Today’s Weekend Australian includes an article that begins:
“Iconic, ailing Australian satirist Clive James has penned a savage essay on climate change alarmism, controversially cooking everyone from Barack Obama to Kevin Rudd to Tim Flannery to Al Gore to Donald Trump in the boiled and rising ocean of his wit…”
The essay in The Inquirer section of the same newspaper is an extract from chapter 22 of the book I have been working on for many months now.
Contributors to Climate Change: The Facts 2017 do not conform to a unitary view. As I explain in the book’s introduction:
“An advantage of my approach in the compiling of the chapters for this book – an approach where there has been no real attempt to put everything into neat boxes – is that there are many surprises. I am referring to the snippets of apparently anomalous information scattered through the chapters. These can, hopefully, one day, be reconciled. As this occurs, we may begin to see the emergence of a coherent theory of climate – where output from computer-simulation models bears some resemblance to real-world measurements that have not first been ‘homogenised’.
“There are many chapters in this book about ‘homogenisation’ (chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 by Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, Dr Tom Quirk, Jo Nova and me, respectively). Homogenisation, in essence, involves the remodelling of data, and is now a technique integral to the development of key official national and global measures of climate variability and change – including those endorsed by the IPCC.
It is generally stated that without homogenisation temperature series are unintelligible. But Dr Jaco Vlok from the University of Tasmania and I dispute this – clearly showing that there exists a very high degree of synchrony in all the maximum temperature series from the State of Victoria, Australia – beginning in January 1856 and ending in December 2016 (chapter 10). The individual temperature series move in unison suggesting they are an accurate recording of climate variability and change. But there is no long-term warming trend. There are, however, cycles of warming and cooling, with the warmest periods corresponding with times of drought.
Indeed, some climate sceptics consider the homogenisation technique used in the development of the official temperature trends to be intrinsically unscientific. They consider homogenisation a technique designed to generate output consistent with the computer-simulation models, which, in turn, are integral to the belief that there are consistent year-on-year temperature increases – contrary to the actual measurements. Temperature series that are a product of homogenisation could be considered ‘alternative facts’ – although, ironically, this is a term newly minted by those who generally agree with these self-same homogenised (remodelled) temperature constructs.”
Climate Change: The Facts 2017 is available for pre-order http://thefacts2017.ipa.org.au
Media enquiries should be directed to the IPA’s Media and Communications Manager, Evan Mulholland on 0405 140 780 or emulholland@ipa.org.au
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A great read; and I’m glad you’re back blogging.
Hi Jennifer,
it occurred to me whilst re-reading A W Montford’s book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” that homogenisation of recorded temps is not dissimilar to the way proxy readings were outrageously and selectively tortured by Mann et al to achieve their “hockey stick” graph effect.
No matter how you look at it, there is real cause for scepticism about claimed warming when the temperature butchers have their thumbs on the scales.
I just read the article by Clive James, who I am pleased to say looks remarkably well in the attached photo, despite his desperately poor health, in today’s Australian. Wonderful writing and spot on regarding the CAGW alarmists. I was interested (and saddened) to learn from it that Clive had focused on poetry for the past few years because it avoided his frustration with the Leftist mainstream media, but very glad that he has found the strength for one more foray against the dark forces. Looking forward to your book, Jennifer.
Looking forward to reading the new book. Great news on Paris. Keep up your great work Jennifer.
Great to see your name on the new book Jennifer. I will get a copy straight away.
You’re in great company and we are fortunate to have the benefit of your dedication, knowledge and integrity on the subject of world climate change.
GeoffW
Mick in the hills. Now that temperatures have paused for twenty years Mann’s hockey stick fiddle is even more obviously wrong with a handle at both ends.
How silly people look that still defend it.
Looking forward to the book Jennifer. Thanks for doing it.
Lance Pidgeon
Global warming. Probably the biggest banking scam and transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history in history. This is what sustains it through the lies and the failures.
http://www.scrapthetrade.com
I would imagine ‘homogenisation’ difficult in Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass ,when the temps are mostly estimated and the continent has been flagged up as needing 5000 automatic temp stations.
WMO- “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface
air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear
regional assessment for Africa could not
be based on any of the three standard global
surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC,
NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, the
combination of the Global Historical Climatology
Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
Research Laboratory was used to estimate
surface air temperature patterns”
Moreover the WMO have flagged up that 70 countries have substandard temp data.
The western climate change alarmists have already done a great deal of damage with their very foolish and very costly actions regarding make believe climate change.
This is an excellent and easy to believe article. The Paris agreement is another of the great big make believe climate change frauds. Climate change is no different now to what it has been for centuries, although some claim for millenia, not just centuries.
