WHEN Tim Flannery was sacked last week as Australia’s Climate Commissioner he claimed that this last year has been the hottest on record. I don’t believe him because the raw data doesn’t support that claim, only the metadata for Australia, which has been adjusted, shows recent warming. Willis Eschenbach explains how they ‘fix the data’ in an article published back in 2009 titled ‘The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero’ [1].
Mr Eschenbach showed how, from the hundreds of available weather recording stations in Australia, the IPCC used only three stations to cover the period 1897 to 1992 [1]. Not only were the IPCC selective in the stations used, they ‘homogenized’ the raw data from these stations before using it. Homogenization had the effect of causing a 0.7C per century falling temperature trend to show a 1.2C per century increase with the adjustments made involving a change of over 2C per century.
Mr Eschenbach made the comment that, “when those guys ‘adust’, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.”
All five global temperature estimates show no increase, at least since 2002, fig. 1 [click on the image for a larger and clearer view]. There has been no increase in global air temperature since 1998, which was affected by the oceanographic El Nino event of that time [2]. 
This apparent stagnation does not exclude the possibility that global temperatures will begin to increase again in the future. On the other hand, it also remains a possibility that Earth has just passed a temperature peak, and that global temperatures will begin to decrease within the coming years [2].
But like Australian temperature data, none of the global temperature records are stable over time, fig 2.
Since at least 2008, ‘administrative adjustments’ along the lines of ‘Darwin Zero’, have been made to the global temperature record. In particular, changes are made such that metadata records representing more recent years, e.g. 2000, are adjusted up while methods are used to ensure the global average for specific years in the first half of the twentieth century are adjusted down, e.g. 1915, fig 2 [2].
Unadjusted raw data for many individual localities indicates that the late 1930s and early 1940s were the warmest years of the instrumental record [3]. In the leaked Climategate emails this was referred to as the ‘1940s warming blip’, and the climate scientists openly discussed various methods for its arbitrary removal.
In the aftermath of Climategate, in February 2010, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin interviewed Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
In the interview Professor Jones stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, he said, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009.
This begs the question as to how the CRU and Professor Jones could have been claiming that late 20th Century warming was unnatural and driven by elevated emission of carbon dioxide. Did Professor Jones simply make this admission to Mr Harrabin at the time in an attempt to emphasis agreement between the CRU, NASA GISS, and NOAA datasets; as part of his defense that the CRU had done nothing is wrong in its compiling of temperature records?
At the time meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo, and also the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis, were suggesting that these three global surface temperature datasets had already been heavily compromised and already contained strong warming biases. This public comment from Mr D’Aleo was based on a preliminary assessment of data obtained under a Freedom of Information request made to NASA GISS and released on New Year’s Eve of December 2009. Mr D’Aleo, based on a preliminary assessment, was suggesting that changes to global temperature estimates had already been affected when 565 of 600 Canadian weather stations were dropped from NASA and NOAA datasets. Mr D’Aleo has a list of key studies indicating a worldwide data manipulation scandal at his website Icecap [4].
***
[1]. The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero. Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
[2] This blog post relies on information and charts from Ole Humlum’s Climate4You update August 2013. Read more here: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_August_2013.pdf
[3] Climate Commission Fudges Hot Day Data. Read more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
[4] Worldwide Data Manipulation Scandal Emerging. Read more here: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet/
Your comments on global temperatures trend and how data is compiled and adjusted are welcome in the following thread. For more general comments and information on climate change please post at the Open Thread here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/09/open-thread-9/
My plan is to blog less here, and post more at www.mythandthemurray.org over the next few months.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Possibly one of the reasons we’ve experienced stable temperatures is because the two Satellites data shows it and the Jones and Hansens of the world can’t fiddle the data anymore because Spencer and Christy won’t be a party to it.
The manipulation of the Australian Data, carried out by Simon Torok (for his PhD) in 1996 followed the adjustment methods of Professor Jones and the University of East Anglia where Torok had previously studied and with whom he was still in communication.
Ken Stewart of http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/ performed a comprehensive analyses of the data manipulation of the Australian temperature record, it’s available on his website somewhere. I was involved with Ken initially and he used some of my NSW data as I’d discovered a folder at BoM that contained all Torok’s data and his adjustment methodology so it was possible to reverse engineer his adjustments and get back to the actual raw data.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/category/temperature/
There are various examples of long term Australian temperature records from the 1900s and earlier that show no warming over that period. All the stations that show this have been closed down by the BoM and are no longer used by the BoM in their national temperature record. As Willis noticed, all the adjustments were favouring a warming trend with earlier temps reduced and later ones raised. We are talking up to 2C adjustments!! The BoM referred to it as the HQ (High Quality) data record.
A team involving our Cohenite, Ken Stewart, Joanne Nova, myself and others exchanged a series of emails over this shonk science and eventually approached the BoM to come clean with their adjustments only to have the BoM announce that they no longer used the HQ data therefore it wasn’t relevant and they immediately produced a new data record, ACORN, and to this day have not released the methodology of how they established it yet it is this new data record they use to announce all these new supposed records we’ve apparently been breaking recently. The fact that it is totally at odds with the Satellite record doesn’t appear to phase them because they are supported by all the warmist scientists and journalists.
It’s time for a Royal Commision into BoM and the CSIRO!
Apparently most 21st Century climate ‘scientists’ have never learned the Zeroth Rule of the Scientific Method:
When you’re wearing your scientist’s hat, always tell the bloody truth — warts and all.
We don’t believe him because in our part of the world, supported by over 90 years of records, it is categorically incorrect. 1982/3 summer is one that far outstrips 2012/13. There are plenty of others.
More of their Acorn-based alarmism:
http://e.bom.gov.au/link/id/zzzz5232914e4c382886Pzzzz4f78d95c944c4913/page.html
1902/03 was worse than they thought. So they stopped thinking about it.
Lol Robert. Diss-‘confirmation bias.’
H/t NassimTaleb ‘The Black Swan.’
Taleb is on your wavelength.
Beth, I reckon you Vics wouldn’t get much change from turning back the clock. 2009 was a shocker, but 1938/9 surpasses it in many aspects, though not all.
As for 1851…there was some carbon going atmospheric back then!
I’m just glad to be living away from crown-fire country, like a sensible Northern gent.
“As for 1851…”
Robert, I didn’t know any weather happened in Australia any more, prior to 1910.
Quoting 1851 is really in denial. That’s paleo data. Pre-instrumental ☺.
John Sayers
Thanks for the detail. The link didn’t take me anywhere… it might be that I’m in Central Queensland on a too slow connection.
Anyway, if you still have that folder from the BOM with Torok’s data, and any more info, you might email it to me at the gmail account.
Well that’s right! I was in Melbourne in Feb 2009. It was a shocker. They even shut down rail links because of the heat and something went wrong with the ferris wheel in Docklands. It was also waaaaaay hotter at home that summer than our recent Summer. . . . Like waaaaay hotter for waaaaaaayyyy longer.
It was also when Vic had those horrendous fires.
SD, If you raise 1851 with the klimatariat they will point out the screamingly obvious fact that circumstances, land use etc vary enormously from event to event. This is encouraging proof that the klimatariat can think and discriminate when they want to. We just need them to do it full time.
If anyone thinks the 1851 fires were not due, like the North American fires twenty years later, to radical climate conditions, read all about it:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/fire1851.html
It’s all happened before and it will happen again. The catastrophic Melbourne flood of 1891: think it will hold off because of something Timmy said? Think it will help to send billions of dollars off shore and into the hands of scoundrels? Now that really would be worse than we thought!
Thanks Robert. Yes the Klimatariat would do well to read those historical links and consider reinstating those old temperature records. Even if it spoilt their adjusted graphs.
One of the big problems is that many people in these positions today learnt no history. It just doesn’t occur to them that these times existed.
Ken’sKingdom latest post is moronic – http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/australias-warmest-12-month-period-on-record-not/
firstly his description is wrong – it’s T2LT not MT – so much for any care by the author who big on details himself, and then he’s comparing satellite temps with terrestrial – if you don’t know why there won’t be an exact match perhaps consider crocheting instead.
It’s not worth chasing down is it. Hours of work to check that deniers can’t do maths or have missed the point. There have now been a number of global temperature reconstructions – they all tell the same story – I wonder why. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255
Try the SST story with no land surface temps – same deal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008411/abstract
Do the sat temps broadly match the land surface temps – YES. http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg
You lot are simply ridiculous. We’re now in the twilight zone stupidity.
Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/09/willis-eschenbach-caught-lying/
Talk about dogs returning to their vomit.
We’ve had Black Thursday, 1851. Black Friday 1939 and Black Saturday, 2009 and
lots of other back days as well.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/fire-and-other-emergencies/major-bushfires-in-victoria
Luke – you are in an area you apparently know nothing about – be careful with your abuse mate and who you label stupid.!
Here is the assessment of Observatory Hill in central Sydney. The Chart shows the raw data – Blue and the adjusted data red and the change in trends.
The black lines are the adjustments made.
ON the right is Torok’s method, the changes made and why.
1001 = maximum temperature, 1021 = minimum temperatures.
an adjustment of 1 is for a single year, and adjustment of 0 is for all previous years.
As you can see there is an adjustment of 0.5C because a stevenson screen was added and a further .7C because the station was moved. .7C equals the total global warming since 1850!
I might add – this was not peer reviewed or independently assessed it occurred because it was approved by BoM and Jones at UEA!
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Observatory_Hill_Full_Adjustments.png
The chart was compiled by a retired engineer Greg Connolly who was interested in my posts about Torok’s work.
Thanks John Sayers.
Luke, Can you explain in plain english which bit about the Darwin adjustments Willis Eschenbach got wrong? Also, do you agree with Flannery that this last year was the hottest and if so, why?
The original Torak thesis paper is here:
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/PA2V4LA5AP7I7SPU8I2BAG56PFLQR26Y2PYQMES8VUY6THH456-00498?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=72515&pds_handle=GUEST
The Torak and Nicholls paper based on their thesis is here:
http://210.8.186.60/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
The definitive Della-Marta et al paper using Torak data and methods is here:
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/PA2V4LA5AP7I7SPU8I2BAG56PFLQR26Y2PYQMES8VUY6THH456-00498?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=72515&pds_handle=GUEST
The theme is subjectivity and declared inability to replicate. Stockwell and Stewart look at this data and methodology here:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
It’s important to note that ACORN and Trewin’s technical manual do not rectify the methodological problems with BOM data and temperature interpretation.
Thanks Tony – I was hoping you’d step in here as you’ve been involved in it since day one.
Jen asks whether last year was the hottest – depends what data set you use in terms of terrestrial choices, and satellite choices. You could use the various international analyses, your own rolled gold selection or perhaps the satellite data. It may tell you it’s the hottest or one of the hotties. Who cares.
