I’ve previously described 2006 as the year of climate change hysteria , but interestingly at least in Australia it wasn’t that warm.
While 2005 was the hottest on record, according to ABC Online quoting from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology last year, 2006, was the 9th warmest on record.
I’ve just received the report by email from the Bureau (7.30am, 3rd January) and they are now claiming last year was only the 11th warmest on record.
Here is the graph:
The report says:
“Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2006 was 0.47°C above the standard 1961-1990 average, making it the eleventh warmest year since comparable temperature observations became available in 1910.
“Despite record warm daytime temperatures in the drought-affected southeast, 2006 was cooler than the previous year when averaged across the whole country. This was largely due to a very active tropical wet season early in the year resulting in cooler temperatures through the north, and clear skies and low soil moisture associated with the drought resulting in cold overnight temperatures from April to July. The annual mean maximum temperature was 0.60°C above average (ninth highest), while the mean minimum temperature was 0.34°C above average (seventeenth highest). Temperature anomalies varied throughout the year but spring 2006 was particularly warm (+1.42°C), being Australia’s warmest spring season on record.”
And the 9 warmest years span an appromiate 26 year period.
That would mean last year was about the coolest year that we have had in Australia for about 26 years.
The full report is apparently due out tomorrow. I will update this post once it is available online at the Bureau.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You could be waiting a long time. The latest one at that link is January 2005.
Yeah, there was a bucket of hail in Canberra, so what?
Jen….another year rolls over, and you are right: last year the greenhouse hysteria reached new heights….and if dr flim flammery’s piece in the age today, tues, is any guide, its gonna roll on somethin’ fierce this year as well!
Flammery has rolled out a doozer this time, and its just the second day of the year.
Firstly, the good dr says that some bright sparks ( nicholls et al, )have worked out why atmospheric methane concentrations are not increasing, despite vast amounts of it ( apparently/supposedly )being ougassed from the tundra due to AGW.
The reason is that the tropical and subtropical areas are drying out! Tropical Wetlands are no longer farting methane, ” counterbalancing the mighty increase from other sources.” So far so good.
He then goes on to conclude, with a connection to the situation above(ch4)that escapes me, that ” this tells us that our extraordinary aussie drought is part of a global phenomenon: it simply cannot be part of some natural cycle.” Can anyone tell me what the connection, or logic, is here? No? But it gets much better.
He goes on to say that commonsense(!) tells us that in an AGW world, the winter rainfall would move southwards, ” precisely what we have seen over the past 50 years”.
Got it so far? Drying tropics, and drying temperate latitudes? Good. Cos then comes the doozer!
” common sense also tells us that warming will lead to greater evaporation!” Still got it?
More and more water in the air from AGW, and less rain in the tropics, and less in the temperate zones too! Where on earth is all the extra water vapour going to go? Seattle? The poles….as snow? Polar bears will be pleased perhaps?
And whoever this Prof Common Sense bloke is i dunno, but he never won a nobel prize, thats for sure! A hotter world is a wetter one. Simple really.
Flammery is just shooting off lines for pay and notoriety again. Doesn’t need to make too much sense. And he describes himself as an ” environmental scientist “. What scientist does not study some aspect of the environment? None! Just a wanker. Campfollower, and carpetbagger, a paleontology person, with a specialty in ex-birds. If one wanted some measure of the mans breadth and depth, one could’ve watched the two dudes in a tinnie show. on abc.
Other flammery howlers include ” the gas (ch4) is abundant in permafrost.” I think the gas is produced in the wetland-bog things that result from melting of the permafrost. Never mind.
It’s gonna be an interesting year. Can’t wait.
Regards to all contributors that make this blog a gem….and to the lady whose energy and industry makes it all go!
You guys are right about the GW hysteria. Confusing long term climatic patterns with a temperature average for a year of weather – how embarrassing! Unbelievable all the noise the denialists have been making, screaming in their death throes, betrayed by more businesses joining the AGW believers, the greenwashing, denialists setting up conservative policy agendas, trying to railroad good science, denying experienced scientists the right to a voice while promoting the messages by paid lobbyists to increase business donations from GHG producing industries, the nuclear industry exaggerating the future price of CO2 to make nuclear appear ‘affordable’, AP6 supporters promising sequestration without any substance, etc etc it’s a disgrace!
“That would mean last year was about the coolest year that we have had in Australia for about 26 years!”
How can the 9th warmest year on record be the coolest year in 26 years? That would imply that there were at least 25 warmer years, not just 8. – Do you mean that the “relative cooling” from 2005 to 2006 was the biggest in 26 years? If that’s the case, and if 2006 was still the 9th warmest recorded, that suggests just how big the temperature spike in 2005 was.
If you’re expecting evidence Mitchell don’t hold your breath.
Mitchell is correct, it can’t be the coolest in 26 years. i’ve re-looked at the graph from last year’s report and changed the blog post accordingly, see above. There have been about 16 cooler years. What I should have originally written was …and the 9 warmest years span an appromiate 26 year period.
Temperature (2006), in the midst of the Daintree rainforest, was uncharacteristically moderate.
It was, however, exceptionally wet; with a total of 6242.5 mm over 237 rainy days (14 of which exceeded 100 mm).
By contrast, 2005 produced 2799.5 mm over 190 rainy days.
2006 was the first year Cooper Creek Wilderness had broadband satellite and rainfall (despite its quantity) never once interfrered with the network.
