I HAVE already detailed my concerns with the claim by the Bureau of Meteorology that 2013 was the hottest year on record. Thank you for your many comments in the threads that followed the two blog posts. I am taking many of these comments into consideration in the development of a further set of questions.
In the meantime Bob Fernley-Jones, a retired engineer based in Melbourne, suggests that even if one accepts the truncating and adjusting that the Bureau has undertaken to arrive at the 2013 record annaul average temperature, given the actual temperature statistics published by the Bureau, David Jones was not justified in making the headline-grabbing statements that he did on January 3, in particular that there is a general warming trend and that it is Australia-wide.
Mr Fernley-Jones makes the following points, with the charts and supporting references available for download here:
1. One data point does not make a trend. There has been considerable variability over recent years in both the annual mean temperature anomaly and also the annual maximum temperature anomaly, Chart 1.
2. When regional variability is considered it is evident that only one state, South Australia, was signficiantly warmer in 2013, Chart 2.
3. The seasonal distribution of temperature is important, for instance warmer winters might arguably be a good thing for South Australia, while hotter summer are generally not. When the season mean temperatures for South Australia are considered for the period 1990 to 2013, the summer of 2013 was not particularly hot, Chart 3. In fact not a single season was hotter in 2013.
4. While much has been made of January 2013 being exceptionally hot, when the mean January temperature anomaly is plotted for South Australia back to 1910, Chart 4, it is apparent that 2013 was not an exceptionally hot January with hotter January’ occuring in the 1930s.
5. According the Bureau’s own time series data based on truncated and adjusted data series, mean January maximum temperatures have been flat since 1934 for the Northern Territory, and since 1947 for Queensland. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have hotter January’s going back to 1938. South Australia, the hottest region for 2013, has eight hotter January’s going back to 1933. Tasmania has about 25 hotter January’s going back to 1917. Victoria has about 20 hotter January’s going back to 1939.
Mr Fernley-Jones’ critic can be read in more detail by downloading this document BobF-J_BlogVer2.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What extraordinary reductionist pap. Not one of the 5 points has any relevance to 2013 being the hottest year on the record. What happens in one month or one state has about zero weighting in a national average. The points show an extraordinary jumbling of data below national and annual scale. The 2013 record is big picture stuff that requires a bit of synthesis beyond the regional and the month.
What we have is the phenomenon of the “sound bite” which has taken on the mantle of “”fact”.
These throwaway lines are cited by far too many in the MSM and also by the public in general that lies are so easily peddled as truth and end up as an urban myth.
What annoys me the most is that supposedly intelligent educated people are the main instigators and are more easily deceived than suburbanites who are looked down upon by those of the lofty towers of academia.
For many years Science has been put up on a pedestal by the hoi polloi,those same people will also tear it down if they find out they have been duped.
What Bob F-J has done is disprove the claim by David Jones that there is a general warming trend and that it is Australia wide… using the Bureau’s own official data set which has been truncated and adjusted. If the official data series were extended back to 1860, the claims by David Jones could be shown to be even more ridiculous.
Records in aggregates of correlated data get broken by some components being consistently high. Check months and regions have their records in different years. As for pre 1910 data, Cohenite quoted Gillam but left out the following “It may be argued that the density and range of the 1908 and 2013 weather station networks makes comparison impossible.” You are simply asserting without evidence. Next contributions will be about Stevenson screens pre 1910 and about some dodgy data at one location in a big country. What a joke. Show your class and slip in that one about me being loathed, particularly after your mistake was picked up.
2013 record is big picture stuff ?
Big picture about what Bazza?
DJ claimed that 2013 was confirming an Australia wide trend. So what is the ‘big picture’ you are referring to?
deb, the big picture is the world beyond your rice paddy cell where temperature trends have been relentlessly up for decades apart from a bit of mainly ENSO related variabililty. Now ask me what I mean by some other word or two.
Not quite on topic but an interesting read about Queensland’s historical climatology including some tables of temp, rainfall and drought figures. It may have been written around 1996 I suspect.
http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/publications/qld-past-present/qld-past-present-1896-1996-ch02-sec-02.pdf
I was chasing the historical high temp for my home town, Maryborough. On the BOM website it suggests that is 40.6C though I can’t ascertain when that was set. The above document notes 43C in Feb 1902. Make of that what you will I guess.
Bazza,
DJ claimed 2013 confirmed an Australia wide trend. It has nothing to do with my rice paddy.
Temperature trends have NOT been RELENTLESSLY UP for decades. . .where is your ‘big picture’ & statistically viable proof for using ‘relentlessly up’?
What is the benchmark?
Some folks (Bazza ?) seem to have a problem with word meanings. For example, “warming” means a certain thing, and “warm” means something else. Interesting, the temperature can be warm while getting cooler.
It seems no one reasonalble disputes “the Pause” and, likewise, no one can explain it, least of all those believers in CAGW based on increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This has gone up year after year for many years. The temperature goes up, down, and sideways – or so the readings seem to tell us. Something is not right with that picture – if your religion is based on carbon dioxide.
It doesn’t pay to take bazza too seriously, if he doesn’t like a number he’ll just divide it by 2 just to try and prove his point. And Luke approves.
He’s okay for a bit of fun but he hasn’t got much of a grip on reality. We are discussing OZ temps only but the USA has been experiencing one of its coldest winters for decades.
So what was that about GLOBAL warming again? They’ve even had ice breakers on the great lakes.
Graeme
Maryborough was 40.6C on 11 Dec, 1979. The records commenced there in 1870 but the BOM record starts in 1908. Daily records don’t start until 1957.
Maryborough is not included in the new ACORN data set even though there has been seemingly no change in location.
Source
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_040126_All.shtml
Bob or Jennifer
The BOM states in its Summary of Climate site that all temps are calculated from its 112 station ACORN site.
Can you tell me, please:
1. Does the BOM just use the anomalies for each station and average them out;
OR
2. does the BOM use the anomalies and shade across to get some homogenised/localised anomaly
(and are the anomalies then weighted on a state-basis depending on the area of each state)?
Or is it all unknown.
Thank you
Deb, check out Bobs graphs. All that red means only one thing – it is getting hotter. Bob may not realise he has shot himself in the foot. When red beats blue it is unfriendly fire.
Bob as an engineer should know all about signal to noise ratio. If you use months and regions the signals get swamped by weather variability. At longer periods the seasonal, ENSO and global warming signals emerge. bob may well be from Sa so he could check the advance in the date of the grape harvest, only partly related to variety trends. Maybe even your rice comes on quicker?
Errrrr Bazza,
Those are graphs for mean maximum temp anomalies for January. . .they clearly DON’T support DJ’s claim ‘re 2013.
Matt Ridley and Steve McIntyre have just caught out Briffa telling more porkies AGAIN about various NON HS data.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/cherry-picking-and-the-tale-of-the-siberian-larch-data.aspx
After being pursued by McIntyre for years and made to come clean on hiding critical data he still has the hide to try and re -write history.
This fool was one of the leading lights promoting the HS fraud and yet he is still offended when the public is reminded of his omissions.
Just proves you can’t trust anything they tell you at all.
Ian George @ 2:45 pm
Good questions!
Response:
Dunno
But eight of the sites are admitted as UHI effect corrupted
re Errrrr Bazza, Debbie, you have erred big time – it is annual data. Even worse, you totally missed the point about signal to noise at monthly v annual scales.
Commendable Ian George, but you don’t get answers around here. If it is obfuscation you want you have come to the right place. Others can shoot off an opinion and not even have the courtesy to check the comprehensive papers available on ACORN at BOM. You can even get the grid data as it comes out of the interpolation procedure. Maybe you will need to get a bit of confirmation bias too.
Hi Ian George
The answers to your questions are probably here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=About-climate-change
“The calculation of Australia’s annual mean temperature follows international standard practices. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures are averaged across a year for each homogenised, non-urban station. These annual averages are then compared with the 1961–1990 normal to produce annual maximum and minimum temperature anomalies for each station. These anomalies are then averaged across Australia to produce Australian annual maximum and minimum temperature anomalies. The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.”
Thanks, Jennifer, for that link.
However, the last statement confuses me.
i.e. “The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.”
Does that mean that each station has a shaded grid and thus represents a greater area than it actually covers?
For example, Inverell had a minimum anomaly for Jan 14 of -0.4C and Yamba had a min +0.7C (some 300kms apart, as the crow flies). Both are ACORN sites.
A shaded/gridded weighting would mean Armidale (between the two towns) should have a min anomaly of between -0.4C and +0.7C – its actual min anomaly was -0.9C (Armidale is not a listed ACORN site).
I really have no idea what the weighted average is and it would be very difficult to check any claims made by the BOM until this claim is explained in detail.
Thanks, Jennifer, for that link.
However, the last statement confuses me.
i.e. “The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.”
Does that mean that each station has a shaded grid and thus represents a greater area than it actually covers?
For example, Inverell had a minimum anomaly for Jan 14 of -0.4C and Yamba had a min +0.7C (some 300kms apart, as the crow flies). Both are ACORN sites.
A shaded/gridded weighting would mean Armidale (between the two towns) should have a min anomaly of between -0.4C and +0.7C – its actual min anomaly was -0.9C (Armidale is not a listed ACORN site).
I really have no idea what the weighted average is and it would be very difficult to check any claims made by the BOM until this claim is explained in detail.
Whoops, posted twice. Sorry.
Thanks for that info Ian George. I had found that BOM page but didn’t notice the dates there!!! I wonder how accurate the report of a 43C max in 1902 can be considered. That is certainly way hotter than the BOM record. If it were true it is testament to the variability of individual extremes.
I wonder what the overall temp record would show if averages were struck from hourly data per day rather than max and mins.
Ian George
There is more information in the letter they sent me http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BOM_Response-to-Dr-Marohasy_MARKUP.pdf
Given there is no set of evenly placed thermometers across the landmass of Australia, given they truncate and adjust only a subset of the 750 stations and then stretch these values to a grid, without any benchmarking against individual stations or the satellite data…. add to this different geographic locations contributing data series with different start and finish dates
And no benchmarking against individual stations or the satellite record
Bazza,
As we were discussing the DJ January 2013 comments I assumed you meant these type of graphs from Bob FJ’s article:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=nsw&season=01&ave_yr=0
But nonetheless, after re reading the comments, I can now see how we have misunderstood each other. . .and I apologise that I misunderstood you.
The point however remains that the graphs and charts do not support DJ’s comments in the media.
See point 5 above.
Bob FJ also points out the signal to noise ratio. . .but clearly comes to a very different conclusion to you. . . I don’t think he has ‘shot himself in the foot’. . .no one is arguing that the climate doesn’t change. . .but considering our period of robust records in Australia would appear as something like .00000003 seconds to midnight on a clock. . .the claims made by DJ about Australia wide trends are indeed rather questionable.
We also shouldn’t forget that the real point of contention is the ’causes’ of these changing patterns, if they are sending us to ‘hell in a handbasket’ and what, if anything, Australia could do about it.
This article here poses some interesting questions about those sort of claims made by people like DJ.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/
As far as the advances in harvest dates go. . .with Rice. . .it is almost exclusively because of varietal changes derived from R & D and huge changes in farming/harvesting techniques as is also the case with the grape harvest. This area also grows lots of grapes. . .I believe it’s a higher tonnage than SA?
Seasonal variations in Summer. . .including temperature and sunlight hours. . .do alter the time it takes for crops to finish ripening. . .but the basic timeframe has not changed in any type of noticeable correlation with AGW theory and climate modelling. . .the real correlation can be found in varietal research and also in advances in machinery/technology.
Hi Debbie,
One way of considering the noise is to use the BoM optional CMA smoothing and for this purpose, a 3-year interval choice is I think the best, as follows for Oz-annual-mean:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=3
Notice that 2010 through 2012 are rather cool with 2011 actually below average (blue) and that for this reason the black worm is not impressed by the 2013 data.
Another approach is pattern recognition which to someone familiar with data handling suggests that 2013 will likely be an outlier.
Graeme M @ 5:51 am
You may find this 24-hour trace for yesterday (3/Feb) for Melbourne interesting:
http://www.baywx.com.au/melbtempyestII.html
Obviously in this case with a cool change the real mean was lower than the average of max & min but there is access to archives etc from here.
I guess the BoM defence would be that on average the errors will balance out
Debbie, you are not getting it. Point 5 by BobFJ is all about January data. Even intuitively you would accept that monthly data is more about weather and is noisy. The signal is not so obvious. Trends would not show up particularly in northern Australia.
So all those red bars in the graphs above simply show it is getting hotter everywhere. How else would you get such an excess of red anomalies. Occasional La Nina years account for most exceptions. You should be worried that such a record ( outlier as Bob identified it) happened in a non-El Nino year, a real outlier. Many of the previous records were El Nino years. You should be worried that the record years are only a few years apart, another outlier unless something is causing all these outliers. Maybe Bob can identify another pattern called coincidence. Then again coincidences should be checked out more thoroughly in case they are not.
Anyway, stick with Bob and his black worm rooting for you. He is unique, a true outlier – The first analyst to mindlessly use a 3 year moving average to make inferences on future annual anomalies. He does not seem to know that those 2 blue bars were associated with the most extreme La Nina event in a century. You gotta laugh “the black worm is not impressed by the 2013 data”.
Dealing with an “impartial” public service:
“With the support of the Greens, the government increased the renewable energy target almost five-fold and after several false starts, it eventually succeeded in putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite rhetoric from the conservatives, these actions have worked.
Emissions are trending down, the renewable energy’s market share has grown considerably and we have one of the strongest economies in the world.
I enjoyed working in the public service, as it felt like I was making a real difference, and I worked with some amazingly intelligent and passionate people.
However, the party couldn’t last forever and, inevitably, we had a change of government.
The problem for me, and for climate and energy policy, was this change of leadership was only ever going to be catastrophic for the environment. We went from a government that understood and acknowledged the need to limit Australia’s contribution to climate change to one dominated by climate change sceptics.
The new government despises the policies I worked to implement. They have been in power for a little under five months and literally no piece of renewable energy or climate change policy has been left untouched, replaced by tokenistic policies no one in the industry expects will achieve anything other than to provide an easy ticket to industry and the incumbent fossil-fuelled power stations.”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/why-i-quit-climates-dark-art-20140202-31v2o.html#ixzz2sJ8X9swH
Bob, as you say “Another approach is pattern recognition which to someone familiar with data handling suggests that 2013 will likely be an outlier.”
With your eye for patterns, you will have noticed another pattern if you look at the whole series on your link to the mean temp anomalies. Most of the blue one are bunching up the left end and the red on the right. What could be driving them apart? I am sure you would have done a bit of risk management in your day. What do you see as the risk of this continuing and what would you do about it?
This new study could be another knockout blow to the theory of CAGW. No wonder there is no hot spot and now little evidence of more humidity in the system after the negative feedbacks found in the system.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/03/nature-can-selectively-buffer-human-caused-global-warming-say-israeli-us-scientists/#more-102592
Hi Neville,
Between you and me, although it is off topic, I was also pleased today by this other important paper “Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models” located just below your link at WUWT.
I’ve long marveled at the dominant mantra that melting of sea ice results in feedback via increased solar absorption in the darker water. But, a mischievous secret is that when the sun is low in the sky such as in the Arctic, there is high water reflectivity. Also, the sea ice (+ snow atop) insulation loss would result in increased heat loss from that naughty hot seawater. And……………
I find it hard to imagine that climate science would not be aware that water reflectivity is high in the Arctic – that would seem pretty obvious. Equally, although I have no idea of the sun’s elevation in the Arctic summer, one would imagine that the insolation is greatly reduced by atmospheric diffusion to say nothing of the much reduced surface area exposed by virtue of the spherical nature of the earth.
Intuitively I’d have imagined that between the shallow angle of attack, diffusion and the surface reflectivity, Arctic water would be very very unlikely to heat up much at all in the Arctic summer.
But this must all have been factored into models and theory, it is very very obvious.
SP @ 10:14 am,
That was an interesting rant, but I wonder if you have studied the scientific literature or instead prefer to rely on the paradigms of your preferred authorities.
Are you aware that the alarming emissions portrayed in the photo in your article:
http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2014/02/01/5124070/LI-art-wd-mazengarb-20140201174154425094-620×349.jpg
are mostly condensed water vapour from water cooling towers? (also popularly known as steam, and the stuff that is seen in atmospheric clouds)
Interesting Graeme M. Maybe the Arctic is an outlier too just like 2013 in Australia – all that warming. Maybe the rest of the world is an outlier too. Maybe the whole planet – it is hard to imagine another caught up debating the bleeding obvious.
Bob_FJ
I think you’ll find that sp was quoting a former public servant, who resigned from the Climate change department on the election of the LNP government?