Mugs game to debate and just a playground for sceptic bullshit. I think trends in many indicators might be a tad more important.
Cohenite – well go write a paper in the peer reviewed journal literature and don’t sook about it being too hard – nobody has time to check sceptic dross. Nobody plays gish gallop anymore. Get it done and report back – surely Aussie sceptics dissatisfied with BoM’s efforts could with on hand behind their back whip out a an international peer-reviewed publication. Think of the talent pile you have – yourself, Jo, Jen, Bob and Ken Stewart. I look forward to it? Should be 2 weeks work and change the course of history. Guffaw.
We can add it to the dozen or so previous attempts. Will it be any different?
Jen read the old Deltoid link above to see what nonsense Eschenbach gets up to.
There are Darwin(S) not Darwin.
I don’t trust any of the temp ground based records like GISS, HAD 2,3 or 4, or whatever.
But the ongoing adjustments to the earlier/later records are the killer that has convinced me that these records are suspect.
But what about the journos around the world who’ve deliberately promoted this so called CAGW nonsense,plus the idiocy of fraudulent AGW mitigation?
I happen to agree with Bolt, but did they deliberately try to fool the people or are they just barking mad?
In either case they should be sacked.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_sack_the_journalists_who_made_flannery_a_hero/
Using actual observations and maths+data Willis Eschenbach shows that a governor on the climate system some how returns it to an equilibrium.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/#comments
Whether the forcing is volcanic cooling or co2 doubling, the impact is very small. Something like +0.2c for a doubling of co2.
Thanks for that luke; the law case in NZ put the kibosh on suing the CSIRO/BOM people; see here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122
An application the Auditor General was stymied by Trewin’s ACORN revamp which also made Stockwell and Stewart’s analysis of the HQ network, the predecessor of ACORN, nominally moot.
ACORN is deeply flawed; for instance, on page 6 of the Audit Application:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf
This shows the differences in trend caused by the adjustments in the HQ network; it does not matter if there is an equivalence in +ve and -ve adjustments; what is crucial is that the effect on trend is neutral. HQ did not do this and neither, apparently, has ACORN.
Response luke?
Neville keep your unpublished Watts rat dirt off this specific thread and put it in open thread. It’s unpublished crap anyway.
Cohenite well who would know but phone a friend who has done an analysis of all the Australian data without adjustments shows warming standing out like dogs balls. So instead of playing silly buggers why don’t you and your mates get everything from ADAM since 1890 and do a very simple area weighted analysis and report back. I got mine. Anyone worth their salt doesn’t play tag and does their own full analysis. You’re all simply dishonest to the extreme. Get it done – stop sooking and report back. Go your hardest champ. ROFL
You might find a broad warming. YAWN
Just watch this 2012 catalyst documentary http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3633447.htm. It was made before the Bureau pf Meteorology had to select a new colour for their temperature chart to reflect our higher surface temperatures. http://www.bitsofscience.org/extreme-heat-wave-australia-weather-forecast-6485/
luke, look at Stockwell and Stewart, Table 2, page 1281:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
Table 2. Comparison of trends in degrees C/Century from 1910 to 2009 of the
Rural, Urban, HQN and MAN groups using different averaging methods.
AvYrs AvYrsZero MedYrsZero AvSeries AvYrDiff
HQNUrban 0.80 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.77
MANUrban 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.43
HQNRural 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.90
MANRural 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.70 1.27
The MAN method is the alternative weighting method devised by S&S; it clearly shows the warming bias in the HQ and ACORN methods.
Now look at Trewin’s Technical Manual for ACORN:
http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf
Page 62 and 63 of the ACORN technical manual is relevant.
For purposes of true adjustment neutrality the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments over the whole of the particular temperature sites is not important.
The crucial point is whether those adjustments are neutral over the particular sites. Table 6 and Figure 19 do not tell us whether there has been equality of trend produced by the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments. That is because a particular site can be overall -vely adjusted but still have a +ve trend after the adjustment and, to a lessor extent because overall the trend has been increased or made +ve by the adjustments, vice-versa.
In otherwords, the adjustments have created a part of the trend. That is wrong.
The NCTCS have raised and spent about $300K on this issue. The fact is the money is spent, and the monies going into the BOM and CSIRO and all the other institutions promoting AGW are still the same. The matter has not been decided on merit but as usual in terms of financial muscle.
And your suggestion about publication is grotesque; Stockwell and others have bashed their heads against the brick wall of AGW censorship in the journals; contrary viewpoints don’t see the light of day.
Didn’t take me very long to find our own Bureau of Meteorology’s figures. I suspect you think it’s part of some plot. Personally, for my weather and climate facts, I go to the established experts: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
Such closed minds by the IPCC cli-sci team.
So much closing down of enquiry by their pal-review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359034/climate-change-circus-rupert-darwall
No they haven’t bashed their heads against AGW censorship – they just don’t write good papers.
Inability to step to the mark is simply an excuse.
But again I urge you to do your own full analysis and put it up at least. You can simply get hold of all the data – Ken Stewart may already have it and create interpolated national daily and monthly surfaces WITHOUT ANY adjustments at all. e.g. ANUSPLIN http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/files/anusplin437.pdf ANUSPLIN will also help you with orography. That will also get you around intermittent lengths of record. Just interpolate what you have – then do the trend analysis.
Should have given us the $300K !
It’s a vast amount of work to insist that one be in continual audit mode on everything BoM and CSIRO produces. Do something useful. You’re hardly having any influence – they’ve written you lot off as worth any consideration so you’re not achieving anything.
Judy, I understand, you are an investigative ABC reporter, why not try understanding exactly how the BOM puts the data together to arrive at the said conclusion. Reporters are meant to be sceptical. You appear to just be an enforcer of the official line.
BTW Cohers – your link is broken http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell1.pdf
Luke,
While you provide some good ideas for a rebuttal… ultimately they are of limited valued even if they do get past the gate keepers… see http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/07/how-scientific-ideas-become-fashionable-part-2/
What we really need is a new paradigm… and that is something I’m working on.
In the meantime to what extent has even the raw data been junked? Your thoughts?
Jen – the term junk is interesting. Anyone who has worked with met data would probably think it’s junk. Operators can be variable, but often very diligent. Stations move location. Some stations not well sited. Urban encroachment etc. And instruments can fail slowly – i.e. bearings in anemometers or degrading radiation sensors – so an individual day’s reading might be OK but the trend shows the instrument is failing. Failure to put the decimal point in the right place changes 30C to 3C. And in volunteer networks ho do we distinguish between zero rainfall and a failure to report rainfall.
So met data are problematic little critters. Horrid !
So I think some minimum hygiene needs to be applied to data that are highly suspected of being corrupt e.g. 3C at Weipa on Xmas morning.
I would be personally appalled though if raw data has been replaced with adjusted data. I’m not aware that this has occurred.
“contrary viewpoints don’t see the light of day”. Pssst, I think he knows that.
Ignore the advice of people who want you to lose and to keep doing the things they hate. Keep up the blog-rot, rat-dirt etc. It’s hurting ’em, and it’s what they can’t censor and control. They’d love to set you months of homework which they would then reject. Then tell you to start over again. Half the trash they don’t even read themselves.
Personally, I wouldn’t worry about what gets called global temps. I’m a total skeptic, which means I don’t care if the world is warming or cooling a bit, since that’s what it’s always done and always will do, in various cycles and sub-cycles. Duh. However, if you are ever tempted to think these people are not bluff-merchants but informed sophisticates who deserve their dominance and influence, just check out the mothballed desals, the imbecilic whirlygigs and solar feed-ins, the rusting tide and wave experiments, the crippling energy bills, the unaffordable refrigerant gases (watch that one, Australia!), Timmy’s Geothermia, the aging coal power generation on which we continue to rely, the nukes which were not built yesterday, the jet trails of the Klimatariat, the billions hoovered up in taxes and pseudo taxes…
And all this waste funded by the export of…?
Science. Investigative reporting. Yeah, right.
However if sceptics have indeed spent $300K – that’s a lot of money. For that I would hope you have all the BoM data in a database of your own and are able to interoperate and analyse that at will.
You guys should be in a position to produce an independent analysis. That’s what most scientists would do if they are seriously unconvinced.
Steven Goddard has fun with just using then and now data all OFFICIAL by GISS!!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/hansen-was-a-naughty-y2k-boy/
Still waiting for them to give us the flowcharts and documentation for the algorythms used in their software that computes this garbage!!!
Robert – why not do the same thing with brain surgery. Let everyone have a go. No standards. Publish anything you like.
5-7 metres higher sea level during the Eemian was not a “little bit”
At last look your standard of living was a high in history as ever. Stop sooking.
Gaggard – pffft – more sceptic dross. Pullease. It’s just harassment.
These are the sort of people kuknkat admires http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/steve-goddard-steals-pat-michaels-trick.html
There’s some interesting thoughts here. I have no familiarity with the various processes of peer review and so on, but as Luke observes there must be enough collective knowledge, background, expertise and data for a thorough independent analysis of Australia’s records. I thought that such had already been done by sceptics? I seem to recall comments about that in an earlier post here.
So, what WOULD it take to do that up into a paper for submission to a journal? I accept that peer review appears to have its shortcomings, but this blog could serve (and perhaps Nova’s) as a kind of highlighter – that is, put the focus of interest on the gatekeeping aspect of peer review and perhaps help encourage the paper to be given a fair chance at publication?
All that such a paper needs to do is show that there is doubt over the official record of Australia’s temp data. Not necessarily establish an alternative record.
My own area of interest is sea level rise. I claim no expertise, just interest. I’ve read with some enthusiasm the posts and commentary on several blogs about it. I must admit that I think the argument that there is some uncertainty about the actual rate of rise seems soundly placed. The latest commentary seems to suggest that true SLR globally is in the order of 1mm per annum.
The latest National geographic has an amazingly alarmist report of the effect of sea level rise, including a remarkable editor’s note that suggests that SLR could cause 150 million people to be adversely affected by 2070. Given that a rise of 1mm per annum if true could result in just 2-3 inches of rise by then if current trends were to remain, that’s an amazing statistic to toss out there.
Anecdotally, there is little to suggest serious SLR in many many parts of the world. Just where are these real world effects purely from AGW generated SLR?
An independent analysis! Free to choose! It’s not like there’s a monopoly operating. If we don’t like BOM data, we can try COM data, or DOM data, or FOM, or even GOM. Then there’s the ZOM data…
As for brain surgery, it was once as primitive as current climate science, and for much the same reasons. Trepanning, anybody?
Luke!
We’re not talking about brain surgery here. We’re talking about analysing/modeling/projecting the weather/climate.
Your analogy is inappropriate. Climate science is nothing like brain surgery and many people/organisations possess exactly the same skills as the so called climate experts, just in different fields.
