More errors in ACORN –– The Bureau of Met wonder-database corrects for mysterious “statisticals” but not for 15 story buildings built next to the thermometers. They correct a step change that doesn’t occur in minima, but don’t correct for one that does in maxima. Big site changes are marked in some datasets but not in others. And where is the correction for obvious urban heat island effects? Bear in mind, the size of the artificial steps and corrections is on a par with the warming supposedly due to carbon dioxide. Hmmm.
The BoM database needs to be independently and publicly replicated, all the way from their raw data to the final output down to several decimal places. Then we will all know what is going on. Let’s shine a light in. If it ain’t replicated, it ain’t science.
Melbourne has one of the longest temperature records in the Southern Hemisphere. Looking at the original records it appears Melbourne maximums have not changed much from 1855 – 1995. Then they suddenly jumped or stepped up.
Tom Quirk did some sleuthing, and figured out why that happened. But what he can’t figure out is why the Bureau missed this adjustment, yet makes other adjustments no one can explain. At the same time as the temperatures suddenly jump 0.7C, two big skyscrapers were built directly south of the sensors (see the photo below). The tallest is a 15 story block finished in 1997. Beside it is a shorter tower finished in 1998. The BoM corrects for “statistical” problems, but not for 15 story wind-blocks?
The all-marvellous ACORN is meant to adjust for exactly this kind of site change. Instead, the obvious upward step is left in the ACORN record, but other effects that can’t even be explained get “corrected”. There are step corrections in ACORN that “fix” mysterious attacks of something the BoM calls “statisticals”. But statistics don’t zip around the streets affecting measurements. Why do the original records needed to be changed at all?
Paradoxically, the BoM notes site changes in some data sets but not others about the same site. They correct for these site changes in the minima, even though it’s the maxima that are affected. They say they compensate for the Urban Heat Island effect, but the corrections are step changes when they should be long slow changes, just like the urban heat effect supposedly being countered.
During the time as these huge blocks were being built, the all-marvelous ACORN dataset also tells us that the bureau changed the thermometer from the older thermometer-based station to an automatic, electronic one. Oddly the raw site record does not mention any instrument change at all. This is just a quality control problem. The BoM call it world’s best practice (we agree, things are sloppy everywhere!).
A new station has been set up 2km away from this old historic one, at “Olympic Park”, where it’s about 1C cooler. It is still very near the centre of the large city of Melbourne, but not next to skyscrapers. This shows a clear 1C urban heat island effect. Presumably if we compared the temperature outside the city and suburbs, it would be much larger than this.
Spot the new wind-blocking buildings to the south and south-East of the thermometers
Melbourne, an old long important record
The Melbourne temperature record is one of the “long time” instrumental records of Australian temperature. It starts in 1855 and continues to the present day. Originally measurements were made in the Flagstaff Gardens. Then when the Melbourne observatory was established in 1863 near the Botanical Gardens, the measurements were taken at that location until 1907 when there was a move to the present location on the corner of Victoria and Latrobe Streets in central Melbourne.
See the step change below in Melbourne’s long term record. It is about of 0.7 +/- 0.2 0C. That step up is larger than the rise from 1855-1995. Note the rise in the minima after 1940, which appears to be mostly the UHI effect. (See below).
Figure 1: Melbourne Regional Office annual average minimum and maximum temperatures, first measured in the Flagstaff Gardens, then at the Observatory, and then from 1907 at the present site, the corner of Victoria and Latrobe Streets.
.
These buildings block the southerly wind which brings cool air from the ocean. The BoM corrects for them in the minimums (where they don’t appear to have any effect), but not the maximum temperatures (where they appear to cause the step change).
Figure 7: CityGate tower directly to the south east of the BOM thermometer site in 2015 after the site was closed (see Figure 2)
We can see the urban heat island effect in Melbourne.
A station 20 km away (Laverton) does not show the same continuous increase from 1940 – 1970 in minima, though it may have developed its own urban heat island effect in recent years.
Figure 3: Annual average minimum temperatures for the ACORN-SAT homogenized Melbourne Regional Office measurements, raw minimum temperatures for the Melbourne Regional Office and Laverton.
The biggest Urban Heat Island effect is concrete and asphalt absorbing heat all day and radiating it back at night. As we would expect the maximums are not as affected (see below)
Figure 4: Annual average maximum temperatures for the ACORN-SAT homogenized Melbourne Regional Office measurements, raw maximum temperatures for the Melbourne Regional Office and Laverton
ACORN Adjustments
As Tom notes, the BoM describes the adjustments as “statistical”.
The ACORN-SAT adjustment record (Figure 5) shows only an increase of 0.41 0C to the maximum temperature record starting at 1 Jan 1990. This adjustment is explained as “statistical”. Interestingly the adjustment record shows a break in 1996 for the minimum temperature record and this change is ascribed to a new large apartment building “across the street to the south of the site”.
The site was hit with a wave of “statisticals” several times. Paradoxically, these did not affect the maximum at all during the year the obvious step occurs due to station changes or new wind-blocking buildings.
The BoM tells us that they compensate for UHI (Urban Heat Island). But UHI is a usually a gradual rise, a slope change, rather than a step. Where this happened in Melbourne (over decades) ACORN does a step change, which doesn’t make sense given the gradual increase in concrete and buildings. In the one case where a step change adjustment looks justified, where a thermometer was changed, or buildings slapped up next door, there is no compensation (red line max should show some correction in 1996).
The minimum was adjusted because of the new buildings, but not the maximum.
Figure 5: ACORN-SAT adjustments to the raw Melbourne temperature measurements shown in Figures 2 and 3.
..
Tom Quirk’s full analysis with graphs and tables as a 750k PDF
Last word: We skeptical scientists think corrections to the originally recorded data should be made for documented reasons, but not for “statistics” alone because they are not a force of nature.
Vote for your favourite blogs in the 2015 Bloggies.
More info here.Closes Sunday.
REFERENCES
Raw data: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
Image supplied from Joanne Nova
ACORN-SAT information and data
http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM00360b.htm
The wind varies from day to night and from season to season. Wind speed is usually lowest during the night and early hours of the morning before sunrise. It increases during the day as heating of the earth’s surface induces turbulence in the wind stream. Wind also varies, with very localised effects of some weather phenomena such as showers and thunderstorms. Examples of the diurnal variation are the sea breeze, which brings relief on many hot days, and the valley or katabatic breeze, which brings cold air from inland Victoria down valleys during the night and early morning towards Melbourne. These breezes are responsible for winds being more often from the north during winter, particularly during the morning. They are also responsible for winds being more often from the south during summer, particularly during the afternoon. This is in spite of the predominant wind stream being westerly in origin. There is a marked tendency for the very windy days to occur during the late winter and early spring months. Melbourne’s strongest wind gust on record is 120 km/hr on 3 September 1982
statisticals – aren’t they unseen, stunted gnome like creatures which come out at night and bend graph trends upwards?
260
Do statistical gnomes have a similar economic plan to underpants gnomes ?
Phase 1 : Bend graphs upwards
Phase 2 : ????
Phase 3 : Profit
12
I do not understand, perhaps I missed it, what “statisticals” are and how they change the temperature records. Do they change any other meteorological variables, such as humidity, precipitation, etc.?
130
Reminds me of the old saying about Lies Damned Lies and Statistics
160
Or was it balls, bo||ocks, and statesticles?
🙂
130
Problem solved: http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150319/srep09213/full/srep09213.html.
30
jo – i’m waiting for a comment on the previous “Vanuatu” thread to come out of moderation, so i can post a followup.
it’s a story Bolt has as well. a group in Nth Qld who have recorded a song calling for the BEHEADING of the PM over his CAGW policies.
the Artshub story claims within hours of its release it was being played on radio stations across the country. i can’t get my head around this at all.
i have a Greenpeace Donor link for one of the musicians i want to post, plus i’ve already posted another’s political CAGW activism, which is in moderation, but there is a little more on that too.
no point posting a new comment, tho, til the last one is out of moderation.
apologies for being o/t, but this is the most shocking CAGW moment to date, in my mind. if our media is complicit, by airing this record – in particular taxpayer funded media – then heads must roll.
Done. Pat. Jo
342
” Calling for the heading of PM” followed by “i can’t get my head around this at all”
Pat
Be careful with your head, next time may not be there.
I got threatened with heading talking about the weather recently. My head hangs by a thread now. I wish that was a joke, but seeing a pHD educated person white eyes filled with rage in front of me I,m afraid these people are not joking.
350
“Beheading” instead of “heading” apologies
110
It’s hard to comprehend a descent of the nature Pat and Dariusz refer to. Links would be helpful in due course. Eco-marxist policy funded “climate science” finally slumps irretrievably into mindless cult-like behaviour by incrementally degrading steps, characterised by a multitude of epithets like , ‘denier’, ‘death train’, or images of kids exploding heads that are “promo” material peddled to the suitably groomed latte elite.
Now some brain-dead eco-morons have finally arrived in an amoral dead-zone. It is doubtful that they realise this. Their defense may be that they were acting on orders. Perhaps they were already there, already waiting for what they considered in their twisted consciousness was the opportune moment. Were they intoxicated by the possibilities the MSMBC depicted showing ISIS hard at it, inebriated enough to be bereft of any insight? It may be so.
This is an important moment, for we shall see whether we truly still live in a civil society.
