WA, where something other than the data from the reference stations has informed the line drawings.
But the best one must go to the curious little isthmus that joins up the +2C to+3C portions of WA and SA. Giles station is 200km to the North, Forrest is 500km to the South and Alice Springs and Oodnadatta are 600km to the East. So the shape of these contours, especially the lobe extending into NT and much of the portions to the East and West of this isthmus cannot be informed by the reference station data.
The Minimum Anomaly map shows appears to show even greater resort to creative endeavour, with curious lobes of higher minimum temps extending into locations not covered by reference station data. http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/watl/temperature/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&steps=0&map=minanom&period=month&area=nat
To which one must ask, exactly what DOES the reference station data actually inform? Or does it merely misinform?
hmmmmm …. somebody got done on not realising areal weighting ….. hehehehehehehe LOL !
No Luke, nice try but go back and read the above post again. And then explain to us how one might produce the max and min anomaly maps from reference point data. The mean temperature series is derived from the anomaly maps, that is, temperature x area for each polygon. This is a lot more than a mere weighting variance for each reference point.
Over 600km between source data points and major spatial nuance between them leaves an awful lot of scope for “creative license”, don’t you think?
It is one thing to fill in the gaps between hard data reference points when plotting actual temperature gradients because these gradients can be ground truthed and checked against historical evidence and known influences like altitude changes. But that is not the case with anomaly maps because each anomaly is, by definition, an exception to the norm.
So please make use of your extensive contacts in the spivosphere to explain to us all how one can determine, mathematically, why a particular anomaly level might protrude in a large lobe, or even magically appear, in the vast spaces between a number of source date points.
As Yoda might have said, “hmmn, with baited breath we wait”.
This BOM release is worth a read – putting the heatwave in to some sort of perspective… one heck of a heatwave especially since the climate is cooling (lol). (I got from bravenewclimate).
I’m not arguing climate change… but the stats are astounding. Wow Melbourne’s record shattered by almost a whole degree C, and 3.2 degrees C above the Feb record!!!!! the state’s maximum beaten by 1.6 degrees C!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs17c.pdf
quotes highlighted at BNC:
“The January-February 2009 event has now been responsible for seven of the eight highest temperatures on record in Tasmania; a total of eight sites reached 40°C, a mark which had only been reached on 16 previous occasions in the state’s recorded history…
On 7 February (Figure 2), the focus of the most extreme heat, which was accompanied by high winds and very low humidity, was in Victoria. An all-time state record was set at Hopetoun, in the state’s north-west, when the temperature reached 48.8°C, exceeding the old record of 47.2°C, set at Mildura in January 19395 by a considerable margin. Seven other sites, in the Wimmera and in the area immediately west of Melbourne, also exceeded the old record, including Avalon Airport (47.9°C), Horsham (47.6°C), Longerenong (47.6°C) and Laverton (47.5°C). The Hopetoun temperature is also believed to be the highest ever recorded in the world so far south. A total of 14 sites exceeded the previous Victorian February record of 46.7°C…
Many all-time site records were also set in Victoria on 7 February, including Melbourne (154 years of record), where the temperature reached 46.4°C, far exceeding it’s previous all-time record of 45.6°C set on Black Friday (13 January) 1939. It was also a full 3.2°C above the previous February record, set in 1983. Three of Melbourne’s five hottest days have now occurred during this event. Geelong (47.4) and Wilsons Promontory (42.0) were among long-term sites which broke all-time records which had been set only the previous week. In total, of the 31 currently open sites in Victoria with 30 years or more of data which reported on 7 February, 21 set all-time records, five set February records, and only five failed to set records at all. 7 Record high temperatures for February were set over 87% of Victoria…
Both Adelaide and Melbourne set records for the most consecutive days above 43°C. Adelaide’s temperatures were at this level on each of the four days 27-30 January, and Melbourne’s for three days from 28-30 January, breaking the previous records of two at both locations… Adelaide ultimately had nine consecutive days above 35°C; after never having experienced more than eight consecutive days above 35°C before March 2008, it has now happened twice within twelve months…
Melbourne had no measurable rain from 4 January to 7 February, the equal second-longest dry spell on record for the city (35 days). This approaches the record of 40 days set in 1954-55. Melbourne (0.8 mm) had its second-driest January on record, and with only 2.2 mm to 8 February has now experienced its driest start to a year on record…”
What a beat up, MattB. Given the comparatively small area of Tasmania it is hardly surprising that the weather system that produced one record temperature might also produce record temps just down the road. But you could not resist the temptation to put some spin on it, could you? So get a brain, numb nuts, it is not 8 record temperatures, it is 8 different measurement perspectives of the same event. Ditto for Melbourne and Adelaide.
And if you take another look at the temp anomaly maps above you will see that the extreme high temps in the south are matched by, and a direct consequence of, the extreme lows in the monsoonal north. This year they have extended further south and as a consequence the high pressure system that dragged the hot air down to Tasmania was also further south. When that event ends then the extremes in the south will also end.
The vehicle for this will not be some invisible climate hand but, rather, the floods from the north will reach Lake Eyre, in about 65 days, and that whole region will start evaporative cooling again. And when the next breeze blows towards Melbourne it will have much higher humidity and lower temperature.
And if you were a statisticians armpit you would understand that the longer a data sequence continues the more likely it becomes that new records will be set, in both directions.
Hmm sorry Ian… this seems to be a thread about it being hot in south east Australia… and I’ve simply directly quoted the BOM’s press release about the hot event – you can email them your concerns if you like. My entire post does not even MENTION Tasmania??? So what in god’s name are you prattling on about there?
whoops I see the Tassie reference sorry… but still argue with the BOM if you want… but the facts are facts sorry.
No MattB, the issue is with your use of the facts. And the repetition of the Tasmanian data from 8 sites in relatively close proximity does not amount to 8 distinct record temps. They are 8 measurements of the one weather event. You then pulled the same stunt for Victoria in a brazen attempt to hoodwink the gullible into thinking that it was some sort of sequence of records rather than a single event measured at numerous points.
It is a classic example of green use of “the litany”, ie a long list of essentially similar items designed to imply greater significance than it actually deserves. The fact that the BoM (a.k.a. Ministry of Climate Truth) might have stooped to the same stunt does deflect criticism of yourself for repeating it.
Ian – I have directly quoted (cut and pasted) a BOM media release… simple as that.
The fact that you think I’ve “used” facts in a misleading manner is absurd… almost as much as your comments about the BoM.
As for your thoughts it is all just one event… well previously for example the Hobart record was in 1976, and the Launceston Airport record was from WWII.
So it is in fact YOU who is pulling a stunt to try and make this seem like a run of the mill heat event.