UPDATED AGAIN #4 — Now with Vukcevics Hale cycle graph of Echuca. and #3 David Archibalds suggestion of the Hale Cycle at work. #2 with Willis Eschenbach’s graph and my thoughts, (see below)
Ian Bryce sent me a striking graph (or two). Looking at the original raw data from Echuca Victoria shows a dramatic cooling trend of nearly half a degree since 1900, and rather than being a siting anomaly, it’s repeated in two towns about 100km away.
Curiously he also finds peaks in the maximums at Echuca that look for all the world like they match the solar cycle. Is it a fluke, or could it be real? If it’s real, what conditions make the solar sun-spot cycle so apparent in Echuca — where its maximum temperatures seemingly peak with each second solar cycle. Can anyone find this signal in other places? — Jo
The area is inland Northern Victoria
Has there been Global Warming or Global Cooling in Echuca
Guest post: Ian Bryce
I have spent about 37 years working with processing tomatoes in the Goulburn Valley in Australia, and the last 25 years or so, with research into growing and processing canning tomatoes. Since 1984, our industry in Australia has trebled the tomato yields from our paddocks, which is quite extraordinary. I was wondering whether yields have partially improved due to hotter temperatures, and increased carbon dioxide.
Most of our tomatoes are grown within a 100 kilometre radius of Echuca, so I decided to look at the temperature data from the BOM for that site. It is a high quality site according to the BOM, and has a long temperature record. It also has a small population (10,000?), and therefore should not experience the “Urban Heat Island” effect [at least not at the rural airport, where the thermometer is — Jo].
Echuca is on the Murray Darling River (top left) Wangaratta and Benalla are on the plains to the West of the Snowy Mountain Range.
The only other high quality sites in our area are Benalla, and Wangaratta. Echuca is about 200 km from the coast and about 100 km inland from the Great Dividing Range. So it has an inland Mediterranean climate with hot dry summers and cool wet winters. It is about 36o south and 96m above sea level. North and west of Echuca are flat plains for hundreds of kilometres.
Below is a graph of the Echuca mean temperatures, which is the yearly average of the maximum and minimum temperatures. I was most surprised to find that the temperatures had decreased, rather than increased, and therefore the tomato growth should have been slower with the lower temperatures. So obviously the yields increased due to better tomato varieties and better farming techniques.
I then decided to check Benalla & Wangaratta as well, and low and behold the result was similar, with temperatures decreasing in both cases.
Jo Nova suggested that I contact Frank Lansner (Hidethedecline), who has undertaken the painstaking work of graphing all the temperatures around the world. In Australia he has divided the data into different climatic sites, including South-East Australia. His graph for about 52 sites is at the bottom. Once again we find that the temperatures are trending down. This was also confirmed by Ken Stewart (kenskingdom) in Australia.
I then decided to look at the maximum and minimum temperatures individually from the Echuca site, to understand what was actually happening to them. Surprisingly I found that the minimum temperatures were decreasing (see the lowest three graphs), but the maximum trend line was flat.
…
The thing that intrigued me about the maximum temperatures is the high peaks, which occur at the peak of the odd solar cycles, and four other times, when we had strong El Nino events. (Most recently, three in four years) It is interesting to note that we did not have the Super EL Nino in 1998!
One wonders when our climate scientists graph global mean temperatures for tens of thousands of stations worldwide, that they “miss the wood for the trees.” I contacted the BOM some time ago about this phenomenon, but I have not had a reply yet. (Surprising?)
I am not a climate scientist, but an Industrial Chemist, and was wondering whether your bloggers may be able to shed some light on why the temperatures peak every second solar cycle, and secondly, why the minimums are reducing, but the maximums remain steady.
Also the thought came to mind whether there may be a similar site in the US, which may show a similar pattern, but might have the peaks on different solar cycles?
Regards,
Ian H. Bryce
ADDENDUM: The falling minimum trend across this region is clear in the three graphs here:
Minimum Temperatures in Benalla
…
…
…
…
…
Frank Lansner agrees and provides a graph of 52 locations nearby:
(Click to enlarge slightly)
Thanks to Ian and his dedicated patience waiting for me to code this together.
————————————————————-
UPDATED #1
Not sure why I usually end up being the one to rain on the parade, but I’ve accepted my lot in life. Here is the Echuca data plotted against the peaks of the solar cycles, as measured by sunspot counts.
There is obviously a peak about 2 years after the solar max in 5 of the 6 cycles.
Jo Nova replies: Thanks for the extra detail Willis.
You are not pouring cold water on the parade at all. I posted it as a “curiosity”, wondered if it was a one off fluke, didn’t draw any major conclusions. What parade?. Clearly it is worthy of discussion. No big conclusions can be drawn from one graph, and we didn’t do that. Instead it’s done just what I hoped, generated an interesting thread — in no small part thanks to you. 🙂
It’s clear in your graph that temperatures rise soon after the solar max in 5 out of 6 cases – as if the solar max effect may have a two year delay. The years circa 1901, 1916 and late 2000′s break the pattern (and the first two of those occur in a discontinuous early part of the series), but for 80 years from 1920 – 2002 we see a strong cycle that tightly fits with each second solar cycle delayed by 2 years. My original point remains, that this may be random, unless we see it at other sites (thanks to commentators who report they may have seen this elsewhere. )
Obviously other factors are also affecting the climate producing some noise? (Do I need to say this — seems obvious?)
There is plenty of fodder for more investigation. I hope someone can follow it up properly.
—————————————————————————
UPDATE #2 David Archibald and The Hale Cycle
Every generation is rediscovering things that had been done before. Echuca is a good example of the Hale Cycle. There are plenty of references to the 22 year cycle in rainfall. Here’s a few:
http://ccb.colorado.edu/lanina/report/oh.html
Before 1974, the 2-3 year cycle was dominant in precipitation variations. However, this cycle diminished when the transition occurred and then switched to a longer 3-5 year cycle. It is also interesting that the 22-year cycle becomes dominant when the signal of 2-3 year cycle diminishes as a result of the climate shift.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/theses/waple-thesis.pdf
The Hale (22-year) cycle has for some time been invoked as a possible reason for a bidecadal drought rhythm in the Southwest USA and Great Plains. It is possible that this apparent cycle of drought could be due to internal variability of the ocean-atmosphere system, but as Cook et al. (1997) indicated, it is also not easy to eliminate the sun (and moon in this case) from the causal hypotheses. It appears from Cook et al.’s findings, that since at least 1800, the lunar cycle
(18.6 years) and the Hale cycle interact to modulate the drought cycle.
From: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a2geaywxlu5dan8w/
The investigation results of the monthly precipitation and Palmer’s drought severity index (PDSI) data in three of the midwestern states – Illinois, Indiana and Ohio – show that two periodic components, the 20 to 22-year Hale cycle signal and the other component with periods between 16.9 and 13.5 years, are identified.
Also see the chapter “The Twenty-Two-Year Drought Cycle in the Western United States” in “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change” by Hoyt and Schatten. It starts on page 138.
UPDATE #3:
Jo
I’ve seen a couple of instances like this in the US.