231
Dariusz metaphorically speaking you have kept your head while others have lost theirs with these threats, along with any professional credibility, I’m sure you’ve stared down the face of insanity before and will be fine.
My personal anger and disgust is directed towards the fact that good people have to unnecessarily endure such deluded spleen delivered by inane zealots, how tiring.
190
With the greatest respect YS, I wonder whether those that fled Germany in the 1930’s found the meme of the moment ‘tiring’? Whether we care to admit it not, there are more than a few parallels assembled in this moment.
190
Not trivializing the potential for escalation at all Manfred, simply offering some support to someone who has actually experienced the brunt of such regressive manifestations first hand, maybe ‘tiring’ seemed flippant but intended for someone having to experience the illogical beliefs again without agitating further upset.
By chance on SBS now is the 2013 Danish film Skytten (The Shooter) which is basically about an eco activist that is compelled to take action against the government for not adhering to their green election winning policies on climate change by shooting who he believes are liars oblivious to the planets impending doom.
This film along with that stupid song and many other extreme green propaganda I consider dangerous and irresponsible considering the heightened anxiety of this cult and never for a second would underestimate the power of fear mongering on the gullible.
180
YS
Will watch with great interest, although originally did not want to for being unduly upset. But then again I feel it is my duty to see what I fight for.
As usual, Will reserve my judgment for later
60
YS
The shooter is about a geologist, I think, going mad. He believes in global warming, the bad companies are big oil. The poor oppressed leftie, a journalist, is caring for the orphans and the mad geo for his father stashed away in the old people home. They are all against oil exploration and yet they drive cars, fly at will and use the technology that draws energy. The stage is set for the killings.
At this stage I almost threw up and stopped watching this crap.
From all people the director chose a geo? The profession that should lead to an informed position that the global warming crap is not an issue? How perfidious and cunning. But then again I should not be surprised as I know geos that believe in this crap and I see them as potential future murderers. They do not have to come from the greenies. Future murderers are among us. They are cultured, educated with PHDs. It starts with words, escalates to white eyes in my face when say about the lack temperature rise in last the 18 years.
What is the next stage? Red brigades, Nazi Germany and commie paradise provide the answer.
162
The ‘next stage’ appears to already be well engaged:
Frackacademics
“…anti-fracking activists inciting assault against academics whose results are inconvenient to Gaia’s cause”
120
So you think that if we lop off the heads of the taxpayer funded media bosses before the jungle kids lop off the Prime Minister’s noggin, all will be good? That attitude reminds me of the Muslim extremists calling for ‘heads to roll’ because some other cartoon artist insulted their leader. Aldi was pressured into recalling a Roald Dahl children’s book recently because it contained the phrase “dirty s|ut” but the “off with her nut” that followed that phrase, was never really raised by those objecting – so it would seem this gratuitous beheading is standard fodder even in kids books.
40
Pat, this whole CAGW scam is bringing out the very worst in us humans and we are tearing one another apart over it while the originators sit back and reap the rewards. I think that it would be fair to say that 97% of the world’s population has no capacity to reason things out scientifically and are merely driven by the propaganda of the time. How many greenie tree dwellers are likely to be able to reason things out scientifically? Kids at school are coming home with assignments about ‘carbon footprints’ and ‘CO2 pollution’ these days – are we going to turn our anger onto them as well? Jo all but declared a fatwa on cartoonists who did not ‘know what they were talking about’. Propaganda is a powerful thing for screwing people’s minds. It would even seem that some scientists are not immune from this either. Why can’t we at least constrain our beheadings to the scientists who propagate this scam, who arguably should at least know better? Can’t we show some compassion for those who are victims of this scam and concentrate on healing them not executing them?
60
Oops, sorry Pat, that was the same Joe, I just typed the wrong email second time. Cheers.
30
Remarkable that the raw Melbourne min and the Acorn Melbourne coincide precisely since about 1997. “See we’re not adjusting it at all, it’s jut got hotter. No such thing as UHI of course.
81
Should have read “Remarkable that the raw Melbourne min and the Acorn Melbourne min”.
50
The “skeptics” preferred temp record is UAH’s satellite temperature dataset record run by fellow “skeptics” John Christy and (formerly?) Roy Spencer. Since 1979, it has shown a warming rate of .139c/dec.
The team that seems to receive the most ire from the “skeptics”, operating out of UEA, publishes the HadCRUT surface temperature record. Since 1979, it has shown a warming rate of .158c/dec.
That means, that all of the conspiring, adjusting, UHI impacts, poor station siting, decline hiding etc, if responsible for the difference between the aforementioned trends, has amounted to a 14% increase in trend estimates.
So this endless hullabaloo, which seems to merit dozens of blog posts from Jo, if accurate, would change the game very little – You’d expect 1.4c of warming over the next century rather than 1.6C.
633
Tristan, you miss the point. It is obvious that Melbourne’s trend makes little difference to global records. But trends in Melbourne do matter to the endless PR procession of “hottest” ever headlines and claims about heatwaves etc.
This also tells us a lot about the BOM’s standards of scientific rigor.
This is peer reviewed and worlds best practice.
464
But if temps are warming, there will obviously be an endless procession of hottest ever headlines. That’s just an element of the PR you’re going to have to live with.
Whether or not you or ‘Tom Quirk’ can figure out the particulars of BoM’s processes is immaterial – you’re casting stones based on supposition. For someone who claims to have an evidence-based approach to knowledge, that seems like strange behaviour. You certainly don’t seem to be in a position to judge BoM’s level of scientific rigor. The one thing you could say is “I would like to see a record of, and explanation for, the raw data treatments for each of the 112 ACORN stations, as they’ve done with Kerang”.
533
Tristan,
The point is, without these adjustments there is no ‘hottest year ever’ making the endless procession of headlines unjustified and misleading. It’s because of these unnecessary adjustments that we refuse to live with that element of PR.
Abe
302
As I said, even using your temp record of choice, the UAH sat record, you’ve still got a warming planet. Hence you’ll get record temps at various stations all over the world.
429
Tristan,
UAH shows cooling, not warming. RSS shows less than 0.1°C warming, within the margin of error so, basically no warming.
UAH & RSS Satellite Data.
This means that if we’re still getting record temperatures from various stations around the world then the reason is not because the world is warming. Why do you think the ground data contradicts the satellite data?
Abe
302
Wrong Tristan. Still got at least 15 years of flatlining. So face the facts and tell the truth. But there again you’re a warmist arn’t you.
271
Tristan
You say “As I said, even using your temp record of choice, the UAH sat record, you’ve still got a warming planet. ”
As the UAH record shows
The planet had a spike of warming in about 1997-1999, and then followed by a long tail of cooling. Yes there is a very slight rise around 2010, but it has been all downhill, and still declining, since then.
Currently Dr. John Christy, & Dr. Roy Spencer, assessment states –
Global composite temp.: +0.30°C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.
Back in 1999 UAH’s Global composite temperature was about +0.7°C above 30-year average.
So the solar blip of the late nineties is dissipating. Where’s the warming?
222
If that were indeed the case, how would that explain the phenomenal increase in ice in Antarctica, the recovery of ice in the arctic, the Great Lakes frozen over to an extent not witnessed before, cold temperature records broken back to 1823, ice washed ashore in Massachusetts, 30,000 deaths in the UK due to unaffordable heating, etc.
Any representation of “average global surface air temperature” is a mathematical as well as a thermodynamic impossibility.
You have been listening to the Easter bunny again.
72
Tristan,
Are you familiar with a non-sequitor? Your conclusion that the ‘castng of stones’ is based on a supposition doesn’t follow from the premise that, ‘Whether or not you or ‘Tom Quirk’ can figure out the particulars . . .’.
If they can figure out the particulars, they they’re not making a supposition.
Abe
153
Well they can’t figure out the particulars, because they admittedly don’t know the rationale behind the BoM adjustments. Unless they know the rationale, they can hardly say the rationale is wrong can they?
430
Tristan,
You need to follow the conversation more closely. The analysis done by Quirk and reported by Jo shows conclusively that there is no justification for the BoM adjustments. This makes whatever rational the BoM may present invalid.
I don’t have to know what’s going on in your head to know that what you’ve done is wrong. I simply look at what you’ve done and show it’s wrong.
Abe
323
godamm how do you unblock a red thumb because you clicked on it by mistake? There doesn’t seem to be a way around it.
10
Dear Tristan from the BOM or is it SKS. Raw data tells a story that you don’t appear qualified to read.
192
‘Unless they know the rationale’
I suspect its a conspiracy of some sort, to keep temperatures artificially high, here is the US experience.
‘Even if the TOBS and other adjustments are correct, NCDC are adding something like an extra 0.3C of warming to the US temperature record. Take that away, and current temperatures are no higher than the 1930’s.’
Paul Homewood
52
Tristan,
This would be only true if the behaviour you’re referring to . . .
. . . were an accurate statement of the facts. It is not, as I have shown above.
Abe
152
You showed that it wasn’t based on supposition? I thought what you actually did was assert that if they could figure out particulars, then it wasn’t supposition (which is just a truism). You need to work on your rhetoric buddy.
323
Tristan,
Red Herring. I never stated, nor implied, nor infered, that Quirk’s & Jo’s presentation of the facts ‘wasn’t based on supposition’ in the post that you’re referring to. That post was only directed at your statement, . . .