Studying, analysing and extrapolating data sets is not something amazing, mysterious or unusual.
And you may not like it but lots & lots of people are very interested in this stuff. . . not because they’re alarmed by CAGW. . . but because they live and work in the real dinky di Australian weather/climate/environment every single day. They can therefore spot BS when they see it. They don’t require a degree in ‘Climate Science’ nor to they need to be a published or govt employed ‘expert’ in ‘Climate Science’ to spot BS.
If brain surgeons started sprouting BS about weather/climate/environmental politics. . . they too would be called out.
“Climate science is nothing like brain surgery”
agree it’s much worse.
“Studying, analysing and extrapolating data sets is not something amazing, mysterious or unusual”
well it is actually – that’s why people love statistics at university (not)
There has been so much sceptic BS exposed now Debs (you’d don’t see as you only frequent where you’re mentally safe) that perhaps you do need some expertise or at least solid experience.
Just more rot Debs !
Criticising the Klimatariat on a blog means you think all should be free to publish on brain surgery. Gawd. And they wonder why they get called Lysenkoists.
There should be VASTLY more research on climate and weather. At the same time, the culture of Publish-or-Perish, an utter barbarity, has to end. It’s a problem in any field; in the field of climate it’s proven to be an intellectual disaster. As long as PoP prevails, manipulation, sensationalism, careerism, censorship, conformity, dogma, patronage and distortion will continue.
STOP PUBLISHING. YOU DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH YET. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. ALSO, YOU ARE NOT SEXY. THAT’S OKAY, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO BE SEXY. YOU ARE JUST MEANT TO RECORD AND RESEARCH. (AND HOW CAN I MAKE BIGGER CAPITALS?)
Crap Robert – publish or perish. It’s the way science works. Spray painting your thoughts on a subway isn’t science although you yourself might enjoy it.
I think you’d just like free range science where ever child player wins a prize. You can have a go Robby. You can get a prize even if you’re no good.
“Intellectual disaster” – what unmitigated drivel. Do wank on gramps.
So in Robby’s new science world – you get to submit anything and it will be acknowledged even if it’s utter horseshit. Let’s add the creation science and flat-earthers too. Everyone can play.
And so it’s not too hard we’ll have no stats or maths – just anecdotes.
Who said we don’t need expertise and solid experience?
How did you manage to infer that from my comment Luke?
I was criticising an inappropriate analogy with brain surgery. 🙂 🙂
And what do you think is amazing, mysterious or unusual about studying statistics? It certainly isn’t confined to a few ‘climate scientists’.
Luke will waste your time here all day and every day, but let’s use factual info from both sides of the argument. This is important because it involves the future OZ temp record.
Bolt asked Prof Roger Jones ( ex CSIRO scientist , IPCC lead author and now Vic uni prof) to state the reduction in temp by 2100 if OZ reduced co2 emissions by 5%.
His answer was 0.0038C or an unmearsurable four thousandths of 1C. This would cost billions per year for another 87 years for a zero impact on temp and climate.
Mathematician Lord Monckton produced a similar result as well. But Luke refuses to answer any of this factual data and yells denier or some other babyish nonsense and seems to believe????? that mitigation by OZ can really achieve something.
The entire argument is patent nonsense, yet apparently this bloke remains forever clueless to the above facts.
He’ll yap all day about future impact of co2 emissions on future temp and climate and then run away when presented with the above facts.
For someone who doesn’t like verballing, he sure knows how to extrapolate and paraphrase one’s point out of existence, doesn’t he? Publishing with knowledge is equated with publishing for the heck. By pleading for less publishing I must really be wanting more publishing. Go figure.
Let the thousand peer reviewed flowers blossom. Here’s a blossom: By 2070 there will be 150 million SLR victims. Studies show. Science says. Or maybe not. Better make it “could” rather than “will”. Just in case you’re alive in 2070 and someone is rude enough to mention it. If there’s no study, we’ll make one. We’ll try to come in at 97% certainty. Just close enough to 100%, but still sounds realistic. After ten years we make room for new “findings” anyway. Who’d be caught dead with a ten year old mobile phone or a ten year old study? You published, you perished, but only so a new publication could have its brief and miraculous life-cycle. It’s the way Luke science works. Let’s all get dumb as doggy-do and say we were just taking orders from peer-review.
Still, Debs, I just hope you’re as lively and sprightly as Luke when you get to be his age.
Jen asked Luke 2 questions:
Luke,
1. Can you explain in plain english which bit about the Darwin adjustments Willis Eschenbach got wrong?
2. Also, do you agree with Flannery that this last year was the hottest and if so, why?
NO ANSWER SO FAR!!!!
Luke: “I would be personally appalled though if raw data has been replaced with adjusted data. I’m not aware that this has occurred.”
What the hell do you think this thread is about? did you read my first post where I lay out the adjustment process and who did it?
Cohenite is right – a in depth research and paper were prepared and BoM was approached under FOI to justify their manipulation process only to have BoM say it’s no longer relevant cos they don’t use that data set anymore – they use another adjusted set called ACORN and they won’t tell anyone how they came to get it!
Why have perfectly good stations like Casino been closed down? on what justification? I’ll tell you why – because it’s 100 year temperature record shows no global warming – that’s why! Similarly with Lismore and many others across this country.
Casino record: (closed)
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=058063&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Lismore record: (closed)
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=058037&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
It’s F**kin disgraceful and you are a disgrace sitting there trying to justify their actions with your glib putdowns.
A Royal Commission is the only answer! Bring it on! Let’s find out exactly how much Australia’s temperature has changed over the past 100 years without the fiddling of demented climate change religious freaks who have been feeding the frenzy at the Climate Change Commission and as Bolt says, lets take down the journalists and reporters who have supported this mob over the past decade , the ones who should have been doing the investigations…… not Ken Stewart, a retired school teacher.
Yep, partial or complete obliteration, John. I’m waiting for them to disappear our rainfall records, which tell quite a tale of drought prior to the 1950s. Our old combined records here registered the decade between 1910 and 1919 as the real shocker for sustained heat and drought. Then, one day, those temp records prior to 1965 just weren’t there anymore. They’d been up on the net, freely available, for years.
One might wonder how the lack of Stevenson Screen might account for a decade in which every month achieved its hottest average max (except August, hottest in 1946). I dare say a lack of cloud (indicated very strongly in rainfall records) helped those maxima along, and I’m not one to build too much on single facts. Still, interesting facts.
But facts, as we know, are now “anecdotes”, so why worry? Our Green Betters wil tell us which facts are factual and which are anecdotal. If we disagree, we’re flat-earthers in the pay of Big Flat.
Yes Robert – 1911 – 1916 and 1918 – 1920 were both severe droughts. apart from 1917 you could say it was a very long drought of 11 years.
Ross McKitrick ( IPCC lead author) looks at the latest global temp graph as presented by the IPCC and finds only 0.1c warming since 1990, or the last 22 years, or just about zero.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/newsletter/issue/newsletter-september-19-2013/
According to the models the range should have been 0.2c to 0.9c over that 22 year period. How much longer should we tolerate this stupidity?
John that decade was preceded by the Fed Drought, and the 1902/03 season, probably the worst along with 1982/83, though the earlier one was not associated with a particularly strong El Nino. After that second decade came some freak heat in the 20s (Marble Bar) and then the 30s, not quite as miserable here as in Nth America, but pretty terrible. (Another oddity: the big heat of 1938/39 was not associated with an El Nino.) Of course, I couldn’t tell you if anything was worse than the 1790s conditions in Sydney. That was the mother of all monsoon failures as we know from the Skull Famine in Indian history – or might know, if history had not been cancelled.
With so much to learn, you’d think people would be more interested in actual climate than in spinning climate through maths manipulation and GetUp style spin.
Sorry. Big Flat and Big Creation just bribed me to do more anecdotes. Naughty, I know.
Well John Sayers – get onto David Jones and find out why. Report back. Or wallow in obscurity.
sp – the answer is in the Deltoid link above. And I don’t waste my time finding out why random denier stuff is wrong. Otherwise you’d be unravelling rubbish 24 x 7. The author has form.
Just drivel Robert – telling old codger yarns isn’t science. Tell us something we don’t know. Insight – knowledge – you know – oh that’s right – you don’t.
Neville I can’t help it if you want to confine your argument to 5% improvements. Massive improvements are required with major technology change or pay the price (Stupidly calculated as zero by you). Residence time of CO2 is very high indeed. So let’s wait till we’re at 3 x CO2 before we start. I have previously told you a unilateral action by Australia achieves little. And furthermore renewables won’t suffice. We’ve been all over this. Even if nothing is done or is too little adaptation is needed and geo-engineering a last resort. Enough on the impact side of the ledger and it will be done. You won’t have a say in it. So bleat on you drone.
Neville – Cornwall – unpublished blog drivel.
I’m so tired of GetUp style spin Robert – the current one is labor has over 50% women in the ministry and Coalition only has one….ooooooh bad bad coalition.
If that’s the case then how come the Labor leadership is between two men?
luke says:
“Residence time of CO2 is very high indeed.”
No it is not.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
You see? One of the great monsoon failures, its effects recorded in Sydney Cove by those excellent and painstaking officers, Dawes and Tench…and it’s an old codger yarn. Boring.
Pile hard fact on hard fact and all you get is nyah nyah, talk to the hand. You can’t win with these aging kool kidz. If it’s not a button on their climate console with its own knob to twiddle, it’s not real. It’s just more of that boring reality. Mummy was always trying to get them play outside. Never worked.
It’s not surprising that impressionable kids who gave Gore big money to be climate ambassadors believed in the reality of stupid games like “Aerosols versus GHGs: The Clash of the Forcings”. It’s just that an old, old guy like Luke is still playing and still believing.
Enough of these manboys!
Luke. I have just read that deltoid link. There is no answer to Jen’s questions there. It is just people arguing about methodology and playing school yard bully tactics. It’s almost like they’re arguing. . . “my daddy has a better job than your daddy” or. . . “my football team is better than your football team”. I must say I find it amusing you have linked to what has become a drivel denier blog. You have even told them yourself recently. Tim Lambert’s post is no more ‘peer reviewed’ than others that you are attempting to sneer at.
I also think that using ‘caught lying’ is highly unprofessional and needlessly inflammatory when it is just a disagreement about methodology.
That deltoid post is a classic example of that saying:
If you torture figures for long enough, they will admit to anything! 🙂 🙂
And the other one :
There are lies, damned lies and statistics
Luke, Ross McKitrick is an expert reviewer for IPCC whether you like it or not. And it is their graph not his, so what’s the problem? Where is he wrong?
He and Steve certainly wrecked the HS con and fraud. You must remember that HS poster banner used by the IPCC?
More on co2 residency time from a Swedish scientist backing up Murry Salby.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
Obviously Debs has a reading comprehension problem. Trying reading again with your brain on.
