Another round of government-funded PR went out a couple of weeks ago, across the obedient Pravda-media. It told us about another meaningless “record” that was probably not a record, and wouldn’t tell us whether man-made warming was the cause, even if it was. Not a single journalist had the wherewithal, nous or intellectual honesty to search the Internet looking for a different point of view. Though, in their defense, how could they have guessed that Prof David Karoly wouldn’t know about the UAH satellite program to measure temperatures? (It has only been running since 1979.)
This below, are the 12 month averages over Australia by satellite. Graphed at Kens Kingdom by Ken Stewart, with no doctorate in climatology and no government funds.
In the troposphere over Australia it was a hot year but not a record.
For the third time this year we’ve been hit with claims of a “hottest ever” record that doesn’t tell us anything about the climate, but does reveal a lot about the sick state of government funded science, corrupted, decrepit, and so far from being scientific it might as well be run by Greenpeace. If the government stopped funding climate science entirely, climate research might speed up.
The “hottest” headlines are science-marketing
- Again, for the third time, the more accurate, more comprehensive satellites show it was a hot year, but was probably not a record. Satellite data shows we didn’t have a hot angry summer. Man-made emissions were probably not to blame for the hot angry summer we didn’t have. And now apparently we also haven’t quite had the “hottest” 12 month period since 1910 either, but the hottest since 2010. (But what’s a hundred years between friends?)
- Again, for the third time, the “records” depend on mystery methods that can’t be replicated. This time the records appear to be based on ACORN data, supposedly the highest quality we have. This is the dataset we were told had neutral adjustments — an equal number of positive and negative changes. But inexplicably (yet again) somehow those neutral changes increase the trend. (Define neutral?) Who would have guessed that thermometers in the 1920s and 30s were overestimating temperatures and nobody noticed for decades after the fact? (Lucky that got fixed, eh!) Handily for record-makers, the BOM have more than one dataset — if it’s not a record in one, it might be in the other? The angry summer records depended on AWAP data that are not published in full either, and subject to different mystery-black-box adjustments. Back in 1910 that set has a mere 16 temperature stations on a continent of 7 million square kilometers. (No there can’t possibly be anything to hide in those undisclosed methods can there?)
- Again, for the millionth time, even if it is the hottest for a century, it doesn’t mean anything about the cause. To state the bleeding obvious: all causes of warming cause warming. The world started warming up in the 1700’s, long before CO2, the trend was the same in the 1870s as it was in the 1980s. None of that fits the man-made- emissions graph of CO2. Ergo, CO2 didn’t have much effect, if any. The climate models can’t tell us what caused the warming to start 2-300 years ago, they don’t work on 20 year, 2000 year or 200,000 year scales. They don’t work on local, regional or global scales. They don’t work on vertical atmospheric scales. They don’t work.
The need for constant “record” headlines (despite the conflicting data) is the mark of an effective lobby group, but it isn’t the mark of careful impartial scientist.
The satellite data shows it was not a record
There are thousands of measurements coming in from satellites that criss cross the nation day and night covering every corner of the land. This data came out within a few days of the propaganda pieces published all over the country, but the “scientists” at The University of Melbourne couldn’t wait, indeed, they were in such a rush you’d think there was an election on, and dare I say, that getting out an inaccurate message before the vote, was more important than waiting a few days to get the science right?
The satellite measured TLT (meaning Tropospheric Lower Temperature) more accurately shows what the bulk atmosphere above the Australian land-mass is doing – which is the quantity that is most directly related to greenhouse gas impacts. Indeed the models tell us that the rate of warming should be larger in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface. In other words, if CO2 caused the warming, it would turn up in these satellite records before we saw it in the surface charts.
Some of the propaganda
- “Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record” [BOM]
- “Warm winter caps nation’s hottest year“
- The Conversation proves its worth as a government funded outlet: happy to print any old science as long as it’s bad enough.
The Conversation includes this gem of reasoning from David Karoly:
“However, attributing a single event or a record to human activities isn’t easy. But last year Hurricane Sandy put the spotlight on climate change and extreme weather.”
In other words, long trends don’t matter, ignore decadal averages, the current drought in hurricanes, forget global compilations of energy that show that storms are not getting worse, throw all your history out the window. If there is ever a bad storm anywhere in the world, it is our fault. Straight from the playbook of the witchdoctors of neolithic times. Send Karoly some conch shells.
Donate to connect-a-scientist to the World Wide Web
I ask again, as I did in June, if the satellites showed that the last Australian year was a record hot temperature, would Sophie Lewis and David Karoly have left that data off the paper, and entirely out of their calculations, and removed all mention of them from their press releases?
As I said then:
The peer reviewed, comprehensive, [hottest ever] Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”, or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”.
Since the Uni of Melbourne don’t seem to have web access, perhaps someone can do them a favor and send them this in snail-mail so they can finally find out about the University of Huntsville Alabama? I’m sure John Christy would be happy to post them a printout of the UAH Australian data. I can relay messages if Prof Karoly would like.
Luckily my email goes all the way to America.
——————————————————
Related posts:
- Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
- Not the hottest ever summer for most Australians in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Not “extreme” heatwaves either.
- How well did that 50 degree forecast work out for the BOM?
- Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change”
- Australia – was hot and is hot. So what? This is not an unusual heatwave
- Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.
Thanks to Ken, Ed, Chris, and all the independent BOM audit team and to John Christy for the data.
UPDATE: Changed “Junk science” to “Not so” in the headline. Don’t want to overuse the term.
Uh-oh …
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/09/18/00/01/chief-scientist-unfazed-by-cabinet-lineup
No “Science Minister” and “Chief Scientist” Ian Chubb appears to be feeling comfortable enough to spout the last paragraph.
70
One might ask why science is even a matter of enough concern to government that there should be a “Science Minister” or that so much money should be spent on it. In every western nation this “Government Brand Science” has become an uncontrollable monster rushing down a dead-end street at 90 MPH. It’s time to let it crash and burn and be done with it.
A scientist beholden to government for his living will be driven by the political winds, not scientific integrity. No one will buck the hand that feeds him.
250
On second thought, let’s call it what it is. UN Brand Science — there’s no doubt that the UN is the driving force everywhere.
130
One of the obvious characteristics of the ‘warmist’ mind set is there refusal to define their terms.
Thus Chubb claims that people who don’t believe in climate change are silly. I would say that they are almost non existent; who doesn’t think that the climate has changed in the past (and will in the future). If he had said what he meant, man-made climate change, then the political bias would have been obvious.
What his choice of words reveals is that Chubb has made his mind up and is not going to look at the facts. Hardly an ideal mindset for someone employed as a scientist.
150
In view of Dr Jensen’s recent outburst it might be that the mindset of some scientists isn’t entirely attuned to popular perception
20
Whenever Jo Nova writes “In othe words…” you know you’re in for a whopper.
This is just slander and a meaningless rant. The satellite record is 30 years and does not give an accurate measure of temperature, let alone surface temperature and the BoM’s surface temp record that is used to calculate their national temperature index goes back more than a century and uses accurate measurements that do represent surface temperature.
And look at that trend in the satellite record.
So much inconsistency from you. One minute it’s the sensitivity that is the issue, the next you’re back onto the “it’s probably not really getting hotter anyway” tack again.
This is pathetic stuff from Jo.
geez there must be an IPCC report coming out given the sleazy, squealing propaganda that the Watts and Novas are currently ramping up.
466
Good show Chester. Bravo for effort.
The BOM will be glad to hear someone still thinks their mysteriously adjusted, patchy, and not publicly available compilation of temperatures is “accurate”.
Perhaps you could quote me next time instead of just making things up, though?
I didn’t say ” “it’s probably not really getting hotter anyway”.
430
Hi Jo,
a timely post over at WUWT apart from showing the dodgy IPCC analysis it also has examples of the temperature adjusments.
To me this is the key to this scam make enough adjustments to the record and you can show anything you want.
This should be highlighted at every opportunity because when you show anyone this data its obvious they are fiddling the books.
This should be front and centre in any discussion on temperature record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/dodgy-statistics-and-ipcc-assessment-reports/
40
Firstly, slander applies to verbal communication, libel is for the written word.
It’s satellite recordS.
They started in 1979 so it is 34 years.
Since one of them is put out by NOAA, hardly a nest of sceptics, it would seem their accuracy isn’t in question.
The satellites cover far more area of the earth than any surface measurements.
You should have read the bit that 16 stations were supplying the data 100 years ago. Not likely to be an accurate representation of the area of Australia.
Yes, there is a trend in the satellite records, which wasn’t what was questioned. It was the peak which clearly shows that it wasn’t the hottest year as claimed.
Yes, there is an IPCC report coming out, with an admission of a major error in temperature trends, and a back down in other claims. Were you so blinded by tears that you couldn’t read Jo’s article?