This statement is logically flawed as I have shown. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Non-Sequitor.
Abe
222
Tristan,
1. Tom Quirk is a real name of a real man. It needs no quotes. Was that a weak attempt at weak insult? “Tristan” is effectively anonymous. One day perhaps you could aim to have half his character and wisdom.
2. You contradict yourself. Yes, it would be better if we knew exactly what process the BoM used. That IS my point. Many skeptics have asked for exactly that information. If the BOM doesn’t provide those details, that tells you about their honesty, not ours. I’m sure you’ll write to them to demand they behave like upstanding scientists and release all the details immediately, right? If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science.
3. If you know the BoM have good reasons and you know what they are, why not just tell us, or are you unscientifically “taking it on trust” that your guru’s must have a secret method which is both rigorous and for some reason not publicly available?
382
Tom Quirk: Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard),
Quirk is former Chairman of Virax Holdings Limited, a biotechnology company. He is on the Board of the Institute of Public Affairs. He has been Chairman of the Victorian Rail Track Corporation, Deputy Chairman of Victorian Energy Networks and Peptech Limited as well as a director of Biota Holdings Limited He worked in CRA Ltd setting up new businesses and also for James D. Wolfensohn in a New York based venture capital fund. He spent 15 years as an experimental research physicist, university lecturer and Oxford don.
352
1. I put Tom Quirk in quotation marks because I didn’t know whether or not it was a nom de plume. It was not an insult. I’m not the sort of person to aspire to half of anyone’s anything.
2. I didn’t contradict myself. My points were:
A) You don’t have the information available to make a judgement.
and
B) That you don’t have that information is the only real qualm you can have right now.
I’m all for BoM putting out a convenient tool that lets us look at data for each station and details the treatments each station has received. Think Abbott will give BoM the money to do that for us?
3. Their techniques are there for consumption. Here as well. Here is a comparison between different analyses. I don’t have any good reason to believe that the above documents constitute an accurate representation of how BoM handles the data.
Re: Tom’s bio – That’s some nice alphabet soup. So what?
330
Ahem.
“the above documents don’t constitute”
In b4 cheeky banality from the peanut gallery.
220
Tristan,
The ‘You’ in your statement is obviously refering to Jo. Fact is, Jo is reporting the finding’s of Tom Quirk. Without getting into Jo’s qualifications for interpreting Tom Quirk’s findings, she clearly has them, the point is Tom Quirk is qualified to judge the BoM’s level of scientic expertise. That’s why his qualifications were listed.
If you were uncertain about his nome-de-plume, then the proper thing to do would have been to leave the quotation marks out. Instead you jumped to the conclusion that it was a nom-de-plume and put his name in quotes anyway. Bad.
Add to that the fact that you charecterize someone’s qualifications and achievements as ‘an alphabet soup’ shows you have the inclination to insult. A subtle insult, but very bad.
And the ‘so what’ part of your statement was only meant to what?
Abe
211
Tristan,
What is your bio?
92
You also put “skeptics” in quotation marks, Tristan (and forgot the apostrophe).
n. Someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.
It comes from the Greek to examine so is it a self designation or just a good description?
Also pretentious intended to impress others.
One more thing.
RSS is the preferred choice as it is analysis of satellite data by a team not run by sceptics. Nothing like using evidence to back up a claim.
52
James – my bio:
“Known for wading into anti-science dens, and although greatly outnumbered, emerging victorious”
😉
411
Oh, you’ve been over at Skeptical Science I see. It’s not hard to emerge victorious over there as all skeptic argument is censored.
122
Tristan,
Great, and welcome, always good to hear from others prepared to take on the pro-global warming luddites.
30
It seems there’s a lot of the supposition in the adjustments. I mean if the Bureau of Metrology keeps telling your their readings are wrong and needing ajustment who can you trust ? There are less suppositions in the original readings and from there only traceable accounts should be admitted into adjustments.
181
If it’s getting hotter, why the hell do we need to burn so much wood out our way well before winter sets in each year nowadays? Why is it that so many people want to move north or holiday north of Victoria, because it’s warmer? Why do the grey nomads migrate north in winter, if it’s getting hotter?
Seriously, some people need to experience weather outside of their urban environment. Leave your iPhones, iPads, twitter accounts etc aside for a week or so and experience real weather for a change.
322
Well, not all areas getting hotter for starters. Some areas of the Australian interior have declined in temps (or remained roughly stable) over the past decades. I don’t recall the details.
Keep in mind that the plural of anecdote is not data 🙂
428
Anecdotal evidence is based on personal observation of events and the like, which leads to questions and subsequent data collection that examines anecdotal evidence, resulting in empirical evidence. This forms the most fundamental component of the scientific method. Pity that current accepted climate science ignores both.
221
So produce the data (those details which you conveniently fail to recall).
151
Tristan,
Thank you for proving the skeptic position . . .
Central Australia, the least inhabited, least affected by UHI, has had stable temperatures for over a century. So if this is what you believe, and I take you at your word, then where exactly have all the ‘hottest years ever’ been comming from? You seem to be knowledgeable in these areas, right Tristan? So please explain.
Abe
242
Tada!
421
Tristan,
Cherry picking.
Here’s the graph which represents the data in your color-by-numbers gif.
Here’s the same graph, without your cherry picking of dates for the same period as the graph I presented showing the satellite data.
Notice how your cherry-picked dates show more of a warming trend than there really was. (Yours is the green trend line, by-the-way.)
The trully ironic aspect of your behaviour here is that even this homogenized data shows only about 0.1°C increase. This is within the margin of error, so, no warming.
Sad really. 🙁
Abe
212
I’m afraid you’ve misinterpreted the graph.
The colour shows the difference between the 2000-2009 average and the 1951-1980 average
315
Tristan,
I realise it’s been three days and this thread is probably dead.
We were talking about Australian temperatures. You brought them up.
I agreed . . .
. . . and asked you . . .
Now, think carefully and pay attention. If the temperatures in Central Australia have ‘remained roughly stable over the past decades’, as you stated, but the BoM has reported ‘hottest year ever’ temperatures repeatedly over the past 15 years, then the rise in temperatures being reported must be coming from all those areas in Australia outside of Central Australia.
And yet, rather than reply with the only rational response given the facts, (facts which you yourself supplied), you present a map of world temperatures! W?#T@!?F
And, as if that wasn’t enough of a deflection, your map cherry picks, the temperature increase from the coldest period in the fifties and sixties to the hottest period immediately following that, after the rise in temperatures has reached a peak and finally stopped! F?#%F@!?S
So no. I did not misrepresent your graph. I completely ignored your red herring, color-by-numbers, cherry-picked gif, and presented everyone else here with something more useful and informative.
As we used to say, back in the day, “One good turn deserves another.”
Abe
10
I would like understand what you are talking about but I can,t. It looks like we,live in parallel universes. How don,t you see 18 years of flatlining with up to 25% of human co2 increase at the same time? How do you answer that again?
Or do we need to go back the “Red Dwarf” for an explanation?
192
Tada? Idiotic stuff.
It depends on which data you use as to whether Australia has cool spot or not.
“The plural of anecdote is not data”. Instead of showing off to teenagers you could have found this link.
There is only one good station in that dark red spot in the NW corner of NSW. Tibooburra. Its max show no trend until a step up around 2000 coinciding with equipment change. The min show step up of 1°C in recent times, otherwise constant because its a small town.7deg; No other good long term trends in the red spot and yet the trend is 0.3°C/decade?
50
Yes got so much cooler that even the adjustments can’t warm them.
142
Sorry forgot to add Tada!
162
Never mind eh. While were all shivering in our caves at least Warmists will have their adjustments to keep them warm.
121
Just to add to Jo’s post that this 14 % is partly used to justify taxes which kill grannies in winter, prevent the most vulnerable people on earth from getting access to cheap reliable power (resulting in the deaths of those same vulnerable people from disease and smoke inhalation from dung fires). Diverts away money to useless green tokenism, money that could provide clean water, medicine. food, even cyclone shelters and cyclone resistant housing to billions, resulting in thousands more deaths. This 1.4C / 1.6C is justifying all that death and destruction.
It’s about time the greenies woke up to themselves that what really matters is PEOPLE and their well-being works out best when there is relative affluence and the availability of 24 x 7 reliable electricity supplies – contrary to the misanthropist leanings of the deep green blob. The immorality of the deep green blob is just breathtaking.
303
I don’t think anyone is dying from dung fires due to a carbon tax :p Keep in mind that many of the world’s sans-electricity population aren’t even serviced by a grid – to get electricity they need portable power generation, which comes from diesel generators and windmills and whatnot.
Make sure you remember all those dying of air pollution in China and India. You wouldn’t want to be accused of one-sided skepticism after all.
436
Ahh! Tristan, Classic
Whatnot, you know, that electricity thingy that comes out of thin air.
Portable windmills. What the!
Don’t you adore people who are so well versed in electrical power generation.
Tony.
402
Aww, I adore you as well. x
328
Tristan,
Tony wrote:
“Don’t you adore people who are so well versed in electrical power generation”
The fact that Australia has an affective power grid, how would you explain the rising cost to consumers and rising inefficiency since RET’s were introduced despite the fall in consumption?