I consider that a person controversially posting here fits into BOTH the traditional Scandinavian subterranean mythology AND the web semantics too, as being a troll. He or she has made certain incantations on the word ‘outlier’.
The following analysis to pick just one of ‘outlier’ definitions is perhaps more credible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
HA!
🙂 🙂
That Canberra Times article is highly amusing.
Harry Potter?
hahahahahaha
🙂 🙂 🙂
Maybe we should put JK Rowling in charge of climate policy?
Even funnier . . . .Christine Milne has always reminded me of Dolores Umbrage (another villain in Harry Potter). In looks and behaviour.
Bazza,
If we put aside your tendency to play semantics and rely heavily on sarcasm. . .it actually appears that we may be furiously agreeing with each other.
The charts and graphs that are derived from BoM do not support the comments that DJ made in the media re January 2013 or indeed the whole of 2013.
Johnathan Wilkes @ 4:06 pm
Whoops, if that is so, I apologise, and;
Hopefully sp will clarify the situation.
“Maybe the rest of the world is an outlier too. Maybe the whole planet”
Bazza, not sure if you have noticed (sic)….but apparently the major data sets all show pretty much no change in temp for up to 17 years……….so perhaps for every red there is an equal blue, somewhere on the globe…….?
by all means dispute the data sets and the sense of a global average, but whilst Australia has been warm, clearly much of the world has not.
Now if you say that is also because of co2 and a signal of CAGW, well I cant think of anything to say other than pseudoscience…..
Bob_FJ February 4th, 2014 at 5:09 pm: “Hopefully sp will clarify the situation.”
Bob, I am NOT:
“Michael Mazengarb (is an energy market analyst and until last week worked for a federal government agency responsible for major climate change and renewable energy programs.)”
who penned the piece in the Canberra Times:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/why-i-quit-climates-dark-art-20140202-31v2o.html#ixzz2sLLFvMuQ
It was not my rant – I simply quoted and provided a link to the rant.
Hope that makes it clear.
Lucia has graphed the climate models against observations since 1990 and here is the result.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AR5-Trends-since-1990.png
The CSIRO was bloody awful but was better than some, all Giss ( except 1) were hopeless, but the Chinese model was OK. But why did the world spend untold billions $ because of these barking mad creations?
SP,
Thank you, and sorry for my misunderstanding
“but whilst Australia has been warm, clearly much of the world has not’
yup except for the heat waves in Argentina, Japan, California, China, Europe, India ….
ps
It seems to me the only piece of climate “policy” the government has NOT changed (yet) is BOM policy, if Michael Mazengarb is to be believed
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/why-i-quit-climates-dark-art-20140202-31v2o.html#ixzz2sLLFvMuQ
Neville – how is an inanimate object – Fortran code like a GCM barking mad. I guess late with meds at the home tonite.
Luke, are you seriously trying to support Bazza’s comment?!
given no change in global temps and yet there are all these “heat waves” then obviously there must be something on the cooler side balancing out the equation? surely that makes sense to you both?
John Cook is a Filthy Liar, and BOM recommends Skeptical Science to Australian taxpayers
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
WHO !? and relevance – minus 1 billion
BobFJ, you don’t seem able to defend your 5 points. Lets start with 3.
1 One data point does not make a trend. I’ll show you a trend! 6 of the hottest years in the last 100 years have been this century.
2 When regional variability is considered it is evident that only one state, South Australia, was signficantly warmer in 2013. But the facts are:
NSW 2nd warmest on record
NT record
Qld 2nd
Tas 4th
Vic 3rd
WA record
3 In SA in fact not a single season was hotter in 2013. But the facts are:
Summer was 4th hottest on record
Autumn 2nd
Winter 2nd
Spring 3rd
I could not be bothered with your other points.
WHO?
The infamy of John Cook:
“”Infamous” eh? Perhaps word is getting round that John Cook and his acolytes at Skeptical Science are a bit of a liability. With quote fabrication now added to the list of misdeeds of which he stands accused, and with nobody at Sks even offering up a defence, it is going to be hard for anyone who seeks credibility to stand by the treehouse crew.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/4/the-infamy-of-john-cook.html
BOM recommends Skeptical Science to Australian taxpayers
Bazza – I hope you are satisfied. You have completely destroyed this thread and left the sceptics floundering in the drying landscape. I hope you are satisfied rubbing their noses in their woeful data analysis skills. You know they’ll only try to change the topic now.
So Bazza has destroyed us, at the same time as making one of the most ridiculous statements of logic possible…….
That said he has made some valid points, intermingled amongst his zealot like comments about “risk management”.
When the big emitters switch to nuclear, then maybe we should consider changing our key sources of energy. But seriously a little country like Australia is irrelevant in the big picture and to be unable to grasp that shows a distinct lack of perspective.
Bazza,
It isn’t Bob FJ who is unable to defend his statements. . .your comment at 10:30 Feb 4th does not ‘completely destroy’ Bob FJ’s statements (to use Luke’s terminology). . .it’s DJ’s statements in the media that are questionable.
Maybe DJ should have spoken to you first and you could have advised him to reign in his hyperbole?
The tendentious marking and adjustments of temperatures under the auspices of Jones- reeks of…. a concerted effort to adjust any previous elevated temperatures out of the records,just to support a meme which has not a clue about sensitivity from atrace gas.Tipping points, worse than we thought,last petrol fr 100miles.Why not deny something that smell like a rotten Trevally behind you car seat?
“It would not surprise me if the DENIALISTS would deny the existence of the new book by Haydn Washington and JOHN COOK. So, what about using the labels ‘reptiles’ or ‘dinos’?
Washington and COOK opt for ‘DENIERS’, and so will I hereafter.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/handbook-in-denialism/#sthash.4xj73o9U.dpuf
BOM recommends REALCLIMATE to Australian taxpayers.
Know when you’re done guys. One of the worst threads I’ve seen – appalling sceptic logic and maths. sp is desperately trying to change to subject.
bazza/Luke,
I’ve been wondering if I can help you … but just a few quickies;
• Perhaps study the title of this thread and note the focus on the year 2013
• Then contemplate the note top left in fig 1 which leads you into the significance of 2013 in the context of the general (warming) trend
• Then perhaps go over the whole thing with an open mind
*then perhaps go over the whole thing with an open mind
🙂 🙂
Good one!
More German Ponzi schemes collapse. But don’t worry Luke and bazza will just adjust and torture the numbers until they make sense .NOT.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/04/as-investments-turn-sour-wind-energy-sector-in-german-begins-to-crumble-in-wake-of-solar-industry-collapse/
I remember reading Willis Eshenberg on the Darwin thermometres way back.
It would be nice to have the unadjusted raw date wouldn’t it?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/comment-page-3/
Thanks Jennifer, for your link to the BOM’s response to your letter. There is a wealth of material to look at (which I will over time).
I still maintain there is something odd about the introduction of the ACORN data (and weighting/shading) and the sudden appearance of all these new records.
Have all the previous calculations obtained from the superseded High Quality Data sites been reworked using the ACORN system?
This might explain why 2009 dropped from 2nd warmest (after 2005) in 2010 to 4th warmest in the last climate summary (after 2013, 2005 and 1998).
Science can’t settle what should be done about climate change
“The now infamous paper by JOHN COOK and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer-reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the fact that humans cause climate change is largely irrelevant to the more important business of deciding what to do about it. By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point.”
“In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it? Scientific consensus is not much help here. Even if one takes the Cook study at face value, then how does a scientific consensus of 97.1% about a fact make policy-making any easier?”
https://theconversation.com/science-cant-settle-what-should-be-done-about-climate-change-22727
BOM recommends Skeptical Science to Australian taxpayers.
Ian and Jen,
It’s interesting that the BoM time-series records for the Southern Hemisphere currently run from 1850 to 2012, and I believe that Oz is part of the SH even if the BoM claims Oz data is “unsuitable” prior to 1910. Is it less reliable than South America, South Africa and a whopping great ocean and less developed archipelagoes?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi?graph=global_t®ion=sh&season=0112&ave_yr=0
Hadcrut4 on which I guess it is based is interesting with update to 2013 and a 3-year CMA smoothing
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
Strange that the pause is evident around the globe but not much so in Oz
To those who believe a National Australian Temperature is a grand thing worth having I can only say “good luck”. Building with flour-and-water paste and overstretched rubber bands is not my thing. And Davy Jones is definitely not my go-to guy. (Can’t he get a gig as a biochar salesman for Turney and Flannery? He’d do that well.)
But I’ll say this about “risk management”. Since there is no stability, and temps will always be going up or down in different ways and cycles, won’t we be in perpetual “risk management” over some “trend”? In the early 19th century we’d have to fret over cooling combined with dwindling Arctic ice. By the end of that century we’d have to worry about a bit of warming and lots of Arctic ice. Shortly after that we’d have a “quiet sun” scare…but it sure wouldn’t be making any freezes in Oz. But the 1970s we’d be “risk managing” both cooling and Arctic ice increase (they actually wanted to do that, but ever-alert risk manager Steven Schneider thought there could be side effects from mass sooting etc). The only constant through it all was sea level rise, though it was less brisk after the 1860s. But sea level rise is like drought in Oz: for the re-education of the masses, we have to pretend it’s new.
Potty. Absolutely potty.
Well Beth – instead of implying there’s an issue with data access go to BoM’s site and get the raw data (Assuming you are fair dinkum and are really interested).
sp and Neville – Jen has told you about off-topic – take your rat dirt to the open thread. Lead by example given you’re claiming the moral high ground.
Well Luke,
Instead of being an apologist for unworkable or highly questionable ‘risk management’ strategies that are underpinned by some insane idea that BoM has some type of exclusive and unquestionable authority over and ownership of the weather/climate. . . & that it’s somehow acceptable for the likes of DJ to ‘overstate’ the influence of 2013 in Australia. . . and the even weirder idea that we can control the future Australian climate (and hence bushfires, droughts, floods & etc) by introducing a ‘carbon tax’ or a ‘carbon price’ . . .perhaps this approach outlined by Jonova in her latest post may make a bit more sense?
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/climate-change-is-making-us-mental-fear-of-storms-undoing-evolution/#more-33215
————————
“Spare us. The answer is not to trash the economy, but to stop the fear campaign and get back to real concerns. The way to reduce the damage from ghastly natural events is to do better science, stop the name-calling, and cancel the government committees that can’t list the observations to support their claims. We need to actually figure out the climate. Then we need to stop people building in flood zones, stop filling up dams as cyclical rain returns, and start getting practical.”
———————————–
I would perhaps rather see a ‘refocusing and streamlining’ of those ‘government committees’ rather than outright cancelling them but I think the bulk of that quote is well expressed.
And here is an article from today that discusses similar ‘risk management’ issues.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/new-qld-homes-inevitable-in-flood-areas/story-fni0xqi4-1226818209617
Toby back at 605pm 4 Feb: “but apparently the major data sets all show pretty much no change in temp for up to 17 years”. Given the knowledge hereabouts on moving averages there is a way to test support for that non-trend to continue. BOM has the HadCrut3v series on its climate change section to 2012. The latest global moving average anomaly for 17 years is 0.395. So Toby, I have a grand to say that the 17 year moving average will be up when the 2013 data is incorporated. and BobFJ can play too. Any takers.?
bazza’s on a roll; he’s given me a serve and got stuck into everyone else. No wonder people don’t like him!
Let’s look at this:
“The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.”
I mentioned Alice Springs before. It’s weighting is about 10% of the continent; Stockwell rips the heart out of these weightings in this easy to follow p/p; in respect of Alice Springs and Tibooburra look at slide 10:
http://aefweb.info/data/Stockwell%20AEF%20Conference.pdf
Those 2 stations alone will determine the national trend; that’s bazza’s bigger picture!
Now, without looking at any other potential defect such as rounding and the fact that RSS, UAH and GHCN all found 2013 NOT to be the hottest year, it has to remembered Australia’s BoM anomaly charts are based on weighted area averages – not station averages. As well as his p/p Stockwell and Stewart have shown this area weighting to be inherently flawed:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
Apologies but that link is the only one I have. On page 1276 Stockwell and Stewart say:
“Imposing too large a neighborhood confounds short-term changes with the long-term warming trend, thus biasing the adjustments to exaggerate the trend.3”
This is exactly what bazza misses; it is classic wood for the trees stuff. Individual sites are the only data we have; an area weighting in the manner the BOM has done [and see Figure 1 of Stockwell and Stewart for an explanation of the defects of this extrapolation] will artificially apply a particular site’s micro-weather onto the continental trend as has happened and explained in this article.
Didn’t I read just a few days ago that the MET has updated its records and the stasis remains?!
all I could find quickly was this. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-dec-2013-0-27-deg-c/
and it also demonstrates the foolishness of your comment about red being everywhere around the globe ( look at his world map……not a lot of red)…if temp aint really changing then there must be cooler places to negate the hot ones like australia
Bazza: “The latest global moving average anomaly for 17 years is 0.395.”
From SKS Trend Calculator from 1997:
HADCRUT4 Hydrid Land / Ocean: 0.114 +/- 0.136 C/Decade
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If its SKS it must be right.
BOM recommends Skeptical Science to Australian taxpayers.
From 1997:
GISS Trend: 0.077 ±0.131 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA Trend: 0.042 ±0.121 °C/decade (2σ)
HADCRUT4 Trend: 0.049 ±0.126 °C/decade (2σ)
Satelite Trend: Trend: 0.093 ±0.230 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH trend -0.010 ±0.225 °C/decade (2σ)
If its SKS it must be right.
BOM recommends Skeptical Science to Australian taxpayers.
Toby, Re the grand challenge @ 11:25 am
I don’t know what he is raving on about, or why the replaced Hadcrut3V, but here it is at source with its own 3-year CMA smoothing through to 2013:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3v.pdf
I would not bet on any projections from these authorities
Whoops, Re my 10:32 am
Sorry if I offended any New Zealanders or “Antarcticans” by accidentally implying that they were less developed than Australia. On the other hand, didn’t I read somewhere that the NIWA records are arguably even more suspect than Oz’
I am unclear why a .2 deg or .17 deg averaged nationwide increase is SSOOoooooo worrying?
What is the inherent danger from that?
2 days ago the max was in the high 40’s here and last night the min was 16. Today it’s in the mid 30’s.
How is deriving an average from that demonstrating anything useful or meaningful.?
While this area was experiencing nearly a week long above 40 heatwave. . . Sydney was experiencing pleasant high 20’s yet they are both in NSW. How does averaging that indicate something alarming or even useful?
For those beyond grade one maths, there are analyses where one can experiment with the impact of leaving a station or stations out of an analysis. You don’t have to wallow in pity Debs.
And gee Debs – if you worry about the power of averages and you had passed grade one you could get a small set of data and see if the MIA had different averages to Thredbo. But let’s not get all sophistamuckated now.
Don’t lecture people luke; you think a moving average is how many cans of beer you can drink per kilometre sitting in the back of a ute.
errrrrr Luke?
I’m not actually the one who’s worried about the power of averages.. .nor am I wallowing in pity.
The rice actually thrives in Summer heat waves . . .and all the critters and creatures that hang out in the rice are all just hunky dory too. . .even though the max to min range in temps was over 30 degrees in just the last 2 days here. . .of course that isn’t unusual for this time of the year. . .our Summer climate/weather here is one of the reasons why this area was originally developed.
There wouldn’t be much point in developing Thredbo in a similar manner.
It does appear that Bazza and yourself are worried and wallowing however.
So what’s so worrying about a .2 deg or .17 deg increase in Australian averages?
Which critters and creatures are going to suffer from that?
Where exactly is the catastrophe that you infer actually manifesting itself from that alarming average .2 deg or .17 deg increase in the Australian average that requires urgent ‘risk management’?
And I have noticed that you are both conveniently ignoring that DJ’s comments re 2013 in the media are highly questionable. . .which is of course the actual topic of this particular post.
Bob, I suspect it was a straw man to distract from a silly comment.
I don’t claim to have a micro knowledge of CAGW and all the data, stats etc derived to prove it.
I don’t like the concept of a global temp because of all the inherent problems in creating it.
But since we have several data sets claiming to show such things we might as well look at them. Their own data shows little to no warming for a reasonable period of time in terms of the temp records that we believe we can rely on.
If Australia has been very hot, whilst globally no change, then clearly elsewhere has been cooler.
What really disturbs me is comments about “risk management”. When the worlds big emitters turn to nuclear, then perhaps so should we. Until then we know nothing we do matters, but some would like to see us instigate policies that clearly will have significant costs whilst clearly having a zero benefit on global temperatures.
Moral gestures are for the very rich or very stupid. I don’t think I fit either. I wonder which Bazza fits into?