“This is just …. a meaningless rant” – well that is an accurate description of your bit. Infantile rage might be another that could be used.
400
Chester it must be very disappointing to you that another temperature data set actually exists out of the purview of the BOM? It must worry you that it is more difficult for the BOM to make the required political adjustments, you know, of the sort where temperatures prior to 1950 were eased downward and those after 1950, eased upward.
131
Is that right Manfred? You have proof the BOM has adjusted the temperature record to artificially create a warming trend?
This site attracts fruitcakes like moths to a flame.
Yes, that’s why you guys are winning this phony blog war – ’cause you really, really believe you are.
And I thought it was just young kids that made stuff up to amuse themselves.
Truly tragic.
331
Yes, it is truly tragic that sooooo much money has been WASTED , all because of an erroneous hypothesis, backed up by data manipulation.
Think what all that wasted money could have accomplished in the way of REAL things like health, and infrastructure.
These guys have a LOT to answer to !!!!
73
Most of these adjustment first started when a guy called Stott (iirc), one of Phil Jones’ protégé’s (ie from CRU) got involved in the BOM record.
The adjustment pretty much match what happened with GISS and HadCrud.
Anything before the 1950’s gets shifted down about 0.5C or more relative to current, thus getting rid of the pesky late 1930’s peak and manufacturing a trend that accounts for around 70% of the warming. Any other warming can easily be accounted for by the effect of Urban Heat as urban areas expand. They could not however remove the temperature records set around 1939, 1940 !
Because of the chicanery, we will never know if there has or hasn’t been any appreciable warming since in the thermometer record.
Maybe there has , maybe there hasn’t, but certainly the much tainted BOM record cannot be trusted as a record of reality.
243
Knock yourself out Chester. The data sources are clear.
http://www.waclimate.net/bomhq-giss-adjust.html
http://www.waclimate.net/bomhq-giss.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/
http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html
152
Ok, Manfred, let’s assume that you, Jo and Ken Stewart (and almost everybody else here – hey, isn’t that Group Think that Jo says she’s fighting against) are correct. That is, that the BOM has created an artificial trend in their HQ climate dataset by systematically lowering older temperature values and increasing more recent temperature values. Job done. A warming trend created. The BOM gets a whole lot of money because, of course, it’s only role is to monitor climate and climate change…
Ah, but wait. The BOM now says that the 12 months to August was the warmest 12 months on record against that adjusted HQ dataset.
Do you see the problem here? You guys have a logical conundrum on your hands that you’re going to have to resolve or else you will look very silly: The last 12 months were either adjusted upwards by the BOM, or else the last 12 months was actually hotter than a climate record that has been artificially made hotter.
Of course, there is another logical explanation: You guys are actually wrong and silly.
49
OK, since you still persist, let’s assume you’re right about it. Let’s also assume the new highest temperatures are actually enough to worry anyone. And then let’s assume that it has actually been shown that CO2 can do what you claim for it. What is Chester’s prescription for fixing it?
Please, please please don’t say the Australian carbon tax because even if all of Australia was shut down tomorrow their total anthropogenic contribution to CO2 increase is minuscule as has been pointed out repeatedly. So what I’m looking for here is a serious discussion from you that we can all look at and evaluate according to some real numbers along with a sound argument and if I may say it, a more polite attitude.
Otherwise you’ll continue to be rejected as of no use to the discussion (any discussion). You cannot make any converts with a swelled head and a snickering put-down of Jo or anyone else.
Are you up to the challenge? The ball is in your court.
71
Sorry, Roy. That’s a diversion.
The accusation of corruption and wrong doing by the BOM has been made. The Know It Alls here need to address the issue that has been raised. At the moment, I suggest Wrong and Silly is looking pretty good.
25
If that’s the best you can do than I’ve been right all along by dismissing you — big mouth with nothing behind it.
You pushers of alarm have made the claims, not the skeptics. You therefore have the burden of proof. You have failed every time. Your attempts to shore up the cause are more and more pathetic and I suspect it won’t end with you. But as I’ve already said, that nonsense won’t work on anyone who knows his way around.
Have fun jumping off that cliff when the time comes. But remember, I won’t be following you.
40
idiot..
When you create a trend, it is highly likely the top of that trend will be at the top of the trend.
Go back to primary school , dopey !!!
22
Wow. Abuse – even when you are absolutely amd totally wrong.
You are saying that thee BOM created a trend that doesn’t exist. Yet the latest data (a 12 month all time record against the trended dataset) confirms the trend!
As I said and you have now confirmed: wrong and silly.
22
The only logical conundrum we have is your moronic idiocy.
It is illogical that ANYONE with a functional brain should be so illogical as you appear to be.
33
Chester, it just shows how little you know about the adjustments. Most of them result in very old temperatures falling, which generates a rising trend and makes past records lower.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/australian-temperatures-in-cities-adjusted-up-by-70/
The original raw data shows quite a different pattern.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/messages-from-the-global-raw-rural-data-warnings-gotchas-and-tree-ring-divergence-explained/
71
Jo, I know more about meteorological data than you’ll ever know.
I also know that, if anyone tried to create an artificial climate dataset, the latest data would bring it undone within a few years.
The latest data is confirming the trends in the climate data – that’s why you amd your mates here are so angry and abusive of the BOM – they know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong.
23
Do tell. I’m all ears. I confess I wouldn’t have known that if you didn’t tell me. ;- )
No one is suggesting their set is “artificial” — it’s “adjusted” and the changes are bringing them undone. That is exactly our point. They have adjusted it to the point where some mins are higher than maxes for example, and didn’t bother to check until the unpaid volunteers did the quality audit they should have done.
I’m happy to admit I was wrong, but you’ll need to provide some evidence of that rather than just hoping it is true, and that might be difficult since the BOM won’t release all their methods, nor explanations for individual station adjustments.
Confirming the trend? What trend is that? That it has been warming for 2 – 300 years?
Jo
61
Thus sayeth Chester,
OK, that statement implies that you have some worthwhile credentials, a master’s or doctorate and some years of REAL experience. Then why don’t you make a professional looking presentation of your case instead of acting like a child with a head too big for his hat? The ball is once more in your court.
Or maybe I should be asking if your mother knows you’re running around loose again with your hands on a computer.
30
Sorry Chester, that argument was quite difficult to understand. Maybe if you explain it with different wording I will get a different interpretation. But as I see it I don’t accept that it makes any “conundrum” for us. (Maybe you meant “contradiction”?)
You seem to be saying there are two possible cases, two alternative Universes, and the universe we live in must be one of these two cases.
Case 1: That the last 12 months was adjusted only upwards in the arbitrary/erroneous manner described above, with all prior data being changed up or down in the arbitrary way. …XOR…
Case 2: That no changes happened over the last 12 months but the arbitrary changes were done to all periods before 12 months ago (my interpretation, please clarify).
Case 1 implies the judgement of a deceptively high trend and a false 12mth high record could be concluded.
In Case 2 you’re saying the reported 12-month high is an accurate measurement and it is higher than older data that was adjusted ONLY UPWARDS in case2, ie “the last 12 months was actually hotter than a climate record that has been artificially made hotter”, which then makes the significance of the high record all the greater.
The only two possible cases you considered involve both downward and upward adjustments, but in Case 2 the BoM’s adjustment process applied to the last 12 months did not result in any upward changes from raw over that period, is that what you intended to communicate?
If that is so, your error is to admit that downward adjustments occurred in case 1 but then neglect the effect of downward adjustments in case 2 which you described as being entirely “a climate record that has been artificially made hotter” with no mention of being made cooler in some places at earlier times. Note this is at a purely logical level. Your argument can’t be true in fact if it is not even internally logically consistent.
If my interpretation was correct, for us there is no conundrum there, because in both your Case 1 and Case 2 the trend was made artificially steeper and the 12 month record high is being compared to periods that were made artificially cooler. We do not even need Case 1 to be true to reach our conclusions. Again that is at the logical level, I have not needed to make any reference to the documentary evidence to show there’s no “conundrum” nor contradiction here.
When you look at the documentary examples found by Ken & Co, it supports the allegation of inexplicable/arbitrary adjustments exaggerating the warming. If there is any coverup happening here it must be quite slipshod because the raw data has actually been given out and that’s what allows Ken & Co to detect these unexplained discrepancies. In theory downward adjustments in earlier years could be legitimate due to local tree growth creating a local wind shielding and warming effect over time, but in practice this must be substantiated by site survey and dendrochronology. The site metadata would then give an objective basis for adjustment. But we have no such objective criteria, thus the state of affairs is that the adjustments are arbitrary.
You imply the BoM are innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show the BoM is wrong, but in the legal system we have a document discovery process for a good reason – the relevant evidence must be accessible to both sides.
Quite possibly you’re the one who’s in a conundrum, feeling a need to defend the BoM but being unable to muster any logical defense of adjustment methods that are kept secret from you. Some period of cognitive dissonance is normal when basic assumptions are questioned.