On New Year’s day, a two-week old cassowary chick was savaged to death by marauding pig-dogs. On the same day I captured the accompanying photograph of fawn-footed melomies.
All the best for 2007.
Neil Hewett
9 hottest years in last 26 = a warmer pattern. Hence this conclusion “The general rise in Australian temperatures during the second half of the 20th century is in line with global warming trends”. Pretty hot in Australia. Hot in England too – they don’t have to leave the UK for beach holidays anymore. And no snow in Europe to ski.
Pinxi, actually it will be interesting to see the graph and know what the exact figure is hopefully tomorrow. probably a 0.5C increase. if i’m correct it a significant drop from last years 1C increase. as mitchell suggests it is likely to show just how big “the temperature spike” was in 2005.
2006 ….hottest year in China since 1951…and sharks swimming in the Oslofjord….
Listening to Dr David Jones on the subject today (ABC radio AM) is much better value than reading some of the biased views here. No apologies folks.
Please note graph for 2006 just uploaded, see above post. Full report will apparently be at Bureau of Meterology website from 10am today. I will upload rainfall information once I’ve had some breakfast and probably as a new thread.
“On the same day I captured the accompanying photograph of fawn-footed melomies.”
I’d like to see your melomies Neil!
“Campfollower, and carpetbagger, a paleontology person, with a specialty in ex-birds. If one wanted some measure of the mans breadth and depth, one could’ve watched the two dudes in a tinnie show. on abc.”
Having worked for Dr Flannery whilst he was at the Australian Museum, I somehow think his ‘expertise’ is broader than this Phil.
The report I just heard said that there was a lot of rain last year, but not in the ‘right’ places, and that this was due to climate change.
Hi I will have the picture of the melomys up once I have a rainfall post up. And it is a very special picture.
This section of the report is the relevent one in regards to climate change:
“Australian annual mean temperatures have increased by approximately 0.9°C since 1910, consistent with a global mean temperature increase of between 0.7°C and 0.8°C since 1900. According to a preliminary estimate released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on 14 December 2006, the global mean temperature for 2006 was about 0.42°C above average, making it the sixth-warmest year globally since records commenced in 1861.
While there has been a consistent warming trend apparent in Australian temperatures, annual temperatures will continue to vary from year to year in association with factors such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Consequently, it is not suprising that the mean Australian temperature for 2006 was cooler than for 2005, the nation’s warmest year on record (1.06°C above normal).
The dominant cause of the drought experienced throughout southeast Australia in 2006 was the development of an El Niño in the tropical Pacific Ocean. However, Australia has experienced marked rainfall trends over the last 50 years with declines over southern and eastern Australia and increases across the northwest. The pattern of rainfall during 2006 continued this trend.
The dry conditions in southern and eastern Australia in 2006 have continued the long-term rainfall deficiencies in many regions, some of which extend back more than five years. Aspects of this multi-year drought are highly unusual and unprecedented in many areas. Understanding the role that climate change has played in these anomalies is an area of active research.”
Yes Jenn there was a Santa claus and this will be a very special picture. They all are to someone. It will be special because it is another role of the dice and it will confirm prebaked on hypotheses for all those who are able to see special patterns when n=1, and for all those who believe science can be about isolated phenomena. As for the others who merely seek some honest attributions we can take solace in Barry Hunts hurried back flip and will the PM follow.? Of course the picture will be a composite of many random weather events, amplified here and there by some trends. It is the sad lot of humans to often miss the obvious patterns and see spurious ones, but look they will because how else can you make sense of the world if you make no effort to understand it.
Bazza, Last year I posted that it was the hottest on record. Back then you didn’t complain that that might be just one year … that I might have been taking it out of context? You and Gavin are just upset that it wasn’t really hot last year. You want a climate crisis? Maybe you will have your climate crisis next year?
PS Here’s my post from last year: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001093.html .
The data doesn’t support the headline claim.
11th warmest year in nearly a century.
Above average temperatures. A warming trend. Support for global warming.
And what of the patterns?
The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/7 (easily visible on the graph)- an inertial event, as indicated by an inflection point in rate-of-change of length-of-day (LOD) – caused an big reduction in the upwelling of cold water in the equatorial eastern Pacific from that time. This tended to make eastern Australia warmer and drier. If things go according to plan, the next LOD inflection point is due in about 2007/8, and (hopefully) a wetter Australia will not be far behind.
Jenn, I wasnt reading this stuff last year. All I seek is recognition of what we know and agree to be true, what is probable and what is possible. I find it quite scary that a lot of people who have to make decisions involving various climate risks seek certainty where it does not exist and dont like the idea that if you are not sure the only sensible strategy is to go with strategies that can handle that, and monitor like hell till you get better information. I try not to drop in little grenades that can only add to the confusion or confirm existing prejudices. Do you know a better way to go?
bazza: “what is probable and what is possible” – when involved in big pic strategies I worked from the bottom up (worst case). I reckon Jen is a top/bottom skimmer depending on outcome desired. We are very different hey.
Thanks bazza for your mature and precise remarks.
Before any credence can be given to graphs like this, someone will need to explain how one can distinguish between a measured mean that results from increased albedo (and therefore contributing to climate cooling) and a measured mean that has resulted from increased absorption of insolation by vegetation thickenning (and therefore contributing to climate warming)?