“So what’s so worrying about a .2 deg or .17 deg increase in Australian averages?
Which critters and creatures are going to suffer from that?
Where exactly is the catastrophe that you infer actually manifesting itself from that alarming average .2 deg or .17 deg increase in the Australian average that requires urgent ‘risk management’?”
well said Deb!
I expect you will be told about moving climatic zones etc. at the same time as ignoring the “greening” of the planet and the contraction of some of our largest deserts like the sahara!
But at the pace temperature has been changing its hard to see it doing too much harm, except to requests for research funds, or justification for past research funds?
Raw data means
just that. Not …
add-justed,
homogenized,
tweaked,
lost in space,
different from
the data in
the old newspapers.
R – A – W, – raw.
Is that askin’
too much?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/09/global-warming-stalls-climate-scientists-fiddle-temperature-record/
Yea that’s what we are talking about baby. Nike !
“So what’s so worrying about a .2 deg or .17 deg increase in Australian averages?”
Well Debs that’s the margin of leeway you have between western spiny-tailed skink (Egernia stokesii badia) reproducing and not. As this video shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbMw-bAEpPs
Luke,
Really interested in the skink you named, but the link is to some random music clip.
Can you provide the video link showing that the subspecies “badia” is dependent on a 0.20 deg increase to the point of reproducing or not?
This is another big fib Luke.
luke
“that’s the margin of leeway you have between western spiny-tailed skink (Egernia stokesii badia) reproducing and not. “
Not having met a ‘spiny-tailed skink’ lately, nor am I wasting my time to look it up, but if Luke’s assertion is correct, then one must wonder how a creature this delicate not only survived but evolved into being in the first place?
Honestly, it would be better for them to end it all.
Imagine them watching the temp. fluctuation all the time and worrying themselves to death whether to do it or not?
It must be torture.
DaveMF
here you go
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64483
There are three Egernia stokesii subspecies (AFD 2012):
WA sub species listed as vulnerable……
E. s. badia, which occurs between Shark Bay and Minnivale in the WA wheatbelt and includes the population on Baudin Island, within Shark Bay, that was previously known as E. s. aethiops (Doughty 2012 pers. comm., cited in AFD 2012)
E. s. stokesii, which occurs on the Abrolhos Archipelago, 40 km off the WA town of Geraldton
E.s zellingi, which may or may not be a sub species, occurs in central South Australia, west New South Wales and south-west Queensland…..not on the endangered list
do you really believe that Luke?
Johnathan,
Luke always links to skinks, erosion, lies etc. and all through this thread he has contributed nothing.
Just makes things up like above, to change the topic, in which he continually lies.
Saibai Island lost through sea level rise. LIE – that was a laugh.
Plenty of others but I couldn’t be bothered.
But back to topic, the rest of the comments have been great and thank you to Bob_FJ for your contribution.
The problem with a Grand National Temperature is the speculation, sloppiness and manipulation which underlie it.
The good thing about a GNT is the chance to average out temps taken in a corner of Tassie with temps taken in the tropical west and temps in the middle of some desert and up in the Alps and down in the Mallee (where men are socks) and in some jungle up north. All determined by political boundaries! So useful and meaningful. You can’t do that in Lichtenstein or San Marino!
I may be out of the loop here, but on that chart / graph thingo…there seemed to be an awful lot of red and not much blue….a lot above the line and very little below it…..the chart doesn’t tell much detail….is there something I should know?
(be nice!).
Anyway..I just came here because I’ve had a hell of a week….HOT!..so hot the chooks were laying boiled eggs!…and the wind has blown the buggery out of the fruit trees…and the figs…all buggered!….everything dry as an Arab’s fart!…nothing “in the bank”…so I am feeling a tad “down”…Thought I’d listen to some old favourites, like “Our House” by Graham Nash..”Harvest” by Niel Young…that sort of thing..but they only made it worse…and then I have to see that mug’s mug (you know who I mean!) stuttering out his banal innanities on the tele……so I thought I’d come over here to cheer myself up…
You know..It’s when you see someone or some people so much worse off than yourself that you decide you have to “pull yourself up by the boot-straps”…and “make a fist of it” and get on with things !
Thanks team!…
jaycee, you are out of the loop and there is nothing you should know (said nicely)
One of the great things about having lots of weather stations is the chance to break lots of records. This January in the USA they broke 1259 records for highest max!
[Um, I should add that there were 4406 Record Cold Temps. Also, 1073 Snowfall records.]
All of this means…well, nothing.
Anyhows, I’m off to spray the quinces for codling moth and groom the alpacas before midnight. Us folk on the land…it’s either one thing or t’other.
There is such a creature as a western spiny-tailed skink; scientific name:
Egernia stokesii badia [64483]
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64483
But no threats from a 0.2 or a 0.17 average Australian temperature rise.
From the link:
Threats
Whilst the distribution of the Western Spiny-tailed Skink occurs mainly in the wheatbelt, the remaining habitat patches are threatened by clearing for agriculture, grazing and crop production (Cogger et al. 1993). The long-term survival of populations in grazed areas may be threatened as the presence of livestock may disrupt the dispersal of young between log piles (How et al. undated).
The following activities could result in a significant impact on the Western Spiny-tailed Skink (WA DEC 2012b):
the introduction of vertebrate predators, including rats (Rattus spp.), onto islands where the subspecies occurs.
the removal of available refugia, or the destruction or degradation of habitat or potential habitat.
the decrease in the connectivity of woodland remnants.
the removal of timber from woodland habitats.
increased grazing, compaction or salinity within identified or potential habitat.
prescribed fire or arson in woodland remnants.
🙂
So that’s good. . .this little lizard will be OK and isn’t going to be affected by a 0.2 rise in average temps.
Sorry I was chewing my arm at Debs silliness and it got infected causing delirium. The skink was just random crap although herpetologically very interesting and if Neville and sp insist on thread spamming and discussion jamming – no Jen policing vandals and goths – I thought perhaps I could get the thread to self spam.
I wonder if Debs ever thinks before writing. Yes Debs fauna and flora survive a vast range of temperatures but dare I suggest that Sydney has a different climate to Brisbane and so ongoing warming over time does affect the background and distribution of species causing many interesting effects such as incursion of fruit fly into your neck of the woods (what woods may be left). And a plethora of other impacts. Whether they’re the big C in AGW we might ponder, however it is a thread about the numbers and calculation of intricacies of these calculations so I apologise that Bob F-J brought it up and disturbed you.
I can only offer you some more soothing Groove Armada’s best track (IMO) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhkQhqkXOo turn it up OK ! Kick it Debs.
However also a peace offering on some cool inside climate by seriously fanatical types
http://www.youtube.com/user/ozcyclonechasers?feature=watch
http://www.auscyclonechasers.com/
But in all seriousness grim stuff in the bush. And the full economic rationalist Liberal dries (pun if it wasn’t serious) won’t be keen to help either. Car plants gone ! SPC Ardmona – gone.
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/reconstruction-board-push/2686567.aspx?storypage=0
The Australian says “Mr Joyce said the Prime Minister was deeply concerned about the debt and drought crisis affecting rural Australia and was looking for ways to help, especially after reading of the recent spate of suicides in outback Queensland in The Weekend Australian.
The Agriculture Minister did acknowledge, however, that winning agreement within an economic-rationalist cabinet for the proposal would be a struggle.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said the Coalition had no plans to establish a rural bank.”
So to be back here after all those wet years and the 1990s droughts and Millennium drought is very disturbing for those involved.
Disappointed that we have no real understanding of this drought apart from lack of rain and high temperatures. So dear Debs when the bureaucrats sitting on their fat butts, never having done a days hard work in their lives, are trying to get some serious support up for you with those interminable briefs – think about the temperature feedback which will be used in the argument. But I guess you rather no skills in this area….all those pesky numbers – and Robert hates those dashboard dials…. mechanisms – pffft bah humbug
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/whats-driving-the-drought/2685843.aspx?storypage=0
Was really hoping on that Gulf system but looks like a fizzer
Some readers comments from Lukes QLDCountryLife link – you should read what you post Luke:
shorty3/02/2014 5:00:45 AM
Why choose a 40 year average on temperature? Why not an average since records began? Please, we need the clearest picture available!
Qlander3/02/2014 7:45:44 AM
Wow! What a refreshing change, a climatologist who admits she ‘doesn’t know’. There might still be hope for the future of climate science.
bg3/02/2014 3:09:24 PM
Shorty. The average temp since records began will be lower than the 40 (really 30) year average used. That’s because the recent average excludes the lower temperatures in the early 1900s. As we warm up, the average also goes up (at a much slower rate). 1.2C above the 1960-90 period relates to something like 1.5C above the 1910-1940 period.
How are you able to stand up each day in a infrastructure business when you’re a twit? Really.
It’s this graph http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
It’s an anomaly scaled off a somewhat arbitrary climate baseline period. You uncritically like a dumbo parrot anything you read. What an utter goose. De-anomaly it if it makes you happy – matters not !
Supe, it’s called drought – think we can agree on that – and it’s the single most characteristic feature of Australian climate. If you “know” what “causes” it, great. Let us in on your “knowledge”. Please don’t just spray loosely about ENSO and PDO and IOD and “forcings”. And don’t pretend to be on the side of Walker and Mantua against the luddites. The console-tapping barbarians of Publish-or-Perish are the luddites. If you have a few observation sets which line up roughly with some known droughts, don’t call them “knowledge” – and don’t call those observation sets “causes” or, god help us, “mechanisms”. Above all, don’t use that word “skill” for juvenile console-junkie theories. (If, on the other hand, I’ve misunderstood you entirely and you just want more funds for real research into IOD etc, hell, I’m with you. Let’s spend millions on work where people admit what they don’t know and get wet feet finding out. I’ll vote for that.)
You can spare us the Nats versus Libs shocks. In my youth – and probably yours, since you’re quite old – it was Country Party versus Libs, and McEwen versus McMahon. Many of these clashes had to do with – you guessed it! – drought. After all, it was smack between the good wet times of the fifties and seventies that central Australia experienced the Long Drought (till the rest of us copped it too). Think there weren’t some heated discussions between Blackjack and Billy back then? Remember, the longest recognised drought ran eleven years, right in the middle of that period when some imagine there was a neg PDO making Australia green. Didn’t happen. (Also worth remembering is that nagging rain deficit which plagued all Eastern Oz between the 1890s and 1950.)
Don’t bother telling people how seriously grim it all is. When you live with it here in the bush, you know. And save us your bureaucrats-to-the-rescue schtick. I don’t look down on bureaucrats or bank managers or politicians. There is a bit they can all do by adjusting this-and-that, but drought is what it always has been. Nobody is going to be happy with their deal, but there will be some deals done.
You’ve had to be set straight on the fact that there have been far worse and longer droughts than this present one – which is awful indeed – and the fact that ENSO will not line up neatly with drought history in Australia. You tried it on many times and were set straight. You’d love to push that line still, but you know you’re being watched. So don’t go the forced pathos to manipulate this particular drought into a particular role for your politics. Your politics show blatantly, every single time.
Mindless whining drivel Robert. You really are a disconnected pathetic old codger aren’t you. A refugee from the 1950s which is as good as it ever got. I don’t care what happened in your youth and your peculiar brand of science nihilism and anti-science nastiness.
So in the here and now a major schism for the bush much bigger than drought and just imagine having uncle Robby going into bat for you. You’d be out the door quicker than a tin of Ardmona peaches.
This would have take the for the purest Robby wank ever “fact that ENSO will not line up neatly with drought history in Australia. You tried it on many times and were set straight.” Huh and WTF? what ? what confabulated piffle and double speak
“You’d love to push that line still, but you know you’re being watched. So don’t go the forced pathos to manipulate this particular drought into a particular role for your politics. ”
“But you know you’re being watched” ? ROFL – what by kooky forest kayaking Robert? Like who’d care.
What would you like to talk about uncle Fester – to see how times you can say “Green Betters” in a conversation on an issue that has nothing to do with that? Tell that to the family of someone who’s just ended it. That will help.
I remember an old cartoon from that irreverent publication “Nation Review” some years ago that had “big ears” sitting on “blackjacks’lap on the bog.The caption read “shit with a friend!” Yep, the old guard of the country party- no more;regards to slim Whittle and put the c… back in country.
Let’s face it we’re dealing with a confessed superstitious liar and fabricator. This nong even agrees with Milne, Brown and Bandt that Abbott is a climate criminal and was responsible for the Oct blue mountains fires.
So what about Oct’s 2012 snow in the blue mountains, was he responsible for that as well?
In fact he’s told us we’re all climate criminals thet’s how far he’s gone down his deranged path. He’s either mad or bad and definitely stupid. Why we bother arguing with these fools is beyond me, it’s like trying to appeal to the reason and logic of a 4 year old.
Luke, I noticed you tried it on in that last para, with a reference to suicide. The rest is just you being you, which is fine, but that last try-on is you being worse than you. Don’t do it.
Yesss, I suspect you are correct, sp. I am out of the loop…I did look in earlier, but when I saw the arguement about “SLR’s”, I immediately thought of Colin Bond and “Brocky” tearing around the Bathurst track and I lost the plot..so to speak.
Anyway, I guess I’ll just have to let this one go by the keeper…but I suppose one day in the not too distant future, when you ,sp., or yours turn up at my farm gate with your “save the environment” green shopping bag under your arm, begging for some victuals and pointing back to .. “the wife and kiddies” in the family Ford…and I’ll say ; “It’s hot.” and you’ll say ; “It’s BLOODY hot!”..and I’ll give you some flour or sugar and mabey a couple of “Mars Bars” for the kiddies to help you on your way……..you’ll turn to go..stop ..look like you’re giving a thought to something..then turn to me and ask : “Say..you wouldn’t have a spare thermometer I can use, would you…it’s just that I want to keep an eye on the temperature in the back of the wagon as it can get a bit hot in these days of climate change….I wouldn’t want the kiddies to suffer…?”……..I guess then we can “jawbone” a bit on the subject, eh?
So as a wise elder who’s seen it all before – Barnaby would be happy to know that you as a grand master of the climate – in native mode – nothing phases Robby – not surprised at all – you’d seen it coming, made your plans and so you won’t need a cheque nor will your mates. You’ll be right mate. That’s good to know.
Luke?
…but dare I suggest that Sydney has a different climate to Brisbane and so ongoing warming over time does affect the background and distribution of species causing many interesting effects such as incursion of fruit fly into your neck of the woods (what woods may be left). And a plethora of other impacts. Whether they’re the big C in AGW we might ponder, however it is a thread about the numbers and calculation of intricacies of these calculations so I apologise that Bob F-J brought it up and disturbed you…
* How on earth did you conclude that my comment suggested that Sydney and Brisbane have the same climates? That would have to be one of those straw man thingies. I definitely pointed out that our Australian climate is highly variable with large ranges.
* The incursion of fruit fly in my area has nothing to do with ongoing warming. . .what utter rot!
* What PLETHORA OF OTHER IMPACTS from ongoing warming? (considering that was the ACTUAL question I asked)
* It definitely appears that YOU may have been the one who was disturbed by Bob F-J’s “numbers and calculation of intricacies of these calculations” . . .it has not “disturbed’ me at all . . .and why would you think you need to apologise anyway? (another straw man I guess?)
* I’m still noticing that you have COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that Bob F-J’s post indicates that DJ’s comments in the media re 2013 were highly questionable.
Supe, another big problem is when you confect an argument or claim nobody has made and proceed to argue against it.
Yes, this is one of nine or ten major droughts to afflict Queensland since the Fed Drought – each horrible in a different way – and I know that. It’s actually impossible not to know that. I know about southern Qld’s 1940 heatwave. It doesn’t make me callous about the recent heatwave, just balanced. (This is a thread about historical temps, and Qld has an interesting history in that regard. Ignore it?) How can all that make me a “grand master”, in my own mind or anyone else’s mind?
How could I have seen the present drought coming? I knew the good years would end and that we would have a fire/regrowth problem in my region, but I did not know when or claim to know when. I’ve been adversely affected by the last two dry springs, and my immediate neighbour has new cattle, which is of some concern. But we’re not in the trouble of Qld cockies, or my friends out west who have massive plantings involving an enormous investment. I don’t tell those people my tiny troubles.
Whom and what are you arguing against? Who is this person called Robby who is callous about drought and suicide and apparently at odds with Barnaby? Where is this Robby? Or did you invent him? It’s not good to invent people, Supe.
Geeeszzzz JC talks about “these days of CC.” Well what about those days of CC when the Antarctic was warmer than today for over a thousand years? About 141 AD to 1250 AD ( MWP) and cooler from 1580 to 1880. (LIA)
What was the climate like in OZ for that warmer thousand odd years? Just dandy I suppose? But tell us C criminals what we can do about it, should be easy for you?