31
“Yes, there is a trend in the satellite records”
Between 1979 and 1998, that trend is downwards.. Yet this is the period the warmists generally rely on.
1998, you have the El Nino push then rebound.
Then gradual stabilisation to a slightly higher level.
The expected from here is a gradual decrease.
133
Chester; yet another running on ignorance and fear… 🙁
142
Chester, you’re the expert on “high grade pathetic stuff” all right.
163
Well Chester If you don’t like it why not set up your own Blog and amaze us with your scientific truths,
judging by your username here’s some title suggestions.
– Uniforms and riding crops.
– Take my temperature now!
– What,s up with Chester?
– Chester the data molester.
OK hop to it luv, can’t wait.
141
“Chester”,
Try THINKING for a change !
I know that it will be a new experience for you but, you may come to actually enjoy it !
MORON!
94
That is very mild, Angry. Are you feeling OK?
30
I feeling nice and kind today….
20
Chester, You be surprised to know that the Bom only applies the “Australian temperature” methodology back to 1993, so it is only a 20 year old record by boms standard.
Next time they claim hottest ever try asking where the year ranks on the coldest ever record to get an idea on the series they are using.
171
“Squealing propaganda”. Just who is squealing propaganda? Is it Jo and Watts who pursue science and true sKepticism or is it the IPCC that was set-up as a political propaganda movement. Who has something to gain by propaganda? Did you know that by definition, propaganda means the dissemination of information as a political strategy. So again I ask, who is squealing propaganda?
151
The problem for the BOM’s ludicrous claims about recent record maximum temperatures is that some of us have actually lived in places like Melbourne for over 70 years and know that local maximum temperatures have been significantly higher regularly back 50 plus years ago. And that of course rules out the possibility of any anthropogenic influence in those higher maximums as concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were then significantly closer to pre-industrial levels.
There are two problems. Most if not all the BOM operatives (whose leaders also are ideologically committed to CAGW) are too young to have had any personal experience of Australian weather events or they would know the redacted records are a con. The second is that some have come from northern Europe (e.g. Will Steffen from the Climate Commission) and subconsciously must be comparing recent Australian weather with that of their place of origin.
Of course, if one takes the time to examine the history of the redacted BOM temperature records there is little doubt that the records have ignored things like UHI effects in what is essentially a crude fiddle to give credence to AGW. .
102
Let’s see Chester, your rant starts with;
A little bit of your own Leftist Slander (in your words) or Libel.
You then carry on with;
Look at the Thread you’re commenting on, it quite clearly says “Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Junk science say the Satellites”, surface temps have nothing to do with the thread. Comprehension is not your forte.
Then you go on with more, such as;
Well whats your point ?
Then;
As Jo states, she didn’t say what you have quoted. Yet another form of your own libel and inconsistency !!
, it’s pathetic but Jo isn’t the source.
I think someone else ramping up their own propanganda and I am looking for to the NIPCC report which is due out soon.
Thanks for the very inaccurate post Chester and please your welcome to stay over at PlaySkool on SKS. Don’t come here again unless you have something concrete to discuss.
183
Chester several points. To accuse Jo of “slander and a rant” unfortunately both shows you are not well versed in the English language and are incapable of detecting that you yourself are ranting in your ludicrous post. Jo was writing her comments so they would be classed as libellous not slanderous. Of course as her comments are neither this is just a friendly pointer to you so you don’t make the same error again.
I found this comment of yours particularly illuminating “The satellite record is 30 years and does not give an accurate measure of temperature, let alone surface temperature and the BoM’s surface temp record that is used to calculate their national temperature index goes back more than a century and uses accurate measurements that do represent surface temperature.”
Please will you provide your source data that shows satellite measurements of temperature are inaccurate and that the BoM measurements are accurate. Unfortunately merely making these assertions doesn’t make them correct so I look forward to your response. By the way the satellite record is 34 years old but why let a bit of inaccuracy spoil a good rant eh Chester?
170
Ian,
I think you should consider the possibility that Chester lives in an alternative reality, where black is white, truth is lies, good is bad, and any new source of data is wrong, if it fails to support the current consensus view.
Every time I read one of his rants (which I usually try to avoid), I find images of 1984 (the movie) coming into my mind. For me, those images provide a context for what he is trying to say.
Is that not sad?
80
In ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ and ‘Brave New World’ Orwell and Huxley allow their governments to weaken their citizens with ignorance and silence them with fear, warning the reader how a government can manipulate and produce a society to get what they need; how they can betray the trust of their citizens.
Perhaps this is the world that this “individual” ‘chester’ resides in?
60
You may be sure he votes either Labor or Greens.
60
Sorry Angry, but I disagree.
Chester does not make it under the heading of an “individual”
“Non-entity” is a more precise description.
21
So Jo has used all the available data on that system to present the argument. Its in relation to a claim that 1 year was hotter than any other and you dont have a problem with the use of 1 year, but you have a problem with 30?
What a strange little person…
50
Wow, Safetyguy, I’m lost for words.
03
Chester
Here’s an example of what we are talking about (since you wanted proof). This is the data for January, 1939 for Bourke.
The raw data is on the left, the new improved (ie adjusted) data is on the right.
Notice all temps over 30C adjusted down by up to 0.5C, under 30C adjusted up 0.1C.
Raw ACORN
38.9 38.4
40.0 39.1
42.2 41.9
38.1 37.9
38.9 38.4
41.7 41.5
41.7 41.5
43.4 43.0
46.1 45.7
48.3 47.9
47.2 46.8
46.2 45.8
45.7 45.3
46.1 45.7
47.2 46.8
46.7 46.3
40.0 39.1
40.1 39.1
40.0 39.1
41.9 41.7
42.5 42.1
44.2 43.8
36.7 36.5
40.3 39.2
36.6 36.5
29.4 29.5
29.3 29.4
28.8 28.9
30.6 30.5
35.6 35.4
38.6 38.3
48.3 47.9
28.8 28.9
40.4 40.035 (average)
Raw data site
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=122&p_stn_num=048013&p_c=-461166591&p_startYear=1939
ACORN data
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.048245.daily.txt
60
Bourke (NSW) record heatwave in 1896:
Daily Maximum Temperatures (in Fahrenheit) recorded in Bourke, in January 1896: (as published in Western Herald p2 29/1/1896)
1 January 103 o
2 ” 102
3 ” 105.5
4 ” 105.5
5 ” 112.5
6 ” 118
7 ” 117
8 ” 112.5
9 ” 108
10 ” 108.5
11 ” 110
12 ” 113.5
13 ” 115
14 ” 120
15 ” 118
16 ” 118
17 ” 115.5
18 ” 120
19 ” 118
20 ” 119
21 ” 118.5
22 ” 120
23 ” 119
24 ” 116
25 ” 91
26 ” 94
27 ” 104
28 ” 108
Also, on 31/12/2005,the web-site Australian Weather News, listed a maximum temperature of 51.8 o C, at the Menindee Post Office. (BOM Station #047019)
The BOM has not recognised this record temperature for some reason. Does anyone know why ?
30
To see what’s wrong with the Labor-Greens (don’t forget, they remain married), one only needs to observe the performances of their base support.
20
I love Bill Leak’s cartoons – this is a gem
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/09/17/1226721/190025-130918-leak.jpg
80
Yep. Burst out laughing when I saw that.
10
Slightly off topic but David Suzuki is at it again. This time he claims Australia will “doom future generations” if we ditch the pointless Carbon Tax.
Never mind Australia produces less than 1.5% of global emmissions (and falling).
Never mind the world started warming in the 1700’s, long before Human CO2 might have anything to do with it.
Never mind that even government funded scientists can’t agree that extreme weather events are increasing due to human CO2 emissions.
But of course his story will get the needed headlines for the fear campaign and the mindless drones who swallow this stuff will lap it up. Sigh.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-will-doom-future-generations-if-he-ditches-carbon-tax-20130917-2tx0j.html
100
The best thing they could all do is totally ignore the change in Australian politics and the incipient change in Australian policies. They make a cardinal strategic mistake by trumpeting the fact that a counterpoint to the meme of the moment exists, and that people can and do choose to vote down an ideology. Long may they continue to carp – the louder the better. It is very very helpful.
Highlighting an alternative reality that enables not disables, that prospers not withers, and that prefers science over progressive Green ideology and sees the Green poster poseurs for the puffed up plutocrats they are will only lead to a stampede for the door. That is what they fear.
110
Who knew our emissions were so critical to planetary climate.
10
Indeeeed. Imagine the money we could rake in to save the planet.
00
I heard that David Suzuki asserted parked cars and greenhouses got hot on account of the carbon present in glass. Did he really say that?
10
I wish that bedwetter Suzuki would get back on his medication.