And they will need to show me a mean temp based on a set of 24 hourly readings that show the variation in the range over the whole day rather than just the daily maxima and minima.
And they will than need to show me that data over a few centuries.
The CO2 Flux Clan is guilty of failing to ask the most important question for anyone seeking to form a conclusion. That question is;
“What is it that we do not know?”
What is the danger in using max & min temps to reveal long-term trends? The temperatures inbetween would be somewhere inbetween. Could be interesting for showing patterns, but for what benefit? A lot of extra work – would create more bureaucracy which you hate.
But yes GCMs have land surface schemes which represent albedo. Could have woodland thickening if u could map it – not significant probably. Who says it is.
GCM integration timestep is 15 minutes – solves all equations of motion etc every 15 minutes
Ian knows there is very little historical hourly temperature data of any length – is it important anyway? Where’s his desktop study saying it is.
And yes a fair bit of work simulating the past 1000 years (as best one can with paleo proxy records) against Global Climate Models (GCMs)
And the IPCC assessment reports explicitly discuss uncertainties. It’s called reading.
But why bother debating. Rule #1 for 2007 – don’t bother doing any serious research or commentary for political extremists and the disengenous.
Rule #2 – bad faith returns bad faith.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_gustofhotair_archive.html
Here is the blog of a Melbourne graduate in stats who has looked at the temperature records going back to 1868.
Further he has looked at the temperature during the day and deviations from the mean of these.
Some of his conclusions are:
1. That the 3.00am temperature over the period shows no change ie it is stable.
2. No rise in temperature of those time slots after the sun has gone down.
3. If 1868 data is included that there is nothing unusual about current maxima.
etc,
I am surprised that this sort of anlysis has not been done before now.
It starts on or about Nov 6 in his archives and goes to about Nov 21
Very interesting stuff.
It is amazing that the BoM’s claim that 2005 was the ‘hottest year on record’, has largely been accepted as fact. Of course the AGW spin doctors there, playing their virtual climate games, had to prove that it was a hotter year then 1998, to keep the AGW Ship afloat.
Warick Hughes is a long term critic of the BoM, and mounts a very compelling case against them on this issue.
(http://www.warickhughes.com/cool/cool17.htm). To see the NASA/GISS temp graphs for our capital cities, click on ‘none of our State Capitals felt……’
Sid for heavens sake – forget capital cities – last place you’d look for AGW – jeez Warwick spends half his life banging on about heat islands. Half the time, the met station has moved from town to the aiport or something.
The Bureau have gone to great lengths to develop and select a Reference Station Network – world’s best practice – pray tell what’s wrong with it !
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
Honestly Sid this sort of stuff that you’re banging on about here is nothing short of childish – grow up. At least do some background before you start swinging wildly like some old drunken galoot.
AGW spin doctors and virtual climate games – you’re talking utter utter crap. There’s nothing virtual about it. Ring Dr David Jones at BoM and tell him where he’s going wrong. I’m sure he’d be enthralled at your input.
You’re actually accusing the National Climate Centre of fraud and rigging numbers – actually I think you should write their Minister !
Jeez Malcolm
Gustofhotair better run off to Nature quick and publish. Does he know nobody has ever done this before.
So he’s discovered the diurnal rhythm and radiation escapes to space overnight?
1868 – Malcolm you have adjust all the thermometers – different methods of recording – meteorology 101 Mal.
So what?
As for some of his other stuff I don’t think we’ll be hearing much of Gustov in the long term with gems like:
“So why hasn’t the south increased at the same level as the north? There could be many reasons. Perhaps it’s because of global currents, perhaps because of the urban living effect (more dense population in the north), perhaps because the north admit more CO2 into the atmosphere, or perhaps because the north has more land mass which has been changed by humans in the past and hence possibly altered the climite.”
You have to smile. Perhaps he’s onto something the climate scientists don’t know. wow.
He took the temperature values for 6 hourly intervals for every day back to 1868, meaned all values for the same time of day and computed the deviations etc. His analysis of the trends or lack thereof is what is interesting.
I would have thought that 365*138 occurences of the temperatures at set times of the day rather than a mean supposedly representing that whole day, was an important stat to comprehend.
He discusses the reason why he accepted the data going back to 1868 and why the BOM has not done so.
The radiation losses to spcae at night are not relvent in the context of looking at the temp at the same times over a long period
The fact that it was done by someone who has yet to lodge a paper into a peer reviewed paper that you think would give is cred is beside the point.
By that criteria all the reports of the BOM should be peer reviewed.
It is clear that between the time I lodged the comment of interest at 5.51pm and your response at 6.20 it was all read and understood to your usual standard.
Frankly I am like Freddy et al I dont know why I bother.
The BoM claims that a change in the type of thermometer shelters at many sites in the early 20th cent. led to a sudden drop in recorded temps. and are therefore spurious and no longer used. (get rid of any data that doesn’t suit your cause). Could not the same be said about the 100 RCS’s the BoM uses now? That the type of thermometer shelters used have led to a sudden rise in recorded temps., data from which have been used to promote recent temp. rises?
However if world temperatures continue to trend down, it will be interesting to see whether the WMO issues specs. for yet another thermometer shelter which will see temps. shoot up again!
I agree with Malcolm that the BoM should be peer reviewed!