232
Tony
Vanuatu has 11 Fold down wind mills with a nameplate of 3 MW
Huge amount $ to install from a loan by EIB (European Investment Bank)
The Devil’s Point Wind Farm also states:
CYCLONE PROOF apparently
Word on the ground has it 10 are totally wrecked from Cyclone PAM
One turbine was portable, it’s been blown about 2km from its original spot!
Vanuatu will still have to repay loan to EIB
So much for Green renewables being robust?
101
“I don’t think anyone is dying from dung fires due to a carbon tax :p”
“Make sure you remember all those dying of air pollution in China and India. You wouldn’t want to be accused of one-sided skepticism after all.”
. . .
Tristan appears confuddled. Most prob read skeptical science.
Carbon (sic) Is not pollution, therefore, A carbon(sic) tax will not stop people from dying of air pollution in China and India.
Silly 97% certified doomsday warmist.
193
Tristan,
The world is spending one billion dollars a day on the CO2 problem. That’s $694,445.00 dollars per minute. That’s every minute of every day throughout the year. With that kind of money, you can not only build the grid but connect all of these ppl to the grid.
Where are your ptiorities?
Abe
282
Dear Tristan I have been reading all your comments and have reached the conclusion that if someone gave you another brain, they would be sentencing it to solitary confinement.
193
Curious, Tristan, how you write “skeptics” as if it were some kind of insult. What is wrong with being sceptical in science? Or do you feel that we should believe utterly without question whatever a (self-proclaimed) scientist might say? Dangerous ground, indeed.
As our host has pointed out, you have missed the point: it is not that she is berating that there has been some suspicious minor change in a one reading amongst many, it is that this alteration of readings, with no rational explanation, are actually occurring at all; some of them are quite substantial, with little, if any, rationale. Again, it is not that these are happening at all that is of most concern, but that these changes are being made to influence government policy, most often at extra cost to the electorate, and to the detriment of most of our lives, be it we in the “West” or the desperately poor in other parts of the world. Yet you choose to scoff at “skeptics”.
152
I put “skeptics” in quotes because they’re not actually skeptics.
I’ve linked to the rationales.
321
Tristan,
This quote is from the Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset, your first link:
Contrasted with this from Jo’s article on Tom Quirk’s analysis:
When presented with these types of contradictions, a skeptic asks the questions, a believer moves right along. In other words, keep your ‘quotation marks’ to yourself. 😉
202
Tristan,
And like anyone commenting on this blog yours is just an opinion. And your opinion appears bereft of logic, and in denial of, and has no recognition of, how the global weather patterns are rapidly moving away from ‘warming’ and towards cooling.
62
Tomom – I guess that also means that your opinion that my opinion is bereft of logic is just an opinion.
What is easier to determine (as opposed to leave to a matter of opinion) is whether or not global weather patterns are ‘rapidly moving away from warming and towards cooling’.
So, given that, would you be willing to assert that 2010-2014 will have a higher avg temp than 2015-2019?
38
Tristan,
If global weather patterns determine climate then the planet is cooling.
52
So James, do you want to append your name to the assertion that 2015-19 will be cooler?
24
Here is the 5 year means (start year on x axis) from RSS.
Notice that the range of values since 1995 is less than 0.1°C. Forget about predictions that we are heading towards an ice-age. Admit that the modelling has sold us a pup. I, for one, am not going to be impressed by suggestions that since woolly mammoths aren’t roaming the streets that the globe is still warming as predicted.
22
Ok RB. What trendline from 1995 would cause you to reconsider your position? RSS is currently trending at merely 0.03c/dec. If the trend since 1995 reaches 0.1c/dec, how would that change your thinking?
12
If I had faith in even the RSS data, I would say at least 0.3°C, as that was the prediction for the likely increase by the IPCC (anything less than 0.15°C/decade is less than 1910-1940 and could just be natural) and then only to say that at least that part doesn’t invalidate the postulate that we are headed for warmageddon.
12
So, if you had RSS showing a .3C/dec trend from 1995 (which I can’t see happening), you’ve still given yourself the out of “Oh well, I don’t trust that data anyway”. I hope you never find yourself on a sinking ship :p
25
Why I have concerns about the RSS data. Its not an out you dolt.
Regardless, the trend being what was predicted is not complete conformation of the models but when they fail that is complete refutation. And they failed!
52
Tristan,
Yeah, go ahead, put me down for a couple.
I like the climate the way it is now, but I grew up when it was colder, I think I’ll survive whichever way it goes.
80
Glad to hear it James!
RB, so your problem with RSS is that the temp record diverges from the derivative of TSI?
16
My problem is that it was so close up until 2002 and then it indicates that the climate should have cooled (if there is a causation) which would have made Lord Monkton wet himself and the warmies STS.
Now its the cynic rather than sceptic in me that’s sure the people at NASA (not RSS nor UAH) would have had an aneurism if they spotted it in 2001 and made plans to do a little tweaking.
31
Are these trend lines good for predicting anything in climate?
No I thought not.
Because climate trends are not usually linear. Or have you not noticed?
40
But, by definition they are.
Its okay though, we are familiar with your “type”.
10
Tristan, would you please provide the source of your assertion “The ‘skeptics’ preferred temp record is UAH’s satellite temperature dataset record”? Is this your subjective view, or do you have an objective source?
In my subjective view I have found more scientists utilize the RSS products.
I am aware of the two product sources UAH and RSS. Both utilize microwave sounding. It is my experience that both products reduce uncertainty of Lower tropospheric temperature measurements than radiosonde (balloon) measurements, and generally produce similar data though UAH has run ~0.05 deg C warmer than RSS the past decade.
It is my experience from reading climate blogs and journal publications that most scientist-authors who are skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis, prefer the RSS products, at least until UAH version 6 becomes available. According to Dr Spencer RSS utilizes a different set of satellite platforms for AMSU channel 5, to compute Lower Tropospheric temps. If anyone is interested in learning more, the RSS product does have excellent discussion of the science and an excellent data browser at: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Dr. Spencer gave a brief discussion of the UAH product in his blog on Jan 6, 2015:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/why-do-different-satellite-datasets-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/?s=version+6
191
Tristan, you do realize that the calibration target accuracy of the AMSU instrument is +/-0.2°K and the MSU is +/-0.3°K right? (That’s how close they can get to a known temp. actual reading noise is higher.) You do realize that the measurement noise in both the RSS and UAH satellite record trends are over 400% of the “signal” trend… right? That’s assuming the use of a single instrument and offsets between satellites will make it worse. (That would be part of the offset difference you see between RSS and UAH, they use a different set of satellites.) I assume you also know that the accuracy of a single surface station instrument is in the +/-0.3°C to +/-0.6°C range as well when they are brand new… right? Siting differences can make for several degrees of noise in the surface data sets.
Now, tell me again how you get valid data out to 0.001°C?
182
Ok Niels.
Say you roll a 6-sided die once. you can get any number from 1 to 6. The mean is 3.5, sd is 1.7 (note that you can’t even roll the mean roll, 3.5 isn’t a side!), any roll you make could be as far as 2.5 from the mean.
Now say you roll a 6-sided die 10 000 times, and take the average. the average will be very likely to start with 3.499 or 3.500. Feel free to carry out the experiment yourself. This is because the mean of the error approaches zero as the sample size increases.
This is why you can get precise means, without precise instruments.
210
You can’t with imperfect dice. Real dice do not behave like your random generator.
Once more. If you throw millions of darts at a dart board, you can find the centre to the nearest mm if the deviations were perfectly random even if the spread was a metre. You’re assuming 0.00m systematic error and you need to know where the darts hit to the nearest mm.
You can’t if you record the positions of the darts to the nearest metre.
82
That does however explain the algorithm behind ACORN-SAT. To determine the “adjustment” to make to the real temperature, they just roll the dice! You’re onto something Tristan.
92
I’m pretty sure that you could roll dice such that any systemic bias was undetectable even over millions of rolls.
As long as the errors are roughly normally distributed, the error will approach zero. This is the case for errors arriving from the limitations of instrumental precision. Other forms of instrumental error may not be distributed around 0, but that wasn’t the topic.
17
No
41
Tristan,
I have refrained from interfering in this conversation, because you seemed to be doing a spectacular job of making a fool of yourself with out any outside assistance. But this is just getting too silly.
You are talking about throwing dice, in an effort to prove a point about accuracy in measurement. Each throw of a dice is a singular discrete event. It is totally unconnected with the previous throw, and disconnected with the next throw. It demonstrates nothing about temperature.
Temperature, and all other natural phenomena, are continuous cyclic progressions, that tend to be sinusoidal, or more accurately, harmonics or sub-harmonics of multiple sinusoidal frequencies, that mutually come into, and move out of, phase with each other. Discrete measurement of such a signal only records the product of the composite signal, at the instant it is being measured. Any inaccuracy in that measurement will have more to do with timing than with anything else.
Taking a mean of such measurements is meaningless.
112
“Any inaccuracy in that measurement will have more to do with timing than with anything else.”
Ok, so what’s the distribution for that sort of error look like?
28
Tristan,
Who cares.
Your analogy is a graphic representation of a single reading for each one of a sequence of seperate events.
In what way does that correspond to a sequence of seperate readings on a single event?
Phil Sheahan’s tank-bucket-hole analogy was much funnier.
And anyway, why do you care what sceptics think, because we’re wrong – right?
62
I don’t know. You tell me.