10
By eye it is not much of a trend in any direction.
by the way, is this region “North” Victoria in the same way as people in Perth live in “West” Australia?
10
“By Eye”
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! are you drunk? Or maybe your left leg is a little shorter than your right? Always the denier………………
In answer to your question, No people who live in Perth live in the state of Western Australia which just happens to be on the western edge of the continent.
The people that live in North Victoria live in the northern parts of teh state of Victoria if they lived any further north they would in fact live in the southern part of teh state of New South Wales.
I hope this clears up your confusion, maybe you can now read the graphs with an
open mindsorry both eyes open.00
craker… I just don’t think you will ever get me.
To explain – as every Western Australian will tell you, their state name is too often reported as “West Australia”. “West Australian MP Big Bloke from Swan said”, etc. It really annoys us non WA pedants too.
Further, me saying, “not much of a trend”, includes “no positive trend” as a subset. For some reason you think, without evidence, is what I would never write.
00
Can only be taken as FLAT yes? there is “no positive trend” to be taken as a sub set here.
Then there is your dribble about west by north west crap.
So no i doubt i will ever get you GA.
00
But it is written that the wise men come from the east. lol
00
If you put a dividing longitudinal line down the middle of Australia dividing the continent in half, everything to the left of the line is west Australia. However you have to travel further west from that line to reach the border of Western Australia. Hope that clarifies things for you.
00
So, average maximums are flat but minimums are showing marked cooling.
That completely contradicts AGW. The only trend which is not changing is the AGW believers’ constant faith in their religion.
00
Hi Ian,
Great observations and post, I can only take umbrage 🙂 at your comment “I am not a climate scientist, but an Industrial Chemist” to me the pure sciences have it in spades over so called climate scientists the Jacks of all trades and masters of none.
00
Hi Scott and Ian
Can only add support to your comment about qualifications.
Here in Newcastle we have a substantial group of metallurgists who all independently saw that there was something very wrong with CO2 Climate Science.
Along with Industrial Chemists our training is more in line with what is needed to understand the CO2 Climate scam than the rather dubious qualification of being a “Climate Scientist” where ecology and sustainability take precedence over core science.
00
No Keith, I understand that steel is now CO2 steel and it has a price on it.
00
Well, I’ve heard of low carbon steel and high carbon steel but CO2 Steel?
Unfortunately the CO2 off gases from the production of steel are now being emitted in India, Brazil and China.
It’s a CO2 world but Australia isn’t in it any more.
00
I heard from a very reliable source that a state of the art new coke oven under development by BHP Billiton when completed will not be an Australian operation because of the carbon dioxide tax and other cost factors here.
00
The consensus is that this cooling is the result of humans consuming hydrocarbon fuels (and creating carbon dioxide as a byproduct) thereby causing global warming.
That’s right, they say COOLING is caused by warming.
Never mind the sun. Listen to your Authorities!
(sarc on-off-on-off)
00
Being far inland and protected by mountain ranges as it is, Echuca is ideally placed to be unaffected by changes in prevailing wind associated with ocean oscillations I would have thought.
By contrast, all of the NZT7 location profiles ere virtually identical with a pronounced uptick mid series as a result of a climate shift when wind direction changed. They look nothing like the 52 location Lansner plot but I note that the higher temperatures in the 1880s correspond to higher temperatures recorded in NZ at some of the older non-NZT7 locations.
The odd number solar cycle correlations are a new one on me though.
00
A full solar cycle is ~22 years. Each ~11 years the polar orientation of the Sun switches N-S. Earth’s polar orientation remains unchanged so for half the time we’re the same as the Sun and for the other half we’re opposite and this affects our climate. I guess this affects Svensmark’s incoming cosmic rays and cloud-cover but Piers Corbyn is the one to ask.
00
Why is it that, when I go to the BOM data site (http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/) and look at their plots of mean temps for the sites mentioned in this article, the trends are positive?
Could you provide a more precise link to your data source rather than just “the temperature data from the BOM for that site”?
Are you using raw data or the BOM’s ‘adjusted, homogenised, filtered, modelled, fudged and guessed at’ figures?
00
Wondered about that myself John but didn’t have the audacity to ask. Good on yer for doing so.
00
Supplementary question Ian,
how did you draw your trend lines?
00
Bare in mind that the HQ Echuca series starts around 1910 and temperatures were low in the 1920s through to the 1950s so a positive linear trend in the 1910 – present series is to be expected.
Ian’s series on the other hand goes back to 1881 and temperatures were warmer from the 1880s to the beginning of the 1920s so a flat linear trend in the 1881 – present series is to be expected.
Personally I think a linear trend on a temperature series without the addition of a cyclical trend such as a polynomial is very misleading.
That’s probably the reason why climate science and govt agencies are so very partial to linear trends though.
00
My question was trying to clarify if the trend takes into account the data being part of an open ended series with unknown data at either end ie… the ends should not pull the graph more than they would if more data was available.
00
I was answering John Trigge’s question Gee Aye. That was:-
The series in question are different time spans so the trends will be different.
00
fair enough
00
John, the data I used is the raw data from a high quality site. Not the high quality data which has been manipulated by the BOM to show global warming.
It can be found at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml?bookmark=200
Regarding trend lines, I only tend to use linear, or exponential to show growth.
Polynomals are confusing – see the angst Roy Spencer produces with his polynomals.
I would love to see someone come up with some unified theory on climate that looks at the sun, clouds, and GCR’s etc. and produce a good Polynomal out of that.
Regarding data “nearby” Frank’s data does have plenty of nearby data as well.
Regarding the comment about Industrial Chemist, I am not qualified to make comments about whether the maximums are produced at every odd solar cycle, and I was looking for comments from you guys regarding that. I have seen similar comments from Piers Corbyn.
Regards,
Ian
00
Just by looking at the BOM “linear trend” data you can see some sites are affected by Global warming to various degrees, some sites are not affected by global warming at all and some sites are affected by global cooling.
I have looked at all/most of the sites above Alice springs and the results are:
Below is a list of towns that are suffering from GW in forms that range from a pleasant unnoticable rise in temps to blistering heat waves leading to a melting of the town.
Port Headland
Palmerville
Cooktown
Marble Bar
Gladstone
Rocky
Roebourne
Newman
AYR DPI
Richmond PO
Charters Towers
Halls Creek
Cairns
Caldwell
Sandy Cape
Boulia
Marybourgh
Meekatharra
Broome
Carnarvon
Alice Springs
Goergetown PO
The following sites show a flat trend
Tennent Creek
Darwin
Camoweal
Hughenden
Normanton
Derby
Longreach
Giles
Sites showing a global cooling trend
Atherton
Innisfail
Gaynda
Barcaldine
BowenMackay
Now the interesting thing here is that we have places like cairns melting in the new global warming sun whilst less than an hours drice away we have two towns growing colder over the same period then another half hour on down the road global warming re emerges.
This type of inconsist warming from a well mixed gas is wide spread and i think if we were ALL honest here we would all come to the same conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence of AGW in this data regardless of how fudged it is. Remember this data covers about 50% of the continent and there is no evidence to suggest we are warming due to CO2.