“How could I have seen the present drought coming?…”
Now, Robbie…THAT’S when “getting down and dirty” at the bottom of post-holes gives one an “education”… When you dig down 6 or 700mm’s all over your farm and you talk to other cockies who are, at one time or the other, doing the same, you get to see just how much “money in the bank” is there…..”bit dry down there” you’d say…because, you see…the best fertilizer is the farmer’s footprint…any farmer worth his salt gets a warning of seasonal times ahead…beyond the plethora of “old wive’s tales” of , for instance, three lizards on three fence-posts…but by experience coupled with an observant eye, a good farmer gets an idea.
I have taken precautions, Bob, and I suggest you do to…for instance ; a good 5kva. (min) generator with ability to “plug the house into”, four or more solar panels coupled to a battery-bank (good quality truck batteruies will do) and to a “pure sine-wave” inverter then into the house..for the lights only…we’re on mains water here, plus tanks…keep some in reserve…and have a plan to keep cool…very important, that!…keep cool.
So there you go…in keeping with Jennifer’s ideal of this being an “educational blog” I offer those tips of advice…take heed…I don’t want to see too many of youse guys down at my farm-gate, queue’d up behind sp. looking for an emergency handout for you and the kiddies…I’ve only so many “Mars Bars” to go ’round.
Luke wins the Alarmist Debating Tactics Award yet again, fer the high standard
he has attained in sheer nastiness, name calling and expletives. Congratulations,
Luke, your twelve bars of lye-saop award should arrive in the mail this week.
“Geeeszzzz JC talks about “these days of CC.” Well what about those days of CC when the Antarctic was warmer than today for over a thousand years?…”
Sorry, Nev’..you got the age-gap on me there…wasn’t around then…am trying to survive now!..But hey!…tell me, who owned the pub there then?
Graeme M, on page 1 @ 5:51 am
QUOTE: “I wonder what the overall temp record would show if averages were struck from hourly data per day rather than max and mins”.
Yesterday was apparently a fairly stable summer-day for Melbourne (with no frontal change as in my earlier example @ 9:51 am, page 1), yet there is a substantial difference between Mean = 21.76 C and Median = 22.5 C.
http://www.baywx.com.au/melbtempyestII.html
So there we have it, JC has all the logic and reasoning abilities of a gnat. Climate is only that period during his lifetime. He doesn’t give a stuff about 50, 100, 1000 or thousands of years ago.
But he does know for sure that future climate will be worse, that’s what he’s certain about and wants to waste billions $ every year to try and rectify his future delusion.
And we know bazza and Luke agree with his delusional nonsense. BTW JC that’s Luke’s knockout link that I’m quoting so presumably that’s OK.
The stupid thing is that OZ already sequests 10 times the co2 we emit every year because of our very cold EEZ, so you’re wrong at every turn. But you wouldn’t understand that would you?
One big object of our Green Betters is minimising or shutting down the past. I hardly need to list they ways they go about that, or the very obvious reasons.
I’ve been noticing a ploy where, if one refers to a past event in reference to a recent event, one is accused of callousness and even cruel indifference to people’s sufferings. The idea is once again to steer you off that most undesirable of subjects: stuff which actually happened. (eg Bob FJ’s pretty modest comments about January temps. Hottest January in my region was in 1914. Should I not know that, for the little it’s worth?)
So now skepticism is cruel. When shrieking or insults about “codgerism” and “anecdotes” aren’t doing the trick, there’s always the pearl-clutching and how-dare-you and what-about-the-kiddies routines – because you dared refer to a past climatic event.
But what stunt can’t be justified in the service of the Greener Good?
If the hysterics at this blog want something to worry about thay should read this link.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
Today China burns 4 billion tonnes of coal p.a, the USA burns less than 1 billion tonnes p.a and the EU about 0.6 billion tonnes p.a. OZ burns zip.
But China’s increase over the last 10 years is incredible and further wrecks bazza’s silly guesstimates of future emissions. And of course India will be increasing much faster as well after 2040.
With over a hundred comments in you could expect there is a veritable motherlode of comments to enrich the next salvo to BOM. Apart from the Bob FJ comments , the only support questioning the 2013 record was from Debbie “- the claims made by DJ about Australia wide trends are indeed rather questionable.” No basis for this opinion was provided.
Nevertheless BobFJ had some novel contributions. His dismissal of the 2013 record as an outlier was a classic and would have been cooler comfort for those worried about relentless warming. It is worth noting from the anomalies graph that since the 1970s, there have been about half a dozen outliers, each breaking the previous record.
And notwithstanding that one, Bob’s use of the term flukey adds a new dimension to our statistical lexicon. The record was seen to be flukey because “only one state, South Australia, was signficantly warmer in 2013”. Wrong. There were records in NT and WA, half the country. This statement also requires a total makeover of the traditional concept of significance as developed in science generally. The facts are the other States that were not records all recorded one of their hottest years on record. Notwithstanding all that, there must have been an expectation that you cant have a national record unless most of the components do. Excusable, even Cohenite thinks that. Imagine if a record on the stock market meant most stocks were at record levels.
So I reckon the next salvo to BOM will have to go even further away from attempts to evidence and opinion – maybe more anecdotes without antidotes, or maybe see if you can get a few signatures supporting the insights from JeffFJ.
(Actually I can now reveal all. There is always a rational explanation. Jeff is a warmist, a fifth column seeking to undermine the scientific credibility of denialists, probably funded by Flannery!)
The ABC was giving some info on the weather picture this morning, signalling out Mildura.
Went on about how hot January was with a 35.7C mean max temp (+3.4C above average).
Didn’t mention that this would not make the top ten with 1906 being 39.0C.
Looks like it will be hot there over the next week or so and could go over 40C average max.
Again in 1906, Feb was 38.8C so will see if it can beat the average temp recorded over 100 years ago.
bazza says:
“Notwithstanding all that, there must have been an expectation that you cant have a national record unless most of the components do. Excusable, even Cohenite thinks that.”
Cut that out, stop verballing me. I have given you Alice Springs, nice hot little berg that it is, and even hotter Tibooburra which between them and the area weighting by BOM, practically own the Australian national temperature; I direct your attention once again to slide 10 here:
http://aefweb.info/data/Stockwell%20AEF%20Conference.pdf
Robert @ 9:07 am
Re hottest January in your region in 1914.
The River Murray at Mildura is home to quite a lot of houseboats and water sports today. Back in 1914 during that big drought it got quite dry as seen in this photo of a camel train ankling its way across: http://www.pictures.libraries.vic.gov.au/site/mildura/boats/14530.html
There is also this of a dry riverbed in Easter 1915:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/a-land-of-drought-or-flooding-rains/
My point is that it was hot and dry at that time.
Yes we now have water storages (and greatly increased irrigation/population) but that is irrelevant to my point
Well, one thing’s for sure as far as my inexpert layperson’s eye goes – the statistical manipulations required to grind the various axes leave me none the wiser. Over the several years of reading any number of blogs and observing detailed arguments by all sorts of commentator, including avowed stats ‘experts’, it actually looks to me as though the result really depends on the subjective expectation of those doing the manipulations. I have seen and read some pretty detailed and earnest arguments over whether a detrended multivariate layed moving point stochastic linear upside down trend point is the right way to tease out that last 0.1 of a degree… But who was right?
Me, I have no idea. I thought Bob_FJ had a good argument going. Then I read Bazza and Luke and think, Hmmm… Ok, maybe they have a point. But someone else pops up to refute them with yet another graph and I’m back where I started.
So. There IS a pause in surface temps, there seems little doubt of that. But that’s based on some contrived global average, and it tells me little about how that will look in 20 years time. But what is Australia really doing?
What do we think? Is it on the whole warmer, cooler or much the same where YOU live? I am from Maryborough in Queensland. I have seen the place over the course of 55 years, and ignoring temperature records, what do I see? Not much really. It ‘seems’ to be less stormy in November. It ‘seems’ drier in january/February (let’s ignore last year, and the year before that). It ‘seems’ warmer in winter, though not by that much. And it ‘seems’ cooler in summer (let’s ignore this summer). But really, it doesn’t seem that much different to when I used to toddle off to school on blazing hot summer days or freezing bloody cold winter days. We used to have floods back then. And cyclones at times. Still do it seems. And sea level? Dunno, it’s right around where it always was.
So. On average, is it warmer, cooler or about the same where YOU live? A serious anecdoatal question requiring some seriously anecdotal answers, don’t use the stats cos my eyes glaze over and I have to take some salts and lie down…
Ian have you got a link to those early Mildura temps?
Neville
Just the BOM sites. Note that in Jan 1906 a temp of 50.7C was recorded. This was dropped altogether so you do not see it referred to when they talk about highest temps in Australia.
Mildura PO (1889-19490
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=076077
Mildura AP (1946-2014)
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=076031
Click on the blue highlighted year to get the daily temps.
Thanks Ian for the links.
Judith Curry has started to dismantle the IPCC 5th report. It certainly weakens the case for CAGW and SLR is the star performer in my humble opinion.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
To all rationalists here,
I was going to ignore the latest “wisdom” from bazza @10:48 am but he was maybe a tad more convincing than in some of his more typical gobbledygook, and possibly someone was taken in by it. Just to correct a few of his spin items:
• QUOTE “…BobFJ had some novel contributions. His dismissal of the 2013 record as an outlier was a classic and would have been cooler comfort for those worried about relentless warming…”
bazza refers to my comment supplementary to my article on page 1 @ 9:29 am where I wrote: “Another approach is pattern recognition which to someone familiar with data handling suggests that 2013 will likely be an outlier”. (Notice the conditionals)
BTW, there are other considerations such as that in the 3-year smoothing also mentioned in my same comment, there are suggestions of correlation in the lows of 2011 & 2012 etcetera that the global trend of a pause is hinted in the Oz data so far. Oh and even the wise Dr David Jones has hedged on the ABC that 2013 is extraordinary whilst 2014 is probably going to be cooler.
• QUOTE: “…Bob’s use of the term flukey adds a new dimension to our statistical lexicon. The record was seen to be flukey because “only one state, South Australia, was signficantly warmer in 2013”. Wrong. There were records in NT and WA, half the country…”
In addition to my comments under Fig 1 in my article elaborating on previously unknown coincidental alignments of positive data in all States simultaneously, where normally there were random temporal mixtures of highs and lows, (= REGIONAL variability), the rest of his claim is also misleading.
Refer my Fig 2 and it clearly shows in the BoM records that South Australia is the only region with a SIGNIFICANT high record in 2013. True, NT & WA do slightly exceed their BoM records and that together those three States amount to about half the nation.
However, the other four States amounting to the other half, in which the preponderance of inhabitants live, and in which irrigation is essential were ALL COOLER THAN IN EARLIER YEARS.
I’ll stop there before I start to feel cross.
Errrrr Bazza?
The supporting evidence for the questioning of DJ’s comments was in Bob FJ’s document.
I am not interested in throwing a salvo at BoM.
I am questioning their current focus and also questioning the useful applications of that focus.
What is so worrying and media worthy about a 0.2 or 0.17 degree rise in the NATIONAL average that would require urgent , radical ‘risk management’?
What are the risks and where are they manifesting and what will successfully manage them?
Australia has just flushed away 7 billion $ for a zero return and zero change to climate and temp. Perfect way to wreck an economy by madly following Germany, Spain and the EU.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/7b-paid-in-carbon-tax-to-reduce-co2-by-0-3-and-cool-us-by-zero-degrees/#comment-1382781
I would say that 2013 would be an ‘outlier’ – the same as 2011.
2013 was 1.2C above average but 2011 was 1.15C below average. Sort of wipe each other out really.
For the past five years (2009-2013), the Australian av anomaly has been around +0.23C – the previous five years (2004-2008), it was +0.62C. Cooling or cherry picking?
And the new method of weighting using ACORN doesn’t create a great deal of confidence.
2013’s temps were calculated using ACORN, 2011’s were calculated using the High Quality datasets (which are still available but now called Climate Change site networks).
An interesting historical coincidence is that there was very low sunspot activity around 1911-1913 (similar to the recent low sunspot activity), and then 1914 and 1915 were extremely warm. This was the beginning of the WW1 drought. Are we seeing history repeat itself?
I hope not for the poor farmers’ sake.
More data fiddling from the experts.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/hit-the-motherlode-part-ii/#comments
Uh Oh!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/gas-prices-force-switch-to-coal-for-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3939181.htm
Nev, we’re strange, or we have strange “public intellectuals” here in Oz. Think of the energy expended and carbon emitted in recent years from a) hot burns b) not upgrading coal power gen c) powering the development/manufacture of useless alternative energy. Our Green Betters don’t seem to care how much carbon they emit in order to reduce carbon emissions. (I can’t believe I just said that…but I can’t believe that’s what’s actually going on.)
Let’s hope it’s not being done to bring the climate back to a 1915 norm! Bob, in my region 1915 was the hottest and the second driest. Even our March and November monthly max records (both set in 1915, along with Dec) were well in excess of 31C. Fortunately there was a massive timber industry, and timber is easier in the dry. You know, even with the two “strong” side-by-side La Ninas, that was a very dry decade – and hot! As I’ve mentioned before, we had quite good rain in 1914 but the temps were way up. Even with plenty of cloud coming and going they baked.
Ian, I too have awful thoughts about what the weather did in Oz during the last “quiet sun”. But climate rarely aligns itself to with our fears and theories. It finds new way to kick us around. I’ll stay upbeat, though I do see your point.
Never mind Bob, when you start to feel cross just think you have Deb in support. What makes me cross is the extraordinary ignorance you exhibit of ENSO and its impacts on spatial and temporal patterns of temperature variability particularly in eastern Australia. I thought Ian George was at least inquisitive ( not sunspots again!) but he now has the +ve anomaly of 2013 extinguished by an extreme La Nina about 2011. What was considered extraordinary about 2013 was that there were such widespread hotter than usual temperatures in a non-el Nino year.
Bob shows more ignorance in relation to irrigation. “the other four States amounting to the other half, in which the preponderance of inhabitants live, and in which irrigation is essential “. Too bad about dryland agriculture where irrigation is not essential.
.
Graeme M – anecdotally I think broad acre croppers (and also the data) would have seen a centennial decline in frost frequency in the summer cropping zone from Emerald to Dubbo. And changes in the date of the last frost. (albeit with year to year variation and influenced by ENSO status).
Thanks for the hard work and interesting insights Bob. As Graeme has wisely said above, often an argument seems so well constructed that it appears to have much veracity.
So thankyou for bothering to refute Bazza’s comments and not getting too cross!
Neville @ 3:15 pm
That all seems rather naughty to me but no doubt some resident Delphic oracles here will put us straight
Debbie @3:33 pm
What a fracking shame!
Here’s another interesting snippet, Bob.
While the double-whammy “strong” La Ninas from 1916-8 brought us okay to average rain…the temps in those years were among our hottest here on the Macleay. They were considerably hotter years than the most powerful Ninos of 1982-3 and 1997-8, and even the weak (but strong in effect) Nino of 2002-3. Really!
And get this. Rainfall was better here in those super-El Ninos than in the 1916-18 double whammie La Nina! I’m not making it up. That decade absolutely sucked, and the whole half century after the Fed drought was quite sucky.
I actually pay attention to ENSO, but some people just can’t use their loaf. Give ’em a rough observation set and you may as well give ’em a life supply of red lollies. Away they go!
Bazza,
let me get this straight.
Are you claiming that DJ’s comments in the media re January 2013 and indeed all of 2013 were unquestionably correct?
I’m actually starting to wonder if you even read Bob FJ’s document.
You are trying to frame this whole discussion as if it’s something to do with team sports and which team you do or don’t support.
I am also astounded that you tried to compare climate/weather reporting to the stock market.
What on earth has stock market records got to do with this discussion re the NATIONAL climate?
So Robby who has me very cross today – I have not mentioned AGW, CAGW, sks or RC.
Yes ENSO only explains half the rainfall variation. Yes droughts occur in neutral years. Las Ninas that fizz. Know dat.
But here we are with an industry still surprised and unable to get through with climate/economic/market multiple impacts.
Do you not ponder what synoptics are behind this sneaky little drought. Not curious at all?
And no sympathy or even philosophy for those involved? Besides it being “sucky” and something about “Baker’s Delight”.
And for Debs – temperature seems to be an issue so yes we might have some interest in seeing that story done well? This thread?
Self reliance policy mantra started in 1992 but we’re still nowhere near self reliant.
No sympathy? Not curious? Bakers Delight? You haven’t mentioned certain websites today? Supe, when you are frustrated in argument, why not just say nothing?