Time of day, day of year, the solar cycle, cloud density, atmospheric humidity, wind speed, air disturbance from passing traffic? These factors are all continuous signals, that cannot be counted. And since they cannot be counted, as you were doing with your example of a throw of dice, the concept of taking a simple average, is just not valid.
62
So basically, Rereke, what you’re saying is, you don’t know the size of the errors from various sources, but whatever they are, the sum of errors definitely doesn’t follow a normal distribution?
34
Am I doing your homework for you, Tristan?
A normal distribution requires a sequence of discrete, but repeatable, events. You work it out from there.
42
A normal (or if not normal, at least symmetrical) distribution of errors, does not require that.
15
Define what you mean by error!
30
And thus, did Tristan depart, stage right …
It appears I was correct, we were probably doing his Statistics homework for him. I do hope we got it all wrong 😉
30
You have two sorts of error going on.
“Sampling error is incurred when the statistical characteristics of a population are estimated from a subset, or sample, of that population.”
In this instance, the population is the totality of global temps for a period of a year, and the sample is the recorded temps at several thousand stations, buoys, ships around the world.
“Observational error (or measurement error) is the difference between a measured value of quantity and its true value.”
In this instance, every one of those instruments has it’s own observational error.
11
Hallelujah! Except that you need to show that the random errors are perfectly random. You can’t assume that is true when you are claiming there is a trend of less than the resolution of the instrument and you can’t do that if the resolution is poor. You’ll make an ass out of u and me.
10
Citation needed RB.
01
Tristan,
Citation only required once you provide proof of your own competencies.
00
Shall we give it 6 numbered side, but an total number of sides are unknown. Also the weight distribution of the die changes with temperature and phase of the moon.
There fixed the dice (no a single die but 2 dice) model.
10
Tristan:
When I was at University the Physics Dept. (for some reason) had the students tossing coins. I can’t remember how many results but the total was way over 60,000. There was deviation from the “average”. Tails outnumbered heads by less than 0.2% but about halfway in the experiment heads had outnumbered tails. The average was not 50.001.
Were you to measure a physical constant then yes the deviation from the average gets smaller, but it never gets to zero.
The mistake made in Climatology is assuming that they can average one reading of a thousand variables (temperature or anomolies) and get great accuracy. Even so the IPCC only claims an accuracy of ±0.1℃, so the “rise” in temperature you claim might well be just an error.
When it comes to taking only a few measurements, such as deep sea temperature, and claiming a 0.001℃ increase this is garbage. The theoretical limit of the measuring units is claimed to be ±0.003℃ but that is in an constant temperature laboratory with a freshly calibrated unit. To maintain that the same accuracy will occur from a unit that has been traveling through the ocean for 3 years subject to pressure and temperature fluctuations is bizarre. To further claim that the error is ±0.0005 is just wrong.
Straight line extrapolation doesn’t have a good record in natural matters so your claim that the Earth will only warm a maximum of 1.6℃ by 2100 AD is interesting, but unlikely. By the way, most Climate hysterics think it will be 3-4.5℃ and as they don’t tolerate other opinions avoid dark alleys in future.
62
No, you wouldn’t expect 0.50001. The 95%CI is [0.496,0.504] for 60000 coin flips.
To make a claim regarding the veracity of the IPCC statements, you need to provide the following details:
1. The IPCC statement that claims a given level of accuracy for whichever anomaly you’re referring to.
2. The claimed instrumental error.
3. The number of samples over the given period.
4. Evidence that the claimed instrumental error differs from that claimed by the IPCC.
5. The calculation, using the new instrumental error, and the number of samples, to provide an alternative level of accuracy to that given by the IPCC.
6. The calculation showing how much that impacts whichever trend is being discussed (be it SST, OHC, sea-level)
The 1.4 vs 1.6 comment was somewhat rhetorical. I wanted to illustrate that whether or not one felt there was 14% of spurious adjustments, it probably wouldn’t change the response much (it’d change the response by about 14%, one imagines!).
The IPCC projections suggest that a future with zero fossil fuel abatement strategies (or, more exactly a radiative forcing imbalance of +8.5 W/m2) will result in the 2080-2100 mean temps being 3.4C warmer than the 1986-2005 temps. It’s not a likely scenario, because the world is warming (hehe) to the notion of abatement. A more realistic scenario is +4.5 W/m2 – that would leave us with an expected century end warming of 1.8C.
26
Flipping a coin more times, just like rolling your dice more does not improve the precision of outcome.
What it does do is provide you with more numbers to play with.
All the rest of your prose (IMO) is just sophistry and blather.
62
Graeme No.3
IMO this make for a poor model to compare with the accuracy of measuring equipment.
Measurement errors generally fall into two categories: random or systematic errors, and both are evident to some degree at all times.
However even if we know about the types of error we still need to know why those errors exist. We can break these into two basic categories: Instrument errors and Operational errors.
Your coin model is not a good model for investigating measurement errors as there is not the same range of variables.
Basically you only have one variable — heads or tails and no other option. There is no equivalent example for the test equipment as it will always have variable amounts of precision and accuracy errors at any measurement time.
40
Trish,
I expected better but this about dice is just utter useless blather!
What has it to do with what NielsZoo asked you about? Nothing!
40
Trish,
“This is why you can get precise means, without precise instruments.”
Is utter rubbish!
By you ideas all those companies making high precision, high accuracy, very, very expensive test equipment can all be replaced by just redoing the measurements many times with less precise equipment.
You should go into business with that idea…
See how well it works in practice…
hahahahaha! 🙂
40
The idea that dice is an accurate model to test equipment is at best specious. Good test equipment have defined levels precision and accuracy.
What is the accuracy of a die?
What is it’s precision?
If the die is properly made with six numbered sides, and its weight is evenly distributed. Then it will be true.
If it has the wrong number of sized, or is numbered wrongly then,… or any number of other problems – then it lacks precision in being a true die.
As for it’s accuracy – can it land on a side – yes or no.
If this die is true, and is six sided, and is thrown a million times and the mean of the numbers indicated on the top face equals 3.500000000000000000000001 what does this tell us about the die?
Nothing!
That the die must land on a face therefore the mean of the numbers indicated on the top face will tend towards the 3.5 figure. But note this number this 3.5 is meaningless, it tells us nothing about the accuracy or precision of the die. Also note there is not a 3.5 on a die, an important and often overlooked facet of the argument eh, Trish? Where on the die (your dice) is 3.5?
So is a throw of any number of dice a fair model of test equipment and it’s precision or accuracy?
If your die has errors such as 7.3 irregular sides, and temperature related weight distribution problems then it could be seen as a better match. As your example stand it is nonsense.
Worthless Trish – next!
10
The answer I’d expect from someone who doesn’t understand the first thing about metrology nor understand the difference between precision and accuracy. Here’s a better example than your ridiculous random event bs. You have a scale that reads in kilograms and you do not know how it rounds up or down. Some from the factory round up and some down and sometimes the points change over time. But within 1kg is it’s finest resolution. You have to mix two chemicals and need exactly 2.45kg of one and 11.67kg of the other. No matter how many times you measure each batch you will NEVER have the accuracy required to do the job. Precision is the size of the cloud of measurements from a device, the slop or wobble if you will, the range of plus and minus. Accuracy is how far that cloud is from the physical standard. You can have an extremely precise device that is inaccurate but you cannot have an accurate device that is not precise.
Now, the chemicals you are weighing are components of a high explosive and if the amounts are off by 10 grams the whole thing literally blows up in you face. What do you do? No amount of statistical BS is going to make those measurements better than the instrument that took them. I for one, wouldn’t mix those chemicals but you Climateers believe that probability accuracy are interchangeable… and I don’t want to be there when you mix that batch of RDX. So if you think that a “scale” that is +/-0.3°K can provide usable data for a real value of 0.158°… please stay out of the explosives and chemical industries. Oh, and stay out of optics as well.
40
Best reply I’ve seen in years showing the difference between accuracy and precision.
Wish I saw that when an (ex)boss of mine bought some terrible test equipment. The basic accuracy was poor but it had displays with lots of digits showing.
As I said to him when he asked about his new purchase – “Built down to a price, not up to a specification.”
50
Thanks. One of my (many) pet peeves is the fantastical “accuracy” the Climateers create by ignoring all of the performance characteristics of any and all sensor systems whose data they use and (since nothing they measure is scary enough) then adding 2 or 3 orders of magnitude in overall resolution out of statistical cr*p that has no basis in reality. I keep trying to craft an explanation that’s correct and memorable enough to make people think about catastrophic warming trends they see presented as tenths or hundredths of a degree. Tristan’s asinine thousandths claims are several bridges too far. The lukewarmers are also guilty of some of that as well.
I’ve had your boss. I’d been begging for a new spectroradiometer for years and we finally got a contract in where the client required some specific data as a deliverable. He asked for a spec for the cheapest piece of kit that would do the job while I was trying to get him to go up to the next series level. It was a good 60% more but would have given us a unit that would work on about 90% of the designs we do. He didn’t and the next job I needed one on he says (of course) I bought you one 10 months ago… use it. I had to say I couldn’t (and “I told you so”) ’cause the sensitivity of the one we bought was an order of magnitude too low.
20
Ok Niels.
Does increasing sample size reduce margin of error or not?