Any thoughts GA, Johnny Brooks etc???????
00
http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data
00
Also major global cooling throught country NSW but for the most dramatic dat amanipulation have a look at Port Lincoln.
00
More warming than cooling, wouldn’t you say?
00
Nope. I’d say there’s more politically prostituted bullshit science than there is honest real science. How much for a BJ JB?
00
JB,
Yes from the examples that i gave there is more warming than cooling but once again you have completely missed the point (i suspect on purpose).
Your theory is that we are increasing the amount of co2 by burning fossil fuels, this co2 *IS* causing the planet and is doing so because it is a well mixed gas.
Your theory falls apart when we see BOM data telling us that large swathes of land in central NSW has experienced over 1.5C drop in temps over the past 100 years!!!!!!!!!!! How can this be JB?
We see towns melting under a 2C increase in temps yet 50K’s down the road the temps have remained flat. This is not the work of a well mixed gas causing the temps to rise in a global manner. No JB you have been proven wrong once again so rather than just relying on cheap shots to get by why dont *YOU* address the issues in a more constructive manner rather than a troll.
A challenge for you JB a challenge which i suspect you will fail miserably at.
00
If the effect varies from one place to another, cooling, warming, flat – then it’s not global!
00
A flat trend for Darwin? try to keep up, the alarmists recently announced that Darwin had warmed by 3 degrees C in the last 30 years.
00
Ian,
Many thanks for the response.
It’s no wonder there are so many of us that distrust the ‘scientists’ when the difference in trends is reversed after the adjustments are made, all with no explanation of why any individual reading is deemed to be incorrect.
John
00
Ian, I think you have to explain this statement:-
HOW has BOM “manipulated” the data?
The step change methodology to concatenate several different sites to produce one contiguous series is well established so there is no reason to use raw data in the Echuca example because none of the individual sites are relative to any one reference site for the location (usually the most recent open site).
The NZCSET v NIWA claim and defense is over the sites used by NIWA as comparators, not over the method e.g. NZCSET gets a +0.34 C/century NZT7 trend using neighbouring site comparators and exactly the same methodology as NIWA used to get their +0.9 C/century trend except that NIWA used remote site comparators when they expressly promised that they would neighbours as per the established method of DA Rhoades and MJ Salinger, ‘Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes’ 1993 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/downloads/rhoades-salinger-adjustment-of-temperature-1993.pdf
To test the validity or otherwise of the the steps NIWA used, NZCSET engaged the services of a specialist professional statistician. Have you done the same to back up your statement re BOM?
I don’t know anything about the HQ steps but I have looked at some of the ACORN- SAT steps at Alice Springs in conjunction with BOM’s CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 ‘Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset’ http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf
It is clear from that report that BOM has implemented 2 very different categories of step for 1) site moves and 2) weather dependent inhomogeneities.
I don’t know how the site move steps stack up statistically but I think the bigger question is over weather dependent steps – why implement them? BOM gives their reasons in 7.3 Adjustment of data to remove inhomogeneities – an
overview, page 57 pdf:-
BOM have effectively adjusted weather OUT of ACORN – SAT.
The 2004/5 +0.8 step in Fig 29 Accumulated annual mean adjustments (°C) for minimum temperature at Alice Springs, relative to 2009. CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 page 96 pdf is a weather dependent step. I think that step is completely unnecessary.
ACORN – SAT steps are described in Station catalogue http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Station-Catalogue-2012-WEB.pdf
00
Richard, thanks. I am no expert in this area. You should check with what Jo and Ken said recently at this blog site and check Kenskingdom. I understood there was to be an averaging of sites nearby to remove operator errors etc.
I have shown data for three towns, and all show cooling. How the BOM can convert that into warming is beyond me. It has been suggested that they may have been using costal temperatures?
Blair Trewin of the BOM will not describe to me in detail how they did it. Nor would he answer my requests for comments about the maximum temperature graph.
As Ken has shown, there has been glaring errors in what they have done and the quality control has been poor.
Ian
00
It would be interesting to get the BEST algorithms for splicing together discontinuous records, and use it on the raw BoM data.
00
It would be interesting if political organizations such as the BOM did not fraudulently fudge the data and rewrite history. Oops then no climate change sustainable development crap!
00
Ian, you say:-
You cannot, if you are no expert, make unsubstantiated accusations and expect your credibility to remain intact. And doing so, by association, does not help those disputing national temperature series with scientific and statistical rigour of sufficient standard to make recourse to legal review.
Neither can you cobble together disparate site datasets without adjustment and pass the assembled series off as representative of a location. That is about as unscientific as it gets. Each site is only representative of that specific site unless the data is brought into terms with a location reference site but you have not done that.
The chances of all consecutive sites being in the same terms across the contiguous series and therefore not requiring adjustment are very slim but it could happen. BOM states in CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 that it does not adjust for steps (breakpoints) less than 0.3 C BTW.
If AGW-aligned blogs like Deltoid, Tamino or SkS get their teeth into you baseless accusation or unscientific series compilation, they will hang you out to dry.
You say:-
What makes you think they are any more expert than you? I have quizzed Ken at length previously here at JN and at kenskingdom re his understanding of step change methodology but for whatever reason he has not replied. I get the impression he is at the lower end of the curve though so he may be taking the time to read up on it all in order to respond with better understanding.
You say:-
Blair Trewin documents in CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 how the the ACORN – SAT series was compiled and provides considerable detail of the techniques, issues, methods, adjustments etc with references. Operator errors are a minor part of that. That report is required reading for BOM’s work, accessible here http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf
Also to get an idea of what is really involved wrt adjustments I suggest you read ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ by the NZCSC which is the basis to their application for a judicial review of NIWA’s NZT7 i.e. this is the quality of analysis required for legal scrutiny and is before a judge right now. That report accessible here http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf
You say:-
If you have shown raw site data spliced together into a contiguous series and unadjusted to be in terms of a reference site, your series has no validity and neither has any trend it exhibits.
You say:-
If you don’t make yourself acquainted with the established methodologies you will never be able to analyze the series compilations with any understanding. I also think that your fixation on “warming” is due to the use of linear regressions without recourse to trend analysis appropriate for the identification of cycles but that is already the subject of a different thread and I will address it further there.
You say:-
I think you will have read how they did it from publicly available reports and references Ian, there’s just too much to communicate individually. I’m sure that having read CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 you will understand what I’m getting at.
You say:-
What “glaring errors”? Again, to make this accusation you will have to be able to substantiate it i.e. provide a synopsis or itemized list of errors. And what “poor” QC? I don’t think Ken is anywhere near to identifying errors in respect to step adjustments as compared to what NZCSC have identified in their statistical audit of the NZT7.
00
Ian, you say:-
This speaks volumes. Do you consider temperature “growth”?
If you only apply (impose) an external linear regression to a national or global temperature series over say, the last 100 years then all you will see is warming (as the warmists do and hence their ubiquitous use of linear trends) because – like it or not – generally, that has been what has happened in the last 100 years.
But what if you apply that linear trend over 300+ years as in HadCET http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.png
You might get a slightly positive linear trend due to to the warmer 90s and 00s but that would obscure the up and down nature of the series. Note too that CET temperatures since the late 00s are now back where they were in 1659.