Neville – we’re all expert reviewers to the IPCC – hahahahahaa – you just fill out the form.
Hockeystick broadly stands – http://www.pages-igbp.org/
http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/faqpdf/Press%20release%20-%20PAGES%202k%20consortium%20-%20English.pdf
Try to keep up Neville and stop reading blog porn
The system has just written the definitive paper on persistence time and reversibility
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00584.1
http://oro.open.ac.uk/37694/1/Zickfeld2013long.pdf
A great reason to act !
Deb I absolutely agree. After watching the Doltoids arguing with SD I would take no notice of anything they say. They are masters of twisting facts to suit a perspective. The strange thing is that they often completely misunderstand simple concepts yet present as highly competent with figures, stats, the literature and so on.
The problem with their perspective is that it’s an automatic discounting of any argument beyond their preconceived ideas of what’s right. And they wheel out as many numbers as possible to stifle the opposition. Having followed both sceptic and alarmist blogs for several years I think it’s possible to ‘prove’ anything at all with enough effort.
The strange thing is the notion that only someone who agrees with the pro-AGW view can be competent. Yet there are plenty of competent and smart people in the sceptic camp. The effort put in to show that sceptics are fools tells you a lot about both the character and true inquisitiveness of such people.
The ‘lags’ paper you link to luke exemplifies everything wrong with AGW science.
It is a product of modelling and model assumptions which fail at the first hurdle. The concept of commitment as defined in AGW and the paper as:
“The concept of commitment is tied to
56 the thermal inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al. 1985), which causes the effects of
57 greenhouse gas emissions to be felt beyond the duration of those emissions.”
Is a failed concept; defeated by a low climate sensitivity and the lack of any evidence to distinguish transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Trenberth proved this back in 2001:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
The lag or delayed response for ENSO, the dominant natural climatic factor, is a matter of months, yet AGW would have us believe the delayed response or lag from AGW is almost eternal. It is one of the basic assumptions of AGW and it is wrong.
Nuh – palaeo sensitivity is easily 3C. You’re not even at first base Cohers.
“Nuh – palaeo sensitivity is easily 3C.”
That’s crap:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/
Even Foster and Rahmstorf put an upper limit on TCR of 1.8C.
AR5 puts a it at less than 2C:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581979-peek-inside-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information
Now impress me luke by proving there is an ECS in the system.
Who do you think you’re kidding Luke? This is from your link.
Only one continent, Antarctica, has bucked the warming trend.
An analysis of the average temperatures over 30-year periods indicates that the interval from
1971 to 2000 was probably warmer than any other 30-year period in the last 1400 years.
Going back further, some regions experienced warmer 30-year intervals. In Europe, a period
during the Roman Empire between 21 and 80 AD was likely warmer than the period 1971-
2000
Note —- probably warmer, what a load of BS and 60 year of RWP likely warmer in Europe than 1971- 2000.
Funny how the IPCC now shuns the HS fraud, in fact it’s a joke, everyone understands this except Luke.
Luke. Please do tell what you claim is my comprehension problem?
Where is the answer to Jen’s questions in that deltoid link?
If you’re convinced it’s there. . . please quote the relevant information.
And why is a non ‘peer reviewed’ post by Tim Lambert on A BLOG(!) suddenly something quotable and/or acceptable anyway?
Not hard Luke:
1. Can YOU explain in plain english which bit about the Darwin adjustments Willis Eschenbach got wrong?
2. Also, do YOU agree with Flannery that this last year was the hottest and if so, why?
NO ANSWERS AT DELTOID!!!!
JUST TYPE THE ANSWERS HERE PLEASE
sd
W Eschenbach can be a bit, nay a lot prickly when criticised but he has most of his facts right.
Luke’s gripes with him is that he is self taught, can’t have that mylord.
Must have letters from a well known uni and a PHD at least, not to mention having published,
published, published, published in a Luke’s approved journal of course.
Knowledge, facts, records means squat in Lukes’ world.
Little OT I know, but Suzuki on Q&A is sounding just a little less than well informed and not a little nuts. Interesting to see him skewered on the cyclone frequency issue too.
Suzuki was revealed as the opportunistic dope he is by Franks and others; see:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suzuki_revealed_as_complete_know_nothing_by_very_first_question_on_qa/
Fascinating how shoddy Jen’s post is in what it doesn’t tell us
“Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/09/willis-eschenbach-caught-lying/comment-page-1/#comments
I did some calcs and plots re Darwin which I posted at WUWT. First was the corresponding GISS data:
raw and homogeneity-adjusted plots. And there’s very little adustment at all. Then the newly posted CRU data from this MetOffice site, which plotted against raw showed this plot. Again, no big adjustment.
So I wondered if in the GHCN dataset, other NT stations had big adjustments. I did a test on a block of stations in the v2.temperature.inv listing, which are in north NT. I noted that wherever there was an adjustment, the most recent reading was unchanged. So I listed the adjustment (down) that was made to the first (oldest) reading in the sequence. Many stations, with shorter records, did not appear in the _adj file – no adjustment had been calculated. That is indicated by “None” in the list – as opposed to a calculated 0.0. Darwin’s 2.9 is certainly the exception.
In this listing, the station number is followed by the name, and the adjustment.
50194117000 MANGO FARM None
50194119000 GARDEN POINT None
50194120000 DARWIN AIRPOR 2.9C
50194124000 MIDDLE POINT 0.0
50194132000 KATHERINE AER 0.0
50194137000 JABIRU AIRPOR None
50194138000 GUNBALUNYA None
50194139000 WARRUWI None
50194140000 MILINGIMBI AW None
50194142000 MANINGRIDA None
50194144000 ROPER BAR STO None
50194146000 ELCHO ISLAND 0.7
50194150000 GOVE AIRPORT None
So Darwin is clearly an outlier there.”
and what’s the net impact of adjustments – zero – http://gilest.ro/blog/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
You lot are utterly full of crap and having the biggest cherry pick of your lives. Typical sceptic trickery. How shoddy.
Eschenbach’s graph in itself is pure sophistry. The two sites are quite different. Disgraceful recycled denial.
Cohenite – don’t be such a paleo dope
http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/pdfs/Making%20sense%20of%20palaeoclimate%20sensitivity.pdf Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf
3C is clearly a reasonable median number – perhaps more.
Additionally why have we not been informed of the considerable site changes and their impacts at Darwin. WHY? From Nexus6 at THAT old Deltoid post.
“In the specific case of Darwin, while we haven’t done the updated analysis yet, I am expecting to find that the required adjustment between the PO and the airport is greater in the dry season than the wet season, and greater on cool nights than on warm ones. The reason for this is fairly simple – in the dry season Darwin is in more or less permanent southeasterlies, and because the old PO was on the end of a peninsula southeasterlies pass over water (which on dry-season nights is warmer than land) before reaching the site. This is fairly obvious from even a cursory glance at the data – the record low at the airport is 10.4, at the PO 13.4.
Darwin is quite a difficult record to work with. There were 12 months of overlap between the PO and the airport, but the observing site at the PO deteriorated quite badly in what turned out to be its last few years because of tree growth overhanging the instruments. Fortunately, we recently uncovered some previously undiscovered data from 1935-42 from the old Darwin Airport (at Parap) and should be able to use this to bypass the promblematic last few years at the PO.
The post-1941 adjustments (all small) at Darwin Airport relate to a number of site moves within the airport boundary. These days it’s on the opposite side to the terminal, not too far from the Stuart Highway.”
As an aside Nexus6 also blew the lid on the WORST SCEPTIC PAPER EVER !
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html I had forgotten what a roast it was !. HAHAHAHAHA
All well and good but the adjustments in this chart continue past the adjustment made to account for Darwin PO becoming Darwin Airport.
If there was a step adjustment made in 1941 when the PO finished and the airport started (Black line) the the temperature would have been horizontal with no warming over the whole record but no – they had to adjust up the years after 1941 to get a warming curve!
sorry – here’s the chart
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-8ef50b1d142e2fb73ff4d88341e8fbeb-fig_7-ghcn-averages.png
Suzuki has revealed himself on Q&A to be the dumbest thing on two legs.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suzuki_revealed_as_complete_know_nothing_by_very_first_question_on_qa/#commentsmore
He doesn’t even know what the main temp records are, what a numbskull. And this is the type of dummy that Q&A deem to to be worthy of his own spot on their biased program.
What an embarrassment this fool is to Canada and yet he is fussed over by all the clueless toadies from one end of OZ to the other.
The climatocracy is simply carrying on the long term work of eugenicists, piltdown promoters, Lysenko, Mann and Lewandowsky: Piece together the evidence until it fits, and then use the power of the state and the academy to squash dissent.
I must admit I was surprised by Suzuki. He proved rather an embarrassment to his own cause unfortunately. I was also surprised that the overall flavour of the discussion was somewhat less alarmist than I expected, even Sherwood was somewhat careful in his comments.
That Suzuki had to admit to a falsehood about cyclones and the Reef simply shows that many of his claims shouldn’t be taken at face value.
And as I have long said, it’s that sort of thing, that misleading of the public that I object the most to. So many people take the pronouncements of such ‘experts’ as facts and yet often the truth is either quite different or much less certain than is claimed.
And then there’s the argument that anyone who dissents shouldn’t be accorded any respect because they aren’t climatologists. Yet Flannery, Cook, Suzuki et al are never queried bout their own expertise.
I don’t know why people would want to find wisdom in Suzuki. All part of the mania with celebrities. His general knowledge was dreadful. Awful Q&A. Just awful. He was done like a dinner on AGW, GMOs and nuclear. Perhaps even fracking. And unable to make tradeoffs.
Anyway back on topic – I wonder how many of the tut tutters have read the overall impact of homogenisation adjustments.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/darwin-and-ghcn-adjustments-willis.html
Luke I trust you are genuine in your condemnation of Suzuki. But how can such a pig ignorant fool be fussed over by the worldwide MSM?
The ABC and others have had him on for years and years and never ONCE asked him a difficult question.
This fool has called humans maggots and has insisted that deniers???? should be jailed. And yet this same nong doesn’t even understand or bothered to know the basics about AGW.
I once turned on a relative who told me he admired Suzuki but thankfully he now understands more about this idiot than I do.
This just proves that the ABC is a disaster and should be made to represent the wider point of view of the OZ electorate.
They should allow a free, serious debate from both sides on every issue, including AGW. And so should the rest of the MSM.
What is more it would lead to very interesting radio and TV shows and would extend to a much wider and better informed audience.
That’s a great point Neville. If the public debate, esp on ABC, were allowed to be a genuine debate without the labelling and denigration and included some of the serious players on both sides, not only would we see a better debate, but if AGW is true then the opportunity to properly defend that case and communicate it would be there. In other words, it’d be a great opportunity to convince sceptics otherwise.
IF the case is strong enough of course.