Re ENSO. You know all kinds of things when they are pointed out to you many times over, but we were rather hoping you already knew such obvious stuff. (Checked out Bazzas previous ruminations on 1939? Don’t have to be experts, guys, just be aware of very basic things without us having to nag.)
Nobody knows who is this “Robby” who is not curious, sympathetic etc and who is supposedly indifferent to rural suicide. The Robby who does not care about the Queensland drought (even though he’s copping his share in NSW.) That Robby does not exist. You made him up, for something to say and for someone to attack. If you want to make up such a character, call him something like, I dunno, Ceejay, so nobody confuses him with me.
Luke,
Sticking to the topic.
So did DJ do that temp story well?
Where or what is the NATIONAL average + or – of less than ONE (!) 1(!) DEGREE c causing alarm & what is the plan to mitigate it?
I think Jen is likely on a better track. . .working on improving skill in regional seasonal forecasting. . . rather than hyping up changes in NATIONAL averages.
We could all become more ‘self reliant’ with that public service.
Good Robert – just checking. So why not engage in a positive discussion? Why not just say nothing – well it’s a blog – you’re either here or you’re not eh? And if you’re here Robert why not explore some issues instead of writing tiresome codgerist monologues ending in “Green Betters”. We’re aware by now (snore) of your attitude to such things.
Debs – yes it’s bloody important as confirmation or not that big changes are afoot. Don’t confound what you experience in daily range with long term averages. Do we have to get that basic?
Seasonal forecasting – well Debs – you only have about 6 national groups at it, and a whole CVAP program. So where’s Jen’s web site helping you make an evaluation in real use Debbie? No good just having a paper is there?
Did DJ do the temp story well – probably yes.
Bob, another interesting snippet. Of the three most severe (in effect and reach) El Nino years, only one of them, 1982-3, was a “very strong” according to BOM’s classification. The super of 1997-8 was somewhat benign in Oz compared to the “weak” El Ninos of 1902-3 and 2002-3, which were terrors.
I think people like you and Jen who are are plugging away and trying to sort out what actually happened year to year give us essential balance, otherwise literal minded types might assume that an ENSO neutral year is going to behave itself (barring mysterious anthro forcings!). That sure wasn’t the case through much of the first half of the 20th century, and it’s good to be reminded. 1901-2 was actually ENSO neutral!
The 90s sucked in my region (I nearly left) and it was a period of El Ninos. Subsequently we’ve had bad years but, even in El Ninos like 2009, there hasn’t been the complete dominance by inland winds through winter/spring such as we had in the 90s. A very marked shift came after 2006, and if ever I’ve witnessed real climate change it was then. Suddenly, regardless of SOI etc, we had oceanic winds and thunder through winter – even into the spring of 2009 El NIno! (This oceanic effect is now less marked.)
There’s obviously heaps to find out yet.
Bazza
“What was considered extraordinary about 2013 was that there were such widespread hotter than usual temperatures in a non-el Nino year.’
That’s why I called it an ‘outlier’- a very hot year in a neutral ENSO. Although SOI does not necessarily cause particular weather, neutral conditions may not necessarily correlate with average weather.
However, a very strong El Nino usually causes hot, dry weather and a strong La Nina usually causes cool wet weather.
2013 may have been a result of other factors such as a very poor/late monsoon season causing heat to build up in N Australia, similar to the summer of 2009/2010.
By the way, there was a strong El Nino in 1914 through to mid-1915. I only mentioned the ‘sunspots’ idea because of a ‘maybe’ correlation; it’s not a causation.
Inquisitive I am, Bazza; that is why I am interested in how this new ACORN system works and why all of a sudden it throws up all these new records – in a neutral year.
So what do you think has caused the last 5 years to have been much cooler than the previous 5 years. ENSO? Sunspots? Local conditions? AGW? Natural variability?
“Do you not ponder what synoptics are behind this sneaky little drought. Not curious at all?”
The synoptic behind this nasty little drought is the IOD:
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/Ummenhofer.etal_2009_SEA.pdf
Cohenite
I note that this report was written in 2009. In the spring of 2010, both the IOD and the SOI were both very active to the north of Aust resulting in the two wettest consecutive years since 1900 (this also happened in 1974/5). The period from spring 2010 to mid 2012 was also quite cool while these two were operating together.
A very interesting paper.
Interesting new tool to get easy access to basic information. We hope?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/cru-produces-something-useful-for-a-change/#more-102723
Tisdale takes on Easterbrook, AGAIN. Just proves once again how genuine the WUWT people are when trying to dig up the facts on temp data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/on-don-easterbrooks-updated-projection/#more-102726
These are some of DJ’s comments in the media:
“But I guess as a scientist you are surprised when you break a record by such large margins you know we’ve been monitoring Australia’s climate for a hundred years and here we are breaking the old record by a quite remarkable 0.2 degrees.” [0.17 elsewhere]
“We know last year for example, every single case that we’ve recorded temperatures was above average. We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet”.
“The Year [2013] started with an exceptionally hot January, the hottest month on record at least since 1910”
“We had the hottest summer on record”
Luke,
You claim above that:
” yes it’s bloody important as confirmation or not that big changes are afoot. ”
Yet you are not able to explain what those ‘big changes’ are.
You then go on to lecture me:
” Don’t confound what you experience in daily range with long term averages. ”
Yet still no explanation why these long term averages are so alarming, what/where is being negatively impacted and what, if anything, Australia should be doing about it.
Re regional seasonal forecasting:
I agree that just having a paper is of limited use. . .however that was not my point. . .so once again you are having a little argument with yourself there.
My point was that MAYBE. . .it would be more useful if there was concentrated focus in this particular area rather than hyping up miniscule increases in NATIONWIDE temperature averages?
BTW. .
The only explanation you have offered so far is that these averaged increases are linked to the incursion of fruit fly into my area plus a plethora of other impacts.
Your specific regional example re fruit fly is total rot (as I’m sure you know). . .it has NOTHING at all to do with changes in Australian average temps. . . and so far nothing about that plethora?
Whatever Debs.
While arguing about temperatures for Australia over a very short time frame can be interesting, think about this.
England holds the longest, continuous record of temperature in the world. It is called the Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset.
The monthly series, which began in 1659, is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily series began in 1772. The datasets have been adjusted for UHI.
Zeke Hausfather’s BEST graph of the UK “…shows that the temperature in England has just dropped below year 1750.”
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe).
If England can work out how to relate temperatures from 1659 to today’s temperatures, why cant the BoM?
So Debs how have been finding the alternative forecasting systems like Jens which you think highly if. How’s it been going.
Deb
I love that DJ comment; ‘We know every place across Australia is getting hotter…’.
I have found at least 3 places that haven’t (without even looking too hard) – Casino, Gunnedah and Murrurundi.
Of course, Casino and Murrurundi are not included in the ACORN data set though Gunnedah is – but only from 1948, even though records go back to the 1870s.
And just because I can see Luke or someone being smart and saying…”because no Australian temperature records exist for 1659″, I will rephrase the question.
If England can work out how to relate temperatures from 1659 to today’s temperatures, why cant the BoM use the same technique on those stations which have continuous records from their inception?
The Flukey Fourteen. WMO reports 13 of the 14 hottest years recorded are this century. The true outliers are the denialists.
Luke,
I have no idea why you continue to deliberately misunderstand.
let me simplify it for you:
I think highly of the ATTEMPT to FOCUS on improving skill in regional seasonal forecasting and not so highly of the continued focus on Averaging the NATIONWIDE temps and then the consequent alarmism over less than whole numbers.
I don’t particularly care WHO or WHAT manages to demonstratively improve skill in seasonal regional forecasting.
I would imagine that BoM should have a better chance at improved skill . . .but that’s not been going so well either.
BoM’s latest:
“the likelihood a wetter/drier than normal season is roughly equal”
Bazz: “The Flukey Fourteen. WMO reports 13 of the 14 hottest years recorded are this century. The true outliers are the denialists.”
Some say 2013 is the 1st or 2nd coolest year recorded this century – depends when you start “this century”, some say it started at 2000.
Fun with numbers eh Bazz?
In a warmer world wouldn’t you expect the hottest years to congregate around the present?!
‘If England can work out how to relate temperatures from 1659 to today’s temperatures, why cant the BoM?” Good question Redress!
follow the money trail………. it doesn’t suit the rent seekers who have been pushing this pseudoscience for so long. ( I expect you are thinking along those lines as well?)
More utter sceptic piffle. The early CET data is not used. Golly let’s just say anything Toby.
bazza, further to Ian George @ 7:07 pm
Re: your wisdoms on ENSO:
Being a patient fella, I’m typing this very slowly to try to help you take it in.
• Enso is not the only ocean cycle to be PART OF THE Oz, MONSOONAL AND GLOBAL WEATHER SYSTEMS. For instance, roughly speaking, if ENSO is smoothed it seems to correlate with the PDO which in turn seems to correlate with an underlying cycle in global T’s of about 60 years, ~1940 being a notable peak globally.
• Enso indices are unitless under various parameterizations, a popular one being ENSO 3.4. See: http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/background/monitoring.html and please take your time in review.
• The most sophisticated variety is the multivariate which has parameters including atmospheric pressure and wind stuff. See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ again, please take your time in review.
• Now examine for instance the previously so-called super-El-Nino around 1998 and that other whopper of around 1983. (I understand that high quality data collection started in 1982). Here we go for Oz: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0 Do you notice any inconsistencies? Please take your time and perhaps notice some other interesting features in your research.
Gee thanks Bob. I liked the IRI one in particular even tho it is out of date. I was at the launch.
bazza @ 1:34
That’s excellent bazza, I had no idea that you had such intimate involvement with Columbia University.
May I enquire if you are implying that their data for the big red El Ninos of 1989 and 1983 are no longer valid?
Congratulations for your speed reading, great comprehension, and comparison between three data sources in about what; maybe an hour?
I’m impressed!
Bob, interesting you are impressed – sarc. The last time you used the word was on Feb4 9:29 am. I quote “Notice that 2010 through 2012 are rather cool with 2011 actually below average (blue) and that for this reason the black worm is not impressed by the 2013 data.” You and the black worm have a lot in common in terms of you impressability.
bazza @ 3:22 pm,
You did not answer my question which given your expert involvement with Columbia University, it is of great significance for us to have clarification:
QUOTE: “May I enquire if you are implying that their [CU] data for the big red El Ninos of 1989 and 1983 are no longer valid?”
Please elaborate
Yes Ian George,
DJ most definitely told a bit of a porky there.
‘We know every place across Australia is getting hotter…’.
Ian and Deb, from 1920 on, much of a muchness around here, with maybe a slight bias to cooler from the 50s to the 70s. Otherwise there is one period of consistently higher-end average max temp: the period between 1907 and 1919 (inclusive). Wish we had records for the years prior to ’07!
Yes Robert,
As Ian said. . .Don’t have to look too hard.
I think Obama’s science???????? advisor must be related to Tim Flannery. Geeeeezzzzz what a con.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/friday-funny-two-guys-with-a-ruler-blow-up-the-white-house-global-warming-video-claims/#more-102796
Europe is now running away from their decades long green energy disasters. This is the green energy and job destroying disaster that Labor, Greens, Luke, bazza and JC want OZ to copy so we too can wreck our economy. Brilliant ,NOT.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020514-689033-europe-finds-anti-co2-policies-are-destroying-the-economy.htm
If SLR is a predictor of GAGW we should all rest a little easier. If you remove human ground water extraction and 60 year cycles we don’t seem to have much to worry about. Once again this backs up Judith Curry’s latest article examining IPCC AR 5.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/
And sceptics get accused of cherry picking and manipulating, Thx for that Nev, fascinating what they need to do to “prove” their point. Orwellian like!
Back to thread spamming I see. Put your rat dirt on the open thread, especially the daily serve of filth from from disinformation units, shills and frauds.
Jeff FJ wants to know about the El Niño of 82/83. Where was he? One of the most severe summers on record with a record temp, droughts, crop failures, bushfires, duststorms, drought breaking rains and Bob Hawke. I am sure your fans here could enlighten you. The SOI was south 3sd in Nov 82 – a true outlier.
And he has learnt ENSO events span calendar years. He may not be aware of the strong correlation between rainfall and temperature which can confound simplistic even naïve attempts to relate specific ENSO events to calendar year temperatures. (I have heard many engineers lament their lack of statistical sophistication, for example the probabilistic nature of ENSO events and the wandering footprint of its impacts, and of the death of stationarity in climate time series.)
But you have lots of my questions to answer first ( I wont embarrass you further by asking about irrigation being essential in the eastern states, I can appreciate you were desperate to bolster your flimsy flukes as you called them any which way).
On the following, what was blocking out your vision of the trend of the last half century?. “Summer including the menu optional 3-year smoothing, it is evident that amongst the noise, what with 2011 &2011 being below the 30-year average, then 2013 has no significant trend indication at this time”. ( I think a warning should pop up when the moving average is selected suggesting that like too many players, you see patterns where none exist and ignore the bleeding obvious!) It was the most extreme La Niña for a century!
Ian George Feb 7 8:7 am . 2 questions Ian on your cherry picking.
If you wanted to know the temperature trend at Gunnedah would you just look at Gunnedah or would you want to know if it was more or less consistent with neighbouring stations ?.
Have you ever seen an isopleth map of Australia of some climate or met element that also shows the data for individual stations?
The above assumes you by now have a feel for the traps for the unwary in not checking site history etc for individual stations.
BOM have a map of the trend in mean temperatures from 1910 for Australia from 1910. Did you check it first or did you do a Deb?
All trends are positive!
bazza @11:03,
I’ll try again for the third time your clarification of a really easy question of you, given your intimate involvement with Columbia Uni:
REQUOTE: “May I enquire if you are implying that their [CU] data for the big red El Ninos of 1998 and 1983 are no longer valid?”
Bob_FJ
I think you are wasting your time with buzzer.
I’ve read and re-read his gobbledegook @11:03 and while I understand every word I have no idea what he is saying.
Judging by the content of his posts he was a drink waiter at that meeting at CU.
Probably spilled the drinks an all as well.
bazza @ 11:03 am,
I was going to ignore your rant at least until you answered a simple thirdly repeated question but perhaps your final line deserves some enquiry in the meantime:
QUOTE: “…you [Bob_FJ] see patterns where none exist and ignore the bleeding obvious!) It [2011 & 2012] was the most extreme La Niña for a century!”
Please see: Bob_FJ February 7th, @ 12:22 pm and review and compare the three links with more care.
For instance, according to the MEI data, the La Nina around 1971 was very comparable and those around 1975 and 1955 were clearly greater in scope. Please clarify your assertion
“I’ve read and re-read his gobbledegook @11:03 and while I understand every word I have no idea what he is saying.” well there could be a reason for that of course… content for a change vs content-free cheer-squad filler
Johnathan @11:59 am,
I fear that you are right, but I’m mostly an optimist, and feel that bazza needs help. I think he has mood swings where occasionally he is in-part logical and I hope to assist him during such periods. His two recent posts are not encouraging though
Luke, you know I like you, well most of the time, but don’t push it mate!
Buzza wrote crap and no gilding makes it anything but what it is, crap!
Luke
“content for a change vs content-free”
Of course it all depends how you define ‘content’?
I told you a couple of years ago that I’m not interested in a contest of links, which btw you hardly ever read anyway, not even your own as had been pointed out many times.
Not that you seem embarrassed by it, you carry on regardless.
I’m more interested in the social impact of the decisions taken based on advice by climate scientist.
Lets face it Luke, what are we talking about here and on all the other CC blogs, sceptic or otherwise?
We debate the validity of the data and the different ways it can be interpreted by statistical means.
Throw in a few theories some plausible some bizarre, about the Sun, cosmic rays, ENSO, PDO, clouds water vapour etc.
That is all there is to it Luke.
I myself perusing some OZ temp. data at the moment. Still pondering whether I should stick to Victorian local or expand further.
JW – OK what gets my goat is accusations made without thought or minimal research e.g. CET above – well a great swag of the early 1600s time series is compromised. Same if BoM have sites with beer crates or thermometers strung up in sheds.
The contemporary part of the CET in fact lines up very well with the UK broader analysis.
All that would take a serious person about 30 minutes to work out.
So cheer squad types here are prepared to lend support to a conspiracy theory which may or may not exist. Without even minimal investigation of any facts.
Luke – why dont you put your rat dirt on the open thread (spiny skank or whatever you are)
Well said Luke. Bob FJ does not seem to know much. He runs “Without even minimal investigation of any facts.” I thought everyone knew the MEI is usually considered only as going back to 1950 as is the case on his links. There is of course an extended one but it does not seem to get updated much. It is just as easy to use the SOI.