You say:-
If you object to externally imposed polynomials as a means of identifying cyclical trends (not everyone is “confused” by polynomials BTW) then the solution is internal extraction of the intrinsic data signal by empirical mode decomposition (EMD). That procedure provides several intermediate mode frequencies (IMFs) and a residual. The first few IMFs are noise but after those, the latter IMFs will reveal interdecadal and other oscillations in global and national time series and the residual is the overall data signal.
I’ve carried out an EMD analysis of HadSST2 over a short 30 yr conventional climate time span and over a longer 100+ yr time span with polynomial comparison here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/HadSST2.xls
The residuals in each time span are inverted relative to each other. The apparent accelerated warming evident in the short time span disappears in the long time span and is replaced by a deceleration with a pronounced inflexion i.e. there’s been a phase change. The same phase change turns up in the NZT7 series (we’re been at the phase peak for about the last decade) and I suspect that if the same EMD/polynomial analysis was done with a long-term (100 yrs, preferably greater) Australian temperature series (an adjusted one), that a similar cycle would emerge: early warm phase => mid series cool phase => late series warm phase peak.
It is painfully clear that most commenters in this post thread are ignorant of the methodology used to compile national composite temperature series. That ignorance in combination with a fixation on linear trends leads to the conclusion that “warming” has been contrived but by simply looking at at a more appropriate range of trends (linear plus cyclical) it can be seen that there are both warming AND cooling phases in national and global temperature series over the last 100 yrs or so and that we are simply at the peak of the last warm phase.
Scafetta’s work demonstrates this amply http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
I point out that the much maligned Jim Salinger (as per climategate) did NOT in an IPCC AR4 (indirectly) referenced paper use linear trends. NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE: TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION VARIATIONS AND THEIR LINKS WITH ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION 1930–1994, M.J. SALINGER* and A.B. MULLAN, 1999, used principal component analysis (PCA) and moving averages http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0088%28199908%2919:10%3C1049::AID-JOC417%3E3.0.CO;2-Z/pdf
Not a linear trend to be seen. That paper and an earlier Salinger paper Southwest Pacific temperatures: trends in maximum and minimum temperatures, Salinger 1994 http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/salatmosres1995.pdf) support my comment too in regard to an abrupt warming phase (natural variation or climate shift, nothing anthropogenic) accounting for mid 20th century warming and that warming reached “a plateau” by 1990.
People, please look beyond linear trends and ignorant statements.
00
“….the much maligned Jim Salinger (as per climategate)”
What I mean by this is that criticism of his behavior is warranted from what came out of climategate but there’s nothing in the papers I’ve cited to warrant the same criticism.
00
Richard C, are you sure you aren’t on the wrong site? You seem to be saying that some thought has to go into analysing stuff, and that you can’t just use data without thinking carefully about is.
That, sir, is not the skeptic way!
00
Actually it is the sceptic way John. What I see here is scepticism based on ignorance and some fast-and-loose use of data to misrepresent a situation so naturally I and others of a sceptical bent detecting same will take to task whoever is laying it out and then its up to them to defend their position if it is in fact defensible.
Note too that my dissenting comments have not been moderated, revised (as at SkS) or otherwise quashed or adulterated. On the contrary, there’s a free exchange of views.
00
For the love of God JB, when was the last time you thought carefully about defending your position with respect to AGW. Even now you blindly defend the faith, you claim increasing CO2 will drive up temps and if i showed you a BOM site that indicated the temp had increased by 2C over 100 years you would claim that is caused (at least in large part to) increasing CO2.
However if i showed you a BOM site that showed 2C of cooling over a 100 year period your response would be “CO2 works in mysterious ways”.
Please stop making a fool of yourself JB it is not a good look.
00
John B. was probably trying to be funny but alas, has only made himself out to be an ignoranus.
00
It comes down to what best represents the time varying data. There will be far better statistical references out there but even Microsoft gives pointers:-
So according to Microsoft, a polynomial trend is the most appropriate for fluctuating data as a temperature series usually is and the most useful for prediction but a linear trend is only appropriate on those rare occasions (wrt temperature) when the series resembles a line. If a series does not resemble a line, the linear trend is inappropriate for prediction.
Spencer might be onto something after all.
A moving average also moves ahead of linear regression as an appropriate trend to identify a “pattern” (e.g. a cycle) when the series does not resemble a line.
Just guessing but I’m reasonably sure that a best fit polynomial trend applied to an adjusted Echuca series (or any other national or global temperature series for that matter) would beat a linear trend hands down using the R-squared criteria.
00
If you find yourself with the necessary software and some time on your hands, find some noisy data, and try fitting a few polynomials to half of it. Order zero is just a straight line. Order one is a linear fit. Order 2 is quadratic etc.
How well the polynomial fits the second half of your data will depend on the actual data. However with higher order polynomials the divergence of the fit from the data tends to be quite spectacular.
For data you could just get something from Wood For Trees.
00
How does a BEST fit polynomial R squared value compare to the linear value on the same series John?
If the data doesn’t resemble a line in the first place then a best fit poly will have an R2 closer to 1 than a linear. This centuries NZT7 returns a flat linear trend from minimally fluctuating data (by temp standards) so the linear vs poly R2 is little different. But as soon as you move to 30 or 100 yrs, there’s cycles (fluctuations) and a best fit poly R2 is better than a linear.
I do understand your concern that the populace might convert en masse to more appropriate trends than linear for temperature John. If they discover for themselves the cyclical nature of temperature, the “temperatures are rising and CO2 is rising” meme would lose all its impact. That would be disastrous for carbon taxes and AGW-aligned climate science wouldn’t it?
BTW, Scafetta bases his projections (beating the IPCC hands down this century) on the underlying trend of HadCRUT3 being a positively rising quadratic and over the time span of his series in ‘Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications’ 2010 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf that quadratic was valid, an EMD residual mapped onto it reasonably well.
But if you add the most recent data to the HadCRUT3 time span Scafetta used, the quadratic he used is no longer valid. An EMD analysis of 100+ yrs of HadSST2 clearly shows a pronounced negative inflexion and negative acceleration (deceleration) in the data signal http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/HadSST2.xls
Neither polynomial nor linear trends imposed on HadCRUT3/SST2 would reveal the radical change that has taken place in the data signal. The deceleration in temperature is consistent with the predictions from astrophysics of an impending solar grand minimum.
All considered, the chances of any warming for the next 70 yrs or so is very remote because the most recent (and warmest since LIA) warm phase has peaked and now we’re headed down the back of that phase (that means cooling John) with no “forcing” strong enough to turn that around apart from normal natural variations and oscillations.
This is all too obvious to those of us that employ appropriate trend analysis but those (I assume you too John) that cling desperately to linear trends are completely oblivious to it i.e. they deny the evidence.
That would make them (and you John) “deniers” wouldn’t it?
00
I saw similar data for a location in Kansas but I can’t remember where. It was likely C3 or Climate depot. I’ll scout for it when I am at home.