00
No it doesn’t. The measurements are still dependent on the stated +/- tolerance of the instrument used. It does not reduce that measurement tolerance. Even if you plunked 50 sensors into one spot you are not increasing the accuracy or decreasing tolerance since all 50 sensors could have gone through QC at the same time and all of them were calibrated at +0.5°… within the stated tolerance.
You are confusing probability with tolerance. Probability is a statistical creation that has no analogue in the real world… a numerical guess based on a set of rules that create a range of hypothetical outcomes. More samples only increase the odds that a reading might be right but it does not guarantee it. Probability theory also assumes that you are analyzing a single system. Temperature measurements are made with thousands of discrete systems so lumping them all together is useless. Would an odds maker add all of the scores of every game played from every team in a league to predict the score of a single game? Of course not, it returns a useless number.
A tolerance is a fixed range that an instrument operates in that is referenced to a know physical quantity. It is a guarantee that a measurement falls inside that specific range. It must ALWAYS be added to any measurement derivative. In optics we call it the circle of confusion or spot size and no amount of statistical guesswork makes it any smaller. No matter how many times you focus the lens it will never get sharper than the designed resolution. Piling on another 50 images from 50 other lenses doesn’t increase the resolution either and will actually smear the image out more as you start running the risk of getting one that is NOT operating inside tolerance.
20
Tristan it is obvious that you can not tell reality from propaganda or your conclusions would not be so obtuse.
12
I could say that back to you, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere, would it?
20
Why would you expect it to continue to warm? Looking at past records it is more likely to get cooler again.
You spread warming rates over a set period, yet ignore the fact that the past 18 years has seen zero warming. Climate scientists refer to this as “the pause” or “the hiatus”. Even Michael Mann has a new paper out trying to explain it. It has been predicted to continue for up to thirty years (which is just a guess, but fun!).
51
I expect it to warm because physics. Seems a better reason than expecting it to cool because eyeballing SST graph.
Care to append your name to a prediction Thomas?
25
Sure. There are so many things, could you be specific?
22
Will the period of jan 2005 – dec 2014 be warmer or cooler than the the period of jan 2015 – dec 2024?
24
It is warmer. The latter period will be cooler.
10
Thanks for being brave enough to make a prediction. I hope you rememeber that you made that prediction, and are prepared to reevaluate your beliefs when your prediction is falsified.
24
What physics….? I hope you don’t mean the now thoroughly falsified AGW/CO2 “forcing” hypothesis…?
22
This topic touches on the “skeptic” schism.
It seems like about 50% of “skeptics” dispute the notion that CO2 traps heat, while the other 50% (including most of the high profile ones, and also Jo) accept it.
32
I think you will find very few skeptics who accept that CO2 “traps” heat. Some do think it will contribute in a very minor way to temperatures, however that again is not “trapping” heat.
I have no problem accepting the notion that CO2 has “back radiation”, but exactly what that back radiation does is another matter. It cannot for example warm the deep oceans. It can cause evaporation, which has a cooling effect.
43
Many “skeptics” accept that re-radiated Outgoing Longwave Radiation is a thing to the tune of 1.1C per doubling of CO2. That’s also the mainstream view. Where those “skeptics” and the mainstream position differs relates to the feedbacks that result from that warming. Some “skeptics” believe the feedback is negative, while some think it’s more likely to be neutral or slightly positive. The mainstream view is that the feedbacks amplify the initial warming by something like 160%.
25
Tell me Tristan, can you show to me the “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record…?
You have the period of around 1978 to 1998 to play with, which saw a whopping rise in global temperatures of 0.3 degrees (why are you guys so alarmed???) and nothing since, despite the fact that 25% of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the beginning of The Industrial Revolution have occurred since 1998. Show me.
51
This one?
21
Tristan,
Wood for Trees?
That’s Mann’s Hockey Stick.
10
What’s wrong with woodfortrees?
12
Nothing. I enjoy reading fiction as much as the next man.
40
All that you are showing in the graph Tristan (using the preferred alarmist data set) is the very slight warming that I alluded to. Now, you need to show that “signature” for CO2 within that, which shows that the warming was not in fact natural. Then you need to show that “signature” both prior to the period and after 1998.
If you could show a higher warming rate during 1978 to 1998 as opposed to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s you might have something, but alas, you cannot.
You cannot do it. You have zero empirical evidence for “CO2 forced warming”.
20
Rereke, what makes woodfortrees fiction?
12
Thomas, it works with UAH as well.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking for. If you want an example of forcing estimates for the various factors, go here and hit ‘calculate’.
11
Wood for trees just presents the data from other sources. Its the sources that are making things up.
It makes out that its analysis is good because it gets the same results as others but the changes over the years is huge. GISS global temp change from 1890 to 1980 was increased by 0.4°C since Hansen’s first version and 0.2°C since 2002. Phil’s comment from WUWT sums up the problem well.
11
And that plot fixed for you.
00
“GISS global temp change from 1890 to 1980 was increased by 0.4°C since Hansen’s first version version and 0.2°C since 2002” citation?
“All of the temperature indices are essentially models” – I’ll do you one better than that. Every individual temperature reading is merely output of a model! Most readings are based on the model of the thermal expansion of mercury.
In any case, increased uncertainty regarding earlier temp records and estimates is well-recognised, Look at the error bars here and here.
10
Reducing the resolution of a graph so it fits your proposition is not fixing anything.
20
Tristan,
Lets increase the resolution.
The top of the MWP to now shows a cooling trend.
10
Tristan,
Let’s reduce the resolution.
The bottom of the LIA to now shows a warming trend.
Let’s reduce the resolution a bit more.
This morning to this afternoon shows a warming trend.
Tonight to tomorrow morning shows a cooling trend.
I’ve survived worse.
00
Berkley Earth has an uncertainty for my home town at ±1°C before there is a temperature measurement within 200km. Even the BOM data from Adelaide and Melbourne do not go back as far.
Thermometer readings are not the output of a model. The only assumption is that freezing point and boiling point (now triple point) are the same around the world at the same pressure. The response of each quality instrument is physically checked. Calculation of 0 K assumes that the models of gasses is correct but that one has been checked very thoroughly with none of that “what pause?” rubbish.
01
Jo, I’m having great problems trying to access –
Tom Quirk’s full analysis with graphs and tables as a 750k PDF
that you link above. Is the link broken or is my PC/ISP having probs. All the other links (and links within them) work perfectly.
Currently on linux and using Qupzilla and also tried with SeaMonkey.
30
I see it is now fixed thank-you 🙂
30
Joanne and Tom,
this should be very interesting additional angle to the issue:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/13/weather-instrumentation-debacle-analysis-shows-0-9c-of-germanys-warming-may-be-due-to-transition-to-electronic-measurement/#sthash.MwVPJ3JG.dpbs
131
Not sure if its the same station, but the minimum is increasing.
https://morelandclimategroup.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/20150205-bom-melb-mint-086071-summer-4311.png
51
The BoM’s temperature records, like the global surface records, have been hopelessly corrupted so as to be practically useless as a means of assessing long-term trends.
The both satellite data series show that the Southern Hemisphere (outside the Antarctic) has warmed a mere ~0.2C since 1979 (eyeballing).
132
When all is said and done the only true temperature data is the raw temperature data. Everything else is just figures.
Some figures are utter nonsense, a few of them are sensible but they are NOT data they are just figures. Only the raw (unadjusted) measurements are the data and IMO should be safely archived, while work is done on the copies.
To misquote Mark Twain –
There is something fascinating about climate science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of data adjustments.
211
Exactly! Long-term sittings with no need for adjustments are the ideal;obfuscation occurs when people muck around with fundamentals.Pck a site and stick to it.A case in point:at our location on the 20th March has several readings. The first has 33c,the second(the temp displayed on Weatherzone)has 34c;then finally settled at 33.8c.My home site( under the correct setting) measures a maximum of 32.7 at 3:10pm- a full 700meters from the official station.What I have said is not surprising or news,but it reinforces the notion that an incontrovertible reading is problematic.
71
Additionally and what should now probably be the standard mottos of the global climate data and analysis centers such as the BOM;
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
[ unknown ]
___________
With apologies to Mark Twain;
In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice.
Then he made climate catastrophe believers
82
theAge: Melbourne weather: Summer 2015 still hot, just last year was hotter
“Mr Trewin also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena.
Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.”
200
It seems so wrong to tamper with data that has been diligently collected over the years by dedicated scientists and technicians of the old school.
Leave the original raw data as is and where necessary, due to instrument or location changes and the like, show error bars or shadings so we the public can appreciate the uncertainties in past records.
By ‘correcting’ or ‘adjusting’, the impression is given that the past trends of fractions of a degree C are sound and beyond doubt, which they certainly are not.
281
I completely agree with you Man, homogenization is an absurdity and to justify it by saying we (BOM) are as good as anywhere in the world at doing it (wbp) is likewise an absurdity. While i’m on the absurdity train, save me from the news that at some spot out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean the water level has risen by 3.6mm over the last 12 months. “Strike me pink” that has to be the definition of absurdity.
172
I completely agree with you manalive.
The throwing away or altering of original data is a crime against science. After all it is your only real data!
How does anyone know what within it will be useful in the future? How does BOM know that ‘suspect’ measurements, or any wild anomalies are not signals that have yet to be discovered with a relevance yet to be known?