And the public would have a more balanced view of the various positions.
luke, Hansen’s paper which you allege proves a 3C CS based on paleo-evidence is looked at here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1031292.html
And here:
http://landshape.org/enm/rejoinder-to-geoff-davies-at-abc-unleashed/
All the so-called paleo-evidence is carefully dealt with and shown to be problematic at best.
In respect of Darwin I see luke has dredged up this site where he quotes from Blair [Nexus6?]:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2009/12/how-low-can-you-go/#comment-843553
The rest of the quote is excluded however:
“As an aside, while the ‘urban heat island’ is a real issue, the biggest influence on temperature records within urban areas is the land surface in the immediate vicinity of the observation site. The current Perth site is on a golf course and on cold winter nights is often one of the colder sites in the region; on the other hand, even the tiniest hamlet can have a large ‘urban’ signal if the instruments are too close to a building or a bitumen car park. Also, a stable urban area will have little effect on a long-term trend; there’s been some work done which shows that, while London and Vienna are both significantly warmer than their surrounding countryside, there is no evidence that the differential has increased over the last 100 years.
Knowing as much as you can about the sites you’re working with is definitely important. The historic documentation is obviously critical for that but knowing them at close hand is useful too. I have a long-term ambition of visiting all 112 locations in the data set we use for long-term monitoring and have 24 to go. Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic about this because I managed to drown my last car in a washout in the process of trying to get out of a remote weather station in the north Kimberley :-)”
The Eschenbach analysis is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/
The adjustments to Darwin neither considered UHI or were consistent with normal or standard homogenisation process; it’s that plain.
A good post by Richard Coutney about the IPCC at WUWT.
richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Friends:
Several people have posted comments which suggest the IPCC AR5 should not be a political document but should be a scientific document.
That suggestion displays ignorance of the official nature and purpose of the IPCC.
The stipulated nature and purpose of the IPCC is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern IPCC work. These are at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that IPCC document says
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science. .
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” that would be “policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.
This “Role” is pure politics acting behind a mask which resembles science; i.e. Lysenkoism.
Richard
In other words the IPCC is not about science but its purpose is to pursue the risks????? of AGW.
It’s role is all about political science and Lysenkoism. Just a con and little wonder they attract so many con merchants to their cause.
Just wait till the summary is written and more burden is placed on the poor bleeding taxpayers for a further zero return on their investment??????
Neville – he’s not pig ignorant – but certainly way out-of-date and passed the use by date. He hasn’t kept up.
You could also get angry about terrorists in Kenya too. Suzuki isn’t gonna do anything to you really.
His performance however was a major disappointment and not even interesting. A big fizzer.
But you won’t ever get much satisfaction out of debates. Too short in time.
Cohers – it’s a bit more than just Hansen – a whole community – see the first reference
Also try http://www.pages-igbp.org/ – you’ll love it
As for Darwin – none of this matters a hoot in the big scheme of things as GG and Nick Stokes have amply demonstrated. A mega cherry pick – so typical of sceptic try-ons.
But Luke the debates shouldn’t stop. There’s plenty of time, why not a TV science show that debates a topic every week?
And then a follow up on every topic 6 months later. This could go on as long as people are interested.
But I’m sure the MSM would rather walk over hot coals than properly inform people. Some how we must get the two sides of every argument .The list of topics would be endless, I know I used to listen to William’s science show for years before the politics started.
Suzuki, so dumb and creepy. Almost as dumb as Gore, and twice as creepy. Perhaps the Klimatariat could distance themselves politely by saying: “So David is clearly an outlier there.” Some things just sound good!
Some more Darwin?
“By the way, Darwin Airport, which is urban and not included, is an interesting site: The Post Office records to 1940, and the Airport from 1941. The Post Office measurements apparently were based on dodgy practices, like no Stevenson screen.”
From
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/the-australian-temperature-record-part-2-northern-territory/
Our local met recorder got a copy of the official history of the met bureau. In it there is a note that South Australia was an early adopter of Stevenson screens, and Darwin would have been under their management pre-federation wouldn’t it?
So might be more “dig here”
I think this is a case that the Climate Council will need to investigate immediately.
If Tim can find the time, he will surely look into it himself.
In recognition of the heroic effort our climatocrats make in keeping AGW a strong source of academic grant aards and insider tax funded indutrial schemes, a little ditty, posted at hizhoner the Bishop:
”
“Deep within its ocean lair,
The global heat that wasn’t there
It wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish it’d go away…”
Sep 23, 2013 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/23/climates-great-dilemma.html#comments
How many of us would wish Suzuki feted OUR ABC ? Tsk.
He’s on my Creepy List too. Hmm … must reorganize that list
on a creepiness scale. No doubt who gets top billing, Michael
Mann. After that it’s Klimate Kommissioner turtles all
the
way
down.
Parasite removal:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/zeg/2013/09/parasite-removal
I don’t want to have to read the entire thread/ or worse go to Deltoid and start reading… can someone just tell me whether Willis got it right re. what the IPCC did with the Darwin data? If his analysis was some how faulty can I get a plain english summary of his mistake(s)?
“can someone just tell me whether Willis got it right re. what the IPCC did with the Darwin data”
Jennifer, firstly the IPCC did nothing with the Darwin data. Willis is referring to a file that existed on the NOAA site, created by Petersen, of adjusted GHCN data. There was also a file of unadjusted data, which GISS used (they did their own adjustments). It’s not clear even that anyone used the Darwin adjustments that Willis trumpeted. Maybe it went into the NOAA index (not HADCRUT). Certainly the IPCC had nothing to do with it.
But secondly, Petersen adjusted most stations for homogeneity; some went up, some down. As Luke linked, I looked here at the effect on all stations. There was a fairly even distribution, with only a slight warming bias. The whole picture is the one that matters, because these adjustments are only used in global or regional averages.
Darwin was an outlier. There were negative outliers too. I showed Coonabarrabran, which was adjusted with a downtrend change greater than Darwin’s uptrend. The distribution is essentially balanced.
Jen I’m sure someone more knowledgeable can explain in detail. But in essence, two different record series were spliced together and were adjusted to allow for the difference between the two. Willis claims that the adjustments are ‘bogus’. He must then have done his own analysis but using the raw data – I think Lambert claims that Willis has not admitted the discrepancy between the records and how it impacts the apparent trend. So Willis says that the raw data does not show a warming trend, but Lambert says it does once it is properly adjusted. I think the majority of discussion is in the comments which I’ve not read, nor have I read the original post by Willis.
On a related topic, this latest post on WUWT is a clear look at the global temp trend using HADCRUT4. I like it. Especially the blue curve…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/an-impartial-look-at-global-warming/#more-94473
Oops someone more knowledgeable has shown up! 🙂
I apologise if this is a subject that’s been done to death before, but on eyeballing the graph Nick links to I have to ask the obvious. Yes, there is a step change, but the original data shows a flat trend for both segments. Yet the post 1940 segment following adjustment shows a significant upward trend while the pre 1940 does not. Forgetting the relevance in global terms and focusing on just Darwin, what justification is there for those post 1940 adjustments? I assume that is the basis for the original discussion…
Graeme,
These are adjustments based on the statistics of the data – they do not refer to metadata. So no specific event was cited. It would be based on an apparent discrepancy relative to nearby observations.
As it happens, there were big changes in about 1940. The station moved from the Post Office to the airport.
But you can think of the process like this. They only adjust, normally, when a change of at least 1/2 deg is indicated, They probably figure their algorithm can’t usefully go finer. There are a few small changes which I think just relate to interpolating for gaps. The changes, whether based on real events or false alarms, are likely to be independent. So with, say, four or five changes in a century, it’s going to happen fairly often that they all go the same way. It’s like getting five heads in a row – a 1 in 32 chance. They had thousands of stations.
If you get a run of four 1/2 deg + changes, as with Darwin, that’s a 2 deg change, and inevitably, an uptrend. Same with – changes, as at Coona. If you go looking for outliers, you’ll find some.
Jen of course will wish to contain the debate to Darwin and not answer the bigger picture question. i.e. does it matter ?
“As it happens, there were big changes in about 1940. The station moved from the Post Office to the airport.”
Moving 9km to the airport is NOT big changes – the airport is still only 3km from the coast.
Here’s the Post office Data. Site 14016
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=014016&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Here’s the airport Data: Site 14015
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=014015&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Here’s the HQ data for the two combined:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=014015&dtype=anom&period=annual&ave_yr=T
Yes Jen Willis was right – the data has been fiddled with!
and yes – I’m aware I used only max temps – I couldn’t be bothered downloading all the data to get the mean – the charts speak for themselves.
Hi Nick; I thought you had retired and were travelling with Joe Hansen:-)
In respect of homogenisation, not just at Darwin, but over the BOM network Sherro recently asked a pertinent question:
“When temperatures are adjusted, is the anomaly expressed as different from the former mean of that reference period, or is there a re-calculation to give a new normal, assuming that values in the reference period have also been adjusted?
There used to be quite a few graphs where the span of the reference period was noted; but on inspection, the average of all values in that reference period was far from zero.”
Graeme’s question above is more than relevant given the homogenisation issues with first the HQ network and now ACORN; for instance, as I noted above, in the Technical Manual to ACORN homogenisation is described at Table 6 and Figure 19:
http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf
For purposes of true adjustment neutrality the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments over the whole of the particular temperature sites is not important.
The crucial point is whether those adjustments are neutral over the particular sites. Table 6 and Figure 19 do not tell us whether there has been equality of trend produced by the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments. That is because a particular site can be overall -vely adjusted but still have a +ve trend after the adjustment and, to a lessor extent because overall the trend has been increased or made +ve by the adjustments, vice-versa.
This appears to be the case with not only Darwin but with the majority of sites in first HQ and ACORN.
In other words the warming is a product of the adjustment.
Graeme M, Nick Stokes, Cohenite and John Sayers,
Thanks for all this information.
And a question that is important to me…
When I’m running my artificial neural network simulations I download data from the BOM website for specific localities. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
So, for example, for Brisbane I make my own composite maximum and minimum temperature records that I splice together myself from January 1887 to present using data from the Brisbane Regional Office (station 40214), Brisbane Aero (station 40223) and Brisbane (station 40913).
To what, if any extent, has this data been homogenised/adjusted even though I’m using records from individual sites and what I’m assuming is raw data?
I’ve also used the continuous monthly minimum and maximum temperature records that exist for Cairns (station 031011) over the period from 1910 to the present.
Has this data been adjusted/homogenised?
I’ve also used temperature data from Richmond (station 030045), beginning in 1893 through to the present.
How might this data have been adjusted?
Further, Did anyone (Warwich Hughes maybe) download and save the data for these sites sometime before about 2008? In other words, does anyone have the data for these sites as they presented before about 2008?