Good grief Bazza!
( I wont embarrass you further by asking about irrigation being essential in the eastern states, I can appreciate you were desperate to bolster your flimsy flukes as you called them any which way).
What utter nonsense!
Bob F-J commented thus:
“However, the other four States amounting to the other half, in which the preponderance of inhabitants live, and in which irrigation is essential were ALL COOLER THAN IN EARLIER YEARS.”
And you think you said something to embarrass him with this comment?:
“Too bad about dryland agriculture where irrigation is not essential.”
You’re kidding right?
Putting aside that you took the comment out of context and conveniently ignored the ACTUAL POINT of the comment. . .which is that the more heavily populated states “were ALL COOLER THAN IN EARLIER YEARS”
The only person who commented: ‘too bad about dryland irrigation’. . .was actually YOU Bazza.
The Eastern States do of course have large acreage of dryland agriculture (which I’m quite sure that everyone including Bob F-J is fully aware) . . .HOWEVER!. . . irrigated agriculture is indeed an essential part of agriculture and agribusiness in NSW, ViC, QLD, & SA (which pretty much covers the Eastern States). To point that out. . .DOES NOT MEAN. . .that dryland agriculture is being dismissed or considered unimportant. . .or whatever other punch you though you were throwing.
BTW:
To bring us back on topic. . .I think DJ’s comments in the media re January 2013 and then re the whole of 2013. . .were far more questionable than your criticism of Bob F-J’s ‘irrigated agriculture’ comment. . .don’t you?
Bazza@11:17
This comparison between neighboring stations would only come about with a large difference
such as nearby fires, human error, etc.
Don’t think that the long-term differences would be great.
Casino, Lismore and Murwillumbah are consistent with cooling (inland coastal sites) but nearby
coastal towns are warming ie Yamba (though it was warmer pre-1900 which could be due to
other measuring problems).
Show me the sites you mention if you want to convince me. But what I said is still valid; some places
are cooler.
The 3 inland coastal sites are not in ACORN so I would not bother. I think there is enough evidence to show the joint is getting hotter and I am going to leave it at that.
sp aka double-banger – not rat dirt (1) answer to a question on temperature analysis (2) HGFS – h is how and s is sound
on yer bike sport
More about OZ heatwaves from Jo nova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/get-headlines-how-to-find-a-heatwave-in-five-easy-steps/#more-33058
So ACORN leaves out the cooling sites and puts in the warming sites. That’ll make sure we’re warming.
Gunnedah is in but starts at 1948 although it has data back to the 1870s. Lismore used to be in the HQ data before they revamped it when ACORN came along – and it was heavily adjusted as well.
So good call, Bazza.
And where are these isopleth maps of Australia of some climate or met element that also shows the data for individual stations? Just asking.
Took you a long time to get to conspiracy, Ian. I win. Same rule as for ad homs, usually the last card in the deck. But Deb has a new one despite wading in here with no evidence – she is not interested in an Australian average anything.
BS Bazza!
I have often said it’s interesting and clever and techie.
I question the FOCUS on averaging and whether it’s particularly USEFUL in a climate like Australia has.
Even BoM can’t explain how it’s a USEFUL ‘risk management’ tool!
Wow, Bazza. I still need to see these sites you refer to. Where are they?
And conspiracy? No, but somehow we have had so many records in a neutral SOI year since ACORN has been introduced. And how were some stations picked and others with longer records left out? And then they were adjusted. i.e. Bourke in Jan 1939 – all temps over 30C were adjusted down (29 in all), any below 30C adjusted up (2 in total).
However, is this a basis for conspiracy?
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
They sorted that one out, didn’t they, Bazza.
This is just because it will annoy Luke. Sorry Jennifer.
Bill Glasson has reversed the normal by election result and has received a swing to him of about 0.5%. Quite incredible. Tony Abbott will be very pleased but ABC , Labor, Fairfax will be furious.
That’s after about 63% of vote counted.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17552-163.htm
Glasson vote now up a bit more. BTW two thirds of the USA is now covered in that white stuff we were not going to see much of any more. How can that be?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/over-two-thirds-of-the-continental-usa-covered-with-snow/#more-102819
The Bolter shows what a disaster this by election is for Labor.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/coalition_loses_griffth_in_a_way_that_will_kill_labor/#commentsmore
So much for Jen’s thread policing policy. Take your redneck rat dirt to the open thread.
Jen,
FYI
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/gott-mit-uns/
More on the GISS adjustments.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/give-mosher-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/#comments
This should interest Luke and JC:
THE SOCK DOCTRINE What can be done about state-funded political activism?:
“It has long been a principle of government that taxpayers’ money should not be used to fund political activism. Thomas Jefferson said in 1779 that ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical’ (Jefferson, 1779).”
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/708e119fa74cd33e6a28f949a/files/IEA_The_Sock_Doctrine.pdf
More BoM puzzles:
If you go to the Australian climate change site networks map here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
And, for example, click NSW > Nowra > Time Series> Variable Mean Temperature> Linear Trend, you should end up here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=aus&station=068072&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
Note that the data is in actual T’s Centigrade so the complication of having differing 30-year average anomaly baselines at every site (probably) is not an issue.
• See that the calculated linear warming trend is given as 0.06 C/ decade. (since 1956, not 1910, and with three early years missing)
• Now click Monthly, and see that the linear trend is given differently as 0.01 C/decade and yet the same units of measure apply, and by eyeball there is no discernible
trend unlike with the Annual result
• Presumably the annual and monthly data are based on the daily data, so if we click that what do we get? Linear trend of zero over the same time period, which agrees with eyeball review.
• It is the same contradiction for Max Temperatures and Minimum Temperatures and is typical for about eight other sites I’ve checked
• I’ve had an enquiry in with the BoM since last September for Laverton Victoria in connection with a silly paper claiming early emergence of butterflies, which needs further follow-up.
Help, anyone, am I missing something?
Nowra could be worthy of promotion to Bob’s sixth point. Jen, can I humbly suggest Nowra be added to his other five points to strengthen your next letter to BOM.
I have referred to the disproportionate influence of Alice Springs on National temperature on this thread and in a similar fashion Tasmania also exerts a disproportionate influence. Of equal interest is a comparison between the raw CDO temperature data and the ACORN adjusted data [however done] for Tasmania since 1910 [as compiled by Chris Gilham]
Year CDO BoM annual ACORN
1910 12.93 12.70
1911 12.75 12.43
1912 12.68 12.37
1913 12.48 12.31
1914 13.20 12.98
1915 12.65 12.42
1916 12.75 12.49
1917 12.90 12.59
1918 13.03 12.84
1919 13.20 12.91
1920 12.90 12.69
1921 13.50 13.18
1922 13.08 12.81
1923 12.63 12.21
1924 12.28 11.85
1925 12.55 11.91
1926 13.10 12.53
1927 12.40 11.85
1928 13.13 12.64
1929 12.25 11.81
1930 13.00 12.59
1931 12.45 11.97
1932 12.70 12.31
1933 12.38 11.97
1934 13.05 12.70
1935 12.70 12.38
1936 12.73 12.27
1937 12.80 12.35
1938 12.55
1939 12.90 12.46
1940 12.63 12.17
1941 12.63 12.17
1942 12.90 12.42
1943 12.50 11.81
1944 12.45 11.92
1945 12.13 11.00
1946 12.25 10.74
1947 12.28 11.51
1948 11.68 11.03
1949 11.38 10.65
1950 12.08 11.38
1951 12.10 11.37
1952 11.65 10.99
1953 11.93 11.18
1954 12.13 11.75
1955 12.00 11.19
1956 11.82 11.36
1957 10.62 10.83
1958 10.61 10.54
1959 11.72 11.70
1960 11.43 11.46
1961 12.18 12.18
1962 11.53 11.47
1963 11.36 11.34
1964 10.98 10.98
1965 11.17 11.20
1966 11.47 11.52
1967 11.51 11.61
1968 11.33
1969 11.58 11.64
1970 11.39 11.45
1971 11.85 11.88
1972 12.08
1973 11.95 11.99
1974 12.00 12.03
1975 11.64 11.69
1976 11.53 11.60
1977 11.44 11.54
1978 11.46 11.53
1979 11.70 11.77
1980 12.00 12.06
1981 12.21 12.24
1982 11.74 11.79
1983 11.54 11.59
1984 11.47 11.49
1985 11.73 11.75
1986 11.38
1987 11.54
1988 12.53
1989 12.06
1990 12.01
1991 11.58 11.66
1992 11.38 11.50
1993 11.98 12.10
1994 11.45
1995 11.06 11.10
1996 11.14
1997 12.46 11.61
1998 11.75
1999 12.29 12.34
2000 12.23 12.26
2001 12.20 12.25
2002 12.10 12.10
2003 12.03 12.08
2004 11.53 11.56
2005 12.26 12.30
2006 11.47 11.54
2007 12.45 12.47
2008 11.76 11.80
2009 12.20 12.10
2010 12.22 12.21
2011 11.98 12.01
2012 12.21 12.20
2013 12.34
As is apparent the early temps have been adjusted down and later ones adjusted up; hey presto instant trend!
If cohenite wants to do weightings by population rather than area, he should come out.
Bazza @ 1:16 pm
I find Cohenite’s contributions here to be very interesting, and am thus intrigued by your inferences against his post of 12:33 pm. For instance, when it comes to Tasmania, its population is said to be just over 500,000 all residing on a small proportion of the Oz total landmass. Could you please elaborate why the BoM feels it necessary to maintain seven high quality sites in high concentration there? (although one of which they say they don’t use in national averaging because of admitted UHI effect).
On the other hand, Alice Springs is isolated in a comparatively huge Territory which has only five weather stations and a population said to be less than half of Tasmania.
Please elaborate the logic of how the BoM weights these sparse versus concentrated stations. Take a look too at SA here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
PS, still awaiting your answers to two earlier easy questions for you
“…dreeeAAem, dream, dream, dream…when I want you..in the niiight…etc.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war
“…all I have to do is dream…”
Oh..by the way, I hear there’s a couple of fires in Vic’…time for a cool head, surely?
jaycee @3:18 pm
Ah, right;
Suzanne Goldenberg is your ultimate Delphic Oracle?
The African Sahel Drought of the 1970s which killed so many was actually minor (of the type which occurs in 30 to 60 year cycles) compared to the mega-droughts which can afflict the region, the last one occurring around the Little Ice Age.
Why my pointing this out might be regarded as callous, while a sock can flippantly sing the Everly Bros and gloat over Vic fire risk in high summer…well, that is all quite beyond me. Actually, socks and Guardian readers are beyond me.
Bob fj…the acid test for our state is in the fact that almost the entire regional agricultural area AND incl’ towns and cities is reliant on Murray River water…that article was a bit of an awakening….considering our district council is as we speak in conference about water supplies and the diminishing capacity and quality of ground water.
wakey, wakey..hands off ……!
Robert…I just last fortnight was urgently beating a fire out over the way!…I don’t need your sanctimonious bleatings to remind me of the dangers…go back to your mars bar!
Let me guess – the solution to worldwide drought is an increased Australian Carbon Tax?
International Leadership!!!
Fire in southern summer, drought in Africa, tripe in the Guardian…now fire in a sock drawer! It’s worse than we thought.
Listen, Robert, et all…The connection between extreme danger from fire and temp’ is when , after a string of over forty days, the ground, the grass the trees and leaves get so heated that they are “oiled and greased” ready to explode…so when the fire comes, it’s very hard to stop it, because as soon as the water hits the ground it is already evaporated!..and the fire springs to life again…so it is not ME who is callous, it is your banal commentry and flippant attitude to the dangers on the ground…speaking of which…I have frequently given my honest appraisal , to the best of my observed knowledge and amateur testing and research, of the situation as I see it in regards to the main subject of this blog site…I have called upon you all to put aside the links, the second-hand gossip and tell me honestly why you cannot see AROUND YOU evidence for AGW?..Jennifer gave me her response..but she was the only one..I would have thought Debbie, with her farming in Leeton would have her own observations to contribute, but no…she sails along with the blokes and their links…
So I ask again…What do you see that doesn’t tell you of Human induced climate change?…There’s the challenge…forget the peurile commentry, Robert, you can do better than that..and be honest…it won’t bite you!
JC your problem is that all your worries are not not new and they’ve all happened before in the past. If you want to ignore the past that’s your business but don’t expect the rest of us to agree with you.
We’re very lucky today because we’ve got access to new technology and communications that didn’t exist 50 and 100 or more years ago.
But everyone should keep the links coming because if we ignore the past we’ll only kid ourseleves about the present and the future.
BOBFJ at 303 pm (no country for old guns) – do your own research or ask Cohenite for example about how the Barnes method is used spatially in climate studies. But I am amazed you missed my point on Tasmania – it was a comment about the spatial and temporal distribution of stations within Tasmania.
In relation to Alice v Tasmania, you should ponder topographic differences for a start and read some of the literature on spatial correlations.
Talk to me, Supe. I’ll be able to – once again! – describe the dodgy fire conditions around me right now, outside my real door in the real bush; I’ll tell you how conditions were much worse in ’93 and ’94 peak season, and in the winter/spring of 1990. 1990 taught me how, in 1895, the north of NSW burst into flame in late winter, because of the freak conditions of lavish warm season growth followed by four months of total cool season drought followed by howling dry westerlies.
Our hottest year here was well before I was born (1915) and our driest year was 1902. 1915, btw, was our second driest. But to get the worst conditions you need lots of growth then sudden drought and inland wind. That’s why winter and spring can kill in NSW. Hence 1895, hence the spring fire on Sydney’s outskirts in 1980, so massive and destructive after a decade of growth. And there’s a similar situation brewing now, though the danger may have peaked for the time being. Winds and the time of year for (NSW) are favouring us, unlike people in the south of the continent.
This is all stuff which actually happens – not your fave subject, I know.
But talk to me, Supe.
Robert – I’m not Jaycee (but if you want me to be I can, if it floats your boat)
Luke said:
“Robert – I’m not Jaycee “
second that, you have class, even if sometimes you act as if you didn’t whereas jc can’t even act as if he did!
Incidentally, in the boring stuff-that-actually-happened category, our driest years here post 1881 were, in order, 1902, 1915, 1993, 1909, 1994, 1901, 1940, 1941, 1907, 1900, 1905…Don’t need Stevenson screens for that lot!
Our driest season was winter 1895, needless to say. (Made worse by freak May drought.) I’m told people at the time were not happy with how things were trending and many said it was worse than they thought.
Bazza, are you sure BOM uses a Barnes type method of adjustment? Della-Marta et al didn’t think so:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf
Nor did Stockwell and Stewart:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
The problem with BOM adjustments is not only the spatial aspect but how they have dealt with micro inhomogeneities within each site. I don’t think the adjustment principle from this paper have been followed by BOM:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3663.1
Difficult to put a finger on it, but you, jaycee,
a farmer do not seem to be. Okay, stay
anonymous but specify where /when you
fire- fought, ‘ beating a fire out over the way,
details sufficient to establish credentials, kinda’
… citations, tests, show yer workings, otherwise
myth prevails. tsk! Hey, jaycee. think putting
your money where your mouth is.
Any chance our lot are “Keeping up with the Jones’s”?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/different-ways-of-hiding-the-decline/
Beth
re. jc
to paraphrase ‘all mouth no money”
Just as I thought…you lot can’t express the reality of the situation around you because you all live in a fantasy cocoon!…..and you “Robert” ; all links and second-hand knowledge..and “Beth Cooper”..shooting her loud-mouth off as if SHE had any sort of cred beyond thick!
You all are just insults and bluff…”…all sound and fury..signifying nothing”…the hollow people.
Something else from the 1990s, which helps to explain NSW early season fires over the last couple of centuries: frost. I wasn’t around for the 1940-1 drought, but what made the 90s so deadly here were the massive frosts which came with the three day winter westerlies. The wind would drop in the arvo, the ground would be like snow by morning, the dew would burn off, the wind pounded in again, dry as a bone. You could also expect high temps at times in August, but you didn’t need them with the wind and frosted vegetation. By September, it was worse, of course. In NSW, frost and fire go hand in hand.
I note from cohers’ interesting list of Tassie temps that 1967 is not a stand-out for high temps, nor is the previous year. Yet we all know what happened in Tassie in 1967. The 7th of Feb was a very hot day, but what led up to the inferno was luxuriant growth followed by the driest eight-month period since 1885.
All trends end, but you can bet that any new trend is going to involve extremes, anywhere in Oz. Just like twenty, seventy and a hundred years ago. Just like Sydney Cove, 1791-2, in fact.