Everything coming out of the BoM is presented on the basis of promoting the AGW cause, instead of being information from an impartial Authority, which it is supposed to be.
One gem from it’s Climate Report of yesterday was the claim 2006 would have been even hotter except for the drought, as cloudless skies trigger unusually cold nights…What they didn’t say was that cloudless skies also trigger unusually hot days. ‘BoM cherrypicking’!
It is interesting that even with James Hansen in charge, NASA/GISS still accept the temp. data from our capital cities as accurate, even if the BoM don’t. Data that shows clearly that 2005 was NOT our hottest year.
Perhaps Malc & Sid could show us some of their credentials of instrument techniques etc re BoM peer review
Has anyone noticed how thermometers are now supporting AGW? How biased are they, I ask? They’ve even hacked the BoM computers and changed temperature data they themselves monitored a century ago to back their crazy warming notions. And planted supporting temperature proxies just to trick everyone. And most likely faked the moon landing.
And here comes Luke and the CO2 Flux Clan Cavalry with sneers at the ready and nothing else to contribute. Pinxie just says, “ere, wot you doin that for eh?” And Nexus 6, going blind, can come up with nothing better than one handed blogging.
Thanks for that link, Malcolm, its a pity every intelligent line of inquiry has endure the collective inputs of the Village Idiot League.
We have a situation where we are being provided with a single number that is supposed to represent the mean of all temperatures on the whole @$%&*# planet for a whole year, and surprise, surprise, we find that the number representing each single day is derived from only two readings in 24 hours.
What it means is that much of the daytime “warming” is actually increased absorption by altered landscapes etc while the night time minimums remain more constant because the previous days heat, once lost after dark, cannot become more lost.
These night time minima are subject to the background basal temperature of the Earth’s crust at various seasons and form a temperature floor in the same way that oceans do.
Curiously, the IPCC methodology does not appear to give any weighting for the absolute certainty that if atmosphere and oceans undergo warming over time then this warming must eventually spread to the Earth’s crust which is of much greater mass (and heat absorption capacity) than mere liquids and gasses.
This has been dismissed as a marginal factor due to the fact that land only occupies 30% of the planet surface. But the same phenomena will take place on the ocean floor. If the oceans warm by 1 degree then, inevitably, the Earths crust represented by ocean floor must also undergo the same long term warming.
IPCC methodology assumes that all additional warming must be absorbed by either oceans or atmosphere. It is a bit like suggesting that only the water in a kettle increases in temperature when placed on a stove.
And Luke, while BOM may have done well to avoid urban heat islands, there is no evidence to indicate that they even comprehend the impact of landuse change and vegetation flux on data integrity.
And it is all very well to claim that, somewhere, there is a data set based on 15 minute intervals, but the spin doctors and GW spiverazzi continue to beat up headlines based on daily max/min means.
Well Sid it presents the AGW cause coz it adds up. You have no answer to the fact the low percentile cold anomalies are going down (globally).
I think you’re actually a disingenuous creep, big on the accusations but very little on the data. Where’s your national analysis of 2005 – you don’t have one coz you’re talking utter crap.
In any case with all this stuff you’re splitting hairs – what’s a few extra capital city stations in Australia matter in a global analysis – you guys need to read up on the central limit theorem and show some systematic bias from all this waffling. You haven’t done so – just mouthed in anger becuase AGW science offended your sensibilities, emotions or religion (even worse). So get over it and start being quantitative.
The issues with temperature measurememnt pre-1900 are well researched and well discussed.
Malcolm – be fun to see if your Masters student gets his degree – the site is littered with tedious contrarian bullshit to the stage it’s laughable. He hasn’t even researched issue with the pre-1900 data. His graphics are not clear which periods he’s used and reading bottom up is maddening. Why doesn’t he write one substantial paper and properly document what he’s done. One of the issues is to repeat his analysis with the BoM reference data set so we have some comparisons.
What we do know unambiguously from analysis of the BoM reference set (this was exhaustively set up to get the best possible set of data possible – 100s of hours and hours of tedious checking records)
You guys wouldn’t have the first clue about peer review and to what quality reviews BoM actually do.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml
2005 analysis: Australian mean temperatures are calculated from a country-wide network of about 100 high-quality, mostly rural, observing stations. The Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre and National Climate Centre have undertaken extensive quality checking to ensure that the temperature records from these sites have not been compromised by changes in site location, exposure or instrumentation over time.
So Sid where’s your analysis – put up or shut up !
Jeez you’re thick Ian – I didn’t say there was a 15 minute observed data set.
The drivel that you have just penned is breathtakingly ignorant. Given the numbers involved that sort of temperature rise is VERY significant. And gee don’t there seem to be a lot of other data sets and phenomena that also suggest things have been warming up. Try engaging the brain before writing. I mean really discussion with you guys is really pointless isn’t it. Ian when you have actually gone and undertaken some basic background reading it might be worth a discussion.
Headline today “2006 our hottest year on record –
Canberra baked during 2006 in the hottest year on record”
Thanks for your consideration.
Normally I don’t take kindly to minnows flipping their tail in front of my snout.
The usual tedious bile, Luke, but so little substance. You weasle out of your own holes by reference to “uncertainties” mentioned by IPCC but continue with your zero tolerance of any departure from the party line.
And nice try at sidestep on BOM sites. Given that a modest 10km breeze will cover 120km in 12 hours, can you please advise which of these, “carefully selected” BOM sites have not had significant vegetation flux within that radius over the past century?