I’ll see if I can get either David Stockwell or Ken Stewart, both of whom have done extensive work with the BOM data, to drop in.
Jennifer,
I think what you have linked to is ACORN data and has been homogenised. Cohenite linked to the manual describing it.
If you go to the records like John Sayers linked, that you get from here, then I believe they are not homogenised. You can also use GHCN unadjusted (for GHCN stations).
Jen – that’s not the site to download data IMHO as they give you daily data in one huge stream of numbers.
Go to this site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
You can then select each station – make sure you click “all sites” as opposed to “only open sites”
Then open the data for each site. In the top right you’ll see a download data and it will appear as a string.
If you know excel you can then import it into ……….do you know excel? 🙂
Jen – it’s called phone a friend not 50:50. If you are doing detailed work with station data you would call David Jones or equivalent. Go to source. Not crowd source a “consensus” answer?
However the sceptics could do their own crowd funding analysis with no adjustments. Especially if you’re already in the $300K big oil funding (sorry couldn’t help it) range.
A bit of computing but here’s your high performance compute solution http://aws.amazon.com/ – provision yourself some HPC. Everyone is into this now – I’m sure Jen is. Even free trials available.
Get a copy of the raw climate records from 1870s till now. The lot for Australia.
Make a temperature interpolation for each day with ANUSPLIN or kriging or your interpolation poison of choice. So that simply uses whatever records are available on the day. Gets around station continuous record issues. No nasty adjustments at all !
Analyse temporal trends and report back. Some nice time series and maps perhaps.
I wonder what the answer will be 🙂 🙂 🙂
(Perhaps you’d better not do the analysis – might set you all off in warmism alarmist outbreak)
sure Luke.
Well John – you’ll all never be satisfied until you do it yourself will you. So get on and do it, instead of nit-picking and cherry picking. You’ll find what the rest of us know – but go ahead and do it anyway. Will be a good exercise for you.
John Sayers, Data in one long stream of numbers is a good idea when your running simulations. ;-). My interest is in the extent to which the data has been modified. I shall do some comparisons myself.
Luke, Phone a friend is overrated, it can mean no standards just mates.
Nick Stokes, Thanks. There is also data clearly labelled ACORN.
Not worried about some demonstrable warming. Pfft. Worried about tampering.
Gday Jen
As John said above, NEVER use HQ sites for anything worthwhile, nor Acorn if you can get out of it. The data you down load for Brisbane, Darwin, Cairns etc from HQ has been thoroughly tortured. Go to Climate Data Online and look up the data for each individual site, including closed stations. That should give you reasonably raw data (not pristine- it has been transcribed from paper records, and pre- September 1972 converted to Celsius, plus there are continuing “operational”adjustments.)
Daily data in one long stream is what I frequently use; monthly data is also useful.
If you would like to contact me I can give you a file of ‘raw’ daily data for Brisbane spliced together with my own manual adjustment calculated from overlap periods. You’ll see how much HQ and Acorn have been adjusted by BOM.
Ken
Thanks Ken and John; pristine temperature data is as rare as a good politician!
Good luck with that Jennifer. I just wish Willis or Bob or Warick would come here and give an update.
BTW a new OECD report that was due to come out after the election states that the OZ co2 price would have to be $70 a tonne to reduce our emissions by 5% by 2020.
Terry McCrann covered this at least 6 months ago in the HS and OZ.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labors_carbon_tax_had_to_rise_to_70/#commentsmore
That’s almost double the earlier estimate of treasury of $38 a tonne. But Labor has conned us once again and a pity this didn’t come out before we voted.
Yes Jen – of course – but depends who your friends are. Avoidance often leaves you remaining in the dark and wasting hours that one phone call could have solved.
AND WHAT IS THIS – Ken Stewart doing “adjustments” HEAVEN FORBID – we’ll have to report this to McIntyre for an audit. STOP THE BLOG !!!!!!!! HANDBRAKE TURN ….
I find it amusing that sceptics have not published their own comprehensive analysis of Australian temperature trends.
I won’t happen and we all know why !
Guerrilla warfare works best with harassing sporadic attacks. A station here – a station there …. Bit of misdirection is always good too.
Thanks Ken.
As we have discussed previously, I need long strings of temperature data for my simulations. And Luke makes a good point…. If you need to make adjustments… .
As we have also discussed at Rossyln Bay, changes that provide a gradual warming trend useful for political purposes, may be irrelevant to an ANN model.
One way to test would be to put both sets of data through the model and see which gives the better forecast. So if you would like to email me your ‘raw’, and also with your ‘adjustments’ for Cairns, Richmond and Brisbane… to my gmail account.
Luke,
If you, or one of your mates, has a better data set for monthly temperatures for those localities, you could also email it through. We could run some hindcasts comparing HQ with Ken’s etcetera?
Getting back to BOM adjustments; on page 5 of this BOM document:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT_Observation_practices_WEB.pdf
“A 60-year set of parallel observations at Adelaide (Fig. 3) showed a warm
bias in maximum temperatures measured using the Glaisher stand relative to those measured in
the Stevenson screen (Nicholls et al., 1996), that ranged from 0.2 to 0.6°C in annual means, and
reached up to 1.0°C in mean summer maximum temperatures and 2-3°C on some individual hot
days, most likely due to heat re-radiated from the ground, from which the floorless Glaisher
stand provides no protection. Minimum Glaisher stand temperatures tended to have a cool bias
of 0.2-0.3°C all year, and the diurnal temperature range thus has a positive bias”
Also of relevance is the 1994 paper by Parker:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Parker%20Int%20J%20Clim%2094.pdf
The Stevenson/Glaisher distinction and the conclusion that the Glaisher method of collecting data caused a warming bias has justified the COOLING of the early temperature data by BOM to compensate for this warming bias.
This cooling has INCREASED the trend in the homogenised data of the ACORN set.
The Glaisher stand is discussed in BOM Reports from 1992-3 and the 1994 paper by Parker.
Both the Reports and Parker paper conclude that this warming bias was in the order of 0.2C. However there was no consideration to the idea that the Stevenson screen was at fault or had inherent bias; the Glaisher screen warming bias was the default assumption.
The Parker paper says this:
“this bias, implied by comparisons between Stevenson screens and the tropical sheds then in use, is confirmed by comparisons between coastal land surface air temperatures and nearby marine surface temperatures, and was probably of the order of 0.2c.”
At 4.1 of the Parker paper it is noted that the Glaisher stand consistently records warmer than the Stevenson during the day at various locations around the world; but the conclusion that it is the Glaisher stand which is at fault is assumed; that is, it could be the Stevenson which has a cooling bias is not considered in the paper or Reports; there is, therefore, no Null Hypothesis, or rather the NUll that it is the Stevenson and not the Glaisher is not tested, merely assumed.
This is merely one aspect of the problematic nature of BOM temperature.
Flannery & Co’s clairvoyant Climate Council
“Say what you like about just-fired Australian Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery and his long record of false prophecies, but there are times when, like the broken clock that is correct twice a day, he really can get it right. One such moment appears to have occurred on August 16, some three weeks before Australians went to the polls and a month prior to last week’s announcement that the taxpayer-funded Climate Commission had been scuttled and Flannery’s $180,000-a-year part-time gig with it.”
——————————————————————————–
“On that day, with all the polls predicting Labor’s imminent defeat, the domain name australianclimatecouncil.org.au was registered by Holdfast Consulting, based at 9 Susan Street, Annandale. The website is now up and running, promising visitors that the Climate Council will be “a non-profit independent organisation which aims to provide clear, independent advice to the Australian community.” ”
“One of the genuinely encouraging things about Flannery’s new hobbyhorse, as he acknowledged in the same ABC interview, is that it will be much cheaper to run than the former taxpayer-funded model. “Under the government model we cost about $5.4 million over a four-year period [but] we think we can work leaner than that as a private group,” he said.
Funny, isn’t it, how thoughts of trimming costs are paramount only now, when it is not someone else’s money being spent?”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/09/flannery-co-s-clairvoyant-climate-council
”
Dodgy Geezer says:
September 24, 2013 at 10:30 am
@more soylent green!
…Well, if their beliefs are increasing, who are any of us to argue with that?…
IPCC Creed.
(appointed to be read at Climate Conferences)
I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.”
From comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/the-wuwt-hotsheet-for-tuesday-sept-24th-2013/#more-94481
Cohers – surely it’s not a matter of Glaisher versus Stevenson screen – simply that if they are different at the same air temperature on a day that that is an issue.
There is a general thread for those posting philosophy, attack dog comments, hate mail, humour and politics. Keep on theme guys and don’t spam threads with off-topic. (pls)
As I try to explain luke the Glashier was replaced because it allegedly was too hot; you have had a go at Warwick on this point in the past:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=604
However, no one seems to have considered whether the Stevenson is cool; although Warwick has an indirect shot here:
http://www.john-daly.com/screens.htm
If the BoM’s temperature creations are anything like its climate chief David Jones’ drought creations, they are definitely man made.
When chief scientists are capable of making wild, unscientific statements like this, is it possible they are capable of fudging the data?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html
“Funny, isn’t it, how thoughts of trimming costs are paramount only now, when it is not someone else’s money being spent?”
SP’s comments on the Quadrant article about Flannerys Climate Council having its web site already to go before the axe fell…
…and this followed up by Flannery saying to the public, that we can run it a lot cheaper than you silly bugger tax payers, who were gullible enough to pay us too much for doing and incompetent job, because we can use crowd funding and our links to the greenoidal NGOs.
What does that say about the influencers before, and what duplicitous bunch of academic carpet baggers we have in this country…
Flannery and his ilk should be barred from ANY tax payer funded jobs in the future for ever.
That scam makes my blood boil.
Perhaps Flannery and David Jones can make a joint prediction: Even the funding which falls won’t be enough to fill our troughs.
Take your rat dirt to the open thread.
St Luke doesn’t think that their motivation is at all questionable.
Doesn’t even consider that when phunding and philosophy go hand in hand there is cause for any scep.
What a guy!
“You could also get angry about terrorists in Kenya too. Suzuki isn’t gonna do anything to you really.”
If Suzuki gets this kind of desperado defense (off topic!), what won’t they do for the temperature ticklers? Oh, those friends are certainly being phoned!
Hi Jen
I’ll get onto it tomorrow afternoon, am busy until then.
Luke- (sigh)- yes adjustments need to be made carefully and judiciously to splice two sets of data only if they overlap by a lengthy period (BOM suggests 5 years but often uses much less e.g. 2 years or less) after comparing the two and adjusting the earlier set by the difference. This is the only justifiable reason for adjusting IMO.
By the way, care to show us your contribution?
Ken Stewart
Ken – I suggest you shouldn’t splice data together at all in the manner you are doing it as you are assuming differences for any time period will continue into the future. IMO the best way to proceed is to use whatever data you have an each day and calculate an interpolated surface using something like ANUSPLIN (or whatever). Then work an analysis on the interpolated surfaces.