Annotate the original by all means but NEVER contaminate measured data with the narrow views of today’s academics. That is not science, that is blinkered advocacy engineering.
In true science all raw measured data is equal, unless you are a clairvoyant.
IMO the altering, and throwing out, of parts of original measurement data is why ‘climate science’ has stopped being a ‘hard’ science like chemistry or physics and has become a ‘soft’ science like social science, or political science.
181
Does the most significant anthropogenic effect come from homogenisation ?
111
This new discovery of a 2.8 million year old jawbone from the genus Homo in Etheopia might suggest otherwise. Climate drove the evolution of Homo rather than the other way around.
The fossilised jawbone couldn’t be dated directly and had to be taken from dating the volcanic ash about 30 ft. below.
80
Comment at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/how-us-temperatures-trends-have-been-artificially-increased-since-2007-and-its-not-tobs/#comments
“
Jason Calley says:
March 20, 2015 at 6:56 pm
The science is settled!!
(It is only the data that we are still busy falsifying…)”
131
As if a building can make it warmer…Oh wait.
https://youtu.be/BTBm9LwzIAw?t=1m52s
So is this why BoM building at Kent town Adelaide has sloped windows facing toward the stevenson screen?
81
It looks like climate sensitivity ( co2 doubling)could be a lot lower than IPCC models predict.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/19/climate-sensitivity-takes-another-tumble.html
101
And possibly that reassessment has come to an over-optimistic and over-large figure too.
I will not be surprised if the eventual rating comes out at one tenth of the latest assessments.
111
Isn’t that exactly what you would do if you wanted to show a warming trend where there is none? I’d do it that way. How else can you get the result you want when it isn’t there to begin with?
By the way, I can easily show that my two thermometers read higher than ambient air temperature during the day because they’re mounted under my patio roof where they get re radiated heat from the sun shining on the roof.
To prove the point I moved one of them from the patio to a position in the branches of a large bottlebrush in the back yard. With nearly 5 feet of foliage above it and a lot less re radiated solar heat, the reading dropped more than a degree relative to the one I didn’t move.
These are no better than consumer grade stuff but it doesn’t matter. It’s clear that a thermometer mounted close to a big heat sink like a 15 story building is going to be influenced by re radiated heat from the building.
It is equally clear that our governments, journalists and worst of all, our scientists charged with monitoring the weather, all are lying to us about global warming. They clearly have an agenda where there should be no agenda except honest reporting about honest science.
121
And then there’s that brick wall bottom line to all this. No one has ever shown that CO2 in the atmosphere actually can do what they claim it can. It’s a long stretch from a well controlled laboratory experiment to a chaotic and uncontrollable system like our atmosphere with convection, clouds and water vapor.
Then, even if CO2 can do what they claim, which I don’t admit at this point, its ability to cause more warming follows that well known logarithmic characteristic and is now essentially saturated with little more it can do.
Why do we put up with this? Probably only because the majority of humans on this planet are science illiterates in that they don’t know they should question what they’re told and wouldn’t know how to question things even if they did want to.
The witch doctors win. Humanity loses.
141
Tristan looks for every argument he can make to show temperature increasing with time. He might better occupy himself with this question — if in fact temperature is rising from some cause (any cause) how high a price do we want to pay for minimal if not negligible mitigation?
Where is the cost-benefit study? Only skeptics like Jo have done that as far as I know.
172
Roy, you might find the German study in to the effects of uncontrolled transition to electronic measurements interesting:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/13/weather-instrumentation-debacle-analysis-shows-0-9c-of-germanys-warming-may-be-due-to-transition-to-electronic-measurement/#sthash.MwVPJ3JG.dpbs
110
Pethefin,
My first reaction is that it’s unacceptably sloppy measurement technique to change sensor types without doing a benchmark study to determine how one sensor behaves relative to the other under the same conditions, including both being in the same enclosure, one Stevenson screen since they were used with glass thermometers. At a bare minimum my guess is that the glass thermometer and the electronic sensor have vastly different reflectivity and I would suspect the electronic sensor to read higher for that reason in such a benchmark test (I don’t know this for a fact).
Then to also change the maximum and minimum calculation technique and the type of enclosure into the bargain makes it doubly egregious.
It gets worse all the time. 🙁
Electronic sensors have other potential problems: change in accuracy with age, dependence on power supply voltage and A/D converters and maybe others depending on the device. I got a little taste of this when working with some frequency synthesisers that got quite hot in use. They had internal sensors that I could read out and display so our cooling could be evaluated. I got the temperature in digital form from the synthesizer so all the readout, A/D and scaling was done inside the synthesiser. Two different synthesizers put in identical environments and run for the same time would track to the nearest degree for a while but then the readings would start to diverge. After finally deciding they were not getting too hot we gave up on reading and displaying their temperature. These were $8,000 devices — not cheap stuff by any standard — and I would think some high grade sensors were used and calibrated as part of the manufacturing process. But maybe not.
131
One of the key issues about the long-lived stations such as Melbourne will be what type of Stevenson Screens were installed and when. Remember, the BoM use this element to truncate all temperature data series at around 1905-10, neatly avoiding the Federation Drought and the very hot 1880-90s, and also allowing them to adjust down the earlier temperatures without any fear of being shown to have falsified the record.
Maybe Melbourne, with its several inner city stations and its long record, can be the test case for a proper adjustment?
72
Surely to goodness, the raw data is better than tree rings, ice cores, etc.
I do recognise that data collection/measuring sites need to change (eg Downtown LA temps are likely to be different now to those that would have been measured in 1600). My simple mind tells me that “homogenisation” (if any) should apply to recent temperatures. The Melbourne CBD is a perfect example.
91
Yes. But both temperatures, then and now, are equally valid for their time. We should not be “adjusting” one, because of the other.
The whole point of the exercise, is knowing the difference.
20
I agree.
20
… and knowing why the change has occurred, and therefore the social, economic and political drivers behind it.
Unless, of course, you are trying to hide those drivers.
20
“Incompetence?”
———————-
Hopefully.
Because fraud would be just too great a transgression for the Australian Public Service.
91
The government is making a start with the Management Board of the CSIRO. How about the BOM ad ABC Mr Abbott?
Lets go for the trifecta.
112
There is very little difference in the NET variations from 1995 to 2002 of annual average Tmax between Melbourne Regional Office and the nearby stations of Laverton RAAF, Melbourne Airport, Moorabin Airport, and Bundoora.
The lines do (all) deviate a bit around 1998, but Melbourne Regional was not the (relative) warmest, and the anomalies rejoin around 2000.
Yes, the BoM should give graphical validation of all their ACORN-SAT corrections, which would probably reveal some errors, but I don’t think this will be one of them.
My analysis will soon appear on this blog: https://climanrecon.wordpress.com/
I’m constructing a composite Tmax record for Melbourne that avoids Regional Office after around 1925. To be fair to the BoM they partially deal with UHI by using Laverton RAAF for climate trends.
40
Not only is the Victoria – Latrobe Street weather station smack bang in the middle of a huge heat island, but it also used heavy steel stands for the Stevenson screens: http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/1/2/i/t/d/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620×349.12irxc.png/1420550732335.jpg
Just how many of the BOM Stevenson screens have had these stands installed. What adjustment is made for them as they are clearly a heat sink?
81
Try touching one of these bases on a typical hot Melbourne summer’s day: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3712/8813439265_214d404d24_b.jpg
00
This is just another example of compiling statistical data by people who have a fixed idea of how the data behaves. The mainstream, who dominate the BOM, believe that
The world is warming and human beings are the cause of it.
Therefore, in the absence of any challenges to that perspective, or even any recognition of possible bias, there will be a greater likelihood of a sudden movement downwards is the data to be regarded as an error in the data, than a sudden movement upwards.
121
A reason for record temperatures in Melbourne.
There are adjustments for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect until the late 1980s in the max data and the late 1990s in the min data. But the adjustments are made the wrong way! Recent data should be adjusted downwards, not the past data adjusted upwards. That means if you compare the current records with a newspaper account from the 1930s, the recent record will appear higher.
Another point is that although the maximum data is less affected on average by UHI than the minimum data, the record highs could be quite strongly affected. The hottest days are usually from high pressure areas with no wind. Everyone has their air conditioners turned to max, generating more additional heat. The siting issues next to concrete instead of grass could also play a stronger role on the hottest days.
141
Meteorologists must not forget,
How a building, a wall or a jet,
Or concrete with heat,
Or asphalt on a street,
Can skew a true temperature set.
211
I am moved to repeat my comment at 13.1 above. Homogenization is an absurdity and the fact that the BOM and others around the world are obfuscating with regard to their methodology is proof enough for me. If it were good, sensible and meaningful, then they would be happy to ‘open the books’. Game set and match, thank you lines persons, thank you ball persons.
151
Yep, there be no doubt.One big scam.Something needs to be done about the media “culture”, but I fear everything has been dumbed-down so far that one despairs.
31
I disagree. Homogenisation is required for two reasons.
First it is to eradicate biases in the individual surface temperature date, such as the UHI in Melbourne.
However, there is increasing evidence of this not being done correctly, or not being done at all.
Second homogenisation is part of the process to build a global surface temperature set, from temperature data that is geographically unevenly dispersed. The method requires a lot of statistical work that destroys the audit trail.