And lets look at the numbers involved. We have normal coastal daily temperature ranges of 10 degrees with inland ranges of up to 20 degrees.
Within that range we can have either rapid rises and declines or gradual ones in a context of plateaus, peaks or troughs of miriad shape.
And all this within an annual range of more than 40 degrees which also exhibits a wide range of graphical shapes.
And what anyone with a rudimentary exposure to statistical methods can comprehend is that a slight rise in a daily temperature peak can be more than offset by a steep decline to a more modest, but longer lasting, temperature floor.
Jonathan Lowe has found evidence to indicate that the “warming” exhibited by the daytime peaks is not matched by the night time minima. And there is a very substantial “smoking gun” that suggests that a data set of true daily means, comprised of hourly readings or better, does not support the official conclusion of a 0.7 degree mean warming over the entire planet.
This 0.7 of a degree change in mean is less than 2% of the range in variation and falls well within the error margins that are likely when using max/min data as a surrogate for diurnal, monthly and annual mean.
This is especially the case when some of the daytime temperature peaks are the result of actions that actually cause global cooling.
Ian – of course there are some changes but we’re talking large numbers. What you and the knockers have not done is failed to show any systematic bias from all of this. You’re just going but, but, but, but and banging on. Do some maths and show us it makes ANY difference on the broad conclusions. And tell us about the central limits theorem. 0.7 is massive over large numbers.
The warming is supported by satellites, ocean warming, stratosphere cooling, glacial melt, melting Artic, accelerated melting Antarctic peninsula and Greenland, species changes in life cycles, mating and movement, empircal measurement of the effect by ground radiometers and satellites. Come on – you’re saying that all these diverse lines of evidence don’t inform you of anything.
You’re in a very small minority if you think otherwise. So on your philosophy we actually don’t know anything?
The points about rudimentary stats Ian is that you have zero ! Show me with examples how a systematic bias in all this changes the interpretation and then explain why ALL the other corroborating evidence is also wrong.
As for Mr 3am temperature – who knows what he’s done – it’s not clear from a disjointed blog ramble – half the graphs are not clealry referenced – what baselines – what data. I bet he doesn’t get published on invalidating the IPCC analyses.
And I find it utterly fascinating that you’d jump on some blog article unrefereed and unclear – but reject the peer reviewed literature. Amazing logic – but that’s what’s loopy fanatics do eh?
As usual with your cursory reading and comprehension skills, you have made statements that are incorrect.
1.”Malcolm – be fun to see if your Masters student gets his degree – the site is littered with tedious contrarian bullshit to the stage it’s laughable.”
Johnathan Lowe already HAS a BScHons and a MSc in Statistics, and IS a Phd candidate in Stats.
What do you have Luke?
2. “He hasn’t even researched issue with the pre-1900 data.”
He claims that he has.I can only take his word for it.
3.”Why doesn’t he write one substantial paper and properly document what he’s done. One of the issues is to repeat his analysis with the BoM reference data set so we have some comparisons.”
For all we know he may well be doing just that.
He claims that he has used BoM data.In any case does the absence of this ( a peer reveiwed paper), completely invalidate what he has to show.
4.”What we do know unambiguously from analysis of the BoM reference set (this was exhaustively set up to get the best possible set of data possible – 100s of hours and hours of tedious checking records)”
He recognises the value of the BOM data,as do most other people.All he( Johnathan Lowe) has done is take a different segment to show something
interesting.
5. “You guys wouldn’t have the first clue about peer review … ”
….and you do of course.
Personally I find his work interesting and quite credible and more so than much of the stuff which usually appears on blogs on this type.
Malcolm – I am interested – I actually asked a few people to have a look at it and like me said “too hard to follow, not sure what he’s done, write it up properly and I may have a look at it”.
Just because he’s a statistician (perhaps of some note – who knows) doesn’t mean he’s excused from publishing all sorts of unscholarly crap in between. Doesn’t look good to me if you want to be taken seriously and not some wanker blogger. Even if he is good at stats he needs to clearly indicate what he’s done. I’m not criticising his stats knowledge. I understand what he’s on about with his tests of significance – although I don’t know how he’s done it. Perhaps I’m stupid – you tell me.
The issues with temperature measurement technology pre-1900 are well known and well documented. I’m stunned he doesn’t know all that – or at least have it discussed. It seems he hasn’t had discussions with the Bureau although that’s just a feeling one gets from some of the comments.
What I do know about peer review is how difficult it is from personal experience, how nit-picky and even worse independent quality reviews are enough to put the fear of God up most scientists. Don’t think that BoM, CSIRO etc don’t do a fair bit of this stuff routinely.
I quote the latest post on Realclimate as a warning here.. .. Consensus as the New Heresy.
“It has often been remarked upon that scientists and academics make their reputations by breaking down orthodoxies and by challenging previously widespread assumptions (but it will only work out well if they’re right of course!). Nobody makes much of a name for themselves by agreeing with all previous thinking. Indeed, to be thought of as a radical new thinker, one must assume the role of the heretic, challenging the stale orthodoxies of the past. And given some of the scientific iconoclasts in our pantheon (Galileo, Einstein, Wegner etc.), we see this as a completely natural state of affairs.