And also you could additionally patch the real station data series gaps with interpolated surface data to keep as much “real” data as possible.
These guys might even help you http://www.kaggle.com/ 🙂
So instead of playing bumper cars and sill buggers with BoM and pot shotting exceptions – why not do a serious full analysis of the nation and post your full work and methods online.
Surely you want to know the full answer. Once you have computed you can undertake spatial analyses, trend analyses, extreme event analysis etc.
You have numerate sceptics, gurus of historical trivia like Glaisher stands vs Stevenson screens – Robert here has a major anecdote database for every occasion, cloud HPC resources if needed to make interpolations and allow collaboration at distance.
And from the staggering sum of $300K mentioned previously as the sort of help money floating around – what’s stopping you?
Why spend your time taking pot shots when you can do the grand tour.
Where’s the anti-ACORN?
Just translating here: by “anecdote” I think he means “stuff that actually happened”. If you saw the rainfall for 1902 or the temps for 1915 in my neck of the woods – just as examples – you might mistake all that for data, whereas it’s just more stuff that happened. Anecdotes.
If, however, the two first digits in those dates happened to be 2 and 0…then get your “extreme event analysis” going, guys! And there’ll even be allowance for the odd poetic expression, such as Frankenheat and Superdrought.
“Further, Did anyone (Warwich Hughes maybe) download and save the data for these sites sometime before about 2008? In other words, does anyone have the data for these sites as they presented before about 2008?”
Jennifer – I might be confusing what you’re after but your message piqued my interest and I found some HQ folders I downloaded a few years back which ended 2008, just annual rather than daily data.
As far as I can make out, the BoM’s HQ directory (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/) is just a more convoluted way to get exactly the same information for the same locations as from their ACORN directory (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-&-network), the only difference being that the HQ files end March 2013 whereas the ACORN files end December 2012.
HQ 2008 and HQ/ACORN 2012 annuals are significantly different. I charted Cairns, Richmond and Brisbane Aero at http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/hq-comparison-2008-12.gif. The charts are basically a comparison of how ACORN adjusts temps since 1910 vs how HQ used to do it … reality may or may not be somewhere in between.
The unbearable adhoc-ness of temperature adjust-meants.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/
Chris Gillham, You understood my “message”. Thank you so much for charting Cairns, Richmond and Brisbane Aero. And I now feel sick.
Thank you, Chris. Interesting reading.
Sigh – so you can spend your life chasing BoM around or do your own grand analysis and tell us the answer !
Luke,
Do me a favour and tell me where I can find the data that was up at the HQ sites pre-ACORN and other recent adjustments i.e. adjustments that were made since about 2007/08?
Do not tell me that they didn’t keep a copy of the data that had been sitting there for decades unadjusted before Jones, and mates, started fiddling.
Yes, we can set up our own BOM or CRU. While getting angry about Nairobi. The great ideas just keep coming.
Why the conspiratorial tone Jen – it’s simply tedious and hardly professional. It’s all in ADAM. Why don’t the sceptics have their own copy by now and why continually try to crowd source information fragments for try-ons.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/sites.shtml tells you about ADAM and http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data-services/ gives you contacts to obtain all manner of data.
Yes Robert – we could have a room for you to tell stories in.
Gosh. A BoM website.
Golly.
“As Luke linked, I looked here at the effect on all stations. There was a fairly even distribution, with only a slight warming bias. The whole picture is the one that matters, because these adjustments are only used in global or regional averages.”
Steirou & Koutsoyiannis also looked at the effect of homogenization. They found ‘warming’ adjustments outnumbered ‘cooling’ by a two to one ratio. They conclude their results “cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212/
Sometimes there is more than one adjusting going on. For example, the temperature trend for Dawson, Yukon Territory over the 20th century was 4.4°C according to the GHCN. However, according to the Canadians (the HCCN) the temperature trend was only 1.4°C per century. Who ya’ gonna believe?
D’Arrigo, a tree-ring expert whose work is quoted in the AR4, wrote a paper on the divergence problem where trees don’t show the temperature increase in the modern era. In it he has an interesting side note. The authors write:
“A divergence between temperature and tree growth was also investigated at an elevational treeline temperature-sensitive white spruce site (Twisted-Tree-Heartrot Hill; TTHH) in the Yukon Territory….D’Arrigo et al. (2004) utilized a version of the Dawson instrumental temperature record that had been adjusted for inhomogeneities (Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN)….
“However, the corrected Dawson station data from the Historical Canadian Climate Database (HCCN, Vincent and Gullett, 1999) have less pronounced positive trends than the GHCN version used in D’Arrigo et al. (2004a). Fig. 2 illustrates the differences between these climate records which have been corrected from the same unadjusted data.”
Now, Figure 2 shows shows a GHCN temperature trend of 4.42°C/century and a HCCN trend of 1.38°C/century, a difference of 3x. Not knowing the true warming rate of Dawson was causing calibration problems.
More adjustments and fiddling of temp records anyone?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/#more-94616
Yes Neville,
From your link, with IPCC AR5 and Cancun approaching, they have to cook the books because this is all about wealth redistribution and also because, doncha realise, we’ve stolen the world’s atmo.
When you run on models filled with mad assumptions based on fraudulent data adjustments you can leap to whatever conclusions you like.
“(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
Check out
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/rainfall/drought/6month/colour/latest.gif
Now, with 60% of Qld drought declared, is there a second set of books or “How come?”
H/T
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/latest-from-the-australian-permanent-drought/
and also note this comment
“John B., M.D. says:
September 25, 2013 at 2:18 am
Steve – What is even more interesting is that the data preceding the Jan 4, 2008 article showed no drought in south eastern Australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20080107.shtml”
“
Neville on adjustments and fiddling WUWT 2013/09/25.
Say, there’s a fine line between adjustments ter reality, (siting issues,)
and adjustments fer advocacy ( protecting the hockey stick meme,)
but its an important line.
Jen, just a note, stations numbers starting with 0 are HQ or Acorn sites.
i.e Darwin airport is Site 14015 but the new version is Site 014015
The HQ sites are here
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
The Acorn Sites are here
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-&-network
and the original data is here
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
McIntyre backs up Lucia and Curry etc in their pursuit of the BSh…ing IPCC cover up and excuses.
Some good graphs to look at and consider. VG comment ftom McKitrick as well in comments.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/#more-18392
Let’s hope that when this version 5 BS is officially released the blogger baseball bats are ready to smash it up quickly.
But the pre release efforts have been good so far. Go Steve, Judy, Lucia, Ross etc.
A rather topical post on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/#more-94616
This lack of warming since 1997 seems to be driving some extremists mad. But the Bolter cleans up Hamilton nicely.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ethicist_clive_hamilton_scores_zero_from_four_as_he_ups_the_abuse/#commentsmore
Good comment from Ross McKitrick.
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
Just proves in one paragraph what a corrupt mob of liars and donkeys these people are. They get zip correct for decades but still claim to be 95% sure it’s attributable to humans.
Of course the Labor and Green ABC will support them by telling every lie in the book and expect the bleeding taxpayers to increase funding on the mitigation fraud.
Neville you are a stupid fraudlent imbecile. If you can’t see the 95% for the 5% you are a frigging idiot.
McKitrick – wreally ! What a ranter. Bolt – what a joke !
It’s time to man up Neville and realise you are out of your intellectual depth and dining daily on pig slop.
You have no alternative explanation for the recent 20th century warming. NONE ! Palaeo research not modelling puts climate sensitivity right on 3C.
Of course a stupid twit like you won’t even have read the report. But that’s the sort of stupid git you are.
Try reading something decent for a change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
It does actually help to have read what you are disparaging instead of being a pigs-slop dining denier blog aficionado. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Luke – please wipe the spittle from your snout.
Btw – I’m surprised you have not referred us to Skeptical Science – you know, the site you think is “sciencey” – the place where Dana writes rubbish like 97% of “scientists” agree that climate changes. Hohoho!.
I’m 97% sure they think there’s a 95% chance that stuff is worse than we thought, only less so. Or something like that.
“Over the years, the IPCC has behaved like a treed cat. Instead of closing its eyes and scurrying to the ground, it climbs onto even higher and thinner branches, while yowling ever louder. How does it back down from a quarter-century of predicting a quarter of a degree (Celsius) of warming every decade, when there’s been none for 17 years now?”
“Since the beginning of 2011, at least 16 separate experiments published by nearly 50 researchers show that the “sensitivity” of temperature to carbon dioxide that is characteristic of the IPCC’s climate models is simply too high. “Sensitivity” is the amount of temperature change expected for a nominal doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipcc-political-suicide-pill
🙂 🙂
I need that like button Robert!
I believe without a doubt that the world and its climate/weather/environments would be different if there was no such thing as humans.
Of course humanity influences the climate/weather/environment! Uh DUH!
The argument that it is worse because there is such a thing as humans influencing/impacting the climate/weather/environment is:
a) Misanthropic &
b) Ridiciculous and/or straight out dumb!
Who would know if it would be better or worse without human influence FFS?
Much thanks. But the “Open Thread” is the place for general discussion… including about the new IPCC report and I’ve just posted some links there.
Geezzz Luke what a clueless rant. McKitrick helped to expose the fraudulent HS that you fanatical donkeys thought was just dandy.
The temp has flatlined for at least 15 years while co2 has soared thanks to the non OECD and yet you still believe in CAGW.
Well just because you want to be a fool it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be. Everything McKitrick said above is factual, but we wouldn’t expect you to understand now would we?
What a clueless rant from a bunch of scientifically illiterate prawns. None of you have read the document – don’t bother it’s above grade 7 level.
Stupid drongo Neville disregards the 95% for the 5%. What a great big dope.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
More on no warming bunk http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/jail-time-for-noticing-its-warming-good-lord/
Speaking of hockey sticks have you actually read anything besides the pig slop blogs you frequent – like some real science on the PAGES-2K synthesis http://www.pages-igbp.org/ If you had you would know that there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-pages-2k-synthesis/
But you don’t coz your’re too stupid for words.
What a clueless rant Luke! No warming – yes NO warming – even your wood for trees post show it in clear terms. NO warming!
last 10 years Luke.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/trend
That IS a strange plot you linked to Luke, what was the point? You score an own goal, as Neville shows. Here it is from just a year later than you chose to start:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
And how about from 1991?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1991/plot/rss/from:1991/trend
That’s about .1C/decade which was exactly the point that Rose made.
And that last trend depends on the big El Nino of 1998, what would it be had that been rather more average?
Luke I’ll stick with the sane scientists like Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Carter etc plus the thousands that signed the Oregon petition.
But I also believe in common sense and simple maths and simple logic and reasoning. You don’t but that’s your problem not mine.