Then again, perhaps an excess of meds is his problem….
40
Too much “stuff” in his youth. Atrophy of cerebral acuity.
11
Suzuki sounds much better as a manufacturer of motorcycles than a scientist. He acts like he got his credentials from a cereal box, not a university — a total phony. There seems to be nothing about which he’s not an expert. I wonder if he’s related to Barack Obama or maybe Julia Gillard.
If you go to his talk, take rotten eggs. 😉
Just kidding. Better to not go and avoid more frustration.
90
I have no idea why you would have a problem with Dave Suzuki
60
Fruit fly, huh? That could explain it. Or is he a fruitcake just being mistaken in his own mind for a fruit fly? Either way, what a waste. 🙁
50
Drosophila sp are more properly called a vinegar fly and this avoids confusion with the pest. Drosophila love a good red and a compost heap.
One reason Suzuki pops down to Australia as frequently as he does is that there are a number of his former students still leading active research careers (although most are quite old themselves now)
51
GA,
What genus does the common fruit fly (pest) belong to?
And isn’t there a fruit fly called Drosophila suzukii? (not named after the fruit loop above)
20
Dave – I know Dros and not much about the pest. The genus I know is Bactrocera for the pests but there might be other related genera that are also pests.
They are all dipterans but this is a vast and diverse group that includes mosquitos, but among the Diptera are many favourites for lab research.
Bactrocera are much bigger than Drospohila and don’t suicide in your wine if that helps.
Having said all that Dros are a pest in some contexts but they are not the focus of all those fruit bins at airports and on roadsides. Wineries hate them.
An off topic note to this off topic comment is that Drosophila were instrumental in controlling prickly pair in Australia.
40
I had to go to wiki on this, I had no idea…
There is probably a D.dave and a D.geeaye out there and if not, one day will be. So many species
30
The housefly Musca domestica, is the most common of all domestic flies, accounting for about 91% of all flies in human habitations, it is considered a pest that can carry serious diseases.
The stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans, has piercing mouthparts and the media vein is only slightly curved.
The boring fly D. suzukii, first noted in 1972, make a piecing drone and can cause delusions among the susceptible.
The Malthusian fly P. ehrlich is one of the longest living pests. It can cause delusions of grandeur but only in a small proportion of the population (see Gore syndrome).
60
The weed was sooo much better back then.
10
“Trust only the satellite temperature record.”
– Fred Singer, 1996
50
The “record” set in Sydney was 45.8C, (0.5C more than 1939) but the automatic weather at Observatory Hill only recorded a 45.3C. I have emailed BOM about this discrepancy, but have received no answer.
Where did that extra 0.5C come from ??
130
That’d probably be a totally innocent ‘typo’! 8-(
20
Adjustments…
30
The temp at 2:49 was 44.9C and 44.8C at 2:59. The spike was around 2:53/2:54 at 45.8C. So it went up and down quickly in that 10 minute period. I too have seen no explanation for this except that platinum tipped thermometers electronically monitored can pick up these sudden peaks within seconds.
Obviously they did not have that technology in 1939 so it would be wrong to compare the two temps.
00
And anyone living on the east coast knows that last summer was actually pretty darn ordinary. Only 3 or 4 days that could be considered “hot”. A luke-warm summer !
101
Totally agree.
It was a very ordinary summer on the mid north coast of NSW.
Bring on the heat so we can enjoy the beach and the pool more often!
72
What seems to have happened is a high stagnated over central Australia, causing lengthy periods of rather warm temps. Now since central Australia is most of Australia, the average recorded surface station got pushed up. (If you look at the individual records set on 12th and 18th Jan, MOST of them are at airports, with their massive tarmac heat sinks.)
And on the couple of days when that air mass got released towards the east and south east, naturally those areas got all that pent up heat.
So , most of the time we weren’t getting the usual hot westerlies, so missing out on those nice warm days, then 2 days of very hot when the stagnation got released.
71
Essentially, the tropical monsoonal winds were about a week late (insignificant), which meant the air mass over the huge central desert was stationary, allowing it to heat and bleed off at the edges
Similar conditions are seen regularly in the SH winter, when the central air mass remains as a stationary high, sometimes for months. Then we have constant days of cool sunshine … not many people complain about that
60
Australian Heatwave? Not So Unusual After All
FEBRUARY 26, 2013 by By Paul Homewood
“It is only a few weeks since we were being told how the heatwave in Australia was unprecedented, and proof of global warming.
Now the GISS systems are up and running again, we can check just how hot it really was last month down under.
The graphs below plot January mean temperatures for seven sites, which give a comprehensive coverage of the whole country, one for each state, plus Alice Springs in the middle
In none of the examples is the January temperature a record, or even close to being so, and in most cases higher temperatures were recorded 50 years or more ago.“
130
The temperatures here are always and I mean ALWAYS forecast way too high, a couple of weeks ago we have sunshine and a burst of warmth (it’s spring! FFS) and suddenly it’s extreme or unusual weather, utter alarmist hype.
Back in early spring 1987 (I’ll find the date) we had a day that started with <5c and climbed to 32c in the afternoon, I remember this as we were working outside doing heavy labor and started with the usual winter clothing only to gradually strip down shirtless, it was quite a shock coming out of winter.
The weather then reverted back to what is considered normal the next day, over the years our blip of time has shown us that climate/weather as a part of nature will have change as the only constant thing.
80
But what’s a hundred years between friends?
I know I just linked to my parody in another post, but as it relates here as well I thought it relevant, especially in light of the Karoly quote and your spot-on assessment of it:
In other words, long trends don’t matter, ignore decadal averages, the current drought in hurricanes, forget global compilations of energy that show that storms are not getting worse, throw all your history out the window. If there is ever a bad storm anywhere in the world, it is our fault. Straight from the playbook of the witchdoctors of neolithic times. Send Karoly some conch shells.
They do throw history out the window. I suppose a historical perspective was the purpose of my parody. To show how easy it was to just pick any year (a century ago in my example), highlight the extreme weather from that year, and magically connect humanity to the event. It is farcical but predictable. As I say in my primer post, this latest report is just another stepping stone on their path to claiming a human fingerprint in almost all extreme weather events. We haven’t seen the end of it I’m afraid.
30
I’ve done quite a bit of research on ACORN-SAT and the saddest thing is a statement in the BoM catalogue of weather stations that claims that Sydney’s Observation Hill site is not affected by UHI because urbanisation had already been advancing in this area prior to when they start the ACORN-SAT records… what a joke!
Quote:
“The area is heavily built-up and has been since at least the late 19th century. An analysis of minimum temperature trends in the ACORNSAT data showed no evidence of an abnormal warming trend relative to nonurban sites in the region, indicating that any urban influence on the data was already fully developed by the time ACORN-SAT begins in 1910.”
Not true when I plotted the raw data from Observatory Hill… a definite increasing tend was apparent in the minimums whereas there was all but zero in the Maximums!
Jim
70
The really warm days are generally related to westerly winds.
These blow over areas that were once paddocks, but are now one huge mass of urbanisation.
11
Frankly, I’m absolutely amazed that Observatory Hill is NOT recording many more high temperatures.
I can only assume that the actual real trend is counteracting the UHI affect.
11
If I were a Forex trader, I would wonder about the “higher lows”, not the “
higherhighs”.02
What is your point exactly Bryn ??
20
My point: one could draw an up-trending curve touching at least three minima on this graph. I accept Jo’s basic issue and horizontal line showing there is no up-trend in the maximum, but there is an up-trend in the minimum points for which she offers no explanation. If it is valid to construct a trend line through the uppermost peaks, why not through the lower?
21
OK thanks.
The point from Jo, I think, is that the Climate Commission, BOM and the MSM said nothing of the minimums.
Just because the minimums are rising doesn’t mean we have a problem. It could actually be a good thing but unfortunately to join the Climate Warming Cabal, there can be only BAD 🙂
20
Bryn, there is NO trendline on the above graph- the horizontal line is at +0.668C, showing there were two separate periods of higher 12 month periods than this latest. The 12 months to August were in 6th place on the UAH record. This post is not about trends but about claims about record 12 month averages.
Ken Stewart
30
Year by year we see new ”record” temps, high or low at different locations on Earth and the MSM rings the alarm, however the Global average refuses to budge, it remains fairly constant, so ”records” should not worry us
50
Another top post from the Bolter to add to this good one from JO.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_faith_faces_collapse_but_here_comes_suzuki_still_prattling_of_doom/#commentsmore
I just hope he’s correct and the whole smelly mess IS facing collapse.
That idiotic extremist Suzuki is doing his best to confuse and exaggerate as usual. Mendacity specialist.
60
speaking of funding, can u believe Australia provided some funding for the following?
btw how much more unrealistic would it be for such a company to be profitable in vast, sparsely-populated Australia?