However, there is a big difference between really challenging the majority opinion and simply stating that you are”.. .. ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy/
Not everyone gets to be Galileo. So if he has a major claim that the whole temperature analysis of global warming is wrong 100s of hours of past experience would make most seasoned scientists say “bullshit – show us what you’ve got, and how you did it”. It’s very hard to see exactly what J-boy has done. Maybe he’s up for the Nobel prize – who knows. If he wants to be listened to, post a decent linear paper not dribs and drabs.
So at the moment he just seems some wild stats dude analysing everything against everything.
But I am interested nonetheless – simply very skeptical and he’s not helping us understand him !
Against this we have a very good reference data set from BoM which shows maxima up, minima up more and a decrease in the diurnal temperature range (in general – for most of Australia).
Does he refute this conclusion? Has he attempted to reconcile his results with what happens at night meteorologically speaking.
Perhaps Malcolm you can encourage him to clarify his position.
Luke,
I also showed it to other people who had no difficulty comprehending its essential elements.
Obviously Motty had no trouble either.
Perhaps the people you used were in the class of the “Village Idiot League” referred to in his post hereabove.Ian Motts astute analysis of the reasons why Lowes figures show up what they do is also a very plausible hypothesis.
I agree with him in that it is not very likely that people like the BoM would ever have the wit to deduce the same.
Even if I were a mind to, I am not sure what position it is that Lowe has to clarify that hasnt already been established for those who have bothered to read it properly first time around.
Oh so I guess you’d have no problems explaining it back to we Village Idiots then?
We can all read what he says – but gee Malcolm are you that gullible. Have you actually read the rest of the weird crap on that blog. Man !
Motty usually grabs at anything that seems remotely contrary to a government science opinion.
Anyway just tell us what data, when, what he’s done. About 5 minutes work I’d think.
I’ll take no response as you’re actually clueless.
Strange that as you had no problem absorbing the 3am temp science blog you were also unable to discuss the CSIRO SA Climate Change report – except (what for it) “it’s bullshit”.
Anyway off you go now Malcolm – wander off into your little existence.
Looking like a bit of desperation there Luke. Jonathan Lowe has a blog post. We can assume that his PhD paper will cover the issues that you raised in due course. And we can be certain that the Clanners will round up the usual rentacrowd to run interference on his thesis.
Yet, you dump a load on him for failing to falsify every other paper in a single go. My guess is that you will break out some big guns to intimidate him. The sneer is king.
Lowe’s work is consistent with some of my own consideration of the issues. It is not an attack on your mother, it is a simple questioning of the validity of the generally accepted surrogate.
You seem to have forgotten that an annual planetary mean temperature is all about temperature over a period of time. And there is justifiable doubt that a sequence of daily maxima and minima, combined into first monthly and then annual means, and then averaged over the entire planet, is sufficient to produce a result of the required accuracy.
The amplitude of the potential unmeasured variations is far in excess of the measured change in global mean temperature.
And any word yet on the number of BOM sites with zero history of vegetation flux?
“I will break out some big guns to intimidate him” – pls retract and apologise. That’s way way out of line. Utterly rank actually.
That would be your style though wouldn’t it Ian – inciting arson or assault of government employees or dynamiting bilbies.
I have suggested that Malcolm could get some more information but he’s disinterested. I suppose I’ll have to do the asking as usual. Sigh !
Ian the actual number of sites with history of vegetation flux is 23.4% – so now you tell me what systematic bias is introduced to change the interpretation of the results and to what extent the mean result is affected. Over to you.
Instead of playing funny buggers with me why you actually connect the brain to gear and suggest why these temperature effects may be occurring and do some interpretation instead of verbal biffo. I had actually down some work on it but now feel disinclined to share the results.
For people to have a discussion about anything it requires that parties do some reading and have reasonably well developed comprehension skills.
You have repeatedly shown a inabilty to demonstrate either, in any reliable sense.This passage involving J Lowes material is just another case in point.A cursory read followed by a blast of innacuracies and bile, and when it is explained to you, you condescend to say..”I am interested “.
Having spent some time correcting your idiot assumptions/inaccuracies and getting you up to speed I am not inclined to spend more time going through the same routine,at every step along the way.
Unlike you, I have better things to do.
I take comfort from the fact that others, also found the J Lowes work/site interesting.
All code for “Malcolm doesn’t have a clue”. We know you don’t debate Malcolm – just position post. So as usual Malcolm does a runner when pressed. Same as with the CSIRO SA report – spray bile everywhere then ping off and don’t substantiate when pressed.
Anyway back to http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_gustofhotair_archive.html
The diurnal cycle (in general)- sun rises and about 9am the temperature starts to really rise and the temperature peaks around 2-3pm, sun sets and significant temperature drop occurs which trails off until the lowest temperature typically just after dawn. The general graph is not necessarily that symmetrical either between night and day.
A working model is something like – the temperature change is proportional to the solar radiation minus an energy loss which is large when the temperature is high and small when the temperature is low. The greenhouse effect is a small additional factor on this.
So JL has discovered the diurnal cycle and that energy loss is proportional to the temperature. So he’s derived about what you’d expect.
I’m blown away – wow !
He’s assumed more for the greenhouse effect than he should and has not thought through the basic physics of the diurnal cycle.