You can quote all the others until you drop but you’ll never wake up until you admit you’re wrong about the AGW mitigation fraud.
I couldn’t care less whether your side yaps forever about AGW, but don’t expect me to believe in the trillions dollar fraud and con of mitigation.
Of course Labor thinks we should DO SOMETHING and yet on the other side of their brain they promote and encourage fossil fuel exports at ever increasing tonnages every year.
This con and fraud couldn’t be easier to understand and yet you still don’t get it. Labor under Gillard even tried to get the Vic Coalition govt to export modified brown coal by the millions of tonnes, but you still don’t get it. As big as the Pilbara they said—– bi-polar anyone?
The German govt woke up after wasting over a hundred billion on renewables for decades, but they’re now using brown coal again.
It doesn’t seem to to have hurt Merkel too much because they have just received their best vote in about 50 years and the Greens slumped.
Another excellent post about model failure from Bob Tisdale showing the actual data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/models-fail-land-versus-sea-surface-warming-rates/#more-94828
Moronic – there’s been periods of “no warming” before – what frigging stupid comments. Half your scientist list is a joke Neville. A total joke of stupid old codgers. The bloke down the pub might as well signed it.
“common sense and simple maths and simple logic and reasoning” HAHAHAHAHAH – well why are you a science illiterate idiot then?
And look at stupid Sayers now graphing 10 years. More importantly John lets look at the last 5 years – up up up and up ! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
OHC is increasing. Energy has to go somewhere. And if you had brains at all which you clearly don’t, you’d recognise climate variability of Kosaka and Xie when you see in their tour de force paper
What else have we got – Arctic ice volume down down down
Frequency of heat waves up, heavy precip events up
Glaciers shrinking worldwide
Greenland and Antarctica losing mass nett. And the rate increasing.
Extent northern hemisphere snow cover decreasing over whole 20th century
Sea level in the last interglacial 5-10 m higher than present
Ocean pH reducing
But the clowns can’t see anything. That’s coz you’re deniers.
Graeme M – well there’s good reason that the 1998 El Nino was more than average, coming on a period of rapid temperature increase. So I simply excluded it in my wood for trees. Graeme you can play any games you like with line segments and get into statistical chicanery – however it isn’t getting any cooler is it. Especially in Australia in our neutral ENSO year.
But as for Sayers braying – try something much more robust as a statistical analysis http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/jail-time-for-noticing-its-warming-good-lord/
Luke how do much higher SLs and temps in the last interglacial help your argument? In fact the previous 4 IGs were warmer than the holocene. And pop of humans was zip, so why is our holocene cooler?
Judith Curry has written one of her best columns and concludes that the IPCC must be PUT DOWN.
Excellent idea indeed from a very sane scientist. Her bravery exposing this delusional fraud is something to be admired.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/#more-13142
It really has been a hot September. Not as hot as 1965, but hot.
It’s been quite a warm year. Not near as warm as 1915, but warm. Bring back the cool summers of….well 2010-2011!
It’s been dry this September, but not nearly as dry as September 1907.
Now we need rain badly here. Nothing like as bad as 1902 (or 1888 down in Sydney – that was dry!). But we sure need rain. No Gaia, don’t exaggerate and do that “heavy precip” 1950 thing again! Just some nice rain, please.
It’s such a naughty world. Everything’s worse than we thought. And judging by the 1790s long El Nino, it can get worse than worse than we thought. HELP!
Again not sure what you hope to show with the reference to Lucia’s analysis Luke. OK, so with enough statistical wrangling we can establish that there IS in fact a slight warming during a period for which Monckton claims no warming.
But it’s not Monckton’s claims we are considering, is it? Rather, it’s the extent to which warming is matching the claims of alarm. Even Lucia’s analysis doesn’t show ‘catastrophic’ warming and doesn’t match the earlier projections of our erstwhile IPCC. In fact, as pretty much all of the plots you’ve shown so far demonstrate, the warming trend is less than IPCC projections. And more importantly, obs are at the bottom end of the projected scale for anything remotely approaching a BAU scenario.
Heck, obs are even slightly lower than Hansen’s Scenario C.
In fact Spencer and Christy called the models a failure of epic proportions. The graph trend line for models and co2 levels go up since 1997 while the obs flatline. What a mess.
The Bolt report today is a beauty and his editorial on the failure of the IPCC projections is first class.
He gives us a view of the donkey parade as these fools condemn themselves one after the other. It is repeated at 4 pm or can be viewed at his site this afternoon.
That’s well put Graeme,
It is indeed the correlation and associated alarmism that is under question. The assumption is that there is a direct correlation with increasing ACO2 and that did underpin much of the projective modelling that the IPCC used in 2007. ACO2 has increased sharply yet the weather/climate has not responded as predicted/projected.
And Luke,
It isn’t only climate scientists who can use and understand statistics. Projective modelling is not a new or mysterious or elite discipline. The technology has got fancier but the basic principles have not changed. There are plenty of ‘blokes down the pub’ who can easily understand the methodology and the differences that can be created by using varying start/stop points and/or focusing on different variables, inputs or forcing. A lot of ‘blokes down the pub’ run their own successful businesses and use statistical modelling as a very useful tool.
Luke experiences a little warmth and he discovers the SLs in his bed starting to rise.
To save himself he climbs on his high horse and berates us about CC denial.
Plus the wonders of the grace gravymeter which, with continuous adjustment, will tell us anything we like.
Plus the increasing OHC. The 0.06c over the last 50-odd years in the bottom of the oceans which was conjured up to fix the “Trenberth Travesty” even though unmeasurable, no error bars quoted, and meaningless.
Plus Arctic ice volume [which strangely he agrees with McKitrick on], except that it is one thing McKitrick was too generous about and has increased by ~ 60% this summer over last summer.
Plus the rest of McKitricks list.
When it is so obvious to any logical and/or critical person that the IPCC is so wrong about so much [including, as Graeme says, being 70% out with their short term temperature projections] how can they honestly claim to know to within 95% certainty that we are responsible?
OHC is technically going up, but within the error margins:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/
That’s according to David Evans who can do a Fourier analysis of OHC trends; I can’t do a Fourier analysis, can you luke?
3 great excuses:
1. The dog ate my home work
2. The cheque is in the mail
3. The heat is in the ocean deep
For Beth Cooper:
Oh my dark Rosaleen, do not sigh, do not weep!
Heat mixes on the ocean green, but hides along the deep.
(apologies to James Clarence Mangan)
“Technically” is probably right cohers but if it takes 4,000c of atmo heat to warm the oceans 1c, AGW could still be a while off:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/diy-ocean-heating
And any warming we may currently be seeing could be conjecture.
Why didn’t the heat disappear into the oceans before the pause – we could have had one big long pause from 1945 or earlier.
Thanks for the Judith Curry article Neville. It’s a gem.
“The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.”
Thx fer the pome sp,
Say, the un-locatable heat of ocean-warming,
The un-precedented record (not) of hockey-stick-warming.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm
Beth the serf.
Well it will be the greatest laugh (unfortunate;y) when we have a few ENSO events and the warming resumes – in fact I think it will be open season on sceptics for criminally delaying any action. What a bunch of dopes that can only see the 5% and not the 95%.
Has Evans published anything NUH ! So all just boring blog slops.
And Joan of Arc herself has made some many blues including crap papers lately it’s getting to be a joke now.
Listen to Neville “her bravery” … barf !
But here’s some good sites to like
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/10304266182/ “1,000,000 Strong Against Andrew Bolt”
A rant I posted on Climate Etc 9/11/12 )
The IPCC is a flawed organization, with a pre-determined mission ter understand
‘human -induced’ climate change. Its insider decision making circle of AGW
environmentalists is weighted ter Greenpeace and WWF fer Nature, with young
unpublished researchers fast-tracked to Lead Authorship. Confirmation bias is built
in. If yer read McKittrick’s detailed documentation on the IPCC, the scales should
drop from yer eyes. Also the Climategate leaked emails, which are primary evidence,
in context, revealing the efforts of the climate scientists ter conceal and fudge the
flawed data, block FOI and gate-keep the Science journals. Oh, and their models are
not data, they are guesses about complex, multi-variable, compluh-compluh-compluh-
cated climate by climatologists in cloud towers, wo while away the tenured hours ,
modelling, hind-casting, projecting and imagining … they understand.
Time ter git rid of the IPCC
Beth-the-serf.)
Ha ha “1,000,000 Strong Against Andrew Bolt” Pathetic Luke.
It has 4,678 members 🙂
So Evans hasn’t published – neither have you so obviously we shouldn’t listen to you.
Luke says—-
“Well it will be the greatest laugh (unfortunate;y) when we have a few ENSO events and the warming resumes – in fact I think it will be open season on sceptics for criminally delaying any action”
So wimpy Luke tell us the action we’re delaying? What is it we in OZ could do that would help arrest your CAGW?
I’ve shown repeatedly that both Labor and the Coalition couldn’t give a stuff about increasing co2 emissions so why should the electorate?
We understand this concept sort of hurts your brain, but if you can’t put up then please shut up. Cowards are 2 bob a dozen.
BTW good to observe your real totalitarian self showing itself AGAIN in that paragraph above. I must be weakening but I’m sort of looking forward to the LDP, Family first, Pup etc taking their place in the senate from july next year.
I wonder if Jennifer knows about this fellow David Leyonhjelm from the LDP? I would think that Jennifer and Jo Nova would be happy to see a libertarian take his place in the senate? Certainly beats Labor and the Greens by a long way.
Bolt has provided a transcript of the interview with David.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bolt_report_tomorrow20/
Luke
What if it doesn’t happen Luke, will there be an open season on warmists?
And what’s with this criminally delaying any action. I thought you agreed, the carbon price was useless.
What other actions are you proposing then?
A good interview with Bob Carter on the BBC.
During the interview he calls the 95% probability hocus pocus science. Good onyer Bob and it’s pleasing to see the BBC talk to a rational, sane scientist for a change.
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/bob-carter-95-is-hocus-pocus-science/
Geez, luke, are you desperate and dateless or what?! Watchingthedeniers with the likes of John Byatt; talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Luke: What a bunch of dopes that can only see the 5% and not the 95%.
“Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number. Here is the exchange that I had with him:
Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?
Judith Curry: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.
Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.
JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.
Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?
JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.
JC conclusion: Well, I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory. 95% – take it with a grain of salt (or a stiff whiskey). That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it. Uncertain T. Monster is not happy.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-sausage-factory-95-figure-meat/
I am interested in Luke’s comment about criminally delaying action too.
What action has been criminally delayed?
It sounds like Luke believes in some type of conspiracy or white hat/black hat melodrama.
Who would these criminally delayed people/organisations be?
What is the wondeful plan that has been criminally delayed by the evil sceptics and/or deniers?
sp at 11.22… I’m quoting you at Facebook. Good three. cheers,