CBS Local: ECOtality may close doors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsefchUhISc
17 Sept: ABC America: AP: Ecotality Files for Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection
Ecotality, which makes charging systems for electric vehicles, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and wants to sell its assets in an auction…
The San Francisco company makes charging and power-storage systems for electric vehicles under the Blink and Minit Charger brands, including charging stations for the Nissan Leaf. It also does testing for government agencies, auto makers and utilities…
***Ecotality has received more than $100 million in funding from the Department of Energy since 2009. The company has also received funding from the state of California and from Australia***
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/ecotality-filed-bankruptcy-protection-20284446
30
Excellent.
A green communist group going out of business.
Good news.
Wish it would happen to all of them…..
30
You seriously have to laugh at this electric vehicle scam.
It seems that the, umm, electricity just comes out of the hole in the wall, ergo it just, umm, falls out of the sky somehow.
Listen at the start of the video, just after the cross to the on site reporter, where he says blah blah blah plug it in and a …. few …. hours later your car is charged up.
That’s around 4 hours for a full charge, done correctly, because a superfast snap charge dramatically reduces the life span of the batteries, any battery.
There’s actually people out there, and in positions of power too, who are calling for 100% electric cars.
So, umm, let’s do a road trip from say, The Gold Coast to Rockhampton. That’s 800Km (500 miles) or so.
So, now we have five stops for a recharge at 4 hours a time, so taking road time and charge time, that trip now takes around 30 hours.
Great, just great.
Transport Companies will just love that.
And I was just wondering where all that electrical power to charge up that 100% road fleet is going to come from.
Surely not CO2 emitting power plants.
Tony.
90
Tony, Tony
You will only be able to charge up the car during the day or when its windy.
The Solar panels or turbine will have been carried to the area by a herd of green monkeys.
Never heard of a green monkey ??
Seems to be about 8-9% of the population !
(Note: this percentage is falling fast, because evolution does eventually happen, even to green monkeys)
21
The CEO of Ecotality (should be Eco-fatality) was Jonathan Read he was earning $350,000 p/a plus bonuses. His son was a VP at the company and the SEC are investigating his wife and father in law.
It’s con-man 101, target the unquestioning religious types with a belief in a savior that is neither provable or dis-provable, and promise that you can deliver saviour – for money of course.
This story proves the “mark” can range from a pensioner who believes she will live a 50 years longer by selling her car and buying the magic crystal to the leftist administration of a government with a GDP of $16 trillion.
This is why we feel sorry for the warmists. We see you as a 90 year old pensioners who have just been conned into buying a $100,000 magic crystal. You can help it and its wrong what the con-men are doing to you.
40
Is this line of argument worth pursuing? I mean there will be the inevitable, “but satellites are measuring a different thing”, versus, “I don’t trust the BOM – what is its data anyway?”, followed by, “satellites produce more transparent and straight forward data available to all”, countered by, “ground measurements have been validated by multiple methods and the adjustments follow these validated methods”, with the obvious and justified repeat argument, “yes but what is the raw data and what is done to it”?
Maybe instead of looping around we can discuss this instead
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1305332110.abstract
it is actually not off topic!
12
Only just today I read an abstract which stated:
Really Gee Aye, who is interested in discussing climate models and the “novel” methods they use to achieve their desired outcomes?
21
it is not up to me to predict another person’s interest in something. What a strange question.
13
I submit that it was a rhetorical question, and not strange at all.
20
What a strange response. Is English your second language?
41
would that matter to you?
12
It seems that the southern hemisphere is still warming a little compared to the cooling now taking place in the northern hemisphere (especially Greenland), as there is more ocean in the southern hemisphere and thus it responds slower to recent natural changes (which are all downwards-but don’t expect it hear this from the alarmists, they will focus on southern hemisphere stats over the next few years, since the northern hemisphere is no longer co-operating.)
The reduced solar activity and the negative PDO is starting to effect the northern hemisphere, whilst the southern is still warming a little, but I expect in a few years to a decade or so the southern hemisphere will start to show cooling as well. Unfortunately that means Australia might become a hot topic in the alarmists propaganda machine over the next few years/ decade or so, which is not good for those who are already sick of it.
32
Highest recorded temperatures?
And what is the average age of the weather stations?
Methinks that more than half would be less than 30 years old.
20
Unreal post Jo – nailed it! Have reblogged over on my site :
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/australias-record-hottest-12-month-period-junk-science-say-the-satellites/
Thank you.
30
Great site Jamie, well done mate. 🙂
20
Ross McKitrick in today’s National Post, a must read…
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
20
At 14:00 Clive Pup has fallen behind Ted O’Brien by 18 votes.
10
Sweeeet !!
10
By 9pm he’d caught up again and Clive is ahead by… 3 votes.
That’s a 3 vote margin in 83941 votes counted (92.6% of poll). That’s 0.003% of the count.
This is ridiculous. No legitimate vote count is this close.
00
20
[…] Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Not so say the Satellites « JoNova. Rate this:Like this:Like Loading… […]
00
there is much more space in the world than Australia that covers only 3-4%. If Antarctic, Pacific get cooler by 0,5C – Australia can get warmer by 10C, TO CANCEL AND BE EVEN. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
00
Some time nigh on one hundred years ago the huge data base collected by various people over the globe was normalised and a standard average temperature and barometric pressure was reached. 14.7C and 1013 MB.
Oddly when a base line to measure global warming anomaly’s was set they set it at 14C the gurus of global warming claim we have had a 0.7C rise over the last hundred years and the current anomaly is some where around 0.6C.
So we are currently around 14.7C, to me this suggests that not a lot has changed, if the actual average temperature was used people would not believe in AGW.
50
I wonder what the IPCC would be saying now if there had not been a rather virulent opposition backed up by better argument, better math and better science going on since their beginning. Interesting thought, is it not?
We can’t know of course, but the general behavior of such a thing if unchecked is to just continue without ever becoming self critical. The path of least resistance frequently prevails.
10
I do agree with the comment “The “hottest” headlines are science-marketing”. I’d like to cherry pick a statement from this blog: “If the government stopped funding climate science entirely, climate research might speed up.” The obvious question: on the spectrum of science vs marketing where would your opinions and your published work fit?
00
Jo it would be interesting to see how the radiosonde data compares. I have little doubt that it would run a lot closer to UAH than to the BOM.
That is unless the BOM has started making adjustments to that too.
00
Here are my charts of Sydney’s Observatory Hill Raw & Acorn-SAt records… easy to show an upward trend when they reduce all the early data in the Acorn-Sat dataset! Acorn Data is in Red & Raw in Blue.
http://www.i-says.com.au
They also claim Observatory Hill has no UHI to speak of… because Sydney was already developed by 1910 where they start their dataset… so Sydney hasn’t grown in the most recent 113 years!
The BoM station catalogue of stations with this statement is here:
http://www.i-says.com.au/images/ACORN-SAT-Station-Catalogue-2012-WEB.pdf
In other words if it isn’t there, fake it until you make it!
10
The title above ” Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Not so say the Satellites” were a tad premature. The data is now in for the satellite data (UAH) that is relied upon by climate skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy. The data set can be found at http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt. The last column is the data for Australia.
In summary according to the satellite data 2013 was the hottest year in Australia confirming the BOM data. The average temperature anomaly was +0.705 degrees just nudging out 1998 (+0.634) and 2009 (+0.621). As is well known 1998 was an extreme El Nino year unlike this year which was ENSO neutral.
Those with the necessary skills in Excel can extract this data from the above data set.
01
Given that this post was done in July 2013, we would have needed psychic powers to get the numbers you got. The title is accurate. You are talking about a different 12 month period.
Yes Australia may have set a record. But what happened to Global Warming? Not so much eh?
20
You might also be pleased to hear the news, that the siege of Mafeking was relieved on 17 May 1900. The temperature in South Africa may have changed a bit since then, don’t you know.
10
Joanne,
You are clearly correct about psychic powers. I did say your claims were premature but in the light of the published data are you going to highlight the agreement between BOM’s claims and the UAH satellite data regarding 2013. Somehow I believe not but I will hope to stand corrected.
The point I was trying to make is that the BOM data and UAH data seem to correlate well even up till end of 2012 (correlation coefficient of 0.68 for that period , 0.72 until the end of 2013) so you don’t need to necessarily rely on the occult.
In fact from the start of the UAH satellite record in 1979 until the end of 2013. The trend rate of increase in temperature for Australua using the UAH satellite data was 50% higher at 0.15 degrees per decade than for the BOM data at 0.1 degrees per decade!
Again anyone can download the BOM data and compare it with the UAH satellite data from the link above if you like. So much for the grand conspiracy.
02
The BOM still haven’t published the ACORN full set of methods. So no one can publicly recreate their results. I can see no evidence that this bothers you. As it happens UAH has a 0.5C upward step shift since 2007 compared to RSS and other sets, so I could just as easily publish a BOM comparison with RSS as UAH, and show a different result, but I haven’t. What of it?
