We, the Australian public, are continually told by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that global temperatures need to be restricted to within 1.5C above the pre-industrial era. Further the Bureau attributes the ‘dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian temperatures’ to human-caused global warming.
But what if at least some of this warming was natural, and what if the other component could be attributed to how the temperatures are now recorded – with probes in electronic weather stations replacing mercury thermometers – and then there is the remodelling through the process of homogenisation.
To some extent the Bureau documents the extent of the remodelling that has the technical name homogenisation, but the Bureau has never made public the extent of the discrepancy between temperatures as recorded from mercury thermometers versus the new electronic automatic weather stations.
Work that I have undertaken with John Abbot shows that even without the industrial revolution there would have been a temperature increase of about 1C through the 20th Century.
The limited parallel data that I secured from the Bureau, following the intervention of Josh Frydenberg back in 2017, shows that the probe within the automatic weather station often records 0.4C warmer than the mercury thermometer for the same weather.
The AAT hearing on Friday is about the need to make the parallel data public, so we can know how much of recent warming can be directly attributed to the change in how temperatures are measured.
And for those wishing to attend the AAT hearing, details are:
APPLICANT: John William Abbot RESPONDENT: Director of Meteorology
This application has been listed as shown below:
Hearing
Date: Time: Location:
Contact Officer: Jessica S
Friday, 3 February 2023
10:00AM (Qld time)
Please proceed to Level 6 Reception Address: 295 Ann St
BRISBANE QLD 4000
You may need to register in advance to be allowed into the hearing.
brisbane.registry@aat.gov.au
Dr John Abbot is an IPA Senior Fellow.
Dr Jennifer Marohasy will be appearing as an expert witness.
*****
The feature image was taken by Craig Kelly and features in an article in today’s The Daily Telegraph by Clarissa Bye entitled ‘Bit hot and bothered? BoM silent on suspect solar panel shift’. It quotes me querying why the BoM temporarily placed a solar panel near the weather station for Sydney Observatory, specifically when it appeared this weather station was recording a run of record cool days.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jennifer, so enlightening to hear this information, I’ll be interested in what comes out of the hearing, many thanks, Karl Penna, Mapleton
What did Richard Lindzen say? – “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
and
– “When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.”
Frans quotes hit the nail on the head.
If we really were heading to climate catastrophe wouldn’t we all know about it?
There is no evidence that 1.5c is a threshold for anything except alarmist hysteria.
What is evidenced is the rewrite of history by *highly* motivated alarmists. To support their alarmism.
1.5c as a risk is as credible as the claim that the GBR is dying.
There is no climate crisis. There is a mental health crisis clustered around hysterical and delusional nonsense regarding climate.
Good afternoon Dr Marohasy,
Thank you for all your hard work.
I wish more strength to your strong arms to carry on your fight.
The case ended-up being open to the public for only a very short period of time. Then it was taken back into mediation. I am now unable to comment on it, because it is back in mediation.
I am 100% behind you on this one !! I admire our strengths and determination.
Big Hug
Dr Marohasy, it may be that I’m a swivel-eyed looney, so I’ll be brief.
In 20122 enroute to Madeira I saw a smoothed area of ocean extending over more than ten thousand square miles. It suppressed wave breaking up to force 4 with just a few white-caps showing in the unsmoothed areas, with none inside.
I spent a good deal of my RAF career flying at low level over the sea, and I saw smooths on the Gulf of Mexico, the North Atlantic, the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea. the North Sea, the Baltic and — the one that first attracted my attention — the Mediterranean. The latter in particular shows the phenomenon clearly. Google has many images of low sun shining over water and smooths show best in these conditions. I suppress the urge to post images. Lakes and seas showing smooths are warming at anomalous rates, see e.g. Lakes Tanganyika, Superior, Michigan eyc.
Here’s my reasoning: a smoothed sea surface will have lower albedo. It will have lowered evaporation. The reduction in breaking waves will reduce breaking bubbles, lowering the production of salt aerosols and hence stratocumulus cloud cover. All this will lead to warming. By how much is the question.
Ruf and Evans have found smooths in ocean gyres when they looked for microplastic pollution, and attributed them to oil/surfactant pollution, and there is a paper which found warming of smoothed water.
Prof. Tom Wigley famously asked ‘why the blip?’ when he was unable to correct away a major ocean temperature excursion from 1940 to 45/46. I know academics are unworldly souls but one would expect even the most innocent to realise that WWII and the Battle of the Atlantic would have spilled millions of tons of light oil with obvious implications for warming (if the effect does actually exist}.
Further reading Benjamin Franklin Mount Pond, Lord Rayleigh’s determination of a molecule’s dimension.
I’ve no idea how large the effect is. I wish someone would look. If you have a student looking for a challenge then it should be possible to quantify the effect from the WWII figures. My guess is that we have more than 1 deg C from pollution. Anthropogenic Local Warming would be a good name.
Rgds
JF
Not that brief…