00
“..a graph of 52 locations nearby”
I’ll bite.. what is the definition of “nearby”? A cursory glance reveals Cleve, over 900km away from Echuca; “nearby” in this instance seems Hansen-esque.
00
Yes Dave I don’t know what is going on but Broken Hill and Adelaide Airport are not exactly nearby either.
00
Dave, Frank Lansner, who did that graph, looked at data series from all over the world, and is in Denmark. In the global sense, Adelaide is near Echuca.
But seriously, Lansner was looking at 52 series. It covers a large region. Possibly with some local knowledge we could isolate a “generic uniform climate region” better than what Frank did, but his graph is merely supporting the idea that echuca isn’t a one off anomaly.
00
At the risk of being picky but we spend some time on this site being critical of the accuracy of the temperature data collection.
Now unless Echuca was the secret place that the aircraft was invented I don’t think Echuca had an airport in 1881.Infact,without looking, I would doubt that they took the temperature at the airport before 1950.
So we are doing what we accuse our opponents of doing that is grafting data sets together to come up with a temperature history.
From what I remember of the Echuca temperature data there was a long history at the PO but not up to 2011 but at least one continuous record.
00
Rukidding, you are correct. The BOM website gives temps from the 1880’s for the aerodrome, but I think it was moved from the town in 1985. The point is that the town is small, and I suspect would not have had much on UHI effect.
Ian
00
Yes Ian I just had a look at Echuca and if you have a look at the daily temps it only shows from 1957 on but if you select monthly temps it shows from 1859 on.The temp station 080015 looks like it has been the one station from the start but for most of its life it must have been located at the PO.Usually if they move a site it has a new number but having a look at the closed sites for Echuca shows no closed sites.
I am sure when I was looking at Echuca a couple of years ago they had a data series for the PO but now it would appear the PO site never existed.
Never put down to malice what can be explained by incompetence.But why would the BOM have erased the PO site from the records.
00
Moving a thermometer record from a small town to an airport? Hm… Don’t airports show UHI or equivalent?
00
If the Echuca airport is a UHI then the temperatures would have gone up ??? or am i as stupid as i look ?
00
I can see it hasn’t gone up. What will happen in the near future as the airport layout expands? Tip: casting aspersions doesn’t improve your credibility rating.
00
The airport is only used occasionally by light aircraft. It doesn’t appear to have commercial flights.
Ian
00
My apology Richard, i now see where you were going, bit too subtle for me at first, i don’t call myself dumb for nothing.
00
Okay folks. My shout. See you in the King’s Arms any time after six. 🙂
00
Where’s Maxine’s
I miss Maxine – Maxine please come back and tell us the globe is still warming (except for Echuca???)
00
Post Rio+20 hangover keeping her away?
00
Maxine is on holidays in the Queensland Gemfields.
Tony.
00
At last someone is talking actual unadulterated temperatures.The GW argument has to be pitched in simple terms to “the man/woman in the street”. This is where it counts, i.e with the average voter/taxpayer who for the most part still determines a democracy’s destiny.What we need to know is simply this, for a given region is it warmer,colder or about the same NOW as it was THEN?(say a hundred years ago). Leave out all the “HOO HAA” subjective adjustments and peculiar proxies. If we have reliable readings for a given area over say a hundred years and they show no warming then Global Warming ain’t global.
00
Awwww. fek, so it’s not gonna warm up and my ‘hood is getting colder.
And mixing oil into my lawnmower isn’t going to bloody help either!
Bloody typical. Maybe I should move to somewhere warmer.
00
I’m amazed at how these rogue towns can defy 97% of climate scientists.
what, are these the fossil fuel funded denier towns and contrarian cities?
It’s good to know that the BOM is correcting their temperature records because they are obviously wrong.
Global warming continues,
9/11 was by terrorists with box cutters,
Steel high rise buildings fall at free fall velocity through the path of greatest resistance into their own footprint, leaving thermate dust particles,
Sustainability and development are not mutually exclusive,
You can trust us.
10
ok if you were to add the co2 levels along with this it could add more
can someone add the real facts of co2 and its true levels
we get told its alarming only to find out its 0.03 of the gases that make up the atmosphere
and with the changes since the industrial revolution its only changed .0028 % so if they recon its changed 15% of that then total changes must be around 0.00029%
theirs around 30,000 climate scientists in the world why is it that only about 9 of these have mouths that work and whos getting the university grants
so can someone do the maths correctly and post it somewhere for every one to see rather that everyone playing follow the leader
main stream used automatic temperature gauges these are normally at airports in use today that started out as gravel strips and with the growth of population these have been expanded and expanded along with a lot of asphalt which attracts heat windows which reflect heat and so on
manual temp gauges can take up to 6 months and possibly longer to get to researchers and require data input operators to input them which they cant afford so automatic stations are the easiest to use and of course no one wants to be proved wrong so what they have stated becomes gospel and low betide those that disagree
00
“Can anyone find this signal in other places?”
Will Alexander wrote an article about the strong correlation between drought-cycles in South Africa, and the 22-year solar cycle. What was striking that the 11-year cycle did NOT correlate. (Co-authored: long section the sun, solar system, etc.)
As I am sure you know, the 2×11 year cycle is almost certainly driven by the center-of-mass of the solar system moving in and out of the sun itself: the inference would be, I guess, that the two half-movements (i.e. 11-years long) are somehow different from each other (magnetic, radiation, whatever). Or something to do with delays. I did not read in all that much detail, and do not recall all that much.
00
Read this an all will be revealed..
http://www.landscheidt.info/
00
.
Apologies – Maybe someone has already posted this:
“Solar Feed in tariff slashed from 44c to 8 c in Queensland”
Starts as of July 9th, with conditions etc.
Good start for Queensland 🙂
00
@Ian Bryce and other interested parties.
The dominant radiation during daylight hours is solar radiation.
The dominant radiation during night time is terrestrial radiation.
Therefore, if the daily maximums have changed, its cause is most probably solar related.
If the daily minimums have changed, its cause is most probably cloud cover related. You’d need to check precipitation or cloud cover data if available.
Regarding odd/even solar cycles, there is some thesis on that but I just don’t have the time to dig it up right now. I’ll provide it in a couple of days when I get a day off from work.
regards
00
Ian,
Many areas of science have been ignored strictly for temperature data. Temperature data can be played with as it is not any actual physical entity.
Averaging is a huge error to this on an orb.
If the rotational velocity was the same at the equator to the poles, the equator would take 12 days for a single rotation at the same time as at the 85 degree latitude does in 24 hours due to the area and velocity difference.
Our atmosphere is constantly loosing particles and an active sun spews out massive amounts of particles which help to generate our insulation barrier on this planet. A quiet sun has made our outer atmosphere insulation very weak and susceptible to coldness of space.
We currently measure atmospheric pressure by what it does to water but we do not actually measure the pressure of the gases themselves.
So, a great deal of actual physical evidence is missing strictly for temperature data alone.
00
“Can anyone find this signal in other places?”
Using the KNMI temperature data for Irkutsk in Siberia you get a very strong 11 year cycle up until mid 20th century. Several people have commented on it. William Connolley says the Irkutsk pattern may just be a coincidence. Someone else remarked on the presence close by of lake Baikal. There are interesting geomagnetic patterns in Siberia.
