Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

2005 Not Hottest Year: Warwick Hughes

By

Dear Jennifer,

I have just posted updated temperature anomaly maps for 2005 from CRU (Jones) and satellite data from UAH (Christy) and both disagree with the Australian Bureau of Meterology (BOM) in that they indicate 1998 was warmer than 2005 for Australia, click here and also here.

Best wishes,

Warwick Hughes

……..

Thanks Warwick.

………………………….

I have previously posted on the BOM claim 2005 was hottest, click here.

I have not yet ‘digested’ Warwick’s findings. Have the CRU and UAH adjusted for the ‘heat island effect’ and should they?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. Ian Mott says

    So how much atmospheric and ocean warming needs to take place to raise average soil/rock/crust temperatures by 1 degree? That is net of albedo.

    Note, Warwick has supplied a rebuttal, not a “falsification”, a detailed and specific rebuttal.

  3. Phil Done says

    Very clever – but what is wrong with the Bureau’s analysis – preumably they’ve used their high quality network which we have all been informed about – is Warwick saying the network is no good or the analysis is wrong.

    Needs some detailed information on what has gone into each analysis.

  4. Louis Hissink says

    One very technical reason why the BOM gets the reults it does, along with other Global Temperature estimators is that temperatures have not been linked to an extensive variable – specifically volume of atmosphere – hence while a global mean temperature has been computed, global mean temperature of what?

    The thermometers or the air? Crucial concept to understand, and I can guarantee that most scientists don’t.

    This is where all the errors start – right at the first steps of the whole procedure of working out the average temperature.

  6. Ender says

    Jennifer – the first one that Warwick mentions is the CRU data. However that data is interpreted by “Blind Freddy” and Warwick offers no other analysis other that eyeballing a pixellated map of Australia where the pixels are thousands of kilometers on a side.

    The second is the fairly dodgy analysis of the MSU data done by Christie.

    Hardly conclusive compared to the high quality data of the BOM.

  7. Phil Done says

    I would have to side with the Bureau reference stations myself.

    On the CRU data -are we comparing apples with apples – what months were used and what stations.

    On the MSU data – we have a shorter time series not that that matters but the processing of the data for atmospheric effects has been notorious with Christy’s data. What processing has occurred and given weather movements is it reasonable to expect one to one correspondence with the surface – some interpretation pls.

    Warwick has been clever in pointing out some differences – but the real interesting question is why.

    Implying that the Bureau have goofed somehow is not enough.

    Louis – similarly – don’t just give us one-liners on intensive/extensive variables – tell us how you would undertake an analysis for say WA – what would you do. Give us a hypothetical worked example with a handful of stations. Otherwise I don’t know what you’re on about?

  8. Louis Hissink says

    Phil

    I will write up a simple explanation over the next few days and post it up on my blog. It needs some graphics that are initially a hassle to create and at the same time demonstrating the errors. I also need to supply it in a form that you and others could check it out yourself and that means a spreadsheet of same realistic data.

  9. Louis Hissink says

    Ender,

    here we have a problem, your lack of science background.

    Might it be easier for you not to wade into issues that confound you?

  10. antsy pantsy says

    said by someone who thinks that stars ‘give birth’ and galaxies play mummies and daddies.

    this post of mine and Louis’ post above should be deleted according to Jennifer’s stringent new censorship rules.

  11. Phil Done says

    The more I look at this – the unhappier I become.

    Use of capital cities is a spurious claim giving BoM’s analysis is showing the warming to be most pronounced inland and all of our state capitals are on the seaboard. Why should these be expected a priori to be warm. It doesn’t follow.

    From personal observation of the Qld/NT area in CRU graphic – there is something weird about the cool patch shown. Misisng data? Also looks like CRU have missed a datum point from WA.

    So we are comparing a high quality national BoM analysis with broad brush global analyses.

    So this comparison is totally meaningless unless some followup of what went into the analysis is done. It is beholden on Warwick to provide some interpretation of his web page.

  12. Ender says

    Louis – “here we have a problem, your lack of science background.”

    If your comments are the product of scientific training then I am happy about my lack of scientific background.

  13. Jennifer Marohasy says

    Antsy pantsy,
    Point noted.
    And yes, that comment would have been deleted if it had been at the other thread. But I was not looking here last night … and Ender has since responded.
    Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world where there was respect for different points of view and the focus of public debates was on issues rather than personalities and appeals to authority?