This little gem is breathtakingly arrogant – quote “This analysis alone proves that the current analysis being done by climate scientists based on purely maximum and minimum temperatures is hardly in depth enough – especially if we plan on spending billions of dollars on it. It still seems crazy to me, that the entire global warming science is based on analysis on simple statistics of which even this blog in a matter of several weeks has more than outdone the scientific literature on the matter.”
Who says it’s based on max & min temps alone??
And what a braggard – claimed to have overturned a major body of work with no peer review !! (wow)
And you guys just signed up for it without a thought – sigh. Chumps.
Re Day night temperatures, we really need to continiously monitor is in comming and outgoing short and long wave radiation after all this is the direct effect of greenhouse. In reality the instruments are expensive and need maintainence and calibration but we should have say 100 across Australia rather than a just a few.
I note he has discovered that minimum temperatures are increasing – quick ring the IPCC !
And he is using back to 1868 as a normalising baseline – the temp drop to 1900 is known to be spurious – now wonder the results are totally imponderable !
And you guys have seen all this haven’t you?
Sidestep again, Luke. You ask “Who says it’s based on max & min temps alone??” but don’t take it any further.
So lets pin this down. My understanding is that daily means for any site are derived from maxima and minima. These daily means are collated to form monthly means which are then used to determine the annual mean for a site. Numerous other sites are used to form a hemispheric mean and a global mean.
If you are suggesting there is any significant departure from this, as you have implied above, then please do us the courtesy of explaining rather than simply sowing doubt.
And you still have not responded to my question on how we should distinguish between temperature increases from activities that actually contribute to global cooling and those activities that contribute to global warming.
Obviously, the cooling part of an activity like land clearing that increases albedo and therefore cools the planet, must be present in the evening when the increased absorbed heat of the day is released. In this circumstance either the minimum temp must go lower or the duration of low night time temperatures must be extended to produce a net cooling effect.
But if only the two extremes are measured then the cooling effect, or a warming effect from revegetation, cannot be detected.
And if these effects cannot be detected then there is not only uncertainty in the modelling but also a bias towards warming outcomes.
Oh Luuuke? Do you need to run this one past the DG before comment?
Who was it said some truths are self-evident.
J-boy says “based on purely maximum and minimum temperatures .. .. .. .. still seems crazy to me, that the entire global warming science is based on analysis on simple statistics ” – well hucky do – that’s one validation data set – there’s satellite obs of radiation, temperature, cloud, land surface, rainfall, sea ice, ocean temps, ice melt rates, glaciers, ecological effects, paleo evidence, empirical verification of the greenhouse flux by Philipona et al using radiometers, Harries work showing closing of spectral windows as per what you’d expect. Need I go on ! It’s what is called “a body of evidence” or “multiple points of truth”.
Is that courteous enough.
One cannot distinguish when measuring with a thermometer what the actual attribution of the measurememnt is (save being a greenie induced national park bushfire).
This is why we have hundreds of lines of algorithms with all the physics of radiation balance, circulation systems, ocean temperatures and land surface schemes to drive what is called “A CLIMATE MODEL” of these many and complex interactions. Strangely this is bigger than an envelope.
The question is an inverse one – how well does the model reproduce the temperature pattern observed including any major changes in land condition affecting the site. You need to simply see the measured data as a set of validation observations not primary drivers.
Why worry about land use changes – you could also worry about cloudiness changes, aerosols and volcanic dust too. It’s all in there.
Yes if a met station that used to be in the middle of a forest ended up in massive grassland as some “softly spoken” Qld or NSW grazier got to it before New Year 2006 well maybe it should not be excluded or noted. You can get the location of all the Bureau reference station network here and see what’s changed. Then ring up David Jones and tell him.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
In fact Ian you’re a genius – the modelling is all about resolving uncertainties in positive and negtive forcings and looking for better and better validation.
On estimate error David Jones has previously reminded us of the central limit theorem. “Annual average global temperatures have a standard error of estimation of about 0.025C. This has been covered in dozens of papers in Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, and International Journal of Climatology (just to name a few) and is a well established fact. Suggest you (and other interested parties) use Google Scholar for further information. Some of the concerned papers are rather elegant in design, and could teach a few on this blog a thing or two about good scientific practice.”
David Grinch sends hugs. Actually I don’t think DGs know about such things as blogs. They may be aghast to find out that such feral opinions exist in the real world. There’s also a big difference between the science and how policy chooses to use such science. Is it the fault of the gun manufacturer or shooter type argument.
Now that I’ve invested more time – it’s your turn to show how any of these “temperature quibbles” have introduced sufficient systematic bias that would cause a reinterpretation of the results. And how alternative lines of evidence are also invalidated.
You see – I think peers tell you you’re doing “a Galileo” – you don’t decide yourself like J-boy has.
Hmmm – no Motty, no Malcolm and no Sid – time to attend a beach a la the web host.
What a fallacious argument, Luke. What is being measured as the annual average global temperature may have a standard arror of 0.025C, but that is a totally irrelevant consideration in the context of factors that have not been included in the measurement in the first place.
Stats 101 stuff.
That was for the next question which I felt coming. But you got you answer above that. Your question is really a non-question.
Think about what you’re saying – a swag of thermometers across the country do not produce a long term statistical view of the nation’s temperature. Major urban centre’s are avoided. The temperature integrates a multitude of effects – how could it not? What else could you do?
And are you going to tell all those farmers that have experienced a long term decline in frost frequency that they can’t actually know that? It’s called experiental evidence of Australia warming!