If I were funded by the Australian government people to give all the information your request might have a modicum of legitimacy. But those who are funded to provide all the information don’t provide it, and yet as far as I can tell, you approve of them? Have you written to the BOM to ask them why they didn’t compare all their other “records” to UAH (when they didn’t match). Or why they don’t publicize the fact that there are many ways to calculate records, and most of the time their records are mere artifacts of their unpublished methods? If you were seriously concerned about scientific rigor I might take your suggestions seriously.
30
Joanne. I share your concerns I lie awake at night worrying whether the BOM ACORN data is suspect. So let’s disregard the BOM data as it is also clearly suspect in your eyes. Is the UAH satellite data also suspect (contaminated by ‘group think ‘maybe or some other subversive mechanism)?. If the UAH data is also suspect then I suggest you take it up with the climate change skeptics Spencer and Christy.
You mention the RSS data and other data sets . You suggest you could (I assume easily) compare other data sets to see how well they agree with each other . Are these other data sets available for Australia? The closest I could find were GISStemp data for the southern hemisphere. Do you have an alternate data set for Australia that will perhaps show that 2013 was not the hottest since….
The debate about the role of humans in climate change , the impact of climate and what we can conceivably do about it are clearly issues open to debate. But it is pointless , akin to lobsters arguing about the rate of temperature rise of the water that they’re being cooked in , to concentrate on efforts to deny what is obvious from the satellite data.
The UAH satellite data is unequivocal for Australia. It is getting hotter and debate as to whether UAH or the BOM is more correct as to the rate of increase is moot as they both point to an increasing temperatures for Australia despite your brazen attempts to spin it.
00
Who denies what UAH says? Are you referring to some other comment in this thread?
As for other datasets with an Australian dataset, feel free to provide them. I’m curious, and I’d like to see them, but finding records or a lack of such is a low priority for me. I’m more interested in what causes global warming and in fostering good science and good reporting. Records (especially short ones) are fairly irrelevent — the “records” tell us nothing about the cause of the warming. All forms of warming would cause… warming. And whether or not the 5.2% of the world that I happen to live in has a record (according to one or two or ten datasets) tells us little about whether global warming is occurring.
The global warming trend started in the 1700’s after all, long before CO2 started rising. Strangely, the fastest decadal rates of warming were around 1870 and again around 1930, and they were the same as the fastest decadal rate of the 1980s, despite 85% of man made emissions occurring after WWII. So something else caused the warming trend and the trend has not increased. Odd eh?
Australia has got hotter since 1979. No doubt about it. I’ve never said otherwise. Have you got any evidence that this trend is related to CO2? The IPCC needs you…
As for spin, I see that you lie awake, but don’t write to the BOM with your concerns, though you are concerned about my 6 month old articles. How flattering — you must feel I’m more influential?
21
This “hottest ever” is the real furphy. UAH only operates from 1979, and the mid 1970’s were actually a cooler period even in un-adjusted data sets. So yes, there has been some natural warming since then.
Its the period before that and in the mid to late 1800’s that we don’t have real data for.
There is a lot of evidence that the late 1930’s was actually a very warm period, and there is also evidence that BOM has made considerable adjustments to that period of time all of which have lead to the temperatures being cooler than was actually recorded at the time.
There are also reasonable older records of some truly horrific temperatures in the mid-late 1800’s and early 1900’s
eg 20 days in a row of 40+ for January 1908 in Adelaide (10 in a row and another 10 since adjusted to be just below 40°C). Two days of 46 and two of 44°C in 5 days in 1939.
So yes, some natural warming since 1979, because it was a slightly cooler period.
But to use the words “hottest ever” is probably incorrect, because the accurate un-adjusted record is so very short.
The wording is most certainly designed just to “further the cause”.
Well, the next 2-5 years will almost certainly tell a different story, because we are now over the slight peak, and temperatures are starting to head downwards again.
00
And Mike, If you read this http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
You will get a goo understand why the current temperatures are slightly higher the mid 1970’s
A lot of extra solar activity in the latter half or the 20th century..
And if you don’t accept that the Sun affects temperatures, then don’t try using its current sleepy state to excuse the coming cooler period.
00
Perhaps Mike R you should listen to Roy Spencer’s latest complaint instead of imagining you are an “expert”:
“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.
And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.” Roy Spencer.
A bit more here: “95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
10
“Yet, that is the direction we are heading.”
Sorry Llew… you meant “Yet, that is the direction we were heading”
Last decade or more, we have been driving the road from Parkes to Mildura.
00
The Griss, I have no argument with the enormous range of theories regarding the source of global warming (man made or not). Everyone seems to have one. My objection is to those who deny that it is taking place at least in Australia which is the headline debate ( go the the top of the page).
02
No one denies anything except for the BOM. This article is about the 12 month average recorded before July 2013. It asks why the BOM hides from the public that it wasn’t “a record” in satellite data.
10
Yes, there was a small amount of warming from 1970 to 2000, finalised by the Elnino step of about 0.3C in 1998-1999. Since then basically nothing.
But in the un-adulterated record, even 1998 is barely above the temperatures set in 1939.. some 1939 record still exist even after all this warming.
The 2013 record at Obs Hill in Sydney from 1939 was 45.3C, the record set in 2013 are all this warming registered 45.3 on the automatics, but for some reason was recorded as 45.8C, and that’s after massive urban expansion in the west of Sydney where the really hot weather comes across.. In 1939 there would have been grass paddocks, not metal and tile roofs.
And if you look back historically , you will find that late 1800, early 1900’s also have a series of very warm events.. Someone posted that in Adelaide in 1906 there were 20 odd days over 40C in a row (before adjustments downwards because guys back then were so dumb they couldn’t read a thermometer )
So, in the grand scheme of things the current warm period is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
00
errata .
“The
2013record at Obs Hill in Sydney from 1939 was 45.3C, the record set in 2013areafter all this warming, registered 45.3 on the automatics, but for some reason was recorded as 45.8C, and that’s after massive urban expansion in the west of Sydney where the really hot weather comes across.. In 1939 there would have been grass paddocks, not metal and tile roofs. ‘00
So Mark, the real question is if this would be called a record if decent records went back further in time.
Personally, I have seen so much evidence of rather large cooling adjustments on the past BOM records, done in the same manner as Giss and HadCrut, that I really cannot accept the BOM record as any sort of record of real past temperatures.
I suspect that the late 1930’s, and possibly a couple of other points in time even in Australia’s short history, could quite possibly have been just as warm if not warmer than now.
00
Sorry, its Mike, not Mark.. me bad.. 🙁
Anyway, if you go to the latest thread, you can see exactly hat I am talking about.
00
So you have a problem with someone who denies GLOBAL warming is taking place in Australia?
Even is GLOBAL temperatures have not had any statistically significant increase since 1998 despite almost every climate model projection, and every climate alarmist prediction.
If Temperatures are rising in Australia by your reckoning that must be GLOBAL warming? It couldn’t be a regional effect? Hmm
00
Yes , Jo you got me there. The real reason I have restless nights is not my concerns about the BOM massaging their data to artificially boost the measured temperatures.
[OK. Thanks for being honest this time. Skip the fake “concern” eh? – Jo]
It is more to do with the noise my air conditioner makes trying to cool the heat at night here in Melbourne. Interestingly in light of our discussions there us a small chance we may break the warmest night on record tonight. The dreaded BOM are predicting an overnight minim of 30 tonight and the highest ever recorded minimum in Melbourne is 30.5
[I’m sorry you have been misled into worrying about such irrelevant indicators. – Jo]
Records are notoriously hard to break. The number of summer nights since records began in 1857 is 501,000.In the absence of a warming trend the probability of tonight breaking the record is one chance in half a million so my moneys against it.
[Records are a dime-a-dozen. Our recorded history is short. There are infinite ways to measure “the climate”. UHI and micrositing as well as inexplicable adjustments all increase the likelihood of a record. We know it was hotter 7000 years ago. Humanity survived. Jo]
In the light of the difficulties of breaking records that ‘s why wave of record maximum temperatures recorded in Feb 2009 across the SE states and the other record breaking temperatures in the past year or two are so significant. For those devotees who blame it all on the heat island defect these records were broken all over Victoria and South Australia in the massive metropolis’s of Aireys inlet, Ouyen etc.
For those who predilection lies in conspiracies I do however have it on good information ( via Ed Snowdon) there are guys at the bureau whose jobs are to hold the base of heir thermometers with their fingers to ensure that records are broken . They had great difficulties to find staff with sufficient raging temperatures 4 days in a row a couple if weeks ago to get the temperatures above 42 here in Melbourne They must have lost a few the BOM staff that are so desperate (and corrupt) to set new maxima they will give their lives to the cause. There must be some job opportunities at the BOM in Melbourne for those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
In a more serious vein. Let me summarize the situation as I see it.