00
Sigh..I’m afraid Richard(NZ) lost me ( a mere health scientist) in the explanation of the BOM adjustments.
What puzzles me is that all the adjustments that these various expert organisations make to temperature data always seems to adjust up, when it appears to my simple mind that if you adjusted to take out UHI the adjusted temps should be lower.
00
My question is – how do we know that the maximum temps. have not been fiddled by our friends at the Bom?
These days I am suspicious of all BoM supplied data ( especially when it is designated as “quality”).
00
Maximum temps are a bit subtle too. When I look at Perth’s daily record, you’ll often see a max of say 33.2 at 2:14pm, but its only 32 at 2pm, and 29 at 2:30pm. There is that last little temperature spike as the easterly dies and the sea breeze isn’t in yet. So it represents a very small part of the day, and isn’t necessarily typical of the whole day. I’d be happier with the mean daily temperature. Not the average of the daily max and min, but the average of the half hourly temps throughout the day.
I guess that for most of the time we’ve had thermometers that registered just the max and the min each day (or at least no one would go and read them every half hour) – so if we want to compare what is happening today with what has happened in the past, we need to use daily min and max temps.
00
Who cares as long as it’s warming?
00
No its “Who cares as long as i am proven right”.
00
What is more a wonder than any observation, interpretation, conclusion one might take from these graphs, is how differently they portray the temperature record of Australia than the official BOM one. Or anything that the IPCC, NOAA/GISTemp provide.
The “fallacy” in all this, from an official point, is that we’re looking at the raw or semi-raw data, not the homogenized and “corrected” data. It has been noted vociferously and frequently that the unusual heating of the past 50 years shows up within the corrections, not the data. Raw or even recently “corrected” data fails to show the current and dramatic warming. The official view is that the raw data is inaccurate and the devil, indeed, lies in the details. In a data-wise, good way, that is.
The idea that a global phenomenon is difficult if not impossible to find at a regional or local scale should, one would think, make statisticians squirm. Merging a lot of data, most of which is neutral, will always find a general trend if in one area there is a significant trend. With only a portion of the Arctic data in HadCruT that GISTemp has, there is a marked difference in their recent trends. If one took out the Arctic all-together, I’m not sure much “global” warming would exist. Is it possible that a simple statistical artefact, that of a dominating local effect, is skewing a neutral global metric?
Which brings us back to the above data and how it doesn’t reflect the official warming pattern for Australia (or New Zealand). Is there a local warming pattern that has come to dominate the national averaged data by determining the historical lows and current highs that all others come to show after adjustments?
Somehow old records are considered to have temperatures readings that are inaccurately warm and with an inaccuracy that gets worse as we go back in time. Somehow all the above records will, when “corrected properly” come to reflect the official warming trend of Australia: they must, in order for the averaged records of BOM to have been legitimately merged and averaged.
(Or, as mentioned above, one region with a strong warming trend dominates because everything else is neutral. But we have seen many before-and-after graphs. It is a revision-in-general phenomenon, not a local-dominance phenomenon.)
Skeptics go back to basics because they trust their own thinking. Warmists stay with the official interpretations because they trust the thinking of “experts” or authorities. And ne’er the twain do meet. The non-random pattern of temperature corrections is so simply shown, yet impossible, it seems, to make any consensus-buyer blink.
Apples and oranges. We seem always to be arguing apples and oranges. The data of yesterday that we skeptics like to use to show how unremarkable the current times are, is invalidated by the warmists. Today is special. The physics is special, even, as the CO2 we pump in the air is man-made, not “natural”. Reality starts about 1965, and is only visible at the 40,000 foot level.
Witchcraft, Communism and Climate Change: capture recent, local, irregular events and make them the norm. Connect them to a behind-the-scene cause by groups that you can both identify easily and easily dislike, disrespect or resent. Minimize the past influences and maximize the present ones, and then project your trend. The witches will bring down Christendom, the communists will create a global Gulag, and fossil fuel capitalists will bring the planet to a broil.
Meanwhile, in THIS village, there is no problem that anyone can see. But it is coming, apparently, just a matter of time, because these problems are already plagueing some other village on the other side of the hill, or maybe the next hill. The officials, the experts and the documented trends cannot be all lying.
10
Snap! I must have been typing my post while you were submitting yours Doug – see #24. While as you say, the ‘experts’ claim the adjusted data is ‘more accurate’ what we haven’t been able to get from any of the organisations such as BOM, NIWA and Hadley are the detailed notes justifying why each station was dropped, added, or adjusted. That material has either been ‘lost’ or ‘deleted’ or we are expected to accept that the organisations have audited each other and signed off that ‘world’s best practice’ was used in making the adjustments.
One day I hope there will be a Royal Commission or something which will uncover all the scammers and cheaters who have maintained this fraud and strip them of their PhD’s and positions!
00
The basic problem with looking at individual temperature station raw data and then comparing that to what the climate alarmists tell us is that you are not using their ‘adjusted’, ‘homogenised’, ‘selective’ data.
I know this is a subject we have covered regularly, and most recently specifically with regards to the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, but ‘Chiefio’ (E.M.Smith) wrote an excellent and detailed post on the issue of the changes made to the raw temperature datasets and how that alters the outcomes dramatically. You can read it here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
He writes: “Most people assume there are several sets of global temperature data, each independent and each showing the same thing, global warming of 0.5 C to 1.0 C in the last century. The three key sources are the Hadley CRU temp, NASA GIStemp, and NCDC. Yet each of these is, in reality, is a ‘variation’ on processing done to the single global data set, the GHCN.
If that data has an inherent bias in it, by accident or by design, that bias will be reflected in each of the products that do variations on how to adjust that data for various things like population growth, or Urban Heat Island effect, (UHI) or for the frequent loss of data in some areas, or loss of whole masses of thermometer records, sometimes the majority all at once.”
Chefio goes on to write: “There are three major revisions of the GHCN data set. Version 1, Version 2, and most recently, Version 3 was released. Over time, the exact temperature recording stations in the data set have changed. Sometimes many are added, often many exit.”
Having accessed the data sets Chiefio compares Version 1 (V1) with Version 3, (V3) stating that, if the only difference between the two data sets is some ‘tidying up’ then the overall temperature trends shouldn’t change. In his words:
“Basically, these are supposedly the same places and the same history, so any changes are a result of the thermometer selection done on the set and the differences in how the data were processed or adjusted. The expectation would be that they ought to show fairly similar trends of warming or cooling for any given place. To the extent the two sets diverge, it must be argued that the divergence is purely due to data selection and any adjustments to the data, not any real changes in the global temperature.”
It is a very long and sometimes technical paper in which he explains the method he has used to compare the two versions of temperature data to determine the anomalies: “Unlike computer codes that try to homogenize temperature readings and do a variety of “filling in” and data fabrication, to create missing data; (to cover areas without temperature records, or periods where temperature records are lost), this DP method simply compares a single thermometer now, to the readings for it in the past. This is called an “anomaly process” in climate science.”
