IT came out on Monday. But I have only just seen it – the climate summary for Australia for 2008.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology could have concluded that last year was the third coolest this century, but instead opted for 14th warmest on record. Certainly, the available information compiled from thermometer readings suggests the last seven years have been particularly warm relative to the last 100; the Bureau calculating 0.41 degrees C above the standard 1961-1990 average.
[click on the charts for larger images]
The overall Australian mean rainfall total for 2008 was 466 mm, which is close to the long-term average of 472 mm. The south east of the country, including parts of the Murray Darling Basin, continued to experience below average rainfall.
************
Annual Australian Climate Statement 2008 issued by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology on January 5, 2009. http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20090105.shtml
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So tell us what we dont know. So it was a warmish but La Nina type year. It may be a new year but all the comments will be old and recycled, and few will bother to check out the evidence on a forum that takes pride in being evidence based despite the evidence. Which will be first – urban heat island, trend now down, solar, conspiracy, ENSO, PDO, Oz is not the globe. If you have nothing original to say then dont.
Bazza, Consider posting comment here a privilege rather than your right, and accordingly please be a little more polite and stop trying to dictate terms.
“The Australian Bureau of Meteorology could have concluded that last year was the third coolest this century, but instead opted for 14th warmest on record. ”
Is that intended as a criticism of the way they “opted” to look at it? Given that we are only 9 years into the century, talking about that period alone would hardly have been relevant to long term climate change issues.
Jennifer: Bar charts of annual data just seem to hide so much relative information. Here’s a comparative graph of CRUTEM, GISS, and NCDC Land Surface Temperature from 1850 to present for Australia and New Zealand. It looks so different from that bar chart, not as alarming.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwurk1.jpg
In fact, you can pick out the two shifts in Australian and New Zealand LST anomalies. They drop in the 1890s and rise in the 1970s in steps. There’s a upward trend in between, but the step changes are curious.
Here’s a comparative graph of LST anomaly trends for the continents from 1976 to present. The Australia and New Zealand trend is less than 25% of the European trend.
http://i42.tinypic.com/ejen9y.jpg
And my favorite LST comparative graph is that of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
http://i43.tinypic.com/28r34p2.jpg
The graphs are all from a new post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/land-surface-temperature-comparison-by_07.html
Given that satellite monitoring started in 1979, does anyone have any information on how accurate the previous records are? It would seem far more relevant to know that fact than whether 2008 was the 14 warmest on record. Why is this not the center of focus, and how can anyone say for sure when the records are so spotty.
I have yet to find definitive answers to the simple question, has anyone done an audit on the older temperature records? How reliable are the records, and over what periods of time are they good, bad or horrible. For sunspots we generally have data available back to 1700, the quality of the data is considered as poor during 1700 – 1748, questionable during 1749 – 1817, good during 1818 – 1847, and reliable since 1848. Surely someone has done this audit.
It’s obvious to everyone but the most blind science political types the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age(1350-1850), and today’s temperatures do not exceed those of the Medieval Warm Period(950-1100 AD). There is plenty of historical evidence to support this conclusion.
According to the satellite data at climate4you.com the southern hemisphere (south of 20S) has remained constant. IT’s only the NH that shows any increase in temps.
“today’s temperatures do not exceed those of the Medieval Warm Period(950-1100 AD).” and the quality reference(s) for that is ? just asking ….
Bob Tisdale, Thanks so much for the links with charts – providing much food for thought.
Start here Luke.
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N53/EDIT.php
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N53/C2.php
“The Australian Bureau of Meteorology could have concluded that last year was the third coolest this century, but instead opted for 14th warmest on record. ”
Come on Jennifer, show some imagination. It’s the third coolest of the millenium.
The point is Bob, it’s going to keep warming. This is just the start. It’s like putting the foot down in a V8 compared to a small 4 at the lights. For the first few seconds, the V8 won’t be going any faster than the small 4.
Well pyjamas – ho hum – hardly the globe is it? And McIntrye’s conclusion is that he doesn’t know if the MWP was warmer than today or not. That’s “doesn’t know”/”not convinced either way”.
So I await the definitive global analysis that says it is.
But if you like the MWP – well you’ll LOVE the decadal long US droughts, and also in Asia and Africa. Read Brian Fagan’s book – The Great Warming (about the MWP – globally !!). I’m sure our 6 billion would just romp it in (not!).
Well pyjamas – ho hum – hardly the globe is it? – no but it’s two papers from each hemisphere so it’s very close unless you can point me to another hemisphere!! There was another study recently which unfortunately I can’t find but it involved sunken fir trees in Finland that basically said the same thing.
I notice the graves in the permafrost of Greenland haven’t thawed yet and you would be stupid to try to grow grapes in Londontown as it’s been snowing – so I’d assume we aren’t there yet, wouldn’t you?
Read Brian Fagan’s book – The Great Warming (about the MWP – globally !!).
ah – so we’ve gone from NO MWP to now it’s “well you wouldn’t like it anyway” rolleyes!
SJT: Regarding your comment that begins with, “The point is Bob, it’s going to keep warming”…
If you’d address your comment to the blogger you’re quoting, you may get a reply. Try it again with bill-tb instead of Bob.
Have a nice day.
SJT says :The point is Bob, it’s going to keep warming”
You mean except when it’s cooling?
SJT I just love that homey little example: “It’s like putting the foot down in a V8 compared to a small 4 at the lights. For the first few seconds, the V8 won’t be going any faster than the small 4.”
Didn’t I read somewhere that it depended upon F AND m? You remember, F=ma. Seems like a pretty good example of ascribing causation to only one factor in a multi-factor phemomenon.