Any extra CO2 in the air has helped increase crop yields to help feed the world.
If Turnbull does not pull out of the Paris accord and stop wasting more borrowed money on make believe climate change he will lose the next election even more badly than he already will
I also quote words which were amongst the very many which highlighted this issue and summed up the many problems the world faces today including the make believe climate change , and I quote…….
“ There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now.
A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media,”………
Edited comment
The western climate change alarmists have already done a great deal of damage with their very foolish and very costly actions regarding make believe climate change.
The James article was an excellent and easy to believe article. The Paris agreement is another of the great big make believe climate change frauds. Climate change is no different now to what it has been for centuries, although some claim for millenia, not just centuries.
Any extra CO2 in the air has helped increase crop yields to help feed the world.
If Turnbull does not pull out of the Paris accord and stop wasting more borrowed money on make believe climate change he will lose the next election even more badly than he already will
I also quote words which were amongst the very many which highlighted the James article and summed up the many problems the world faces today including the make believe climate change , and I quote…….
“ There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now.
A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media,”………
Is part of the problem with psuedo scienific publications that in the academic professions people are required to go into print several times a year when they haven’t anything at all to say and hence write drivvel or go along with the most recent fad?
Brilliant Jennifer, looking forward to your book.
Inviting Clive James to contribute is a stroke of genius. The great man is sceptical of everything and offers an insightful expose of his own industry. He details in clear terms the decline of print media and it’s mad rush to attract readership, invariably by promoting whatever sensationalist item they can come up with next to adorn the front page.
He also points out that it’s people like you, Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, our own Paul Homewood, and the many other sceptics who devote a considerable time of their life to presenting facts invariable buried by the MSM. You convincingly threaten them with modest blogs, no wonder they maintain their apocalyptic stance, it’s the only way they can sell papers.
Good for Clive to confine his acerbic comments to his profession, who are as guilty of perpetuating the climate myth as the scientists you guys continue to expose.
So great to hear from you! Please let us know when the book will be ready and how to get it.
An example of their ‘homogenisation’.
Checking the NSW climate summary for May, it claims that the max mean anomaly was 1.1C above average.
Yet checking the actual anomaly averages for individual sites, only a dozen or so sites out of 140 odd show an anomaly of above 1.1C.
I averaged the anomalies of all sites and found it to be around 0.4C.
I averaged the 20+ ACORN stations and it worked out just under 0.6C.
I can only presume they base the average against an 1961-1990 average mean and infill areas based on a nearby ACORN station (as one area – District 73 – which is basically below average is shaded as above average).
I would like to know how the BoM calculates these averages as they do not seem to reflect the actual temps.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml
Looking forward to the read. Excellent excerpts by Clive James in “The Australian”.
After the April USA solar-induced blackouts, a Nobel nominated proposal for Earth shield vs all space threats (as NASA and ESA also accept now*), as f. Dean of the NASA-ESA Int. Space Univ. Dr Pelton plans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5lCCjVTBw
Now, after the April USA solar-induced blackouts, a Nobel nominated proposal for Earth shield vs all space threats (as NASA and ESA also accept now*), as f. Dean of the NASA-ESA Int. Space Univ. Dr Pelton plans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5lCCjVTBw
Hi Jennifer,
Congratulations on getting your book into print. I am sure it will be a raging success. Has anyone secured the film rights?
However I must take issue with your statement above that “ It is generally stated that without homogenization temperature series are unintelligible”. Stated by whom? This sounds like a statement from a ‘strawperson’.
A more generally accepted statement is from the relevant Wiki (you can’t get more general than that). “Homogenization is the removal of non-climatic changes. Next to changes in the climate itself, raw climate records also contain non-climatic jumps and changes for example due to relocations or changes in instrumentation which need to be compensated for”. No mention of the requirement for intelligibility.
In this context I do still have some reservations about the work of one of your co-authors, Jaco Vlok .
I seem to recall that we had a vigorous discussion regarding the merits of Vlok’s trend calculations and other related matters early in the year ( see the comments on your blogs of January 6 and again on January 22nd).
At the time I came to the somewhat obvious conclusion that Vlok had incorporated into his average, short term records for a number of colder on average sites (such as Falls creek, Mount Hotham etc. ) predominantly for the post 1990 data set which of course horribly distorts the trend.
I asked in January if Vlok’s data and calculations could be posted to verify this and this request was unsurprisingly ignored .
Now that you have mentioned his name again , I did a search for Vlok’s data (which proved to be non -existent) but found an unpublished paper of his at the University of Tasmania at http://eprints.utas.edu.au/23461/ .