Chiefio’s analysis graphs V1 and V2 and shows the anomalies for the entire globe as well as by hemisphere and region. What he clearly proves are two things:
1. The actual trends of the data for both V1 and V2 differ between the entire global data set and by hemisphere and by region which clearly shows whatever you want to call the trend it is not global, and in the southern hemisphere and some regions it isn’t even warming!
2.All of the claimed ‘global warming’ can be accounted for by the data selection and adjustment. “Simple changes of composition of the GHCN data set between Version 1 and Version 3 can account for the observed “Global Warming”“ Chiefio stresses…“these are the same GHCN data set and covering the same time periods ( in that v3 is ended in 1990 to match v1) and in this case it is ‘all data’ so covers the entire world. This increase in “warming trend” is entirely the result of changes as to which thermometer are in the data set and which are out, along with the changes in processing done to the temperature data now, as opposed to 1990. These are “man made warming trends”, but do not involve the planet, only the data set and how it is constructed.”
I’ve looked at the analysis, the logic and the graphs and can’t fault it.
00
Based on the original raw data with 20 degree search radius smoothing this is the repeating cyclic sun/lunar temperature forecast I have produced for today;
http://www.aerology.com/?location=Australia&mapType=Tmin&date=6%2F26%2F2012
With 2 degree search radius the forecast for March 9th 2014 looks like this due to lack of enough station data to give good coverage for the entire surface of Australia;
http://www.aerology.com/Home/Index?location=Australia&mapType=Tmin&date=3/9/2014
With a 6 degree search radius the surface coverage due to smoothing and better remote station overlap looks like this;
http://www.aerology.com/Home/Index?location=Australia&mapType=Tmin&date=3/10/2014
You can still see the feathering effects of the blending of the more remote [from each other] stations but it has better local detail than the current new homogenized data set starts out with.
Not only are there patterns in the 22 year Hale cyclic effects but there are patterns in the 18.6 year long declinational cycles of the moon, the 27.32 day short time cycles [like a complete Hale cycle] or 13.6 day half declination periods from culmination to culmination, that can be used to help forecast the weather over the entire 18+ year long period.
http://research.aerology.com/category/supporting-research/
00
The trials for the search radius for use were completed with the dates for 6 degrees March 10-15 2014,
7 degrees March 16-20 2014, 8 degrees March 21-25 2014, and 9 degrees March 26-30 2014.
I will be going with a search radius of 8 degrees, so we will be reloading all the maps on the site overwriting those on line today with the new ones, as they are generated from the same csv files, same data sets, with the new gsb file overlay.
00
[…] H. Bryce writes at Jo Nova’s website: The thing that intrigued me about the maximum temperatures is the high peaks, which occur at the […]
00
Not sure why I usually end up being the one to rain on the parade, but I’ve accepted my lot in life. Here is the Echuca data plotted against the peaks of the solar cycles, as measured by sunspot counts.
A couple things of note. First, he has misidentified the Cycle 11 peak, it happens earlier. Second, he is very vague about the timing of the cycles. Yes, the high years occurred during those cycles, but if we look at the actual peak year of each cycle, some happen two years before the peak temperatures, some three years before, some four years before, and some show no relation at all to the peak temperatures.
Sorry … but that’s the real data, and the sunspot/temperature correlation doesn’t hold up in the slightest.
SOURCES:
Sunspots
Temperature
IMAGE in case it doesn’t post
Cross-posted from Watts Up With That
00
Willis… I hope you are moving that last link very soon (5 days I think?)
00
Ahhh, its all come to me in a blinding flash! Temperatures aren’t influenced by sunspots, but thermometers read higher when there are lots of sunspots.
Problem solved.
00
Jo replies: Thanks for the extra detail Willis. 🙂 But you are not pouring cold water on the parade at all. (What parade?)
It’s clear in your graph that temperatures rise soon after the solar max in 5 out of 6 cases – as if the solar max effect may have a two year delay. The years circa 1901, 1916 and late 2000’s break the pattern, but for 80 years from 1920 – 2002 we see a strong cycle that tightly fits with each second solar cycle. My original point remains, that this may be random, unless we see it at other sites (thanks to commentators who think they may have seen this elsewhere. Obviously other factors are also affecting the climate. It surprising that the solar effect may be strong enough to be visible above the noise.
No I’m not making any definitive statements on one graph on one location. But 80 years of a matching cycle is suggestive…
I don’t have graphs of other sites, but there is plenty of fodder for more investigation below. I hope someone can follow it up.
Posted above both Willis’s graph and my reply.
00
Via (A) the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum & (B) Central Limit Theorem:
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
Local temperatures aren’t well-constrained. Earth rotation is.
00
Kenskingdom has a graph comparing differing Echuca temperature records here:
http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/deniliquin-echuca.jpg
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/07/
00
“Can anyone find this signal in other places?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This one is also interesting.
Would be interesting to see what the other 580 stations show and the reason those stations were rejected.
00
There are easy ways to verify some of Piers Corbyn’s claims.
Solar Coronal Holes & Earth Rotation:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2yw7711.png
CH = Coronal Holes
nCRm = neutron Count Rate (moscow)
M.5 & P.5 = Schwabe-extent (11 year) Morlet & Paul wavelet power of semi-annual Length of Day (LOD)
These observations are well-constrained by:
A. Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (LCAM).
B. Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
B empowers us to “see through & beyond” interannual (ENSO-timescale) variations with grace & ease. The paradigmatic key is to recognize that we are dealing not with a single stationary oscillator, but rather an infinite population of tightly-coupled quasi-stationary oscillators. (By the way, I’ve now determined from the literature trail that this result was actually known to some as far back as at least 1980. This raises a lot of questions…)
00
How to make Money in Climate Science
1. find a major unanswered question.
3. question top scientists to see what they will accept as an answer
3. cherry pick data and methods to arrive at that answer
4. re-label this technique “training” – it makes it sound intelligent.
5. publish the result.
The results will seem correct to fellow scientists, especially those at the top, so they wont bother to check the math. Everyone will be impressed you have answered the hard question. More so because you will have proven their best guess correct and made them look good in the process. You will advance in your career in science. Fame and fortune will follow.
If anyone does question the results:
6. stall – play for time – they will likely give-up.
7. if not – lose the data and methods
10
Jo you have overlooked Beechworth in the N/East . Beechworths’ temperature was recorded from 1908 to 1986 and from 1986 to 2012 is taken from Beechworth Woolshed which is a drop of 250 metres in elevation. You will find this very interesting as it shows a increase in temperature .
.http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_082001.shtml
00
Willis has other comments at WUWT that are well worth reading.
Cloud cover/solar insolation are the main determinants of maximum temperatures in interior Australia. Cloud cover varies with ENSO. So to find a solar effect you need to factor out ENSO and use a proper statistical test. Eyeballing the data leads to seeing relationships that aren’t there, which is why we have statistical tests.
I’d add that there is cloud seeding by anthropogenic and natural aerosols/particulates which will affect max temperatures. There is no good data for these, but the general trend was increasing (thus decreasing insolation and max temps) up to around the 1950s and decreasing from the 1970s, which is generally what you see in the Euchuca max temp graph.