Reminds me of that fella who said global warming was due to CO2. Wonder where he got that from? I suppose we’re looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Still, from this distance it seems strange that out of all the things he cold have considered more important, he siezed upon CO2 – “Eureka! I’ve got it… it’s all CO2”
Here is the PowerPoint presentation by the Finns responsible for the Supra-Long Finnish Chronology http://lustiag.pp.fi/MTP_231007.pdf.
Makes Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ look like a splinter on the handle of time.
Rings measured from complete tree sections rather than wonky inaccurate bore holes etc etc etc
PeterW: Thanks for the link to the Supra-Long paper. I enjoyed the projections for the next 100 years on page 37.
The Finnish paper is very well presented but it’s a pity that cool trend starts about 2030.
I’m afraid I’ll be well into the daisy pushing mode well before then, bugger it.
Excellent point from janama that the southern hemisphere (south of 20S) has remained constant. IT’s only the NH that shows any increase in temps.
What is being recorded is not the Earth warming, rather a signature of urbanisation.
CO2 as anything but a minor climate forcer has been throughly falisifed.
Thanks for finding it PeterW – here’s Steve McIntyre’s comments on the Finnish trees
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4783
As has been explained many times, as predicted by models, the SH is not warming as rapidly as the NH because there is more ocean area in the SH. The oceans tend to absorb more heat than land.
As has been explained many times, as predicted by models, the SH is not warming as rapidly as the NH because there is more ocean area in the SH. The oceans tend to absorb more heat than land.
But SJT – there is some land in the southern hemisphere, like Australia, Sth America and Africa so it’s not like there’s NO land here yet there is NO warming.
SJT: It’s not only “as predicted by models;” it’s also as illustrated in the instrument temperature record. Do the models also show that the Northern Hemisphere cools faster than the Southern Hemisphere during periods of cooling? Polar amplification in the NH results in GCMs whether the source of additional heat is an increase in greenhouse gases, an increase in solar irradiance, or El Nino events.
“today’s temperatures do not exceed those of the Medieval Warm Period(950-1100 AD).” and the quality reference(s) for that is ? just asking ….
Well Luke, for starters the Vikings were on Greenland and farming in this timeframe, which would be impossible today.
A good reference is Prof Bob Carter’s videos and lectures some of which are on youtube.
Yes I’ve Bob’s slick willy videos. I’m an attentive student to Bob’s information. I love all the denialist youtube stuff. But Vikings in Greenland and grapes in England isn’t the world! I think McIntyre – Loehle withstanding – leaves it as “don’t know really”. Maybe it was – maybe it wasn’t.
Moving on ….
“No warming in Australia !” pigs bum ….
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112&period=1970
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112
Reality for Antarctica is that the interior is effectively walled off by the circumpolar vortex and so stays cold. Except for the Antarctic Peninsula outside this zone which is warming quickly (denialists will say volcanoes for which there is zero evidence).
So, Luke, when do we see The Great Gorean Melt of Antarctica? I’ve been eyeing off potential waterfront land 70m. above sea level, you see, and Big Al won’t get back to me with a little bit of, you know, inside information, so I defer to the community expert. When will it be best to clinch a few deals?
Buy at will – everything could go and you’d still be OK 🙂
I’m surprised, if I knew your Super Trustees I could maybe pick up a few percent on the way through,on the strength of the recommendation. Might sit it out for a bit myself though…..
Well WJP – brilliant though I am it’s just Wiki – see glaciers and ice sheets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_sea_level
IPCC actual projections put it in the metre range though. Although ice sheet instability still an unknown factor. But it’s not all going to melt either.
Hold on SJT, if the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean, and oceans absorb about 96% of solar radiation anyway, then there is obviously a very limited potential for solar forcing in the southern hemisphere. OK, add some clouds with higher albedo than water and the raw potential for climate forcing is bit higher but it will depend on the exact mix of reflective and/or blanketing clouds.
I’m with WJP on sea level. Funny how there doesn’t seem to be a single climate alarmist in all of Raby Bay. You would think they would be pleased as punch for someone to take their “high risk” waterfront property off their hands at a 70% discount but they keep slammin the door in my face every time I make an offer.
It is interesting to do a trend band for the above BoM temp series, rather than the simple moving mean. The trend band looks only at the readings that make up the upper and lower boundaries of the records. And it shows two quite distinct temperature sequences.
The first period runs for 70 years from 1910 to 1980. There were 15 records (21.4% of sample)below -0.50C, 13 records (18.6% of sample) above 0.0C and 42 records (60.0%) within this range of variation. The lower trend line is an almost dead flat -0.73C while the upper line is a similar +0.24C, giving a band width of 0.97C. The variation between the first 35 years and the second 35 years is -0.039C for the lower line and +0.0037C for the upper line.
The second period overlaps the first and runs for 32 years from 1975 to 2007. There were 6 records (18.75%) below 0.0C, 6 records (18.75%) above +0.7C and 20 records (62.5%) within this range of variation. The lower trend line is at -0.175C while the upper line is at +0.792C, giving a band width of 0.967C. The duration of this second period is too short, and with too few records, for comparing early and late halves of the trend lines.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with two level trend bands with a consistent width of 0.97C and a single, structural jump of +0.55C in those bands between 1975 and 1980.
Needless to say, this single change is not consistent with greenhouse theory which is reliant on incremental change in line with increases in atmospheric CO2. At very best, one can only say that, as far as continental Australia goes, “global” warming (whatever the cause) was an event that took place 30 years ago and we have all adjusted to it quite well.