1. Jo doesn’t like the BOM data.
2. She’s ok with the UAH data
3. The UAH data shows that 2013 was the hottest year since the satellite record started in 1979.
4. She highlighted in the above article that the BOM data was inconsistent with the UAH data and chose to believe the UAH data (at least until Jul 2013, she may has obviously reconsidered her opinion after that). In the absence of any other records that she or I are aware of then we may have to resort to making up numbers. Fortunately there is a random number generator in Excel.
5. The article above implied ( it seems prematurely) that the records used by the BOM are ‘B S’ based on the UAH satellite data.
6. Jo’s record as a predictor of climate came up short as she presumably got it wrong regarding the final outcome of 2013. This is disappointing as it was only a six month prediction (not decades or centuries) and as of July 2013 the average temperature for that year until July was 0.5 degrees above the long term average (according to UAH) well within cooee of the previous record of 0.63.
7. When the satellite data finally comes in and showed that 2013 is the hottest on record she is bewildered by why someone would like her to correct the record. If she wants to avoid the perception that her blog is agenda based that presents only one side of the story then she might consider a correction to her claims . It is dangerous to assume that any one coming across this material (in my case serendipitously) is incapable of checking the primary source material such as the satellite data from t UAH. Despite the many comments above we are not all fools.
[Too wrong to correct it here. See my reply below – Jo]
The most likely conclusion from the points above is that Jo is not a credible journalist in that she will not report information that does not suit her own agenda ( I can hazard a guess as to what it is) . If she does indeed have some integrity then she might correct the record and report, as a headline, that 2013 was the hottest year on record (at least since 1979 as she is a disbeliever of the BOM records from 1857). I await such a headline with bated breath. I know that I will probably succumb to hypoxia exacerbated by heat stroke. But I will take the chance.
[Most likely conclusion is that you hold unpaid commentators who disagree with your religion to higher standards while you ignore gross deceitful failures of the BOM and mainstream media. Your delusional requests that I have a duty to repeat every largely accurate but irrelevant statements the BOM make (as if my readers might not know that news already) is sweet. Clearly you think I am influential on a similar scale to the mainstream media. I’m touched. Shucks.- Jo]
p.s. in my last contributions I thought( obviously mistaken) that we were debating whether the UAH data supports the idea that 2013 was the hottest day since satellite records began, not the inability of climate models to agree. Personally I am surprised the models can agree on anything considering how complex and full of feedback processes that are not well understood. I suspect we are in agreement on this. So Jo your attempted diversion onto these mater is pointless other than to illustrate the bind you are in.
Personally I am an agnostic when it comes to the reasons as to why the temperatures are increasing in Australia and the imapct upon the globe ( ask an oceanographer, glaciologist, ecologists, e.t.c.). I am also not sure what concrete things we can do about it but burying your head in the sand is not a great approach as the sands gets hotter and hotter.
[I’m sorry you mistook this old post for a recent one or mistakenly think my non-mention of models is a diversion about models. There is nothing I can do to help your reading comprehension. Your claim that you are agnostic is taken with all the sincerity due to someone who does not care that the BOM hides data, cherry picks records, pretends Australian records are any indicator of global warming, or that global warming is any indicator of the cause, rather than just an effect. – Jo]
03
The situation as you see it?
1. Jo wishes the BOM would be scientific and open with their methods and data.
2. Jo prefers the UAH dataset, and would like to know why it’s recorded higher than other datasets for the last five or so years. There is no single dataset Jo assumes is 100% accurate.
3. Agreed with the qualifier “Australian temperatures”. So?
4. Belief is what you do. I point out the facts.
5. If you cannot understand the rolling 12 month averages are different to calendar years, please look them up. That is what this post is about.
6. Jo didnt make predictions. (See point 5, and the date of the post, before you embarrass yourself again).
7. This post relates to media stories before Sept 18. You are confusing them with ones 5 months later.
Please comment more carefully, and if you don’t understand point 5, don’t comment.
00
What a load of drivel! And the funniest aspect of your attempts at witty remarks is that you are probably the only one who thinks they are witty.
I was just about to correct your very obvious mistake regarding the number of summer nights since 1857 but see you picked it up below. I note Jo didn’t bother, probably because the other issue was how ridiculous it is to suggest that you can calculate any statistical chance of a record “In the absence of a warming trend”. It certainly isn’t 1 in 500,000 or 1 in 14,000 as you corrected below!
If there is NO WARMING TREND then that means the trend is either stable or cooling. Either way, one could run the past data and calculate the probability of a record being achieved. It would depend on how long the ‘no warming trend’ had been running. How many records had been achieved during past ‘no warming trends’ if any and so on. It would be a great deal more sophisticated than just assuming that it was a purely random chance event from 1 out of 14,000 potential random results.
You would only get such a probability in a TOTALLY CHAOTIC temperature system which we do not have.
00
Actually I need to correct that! I think reading your nonsense has fogged my own brain. I wrote: “You would only get such a probability in a TOTALLY CHAOTIC temperature system which we do not have.” I was referring to the 1 in 14,000 proposition you posed. But that isn’t true, and I was trying to give you some benefit. A truly chaotic system would over time resolve some level of frequency above and below a mean, and also with what level of frequency a hot record is achieved. So you would be able to calculate a probability that the next night would be a record. It certainly wouldn’t be based on the total number of summer days past.
00
Why is this, “Hottest day on record … blah … blah … “, debate important anyway?
It is dramatic temperature swings that kill people, not a difference of one half of one degree between yesterday, and the day before.
Try flying from Washington DC in the middle of January, to attend an outdoor conference in Nairobi, and then you will understand what a change in temperature is, and what it does to people.
00
Rereke Whakaaro you are quite right about the deleterious effect of travels between climatic zones. The combination of temperature difference combined with jet lag can have dire consequences.
The socialist rag the Herald Sun reports about the effects of extreme heat in http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbournes-hottest-suburbs-a-health-risk/story-fni0fit3-1226818936216.
That other notorious left wing organization The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine expected the number of deaths in the current heat wave “to reach that of the unprecedented heatwave in 2009, which is thought to have killed more than 370 people in Victoria alone.”
The main victims of these heat waves tend to be the elderly. if this demographic can be discouraged from taking their annual ski holidays at Aspen and then returning home during a heat wave many of these deaths could be avoided.
01
That article is just cherry-picking microclimates.
The technical term for journalism like that, is “fark”.
But I can see, by the example you give, that you are not immune from this malady.
Exactly how many of the people who died from heat exhaustion in Victoria in 2009, were elderly skiers, returning from Aspen? The number “none” comes to mind, as a representative number, unless you have some evidence otherwise.
Anyway, that is not the main point, is it?
The main point seems to be, that you do not want to discuss the real dangers of significant and abrupt temperature change, because it highlights the triviality of taking a position that, “… yesterday was half a degree hotter than the hottest day last year, and is therefore the hottest day on record – so everybody panic”.
Climate changes, animals adapt, plants adapt, society adapts, people adapt, get over it.
00
Interestingly in light of the discussions regarding records there is a small chance we may break the warmest night on record tonight in Melbourne . The dreaded BOM are predicting an overnight minim of 30 tonight and the highest ever recorded minimum in Melbourne is 30.5.
Records are notoriously hard to break. The number of summer nights since records began in 1857 is approximately 501,000. In the absence of a warming trend the probability of tonight breaking the record is one chance in half a million so my moneys against it.
In the light of the difficulties of breaking records that ‘s why wave of record maximum temperatures recorded in Feb 2009 across the SE states and the other record breaking temperatures in the past year or two are so significant. For those devotees who blame it all on the heat island defect these records were broken all over Victoria and South Australia in the massive metropolis’s of Aireys inlet, Ouyen etc.
01
So the BOM forecast a min of 30C.
The actual min turned out to be 22C.
They’re good with predictions /sarc
10
Jo,
It took a while for you to clear my post. Thank you for allowing me the privilege to post on your esteemed site. I take back some of my more vexatious comments as I was a bit hot under the collar.
You were quite right that you were referring to a rolling 12 month average. I have just run the numbers through and get almost the same results as your first figure from Ken Stewart. I get slightly lower numbers than for August 2013 i.e. 0.617 for August rather than 0.668. Maybe the UAH data was changed since Ken Stewart analyzed the data. I know Spencer et al. do corrections at various times.
Interestingly the numbers shoot up for September 2013 to 0.738 breaking the May 2010 record and in October go up slightly further to a new all time record 0.757. It does fall back for November and December slightly but is back on the way up for January (0.699). Maybe you should get Ken Stewart to display on his graph the more recent data. The data at http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt is still there so anyone can check my calculations. I feel no need to hide any of the details unlike the nefarious BOM conspirators.