JC I think we all know who the thick ones are at this blog. Here’s a new survey about climate change etc and seems you’ll certainly have your work cut out convincing aussies that you are correct. Good luck with that.
I know you can’t understand but people don’t want to throw billions $ down the drain year after year for a zero return and zip change to climate and temp.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/australia-more-skeptics-than-believers-and-few-really-care-about-climate-change/#more-33264
Jaycee,
The only factual statement you made was:
” Debbie with her own farming”
Yes I am a farmer. . .near Leeton.
The rest of your comment ?. . .not so good.
Also Jaycee. . .this thread us about the veracity of DJ’s comments ‘re Jan 2013 in the media. . .I understand that water policy and SA’s reliance on the Murray is vaguely related. . .but similarly to your rant at David Ward. . .if that’s your actual beef. . .then say it clearly.
Jen. . . along with several others who comment here. . .can engage on that particular topic.
Bob F-J’s post and therefore this particular thread is not about SA’s water woes.
In cohers’ list of Tassie annual mean temps I note that 1921 is the highest even after adjustment. Followed by 1914, then 1910 and 1934. It’s only a list of mean temps taken from stations across a large island. It is what it is. But it’s interesting that temps are consistently quite high earlier in the 20th century, even after adjustment.
No big deal, just interesting. Thanks, cohers.
Robert, the thanks goes to Chris Gillham and a few others currently looking at the BOM.
Dang. I overlooked two temps there: 1919 and 1918 come after 1914. Hey, this is shaping up like the Macleay Valley historical temps!
Climate diallers, don’t dare dial us back to the early 20th century. Tell the EU or the Invisible Hand of the Carbon Market or whoever that we want the 1970s, but minus the storms, floods and cyclones. Deal?
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong:
“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.
Yet, that is the direction we are heading.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
It’s a really pissy dumb sort of ongoing circle jerk here isn’t it. It’s almost enough to make one let fly with a series of hunts and trucks.
So we have from Robby – all trends end. Which is sort of true but perhaps sorta not but insightful.
Neville thinks mitigation of atmospheric CO2 might make a decline in temperature when it’s about reeling in the growth. Bazza’s logic left him cold.
And the models are wrong. In the short run probably so. But that’s for sp sauce who quotes double ENSO forecasts.
So pissy. No tedious.
But anyway – having a boo peep at the BoM online records – 171 with more than 50 years of data – do we agree on that?
Codgerist, anecdotal, not insightful, tedious…that’s it! No more stuff that actually happened!
I want to be one of the DEEP people. I’m going to wear scarves in summer and poo-poo white males (like me) and get heavily into really deep, gnarly stuff. You know, stuff that does NOT actually happen. That’s the best stuff.
But first I must go dig some post holes, to get in touch the reality of drought! I need to FEEL that drought. (I was just going to shove in some star pickets, but…)
More deep insight from the Reverend Luke Malthus – “And the models are wrong. In the short run probably so.”
How long do we have to wait till they get them right?
How many poor policy decisions have been / will be made on bad model output?
Show more leadership Supe.
sp – it’s wiggle watching in a long run game. Too big for the short run mind. Models are a small part of the case in any case.
Yes anecdotal like Robby’s tedious ongoing spiel about his place – well I guess it’s at least one solid datum point. And good for those of us needing a quick brush up on his BP Pick a Box winner special subject starting now – climate history of south-eastern Australia since European settlement with codgerist anecdotes starting now – and without going to the library.
Sorry to talk about stuff which actually happened and which I witnessed and noted. And which BoM recorded. And which was widely reported. Won’t happen again, Supe. (Actually it will. Drives you mad, doesn’t it? Stuff which actually happened. Isn’t it the pits?)
Anyway, this isn’t getting any post holes dug. Ciao. I mean, hooroo…or whatever authentic farmers are supposed to say.
Some rantings
The more I delve into this data adjustment, the more strongly convinced I am that something truly is amiss.
I first noticed it when comparing the original High-quality climate sites networks with the raw data for individual stations and noticing the downward adjustments of temps prior to 1950.
With the site now labelled ‘Australian climate change site networks’ it shows ACORN stations only, eliminating some of the original stations (e.g. Lismore).
When the new ACORN data was published I found some major adjustments when checking Jan 39 data for Bourke. Every temp over 30C was reduced (some by 0.9C)and the four temps under 30C were increased (by 0.1C). There can’t be any reason for those adjustments.
And now the work by Chris Gilham re Tasmania (as posted by Cohenite) confirms my view that something is truly amiss with ACORN. There have been a number of Australian heat records – daily, monthly, seasonally and now yearly – that have all happened since ACORN was introduced in Mar, 2012. With information coming to light about the adjusted temps and the weighting/shading system, it does make one a little sceptical about the data.
Should be 3 strikes and you are out for Cohenite – what a joke. We had Tasmania, dismissing Barnes with a 2004 reference, and unearthing Runnels and Oke without really understanding how it is really done here. Can I suggest a bit of time on the papers supporting ACORN would not go amiss, ditto for Ian George. Fire-aim-ready is not much of a recipe.
Apologies to all I have treated badly. I have recently read another legal joke. A cabbie was up for discrimination for treating an indigenous customer badly. He said, “But your honour, I treat all my customers badly”!
Who made you king of the thread bazza?! Or are we playing it’s so because bazza said it was so?
The 2004 reference to Della-Marta is the definitive analysis of the BOM temperature data; where is it disavowed in Trewin’s Technical Manual to ACORN?
http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf
I suppose you are Trewin.
Good to see an admission from an hysteric about the warming hiatus. But why lie and try to cover it up in the first place?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_matthew_england_deny_the_warming_pause_he_now_concedes/#commentsmore
Obama and Holdren are at odds with the IPCC. So who is telling the public porkies and why?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/ipcc-flat-earthers-predicted-warmer-winters-and-less-snow/#comments
With the great lakes experiencing more ice than normal I wonder just how much colder the extremists want to see the future of north America?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/this-winter-toronto-stands-on-a-stage-of-ice/article16732515/?service=mobile#menu
cohenite, you and I together would be less than half as smart as Trewin. And I am only half as.
Ha ha ha. Smart has many connotations especially when combined with the colloquial description of the gluteus maximus part of the anatomy.
I suspect you bazza and Mr Trewin, if the link below is any indication, are of the gluteus maximus variety of smart:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-scientists-attack-david-murray-for-serious-slur-20131101-2wqcc.html
For a start someone should have a whisper in his ear about how to tie a tie. And how could you say anyone who says this is smart:
“The IPCC reports are an outstanding example of international science co-operation, rigour and transparency,” said Blair Trewin, the society’s president. “They are subjected to multiple levels of review by experts both inside and outside the climate community.”
“The society regards the remarks of Mr Murray as being a serious slur on the integrity of the many Australian and international authors of the IPCC report, and views them as highly offensive to those authors and to the profession at large,” he said.”
What a bunch of BS ; just like the BOM temperature record really. Someone send Trewin a copy of the emails. After reading those anyone with a reasonable outlook would think this bunch could not be slurred any worse than they slur themselves.
According to the extremists we should ignore observations and pin our hopes on climate models. Bazza likes to produce new numbers out of his hat so I’m sure he’ll agree.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/#comments
Bazza says the ACORN data is credible despite the many examples to the contrary.
We have shown examples of this and really, he can believe what he likes.
But if you look at this you might start building up a picture.
This is GISS NASA for Renmark, SA. The first graph is the original raw data for Renmark (v1).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501946870000&dt=1&ds=1
This is the GISS NASA for Renmark after adjustments (v4)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501946870000&dt=1&ds=14
Notice anything?
Hey, ian, that’s a much better job on Renmark than the one on Tassie. I mean, if you’re going to ice the past, really ice it properly.
On the other hand, temps post 1950 are a lot easier because so many of them are naturally cooler than what came before. Work with nature, I always say.
cohenite @ 10:55 am:
I think you are saying it requires Bazza and Mr Trewin combined to make a gluteus maximus whole ?
I agree.
Very good sp; that turns bazza’s little bonmot on its head.
I think Bazza must be trying to claim some type of hollow victory over how the data sets are produced and who/what has produced them????
SP @ 1:03 pm Re Cohenite @10:55 am
OK, I can’t resist briefly joining in the fun, even if it is off topic!
QUOTE: “I think you are saying it requires Bazza and Mr Trewin combined to make a gluteus maximus whole?…”
Nice, but I think perhaps a bigger problem for bazza is to control his lesser interlinked anal sphincter.
Oh, and BTW he claims to have attended a launch at Columbia Uni. I wonder if that might be a typo, where launch = lunch.
Perhaps it may also be that he is confused by exposure to Americano spelling and when he wrote:
QUOTE: “cohenite, you and I together would be less than half as smart as Trewin. And I am only half as.
The final as (ending full stop/period) was a typo for ass? (aka arse)
Dunno, just musing, but that impressively long Trewin monologue for which I don’t have the patience to read all 103 pages brings to mind an old engineering acronym; BBB. (Bullshit Baffles Brains).
Oh and some of Trewin’s associations with discredited authors in his references there, such as Gergis, Karoly, Phil Jones and David Jones are interesting. I may be being too harsh but from that particular tome’s references, it seems that he has some six publications of which four are his self-citing monologues.
Here’s an example of the one of the authors that Bazza has probably referenced.
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
Make of that what you will.
Also this in the SMH; the latest research explaining the reason behind the 17 year old cooling (the cooling that they say is not happening). Stronger winds in the Pacific are causes upwelling of cold water and ‘downwelling’ of the warm water – you know, the warm water that is hidden in the depths of the ocean.
These winds appear every 20/30 years and lasts just as long (hint of the cyclical and natural variability showing).
Wouldn’t upwelling of the cold water just push the warmer water closer to the surface or mix with it to cool or warm it? Please enlighten me.
Yes Ian,
I saw those new media releases:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cooler-pacific-is-causing-global-warming-pause-9117816.html
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/strong-pacific-trade-winds-keeping-global-surface-warming-under-check-114021000191_1.html
Soooooo. . . they have basically given themselves another 6 years ( around 2020) apparently because the winds and the ocean are hiding the warming from AGW?
The interesting thing is that the lead researcher (Professor Matthew England, a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science), has been telling us that there has been no pause in warming over the past 17 years.
Bolt has more at:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_matthew_england_deny_the_warming_pause_he_now_concedes/
Ian G – so much up and downwelling to ponder. Try googling Ekman pumping, Taylor Columns and sub-tropical gyres. hmmmmm how oceanographic eh?
More silly nonsense from Mathew England trying to play catch up with reality. In spite of all the evidence about hopeless climate models these fools still ignore the observations.
Little wonder they’ve made such a mess of their CAGW case.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/matthew_englands_strange_excuse_for_only_now_admitting_to_the_warming_pause/
Probably the most infantile, pathetic statement made by a so called head climate scientist over the last 30 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/quote-of-the-week-ego-driven-science/#more-102994
Incredible to think that this comes from the mouth of the head scientist in control of the UK’s leading temp data base. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
This is right up there with the head of the IPCC (Pachauri) calling criticism of the fake Himalaya glacier melt con “voodoo science”. His statement was indeed voodoo science and he has never apologised for his gross stupidity.
Sorry, Bazza, I wasn’t clear enough. Isn’t the warm water supposed to be hiding in the depths of the ocean. Surely any upwelling cooler water would push the warmer water up as it forced itself to the surface (or at least mix).
Then there’s this.
Matthew England’s study (2014).
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
Another study 2006
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.
Got it covered at both ends, eh Bazza. Which one is correct?
Hi Ian,
Just for off-topic fun on those naughty trade winds, if you do an advanced Google (Boolean) search on these two alternatives:
“trade winds” enso
“trade winds” “la nina”
You will find thousands of hits including at least one from “NASA for kids” that I feel is appropriate for Matthew England and a few others.
The many hits describe complex analyses but the greatest relevance’s are that during a La Nina event trade winds are unusually strong and during El Nino, they are weak.
Thus if this mountain of belief is true then we should look at the various indices and examine their strength and periodicity etcetera. Let me put forward the NOAA MEI graph:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Waddya think?
Bob
I’m not a scientist – I was being a little sarcastic re the ‘warmth-is-hiding-in-the-depths’ explanation.
First it was ‘wind shear’, then it was aerosols, then the heat was in the oceans and now it’s hidden deep in the oceans.
I like the following:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
Ian,
Continuing with off-topic fun:
I especially like your link to the NOAA stuff because it’s delineated into red (El Nino), blue (La Nina) and black (neutral) and easy for me to follow with my aging eyesight focusing:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Re: proposition first made by bazza @ 11:03 am on page 4 of this thread:
QUOTE: “… [You Bob_FJ] ignore the bleeding obvious!) It was the most extreme La Niña [in 2011/2012] for a century!”
Err, but take a look at the NOAA table for blue stuff in say 1998 through 2001 following the so-called super El Nino of 1997/8, (what I’ve previously described as followed by a typical “correction”).
I think that maybe Matthew England may be blessed with the ability of divergent thinking, which sometimes results in scientific breakthroughs. (e.g. Helicobacter causing stomach ulcers). However, in his case his wisdom is apparently no more than an interesting competitive hypothesis.
He has form on par with Karl Braganza, David Jones and David Karoly to mention but three local alarmists.
That’s why I like it too but I read somewhere it has been adjusted (just click the link to previous version).
The ONI does pattern the rainfall/drought pattern since 1950, especially the more extreme examples. The rain periods of 1954-1956, 1974-76, 1999-2001 and the latest La Nina episode correlate with the ONI data – (I believe an active IOD was also present in 1974-6 and 2011/12).
Droughts correlate with the El Ninos in 1965/6, 1983 and 2002 (and the very hot spring in 2009).
You can also see the neutral conditions contributing to the 1958-68 though it was not as widespread as the others.
As some old farmers say, ‘The bigger the drought, the bigger the flood’.
The Bolter gives a good summary of the bias and stupidity employed by their ABC to fool the OZ electorate about AGW.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_science_unit_hides_the_warmist_decline_time_the_cleaners_came_in/
Let’s hope their funding is cut back severely in the May budget, because these Labor and Green promoters and supporters deserve nothing less.
Their two main science??????? presenters are a disgrace and their clueless predictions on temp and SLR are a standing joke in the blogosphere.
Yet another new study shows SLR in the Indian ocean over the last 60 years was about 1.5mm a year or about 13cm by 2100. That’s about 6 inches.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000381
The ABC’s stupid science?????? presenter better get his skates on if he wants to see his 100 metres of SLR by 2100. BTW that’s about 332 feet, so he’ll only miss out by about 332.5 feet.
So where’s all this dangerous SLR brought on by CAGW?
Sorry Robyn Williams will only miss out by 331.5 feet by 2100.
I suppose we could ask who pays Bolter to misrepresent AGW to the Australian electorate.
More on the clueless predictions from the UK MET office.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/10/global-laughing-stock-uk-met-office-lost-touch-with-reality-corrupted-valuable-british-institution/#comments
I think it’s Rupert Murdoch who pays the Bolter to give us the facts about the coruption and fraud of the over hyped CAGW. And it is a job that has become much easier over the last decade or so.
England’s problem with wind is discussed here:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/england-passes-wind-and-discovers-heat.html
Thanks for that link Cohers. BTW here’s an oldie and a goldie from 2006 by that nong Flannery.
http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=smh&kw=tim+flannery&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=entire&sd=12%2F02%2F2009&ed=12%2F02%2F2009&so=date&sf=author&rc=10&rm=200&sp=adv&clsPage=1&docID=AGE061028V15G63KM0OC
This must be about the most delusional load of crappola that I have read in the last ten years. If OZ doesn’t do blah, blah we will see SLR of 25 metres according to his and Hansen’s fantasy. Gawwwrrrd thank goodness we didn’t take too much notice of this blithering idiot.
He also wanted a co2 tax of 80%, even the Greens didn’t go to that extreme.
Neville @ 11:55 am
Thanks for the entertainment in the oldie goldie from 2006. Perhaps it would be good if someone would write a collection of “nonger’s wisdoms” for future presentation to young people? I suggest a book title might be “Grimm’s Fairaic catastrophe tales”?
I’ve been thinking for a while that Flannery has been adopting a lower profile, and that even the ABC broadly no longer lauds him, so I’ve just done an advanced Google search restricted to the ABC over the past month, (excluding the Flannery baseball coach):
“tim flannery” -baseball -giants -coach site:abc.net.au
There were seven hits but if you go through them only two are significant. Some are related to his work on mammals and some are old blog comments from 2012 etcetera. Apparently, none were initiated by Flannery.
A couple of old blog comments made me smile:
QUOTE: I took Tim Flannery’s advice and invested a further $7000 in photovoltaics and have no regrets.