I do hope this paper is not the basis of the Vlok contribution to your book.
Looking at this paper confirmed my earlier suspicions. Figure 4a in the paper gives the game away. It shows a relatively large number of short period (compared to prior years) data sets for colder regions , post about 1990. These sites are about 10 to 12 degrees cooler than the overall and have forced the average temperature down for this period. There are also a range of sites that a are 5 -10 degrees cooler that are added around this period and the decrease post 1990 is also evident in the average curve.
However to his credit, Vlok has had an epiphany sometime between January 22nd and April 13 ( the date of his unpublished paper).
In his paper he does refer to this issue, in passing. on page 23 where he states “As was shown in Fig. 8, a number of cold stations were commissioned in the early 1990s, which will inevitably reduce the average temperature values for the period where these new stations are included. However, by removing all these cold stations, the average temperature trend is still below the ACORNSAT trend shown in Fig. 12.”
Unfortunately he does not appear to state what the new trend is (maybe I missed it) and what stations were removed!
Finally in his discussion section (page 24) he again refers to this issue and he states “For example (as already mentioned), in Victoria a number of cold Alpine stations were opened in the early 1990s. Inclusion of these cold stations in the sensor network reduces the average temperature, causing a seeming cooling trend from before the 1990s – which could be deceiving.”
Yes finally something I am in total agreement with! In this context, the trend he calculated is totally and utterly deceiving.
I am reluctant to take credit for inspiring the above comments in his April paper because Jaco Vlok seems to be smart enough to realize there was such an obvious deficiency in his calculations.
if however he wasn’t aware of the deficiency then he should at least have realized something was amiss as the individual trends for about 80% of the sites are positive (based on the 40 sites I analyzed). Also the fact that his trends are contrary to, not only the BOM , Berkeley Earth but also to anything published by such esteemed authors such Marohasy and Abbott, Ken Stewart etc. should also have raised the alarm bells.
If Jaco indeed was aware of this issue, then this raises the the question . Why didn’t he inform Jennifer that the trend graph which was highlighted in her first January article was essentially nonsense? Maybe it was just an oversight.
It is also mystifying is that even in his April paper, even after his epiphany, he does not attempt to correct matters by converting his temperatures into anomalies before calculating the trend. After all this is the standard climatological way of handling data and is also the accepted technique in a range of scientific and economic disciplines to avoid biasing the trend.
Despite my criticism ,I must however commend Jaco Vlok for the amazingly diligent job in downloading 290 stations from the BOM site (my patience ran out at around 40). In comparison with this sterling effort, it would have been a trivial exercise to calculate the anomalies. What a pity.
One can only surmise why he has not or presumably will not. Is ideology getting in the way or is it a desire not to disappoint those who are his current advocates?
Mike
“Homogenization is the removal of non-climatic changes. Next to changes in the climate itself, raw climate records also contain non-climatic jumps and changes for example due to relocations or changes in instrumentation which need to be compensated for”.
And if that was all it was, maybe fair enough.
This does not explain the following.
For Bourke in January, 1939, the ACORN data shows a change to temps for every day of that month.
All the +30C have been reduced (some by more than 0.7C) and those below have been increased (by 0.1C).
Bourke 1939
Jan raw ACORN
1st 38.9 38.4
2nd 40 39.1
3rd 42.2 41.9
4th 38.1 37.9
5th 38.9 38.4
6th 41.7 41.5
7th 41.7 41.5
8th 43.4 43
9th 46.1 45.7
10th 48.3 47.9
11th 47.2 46.8
12th 46.2 45.8
13th 45.7 45.3
14th 46.1 45.7
15th 47.2 46.8
16th 46.7 46.3
17th 40 39.1
18th 40.1 39.1
19th 40 39.1
20th 41.9 41.7
21st 42.5 42.1
22nd44.2 43.8
23rd 36.7 36.5
24th 40.3 39.2
25th 36.6 36.5
26th 29.4 29.5
27th 29.3 29.4
28th 28.8 28.9
29th 30.6 30.5
30th 35.6 35.4
31st 38.6 38.3
Highest daily 48.3 47.9
Lowest daily 28.8 28.9
Monthly mean 40.4 40.03
Lots of moving, changes to thermometers that month.
Raw
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=122&p_stn_num=048013&p_c=-461092036&p_startYear=1939
ACORN
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.048245.daily.txt
“Non-climatic changes” I guess that means that the ever elusive “climate change signal” is a disclosure label that is discretely tucked away on a temperature reading that only the orthodox believing scientist can discern.