00
Hardly surprising result. That is if you are “normal”.
00
as posted on WUWT
On my wiggle and spectrum test I disagree with Mr. Eschenbach’s conclusion.
Solar magnetic (Hale) cycle looks like a good winner with score 4:2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Echuca.htm
If all circumstances were known the score could be even higher.
00
Here are a couple of circumstances Vuk.
At the turn of the century (1900) Eastern Australia suffered its worst drought in history.
This lack of moisture contributes to higher temperatures due to lack of evapotranspiration as shown by Lockart et al 2009.
The same explanation may be applied to the first decade of this century.
00
Before anyone dismisses Ian Bryce’s Echuca’s result please read my blog entry at :
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/singular-spectral-analysis-of-summer.html
or Thresher’s 2002 paper
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY
Int. J. Climatol. 22: 901–915 (2002)
Royal Meteorological Society.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.768/pdf
SOLAR CORRELATES OF SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
MID-LATITUDE CLIMATE VARIABILITY
RONALD E. THRESHER
00
Ninderthana and Vukcevic, thank you. I’ve posted links in another update in the article above to both the blog and the graph. Vukcevic, can I post that graph as well? It’s worth sharing.
From Thresher 2002
“This result strongly suggests that the long-term median
summer time maximum temperatures in Adelaide are
primarily being driven by factors that are associated
with the 22.3 year Solar Hale Cycle. ”
and Figure 3
“This result is broad general agreement with the results of
Thresher (2002) who finds that the variability in the strength
of the zonal west winds (along their northern margins) broadly
correlate with the 22 year sunspot cycle [see abstract below].
Hence, the most likely causation sequence is:
22 Hale cycle —> strength of zonal west winds —>
the median summer maximum temperatures in Adelaide
with the strength of the zonal west winds depending directly
on the strength of the wind vorticity around low and high
pressure cells in the Southern Hemisphere.”
00
UPDATE #4: I’ve posted the graphs Vukcevic created in the post. Thank you. It certainly adds more depth to the idea that there is a real solar signal in the Echuca maximums.
00
Jo:
Your contributions towards the defeat of solar-terrestrial-climate obscurantism are noted.
00
Ms Nova, thanks.
As far as I know this appears to be rather a unique temperature record, I’ve done a bit more research, there is more to it than it is initially apparent, as soon as I finish I will email a copy.
It would be useful if Mr. Bryce could find out if, at any time after 2000, there has been change such as a digital thermometer installed, housing or location changed.
00
Have you data on how unique? I mean if there are several thousand locations not showing this link then one has to ask, what is the chance of this appearing by chance in one. I am not a fan of blanket use of Bonferroni as many a good result gets relegated to chance, but out of interest, how many such correlations would you expect by chance?
00
It’s not sensible even in a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest Bonferroni assumptions apply in this context.
When I see such comments it reinforces my awareness of how profoundly deep-rooted & severe is the now generations-old fundamentally incorrect brainwashing in climate & solar science on (A) statistical inference & (B) temporal chaos.
At cross-ENSO Schwabe-timescale, the solar cycle spatiotemporally modulates zonal westerly winds — i.e. it cyclically ( http://i46.tinypic.com/2yw7711.png ) drives variations in this pattern:
200hPa Wind:
http://i52.tinypic.com/zoamog.png
200hPa Wind — Polar View:
http://i52.tinypic.com/cuqyt.png
Zonal Wind Vertical Profile:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34xouhx.png
It’s dead simple.
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
CAUTION: Obscurantism on this subject by climate discussion “leaders” has reached absolutely intolerable levels.
00
care to explain how your comment relates to my actual question which was not addressed to you and which by the way, was not about applying bonferroni? I actually rejected using it and asked a much more sane question about what other data show.
Just to deflect any other random comments I’ll rephrase and also state that I am asking because I don’t know.
In any real world observational geographically discrete (sorry) time series data set (phew) such as is a bunch of long term temperature records, variation is expected year to year and between sites. If you have enough such sites (enough could be billions ie unlikely or a number far less than the studied sites)one can find correlations to other variables even when these variables are not actually related to the thing being studied. My question is how often does this pattern in question appear and can chance be ruled out.
00
Chance is ruled out absolutely via (A) Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum & (B) Central Limit Theorem.
Best Regards.
00
hmmm I hope that Vukcevic has a better understanding.
00
Vukcevic doesn’t use hierarchically-tuned windowing. Where a hair-splitter sees a raised floor of noise, CLT sees pure signal.
Vukcevic can & does, however, point to other very interesting things.
It appears you (like many others including Willis E) are allowing ENSO to cloud your view.
A hammer isn’t the right tool for sinking screws.
(more details another day…)
00
The Hale cycle would not match the temperature cycle when the Murray River flow was low. Pre 1931 before the locks were built and the end years of a long drought 1997 to 2008.
The amount of water in the air is what governs air temperature. CO2 has a minute effect compared to water vapour. The rate of evaporation from a large water source increases rapidly above a surface temperature of 28 degrees. Its at this point when the absorbed Argon begins to become a gas and water tension is lowered.
00
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.080015.SiteInfo.pdf
Vuk, try the above address for the info you require.
Thanks for your really
positive comments.
Regards,
Ian
00
Thanks Ian
It looks the old min-max thermometer has been replaced recently with digital stuff since station is now remotely controlled.
I have no idea why it worked in the ‘bush’ so well, unless they had same min-max thermometer from early 1900s, but will write some non-temperature stuff which might be relevant.
00
Vuk,
Thanks. One other thing, the temperatures that you queried, I put down to ENSO events. The 1901 event was called the Federation drought, because the six states came together as a Commonwealth that year. Evidently it was a very severe drought.
The recent high figures have been due to a prolonged drought from 2002 right through to 2009, when people in Australia thought that it would never rain again.
In Victoria, the previous government built a very large desalination plant, and piped water from the drought stricken north to Melbourne, so that the residents would not run out of water. The dams are near enough to full now, and neither is required, or operates.
Regards,
Ian.
00
Hi Ian
Australia appears to be a large lump of iron (possible reason behind the Aussie’s sporting prowess), so unusual geomagnetic connection should not be a big surprise.
In the WUWT’s post ‘Texas UHI’ there is a graph showing Amarillo’s temperature with zero trend; the June temps shows similar but not as strong synchronization with the sunspot cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A-E.htm
Advance on the solar cycle in the Texas temps points at coronal holes as a possible cause, unless it is just another coincidence. There is a distinct 100-105 year solar cycle, the Amarillo and Echuca data have about the same length of synchronization, next decade will show if the sun-temps link has permanently broken or it has just flipped the phase.
00
Interesting to see this area of Victoria is now being covered. I posted a story in Jan 2011 that shows the same results over the same part of the world that details an overall decline in temperature. The UHI effect is clearly obvious when compared with Melbourne.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/212
00
dams improve the climate, dams attract clouds from the sea, around dams days are cooler / nights warmer = dams improve the climate plus prevent floods and droughts: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/5floods-droughts-we-dont-need-to-have/
20
I’m hearing you man
00