QUOTE: I bet you David Suzuki and Tim Flannery don’t live in LUXURY HOUSES. (after a discussion on Julia Gillard’s PAST modest home…. Err I read that Flannery has two on the Hawkesbury river, and what does he do with his generous incomes?)
Ian George February 11th@ 4:58 pm
Congratulations on your patience and analyses of some awkward details that seem to be in conflict with some mantras of various “expert scientists”.
“I suppose we could ask who pays Bolter to misrepresent AGW to the Australian electorate”
I suppose we could also ask who pays the climate scientists to peddle misinformation and exaggerations to the Australian electorate based, upon climate models etc that have cost the earth and can’t even hind cast properly, or trend with the data
…oh that’s right we already know that.. its that the same suckers who fund their ABC to be biased, and to also defend the mis-informers.
Whilst on this subject I wonder how the insurance claims are going with Turney escapade ..or will it be sheeted back to the same suckers… yet again.
At least Bolter is paid with private money… not public
But I think it might be even more interesting to find who funds the subversive fifth columnist anti-science brigade and why?
I’m sure Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Jennifer etc would like their share of those phantom cheques as well Luke.
So when you find out tell us here ASAP so we can pass it on.
This new study may be a surprise to most people. I must admit it surprised me but the cause of deaths doesn’t completely surprise me at all.
SA has a higher rate of death from cold than Sweden although the people dying couldn’t be from a different demographic.
In SA they are mostly elderly women living alone and in Sweden they are mostly middle aged drunk males found outside in snow drifts etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/12/forensic-science-reports-more-deaths-in-australia-than-sweden-due-to-cold/#more-103071
But it’s incredible to think that elderly people are less likely to die from the cold indoors in Sweden than in South OZ. JC may be interested? I think it’s a disgrace that we have elderly people dying alone without adequate heating and supervision. And in one of the warmer (in summer) parts of the planet.
I’m stating the obvious I know. . .
but Bolt works for the SMH so that’s who pays him.
As for the rest. . .look up their employers if they have employment. . .or their businesses if they are self employed.
I think Luke is really questioning the politics. . .Even though he uses that tired old ‘anti science’ line.
And it was fun too, Bob.
The Bolter sums up exactly why the warmists have messed up their own nest. These dummies couldn’t be more stupid, even if we had wished for it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/confusion-should-give-alarmists-pause-for-thought/story-fni0ffxg-1226825036298
More on the MET office witchdoctors from Jo Nova. Countless billions flushed down the drain for ZIP return, but I suppose we have to laugh at these fraudsters and fools.
Ponzi and Madoff would be envious of their deception and lies.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/uk-met-office-predicts-15-chance-of-heavy-rain-britian-gets-biblical-floods/#comment-1385864
The money trail leads to only one place, the catastrophists who have built their livelihoods on exaggerations, distortions and mistruths. And that is why your so called “fifth columnists” have got so vocal. They see an emperor in no clothes and have been forced to speak up to try and counter the consequences of the real money trail.
Luke, do you really believe that the ‘denialist 5th column’ bloggers are PAID to do what they do? I think in nearly every case, they simply come from a perspective of scepticism and concern. Certainly, the quality of discourse and the level of science knowledge on most such blogs has increased markedly in the last 10 years. But the scepticism remains, reinforced by so much obvious disinformation, misinformation and downright collusion from mainstream science. That isn’t to say the mainstream science is utterly wrong or part of some global conspiracy, but I think sceptics have been proven right more than wrong enough times that only someone blind to objectivity wouldn’t credit them with a genuine influence on the understanding of what’s happening.
That said, I think your preoccupation with peer review is dangerous in itself. Yes as a method of ensuring some level of quality and integrity in the field it provides a solid mechanism, but in practice? That the gatekeepers are those with a vested interest (commercial viability) means that they have to – to a greater or lesser extent – conform to an ‘accepted’ view. We’ve seen that evidenced by any number of direct experience and anecdotes to say nothing of various studies.
I find Miles Mathis a helluva good guy to read. Is he right or wrong? Haven’t a clue, but he’s a prime example of a maverick who doesn’t get a guernsey because he doesn’t conform. One of his latest papers addresses the problem of science by peer review. I think he definitely has a point.
http://milesmathis.com/schek.pdf
It seems that every extremist hysteric and his dog are trying to compete for the idiot of the year award.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/boyer_wins_alarmist_prize_coal_destroy_all_of_humanity/
I can’t wait for Steve McIntyre to have a “captain Cook” at this latest HS team effort.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/12/new-hockey-team-paper-models-tuned-to-tree-rings-and-other-palaeo-climate-reconstructions/#more-103082
More shame on you Jeff FJ for verballing 2011-12 as the one in my referring to “most extreme La Niña for a century”.
bazza @ 11:03 am on page 4 of this thread: “… [You Bob_FJ] ignore the bleeding obvious!) It was the most extreme La Niña [in 2011/2012] for a century!”
Where were you in 2010-11 – oiling your slide rule? No wonder your moving average temperature went south!. Conventional Australian wisdom going back 30 years is to measure La Niña by the SOI and by impacts. You would be surprised to know that the best indicator of ENSO events is the index used to define them.
Anyway you have a unique claim here as the only person ever to need to show off their expertise with GOOGLE – pity because the more restrictive your search the less chance you have of picking up context and serendipity – and it shows.
Who is Jeff FJ?
Bazza clearly doesn’t like him. . .whoever he is.
jeff FJ is the newer model of Bob FJ, sadly no longer produced in Australia.
Graeme M – maintaining those sites isn’t cheap and is a 24 hour job almost. The feed of material indicates a well organised effort from central sources. Costs money unless people work for free. Compare RealClimate – very few posts – high quality. Not in the sceptic clear campaign style. Which essentially reflects on the garbage quality of sceptic science. Real science isn’t that quick. It’s simply a political campaign by self-appointed nefarious sources.
Peer review isn’t perfect as evidenced by McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
But the ensuing comments to the journal creamed it.
Certainly peer review has to be better than vanity publishing or anyone having a go on the interwebs.
Interesting video interview of Mark Morano by Ezra Levant about Hansen and GISS data fiddling.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/nasa-funding-facts-or-fiction/3182369625001/page/2
bazza @ February 13th, 2014 at 9:52 am
Sorry, I did my best to understand what you wrote, but you really do need to polish your prose and I quote an offending paragraph from you back on page 4 @ 11:03 pm.
QUOTE: On the following, what was blocking out your vision of the trend of the last half century?. “Summer including the menu optional 3-year smoothing, it is evident that amongst the noise, what with 2011 &2011 being below the 30-year average, then 2013 has no significant trend indication at this time”. ( I think a warning should pop up when the moving average is selected suggesting that like too many players, you see patterns where none exist and ignore the bleeding obvious!) It was the most extreme La Niña for a century! UNQUOTE
I can’t see that I did a “verbal” on you! I honestly thought you were saying after translating my obvious typo of ‘2011 &2011’ that the recent 3-year big plunge in T’s was caused by the “most extreme La Niña for a century!”
Oh, and did you know that the mainstream dendros including Michael Mann (and many other “climate scientists”) use CMA smoothing? GISS use 5-years, weighting undeclared, dendros 30 or 40-years, CSIRO seem to have used 11 years a lot, and Hadley 21-years with simplified Gaussian weighting……………. Take your pick
PS: I get the feeling that you are avoiding answering several of my questions despite follow-ups
Hi Graeme, welcome back.
You earlier expressed an interest in whether it was realistic to base mean temperatures on the min & max values.
I think you might be interested in the 9/Feb Melbourne city 24-hour trace, (that day was widely forecast as fearfully equivalent to that of 7/Feb/2009 when there were massive losses and deaths, both human and animal)
Amongst a number of interesting features is that it will go down in the records that the maximum T was 40.4 C. However, how significant is that when that spike duration was just momentary? As in every case that I’ve looked at there is always a significant difference between Mean and Median.
Go to:
http://www.baywx.com.au/melbtemp.html
Then click Archive and select menu options for date
Hi Bob, yes, that’s interesting. Given how dependent max and min temps are on the conditions on the day, how relevant are those averages derived from just two values per day?
Not only is UHI a factor but so too are the winds and other local meteorological factors. After all, the heat being measured is ambient air temp, not the heat of the sun or the ground. And that is greatly affected by prevailing winds. I assume that on two consecutive, clear, low humidity days the amount of insolation remains the same – it is local conditions that determine temps. And thus a max/min value is quite arbitrary. In comparing Australian temps what weight is given to prevailing winds. For example, if Highs and Lows are tracking differently on average now to say 50 years ago, or the prevalence of Highs is different, surely temps are going to differ.
I have no idea, I am just observing that an average from just two values doesn’t really give the best sense of the actual conditions.
By the way, this same question arises for me when I read comparisons of earth’s average temp with that of the moon’s surface. Again, isn’t the earth’s average temp derived from atmospheric temps? Or is it implied from outgoing radiation? If from atmospheric temps, then we don’t have a like to like – what is the moon’s average surface temp based on? It isn’t gonna be atmospheric values.
Luke, blogs do take work, but in most cases a lot of content is from contributing authors, and additional mods are employed. Actual server costs are these days relatively low and in any case most major sites depend on donations from readers. To imagine these people are somehow part of a conspiracy by Big oil and that they derive bulk money from nefarious interests is pretty silly – as silly as imagining that scientists are part of some global conspiracy.
I manage several websites, including one that is the biggest site of its kind in Australia. I am funded entirely by donations and while it does take time a lot of it that is mitigated by automated systems.
Also, bear in mind that blogs are not formal mechanisms for publishing science, but they ARE legitimate forums for discussion OF the science. You can’t tell me that ‘real science’ is derived from peer reviewed papers that just pop fully formed into existence. There must be a body of discussion/experimentation/hard work behind those. Internet blogs are a form of that sort of activitiy. And we know that a lot of major scientific development comes from the accumulation of that slog, or from insightful moments. Why should an Internet blog not be a legitimate mechanism for that?
Good one Bob FJ. Get onto WMO and suggest the all max and min thermometers be replaced by continuous recorders and use a 3 minute moving averages in case somebody thinks that the max was not maintained.
Don’t be a smartarse Bazza. As a curious layperson I wondered aloud at an aspect of the process. Bob demonstrated that min/max could definitely skew the value higher than it really was. I have no idea if it makes any difference to anything and no-one suggested that it should be done as you describe. In this case the Max wasn’t maintained for long so clearly the average would be higher than the true average.
Freezing Out the Bigger Picture
“Fortunately, we are not stuck with human perception alone. Nowadays we have sophisticated thermometers scattered all over the place. On land, aboard boats, attached to satellites, floating in the ocean — wherever we put them, they are telling us a pretty consistent story.
No matter how cold it got in Wisconsin last week, the world really is warming up.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/freezing-out-the-bigger-picture.html?_r=0
Impeccable logic!
The IPCC and Stanford UNI must be barking mad to let this fool anywhere near a microphone.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/ridiculous-loaded-gun-analogy-staring-down-the-barrel-of-climate-change/#comments
The Bolter has had a hard time getting BM Flannery and the SMH to stop telling lies about him.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/on_trying_to_correct_tim_flannerys_smear/#commentsmore
That video at Bolt’s link is a beauty, showing Tim’s stupid exaggerated BS about rising SLs and the bizarre idea that you should either eat your pooch or sleep with him.
You definitely couldn’t make this crap up.
It seems that clueless Green power either minces the birds or cooks them.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/the-2-2-billion-bird-scorching-solar-project-at-californias-ivanpah-plant/#more-103171
What an insane waste of billions $ to produce unreliable, super expensive and wild life destroying electricity. And ZIP change to climate and temp by 2100. Why not invest in new thorium reactors instead?
Here we go:
http://www.baywx.com.au/WWW/melbtemp/melbtemp.110214.gif
This shows a fairly flat mildish summer day in Melbourne ranging from ~15 to ~26 C. (but some 4 C below the forecast maximum…. It seems the BoM forgot to include the cooling effect of smoke from grass and bushfires although they did accurately forecast the rather evident smoke).
Whatever, the mean T was calculated as 20.44 C and the median as 21.60.
I make that a difference of 1.16 C to the nearest one hundredth of a degree.
BTW, that naughty “buzzard” seems to have misunderstood this issue?
Graeme M @ 5:02 pm, page 6,
QUOTE in small part: “…By the way, this same question arises for me [Graeme] when I read comparisons of earth’s average temp with that of the moon’s surface. Again, isn’t the earth’s average temp derived from atmospheric temps? Or is it implied from outgoing radiation? If from atmospheric temps, then we don’t have a like to like – what is the moon’s average surface temp based on? It isn’t gonna be atmospheric values.” UNQUOTE
Yep they be apples compared with elephants.
And, in my opinion even the apples of earth are a tad mouldy. For example sea surface temperature comprising over 70% of the surface has been taken via a variety of methods over time to give a dodgy sub-surface water T record.
The thermodynamics of the Moon’s surface and its rotational exposure to insolation and radiation to space and whatnot are mind-blowingly speculative in my view.
“The thermodynamics of the Moon’s surface and its rotational exposure to insolation and radiation to space and whatnot are mind-blowingly speculative in my view.”
Now, I know I am showing my ignorance, and yes I could go look it up I guess. But when people talk of the average temperature of the moon’s SURFACE, what ARE they talking about? Measured temp of the lunar surface itself? The temp of a thermometer ON the surface? A calculated value from the outgoing radiation? Completely off topic I know, I am just curious.
Anyone want free tickets to Summers and Flannery’s latest lunacy? Barking mad is the only suitable description for these dummies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/free_tickets_offered_to_flannerys_nightmare/
Ryan Maue rips into that idiot Kaku. This twit is about as genuine and rational as the Suzuki fraudster. Looks like Bill Nye may lose his position at the top of the hysteric’s platform.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/14/kakus-kookoo-science/#more-103229
Graeme M @ 8:50 pm
I don’t want to go there Graeme because it is a minefield of controversy but you may find the following from three notable authorities interesting (including the JPL):
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2014/pdf/1519.pdf
Such as paragraph 3 in the introduction:
The lunar surface has two properties that greatly
complicate the notion of surface temperature; 1) the
surface is extremely rough [3,8], and 2) the regolith is
highly insulating [e.g., 9]. These two properties ensure
that thermally isolated surfaces can be separated by
just a few millimeters and can have vastly different
temperatures depending on the local solar incidence
angles [10-12] (Fig. 1). Consequently, remote observations
of the lunar surface typically have a wide variety
of temperatures within the measurement field of view.
This leads to properties such as infrared “beaming”,
for example [13].
Interesting. Clearly surface temperature is a measurement of surface radiation, presumably from remote sensing of OLR.
However, I assume OLR for both earth and moon must be broadly similar if they are more or less in thermal equilibrium (with incoming insolation).
That means that the earth’s average temperature as measured from space must be the same regardless of the presence of an atmosphere or not, surely? What I am driving at is that the temperature of the moon, or the earth without an atmosphere, would be its radiance (actual surface temps would vary broadly, but in sum the average is what is radiated). And that must be the same as earth with an atmosphere, excepting that we are now measuring radiance from TOA.
So, if the moon’s average surface temp is -15C, we’d need to know the average surface temp of the earth to be able to judge what the GHE does on average. It is usually claimed that this is 14C or something isn’t it? Making the GHE something like 30C of warming.
BUT, measuring average air temp close to the surface is NOT the same thing at all as I note above. What for example, is the radiating heat of the sands of the sahara, versus the air temp? Or the radiating heat of the polar icecap versus the air temps there?
Or am I missing something obvious? I guess it’s all far more complicated and I am just fussing around with simplified explanations than the actual science. But I still think that claiming earth’s average surface temp with an atmosphere is the temperature of that atmosphere is not the same thing at all as claiming the surface temperature of the moon is X after measuring the actual surface…
Graeme M @ 11:34 am
I’m sorry Graeme, but I can’t cope with your questions, which will likely create ever more OT questions. Perhaps you could check-out an article I wrote over at WUWT a few years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%E2%80%9Cearth%E2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%E2%80%9D-contain-a-paradox/
Take a gander at the first figure that is sometimes affectionately known as the Trenberth cartoon. This gives an idea of just how complicated heat loss from the Earth’s surface is, even if it is a tad controversial. (and a broad concept)
Albedos are a tricky issue and OLR is not alone for there is OSR from reflections which differ between Earth and Moon
Oh and the so-called average global temperature is derived from the near surface air T over land, and the so-called surface T of the water of the oceans comprising over 70% of the surface.
Oh, and the Moon aint got no oceans.
If you’re really interested in the Moon guys this thread has one of the best discussions dealing with the Moon and the Greenhouse effect:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/