The simulation talent is to be able to explain and hindcast these temperature patterns. (including albedo). The models are built ground up from physics not temperature patterns.
I see you have ducked the argument about a multitude of diverse evidence also.
Sense your resolve is whithering (again).
Obviously Malcolm has decamped after trying pass off that shonky blog as a breakthrough.
Where’s Sid??
And still looking for your proof of systematic bias !
And as we sink below the post line – note they didn’t come back to defend their scurrilous positions.
But those multiple points are all failing to record the rates and duration of daytime warming and nighttime cooling. And this, in the grand scheme of things, remains a significant omission that, in most cases will bias the results towards warming outcomes.
And as for your supposedly killer argument about all the “multitude of diverse evidence’, dream on little broomstick cowboy. How, exactly, would a set of ice cores, tree rings or coral cores confirm or deny the existence of a change in the duration of night time temperature falls?
They are all generalised indicators that are likely to replicate their own inadequacies.
You may also be surprised to learn that some of us have a life other than this blog, Luke. But your last two posts do emphasise the importance you place on achieving your propaganda outcomes.
Ian you’re a dodger par excellence. We’re arguing (stupidly) about whether it’s warming or not. I have not brought up proxies. You have the multitude-of-evidence list above and have ducked the lot.
Now faced with your arguments as ash in your mouth, not one of them defended, you decamp – none at all answered.
Quack quack – ducked.
That is a very interesting exit strategy of yours, Luke. You claim that I have decamped when I clearly have not done so. And you claim that I have dodged the issue when I clearly have not done so.
So it would seem that your primary purpose here is not to inform or enlighten but, rather, to propagandise and mislead.
Which part do you not understand?
The measured stats do not record the duration of temperature changes within each day which make up 92% of the hourly records which should rightfully be used to derive a daily mean temperature.
And this means that 92% of the inputs to monthly and annual means are also excluded. The variations in temperature around the means are of such significance as to put the existing records of mean temperatures into doubt.
I am one of those people who would like to see better data before we sign up for measures that could exceed 5% of Global GDP.
Well Ian it depends on how the 92% goes backwards in time. If you have a look at the records you’ll find max/min much more reliable than 9am and 3pm.
Gee 3pm can easily be 3:30 you know. In any case the aforementioned blog is wrong on a number of counts. I have shown above why his diurnal analysis stuff is flawed without any assumptions about the data quality and if it’s available.
You have failed miserably against a major literature which you have not read any of, to show any systematic bias that would effect the interpretation of the results of the Australian and international temperature analyses. i.e that max and min temps are rising and the diurnal range is shrinking. Furthermore you have not said why multiple strains of alternative evidence which says the same thing are also all wrong.
J-boy will have major trouble getting his work published at all. You’ve just jumped at some unpeer reviewed blogosphere stuff because if suits you mindset and the flaw you desperately believe is there in the science. I love the way he says “we have proved” in his blog. Jeez !
I am giving you thoughtful replies as always but you are not reading what I’m saying. Deflate the ego as few psi and put the brain into gear.
(Time for a diversionary insult on how much money scientists have, policy use of science being crook, or having too much time to spend on blogging!)
In terms of information vs propaganda – Ian I know who wins the tally – YOU !
Also make sure all those data are absolutely correct in time for daylight saving !
I reckon that 5 year annual mean temperature is going to take a nose dive over the next couple of years. I wonder what kind of panic the impending doomsdayers will get in then? Whip up some other spin on it all i suppose. The fact is – the hotter the planet the wetter it is. Why it isnt bucketing down then, since it is so much hotter, who knows. Dynamic planet earth – always changing.
They (doomsayers) cant have it both ways – if it gets hotter, global warming, bad humans – if it gets cooler, climate change, bad humans – if it rains more or less?? Dunno.
And on Flannery, he is the worst. Should know better.
I reckon that 5 year annual mean temperature is going to take a nose dive over the next couple of years. I wonder what kind of panic the impending doomsdayers will get in then? Whip up some other spin on it all i suppose. The fact is – the hotter the planet the wetter it is. Why it isnt bucketing down then, since it is so much hotter, who knows. Dynamic planet earth – always changing.
They (doomsayers) cant have it both ways – if it gets hotter, global warming, bad humans – if it gets cooler, climate change, bad humans – if it rains more or less?? Dunno.
And on Flannery, he is the worst. Should know better.
Luke; you said to motty – Deflate the ego as few “psi” hey I’ve been thinking all the while I’m the only old timer left on this blog.
Good one, Luke. So now this humble blog is supposed to come up with hard proof on an issue that I have merely pointed out is an area of significant uncertainty.
Isn’t that just a squalid little case of raising the bar? And without reciprocal obligations for you to do the same?
The fact that the 3.00pm data may actually be the 3.30pm data is, again, off the point. The issue is that the true mean temperature for a day is determined by the sum of the hourly, or even half hourly temperatures.
The current reliance on a mean derived from a maximum and minimum reading assumes that the changes from hot to cold and back are symetrical and consistent when they clearly are not.
I have identified an assumption that is of questionable validity. There is a huge publicly funded industry that holds itself out as the experts in climate and it is the obligation of that industry to validate all assumptions to the satisfaction of “everyman”.
Failing that, hand over a big enough portion of your own budget and I will gladly do the work required. The days when I hand out freebies to the punters are gone.