So all in all your impatience, your claim was only one month premature with respect to the rolling average and 6 months premature with respect to the simple year average.
Note this all using the UAH data from the above web site and I will heed your warning and refuse to use the corrupt BOM data!
00
My claim was accurate at the time of posting. And in relation to the quotes and links I provided, is still accurate.
00
Oops I made an obvious mistake with the number of summer nights since 1858 in my post above. I blame partial heat stroke. The number is about 14,000. So the odds of a record tonight are much more reasonable at 0.007%.
Still sounds like a long shot.
[Please try not to waste our time. Your estimates are still wrong. You assume temperatures are flat and appear to deny the underlying rising trend since the 18thC. We have a thread current on Melbourne heatwaves, why don’t you comment there? -Jo]
01
It is ridiculous to suggest that you can calculate any statistical chance of a record “In the absence of a warming trend”. It certainly isn’t 1 in 14,000!
If there is NO WARMING TREND then that means the trend is either stable or cooling. Either way, one could run the past data and calculate the probability of a record being achieved. It would depend on how long the ‘no warming trend’ had been running. How many records had been achieved during past ‘no warming trends’ if any and so on. It would be a great deal more sophisticated than just assuming that it was a purely random chance event from 1 out of 14,000 potential random results.
You would only get such a probability in a TOTALLY CHAOTIC temperature system which we do not have.
00
As indicated above, I need to correct that! I think reading your nonsense has fogged my own brain. I wrote: “You would only get such a probability in a TOTALLY CHAOTIC temperature system which we do not have.” I was referring to the 1 in 14,000 proposition you posed. But that isn’t true, and I was trying to give you some benefit. A truly chaotic system would over time resolve some level of frequency above and below a mean, and also with what level of frequency a hot record is achieved. So you would be able to calculate a probability that the next night would be a record. It certainly wouldn’t be based on the total number of summer days past.
00
Again I have to apologize. My calculations differ from Ken’s. I took a 13 month average rather than a 12 month average. The 13 month is the standard methodology used by Spencer and Christy to present their UAH data http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/september-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-60-deg-c/. There is an explanation by Ray Spencer as to why 13 month averaging is used rather than 12 month averaging by reputable climatologist such as Spencer and Christy (and Hadcrut).
Using the highest 12 month average 2013 is indeed 1.2% lower than highest 2010 value. For the 13 month average used By Spencer and Christy 2013 is 15.9% higher than 2010. For 14 averaging months the 2013 is 27% higher than 2010.
Interestingly using any of the above averaging periods the maximum 1998 temperature is much smaller than the 2010 and 2013. This illustrates that , At least in the Australian context, there is little evidence to support the claim that there has been now warming since 1998.
This (in conjunction with my erroneous calculation dates in my post above) also illustrates the dangers of posting material that is not peer reviewed. By the way Ken refers to mid troposphere data in his contribution rather than lower troposhere data (but links to the lower troposphere data). This would also have been picked up be a review (peer or otherwise).
——————————
REPLY: So you finally admit my post was accurate and the BOM was cherrypicking and deceitful in Sept? You excuse the BOM by playing tricks with data that was not even available at the time this was posted. Your comments are inane. There is no mention of mid troposphere by Ken in this post. The BOM used 12 month averaging, which is why I did. I also confirmed the figures with John Christy at the time. You are timewasting. Please lift your game. – Jo
00
Jo for your reference , if you press on the link you provide to Ken’s page at the top you get ” The satellite data for the mid-troposphere for Australia- Land has just been released by the University of Alabama- Huntsville (UAH). Unfortunately analysis of this data shows that the mean temperature for the 12 months to August 2013 was +0.668 Celsius, which makes this period the sixth warmest of the satellite era (since December 1978).”
Mea Culpa! My choice of 13 month smoothing to analyze the UAH data advocated by Spencer was a mistake. I shouldn’t have listened to Spencer as he clearly knows nothing about climate science and I will endeavor to follow your footsteps and choose , when in doubt, the least statistically valid methodology in future.
With regards to my apology above. The difference between science and propaganda is the ability to admit and correct one’s mistakes is a characteristic of one and not the other.
I should in fairness chastise the BOM for not using 13 month smoothing. Maybe you are right and the BOM was guilty of cherry picking. The field is so full of the deforestation of cherries from both sides of the debate that Checkhov would turn in his grave.
If you would like to discuss cherry picking you have come to the right place. The statement repeated ad nauseum that there has be no warming since 1998 is probably the exemplar cherry (with full glazing).
I can give you, for the UAH global data, the slope of the line of best fit from every year since 1979 until Jan 2014 (isn’t Excel wonderful). If you cherry pick 1998 as your starting point you will get a slow increase for 1998-2014 (slope +0.063 degrees/decade). Correspondingly if you cherry pick with same amount of dubious validity and use 1992 as your starting point then the slope is +0.195 degree per decade. If you start with 2000 then the slope is +0.11 degrees per decade. You want a value we have a number for you. The latter number (from 2000-2014) suggests that the warming since 2000 has been slower then the long term rate (from 1979) of 0.149 degrees per decade. But the idea that global warming ceased from 1998 a view that is widely promulgated by those of a particular ideology , excuse my French, is a load of crap.
————————-
Since you seem happy to say things you haven’t thought much about, nor do you stick to topic, I am not feeling inclined to even read let alone publish your comments any longer. No sign of you improving. Sorry. — Jo
UPDATE: Mick, thanks for responding to the email. Seriously, if you think you’ve found something important about this thread, just say so in one paragraph. Apologies are useful til they happen every comment (and twice) and we wish you just wrote more carefully to start with. Especially on an old thread. No small talk. – Jo
00
Sorry about not posting the following to the Melbourne heat wave section but you have continued the discussion above in your 11:47 am comment. Yes the BOM mercifully got it very wrong with the minimum temperature. They also got is horribly wrong by predicting a temperature of only 34 degrees for today. It reached 40.4 degrees today. A bit of a case of the swings and roundabouts.
The latest maximum means we have had 6 days above 40 this year until now. This equals long standing records and we still have the rest of February to go and we have had in the past the rare 40 degree days in March. We also have December where we can pick up a day or two of 40 degrees or above. Last December we got a day where it almost got there (it reached 39.9).
You seem to be a skeptic when it comes to BOM predictions of daily temperatures. Living in Melbourne we are more used to its fickle nature. A sea breeze can knock 7 or 8 degrees off the the temperature for a few hours and a delay of a cold front by one or two hours can boost the temperature by a similar amount. It makes it a tough gig for a forecaster in Melbourne but if you have lived in Melbourne long enough you realize that the forecasts are getting better (even the longer range ones).
But I am particularly glad that you believe last night’s BOM data. After how many days do you start to suspect that the data becomes ideologically suspect?
———————-
This is not relevant to the post. It will not be published. IF you continue to waste my time your comments will go direct to the spam filter. – Jo
POST NOTE: So you were aware I’d asked you to move to a new thread and still you clogged up the old thread? And you wonder why I stopped replying? – J
00
Sorry another apology. With today’s unexpected 40.4 degree temperature we have 7 days over 40 this year so far which is now the new record. So it seems 2013 may not prove to be the hottest year on record (annualized or on 13 month average).
The way things are it may be usurped by 2014 but I won’t count my chickens yet. It took 3 years for the old record to be beaten so the odds might still be against it and you never know the global cooling predicted by the sunspot people might kick in and turn 2014 into the coldest year on record. As a long suffering Melbournian ( I am thinking of moving to Tasmania), let’s hope so.
———————————————-
Still not relevant. Doesn’t make sense either. – Jo
POST NOTE: The first para doesn’t make sense on it’s own. I stopped reading there. Rephrased it could have been appropriate on the current heat wave thread. – J
UPDATE:
No response to the last email soI’m publishing as is…./ *UPDATE to update. Thanks for a long email reply. – Jo00
Mike if you are really serious about getting people to go back and correct things, then why don’t you work on the long list of erroneous claims made by Climate Scientists which have been proven to be wrong? Personally I wouldn’t know where to start because that task would be huge. But Andrew Bolt, who I am sure you have never heard of, posted a note which could be a start for you:
Climate Scientists Predicted in 2000 that Winter Snowfall would become ‘rare’ because of Global Warming
No more snow predicted, The Independent, March 2000:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Porter Fox, New York Times, February 2014:
If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise — they grew 41 percent between 1990 and 2008 — then snowfall, winter and skiing will no longer exist as we know them by the end of the century.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140207&tntemail0=y&_r=5
Fact check:
Five Of The Six Snowiest Winters Have Occurred Since David Viner Declared The End Of Snow
http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/five-of-the-six-snowiest-winters-have-occurred-since-david-viner-declared-the-end-of-snow/
Fact check:
Over two-thirds of the contiguous USA covered with snow
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/over-two-thirds-of-the-continental-usa-covered-with-snow/
10