This second point is more important – but nobody tackles it. I am finding that the methodology is flawed in a number of ways, leading to an overall data set that lends support to the global warming hypothesis. Understanding the flaws is crucially important. For instance homogenisation may eliminate sub-regional downwards step-changes (notch or ratchet effects) in the data set when cooling occurs, but fail to eliminate upwards step-increases.
Without showing greater understanding you end up with a pantomime arguments of one person saying “O no it isn’t” and the other saying “O yes it is” ad nauseum. This is basically the core of climate alarmist arguments – but with the added “We are the good expert consensus, and you are the evil mad villains – boo!, get off!“
10
In addition to blocking the wind and its cooling effect, the two tall buildings reflect and re-radiate incoming solar radiation from the north, down onto the detecting instruments.
80
The dismantling of a large number of reporting stations in favour of a few coupled with uncertain software modeled homogenisations led to local forecasting becoming considerably less helpful (well known in aviation and marine circles) and an apparent rise in temperature.
In so far as this unscientific, non-empirical methodology fits the meme, it is doubtless of use to
The Ministry of Truth and their MSMBC green acolytes.
71
Responding to Kevin, Nicholas and Manfred (26.2 27 and 28 above) i’m saying homogenisation of UHI effects is an absurdity because it tries to quantify the unknown which is not only unknown but likely to be constantly changing.
10
Jo –
Judith Curry worked with some of your Australian data, which I’m sure you are familiar with. She was looking for indications that homogenization and TOB corrections had inappropriately warmed the data. With a 1000km radius from central Australia, she was surprised to find no evidence of temperature rises over the last number of decades. I have been looking at recent NAmerican data, and see that the west coast has had huge 2014 temp increases, while the east coast has had a lot of cold.
Of course the average temperature of both America and Australian has risen – just like the world as an an average. I have little conflict with this, seeing this as a Computational Truth or Reality: if you add all the datapoints together, divide by the total number of points (assuming corrections for area and station density), a certain and reproducible number comes out. Every time. However, the Austalian/Curry result and the current NAmerica/2014 experience makes me wonder how much the global average is actually an expression of MARITIME increases and their resultant coastline changes.
Let’s look at the wind direction on the west coast of America. Is that not coincident with the temperature increases on the west coast?
The other thing that concerns me is the changes in CH4 wrt to both temperatures and CO2. The CH4 changes stopped about 2000. Same as the temperatures. The “global” temperatures also stopped increasing at that time. I’m suspicious that the ocean temps are responsible (dominantly) for CH4 and the global temps. The landmass temperature changes are a reflection of the oceanic increases, not a global, air-composition change of energies.
What is needed is a review of wind data vis-a-vis temperatures in Australian. To see is the oceans, not the atmosphere is responsible for temperature changes in Australia.
Say you, what?
12
Doug:
see http://euanmearns.com/ for several posts on this (latest is on South America). They concluded that an area about 1,000 km. around Alice Springs hadn’t warmed for a century.
21
Remember when all the yuppies were naming their boys “Tristan”…?
54
And I don’t like ANY warmists! No redeeming qualities whatsoever.
32
Oh Jo, you keep a fine blog here.
33
Typical yuppie child. You can dish it out but throw tantrums when given a little.
45
Scaper,
Funny thing is that most of the people who start out as warmists eventually become sceptics, but sceptics never become warmists.
00
Oh, I dunno. Tristan, a good ‘green’ name I suppose as a lot of those greenie types seem to be followers of the Celts.
Tristan – clanking swords. Pretty apt I would say. A bit like a Knight in rusty armour.
Tristan if it’s a boy, and Rhiannon if it’s a girl. (or a Communist!!!)
Tony.
92
Tristan und Isolde is a famous Wagnerian opera.
Tristan shuns the light.
72
Parsifal (Percival) another fine composition from Richard Wagner about redemption,the Grail etc.
30
Marquis, Penelope, Danielle and Anastasia might also be in fashion. See Post 31 from pat.
It also mentions a Pharrell. I am not sure what a Pharrell is, or even if it is a recognised breed. Was it especially developed for barking up the wrong tree?
30
At the big gab fest in Davos Switzerland recently, The goricle hired some feral “singer” to write a song about the mythical global warming indiscriminately called climate change.
This feral is worth $80 million and traves around in this carbon dioxide free aircraft.
32
The feral might be in posession of millions of dollars, but ‘worth’ them? It’s like saying some CEO ‘earns’ some spectacular sum of money; no, he/she does not, or very rarely. Most are bumped up little ‘jobsworths’ with far too high an opinion of his/her capabilities.
00
Crossing swords more like…
00
time for a laugh! how could CBS publish this nonsense?
21 March: CBS: Pamela Falk: Pharrell brings “Happy” message on climate change to U.N.
UNITED NATIONS — About 1,200 middle school children ***trudged through the latest snow storm to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday evening to hear hip hop singer and producer Pharrell Williams talk about climate change…
The event also served as the launch for the “World’s Happiest Playlist” and a #HappySoundsLike Twitter campaign, which includes chair Cody Simpson, Stevie Wonder, Ed Sheeran, David Guetta, Rita Ora, John Legend and James Blunt. Environmentalists Philippe Cousteau and Sylvia Earle were on hand to show videos…
A young Brooklynite, Marquis Jamont, was there with his mom to see Pharrell, whom he described as a great person.
“Without Pharrell,” Marquis said, “our planet would not survive.”…
Penelope Danielle Anastasia Latrique, the daughter of a U.N. staff member, goes to the Growing Up Green Charter School, which focuses on climate change.
“Pharrell is inspiring; he makes a happy day happy about the climate,” she said….
Although the plan was to have Pharrell speak and then dance in the General Assembly aisles, as soon as he finished, students went to the front to snap selfies with the new climate change czar and, of course, to change the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharrell-brings-happy-message-on-climate-change-to-u-n/
31
more CAGW celebrity news.
***note the principled response doesn’t last til the end of the article:
21 March: UK Telegraph: Robert Mendick: Vivienne Westwood defrocked by Greens over ‘tax avoidance’
Dame Vivienne Westwood has denied claims of tax avoidance that have led to her suspension from a campaign tour of universities for the Green Party youth wing.
Dame Vivienne Westwood has been rather unfashionably ditched.
Activists from the youth wing of the Green Party have voted to ban her from a recruiting tour of British universities in a row over her company’s tax affairs.
Dame Vivienne, the doyenne of the British fashion industry, had been billed as star speaker at a series of events following her donation of £300,000 to the Green Party’s election fund.
But allegations, first disclosed in The Telegraph, that her company was avoiding paying UK tax by making multi-million-pound payments to an offshore company in Luxembourg has prompted an internal inquiry by the Green Party.
A central plank of The Greens’ election manifesto will be a ‘Tax Dodgers Bill’ that would outlaw payments to offshore companies in jurisdictions including Luxembourg.
Dame Vivienne was billed to appear alongside the Green Party’s deputy leader, Amelia Womack, at a series of university events titled “We are the Revolution”…
***It (Green Party) confirmed it was now investigating her tax affairs with Dame Vivienne’s full cooperation and had “engaged an independent tax specialist to assist us”.
The statement added: “We are assured that her companies are not actively avoiding tax. Pending this investigation and confirmation that we are satisfied with her practices, the Green Party look forward to working with Vivienne Westwood on some high profile campaigning events.” …
DAME VIV: “I can confirm that full UK tax has been paid to HMRC on my personal donation to the Green Party. I will continue to ensure that my finances are in line with my personal values.
“My reputation is so important to me because of what I am trying to do in my activism.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11487630/Vivienne-Westwood-defrocked-by-Greens-over-tax-avoidance.html
above has link to following 7 March piece, same day Dame Viv was part of the Time To Act CC march that flopped:
“Vivienne Westwood accused of hypocrisy over offshore tax base”
a former “celebrity”?
21 March: NoFrakkingConsensus: Pachauri vs the Police
New Delhi police say the former IPCC chairman is violating his bail conditions by hampering their investigation and influencing witnesses…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/03/21/pachauri-vs-the-police/
21
VIDEO/Graph: 21 March: Bloomberg: Dashiell Bennett: Look What Today’s Eclipse Did to German Solar Power Output
This chart shows what happens to solar when the moon blocks out the sun.
Things turned out fine, with only a brief surge in the cost of electricity.
Other energy sources were able to compensate without significant complications…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/look-what-today-s-eclipse-did-to-german-solar-power-output
more comedy:
21 March: eScienceNews: Adapting to climate change will bring new environmental problems
Adapting to climate change could have profound environmental repercussions, according to a new study from the University of East Anglia. Research in Nature Climate Change reveals that adaptation measures have the potential to generate further pressures and threats for both local and global ecosystems.
Lead researcher Dr Carlo Fezzi, from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “Climate change is a just a little bit more complicated than we previously thought. We need to take into account not only the direct impact of climate change, but also how people will respond to such change — the impact of adaptation.
***”This is a whole new dimension to the climate change adaptation debate.”…
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2015/03/21/adapting.climate.change.will.bring.new.environmental.problems
11
What possible difference to the temperature could half a dozen white and cream coloured, wind blocking tall buildings make? Or for that matter a set of traffic lights that have 10-20 cars idling at the intersection lights for 5 minutes at a time.
40
Odd that if that sort of “mistake” was done in the financial world, people would be behind bars. It’s time some in the AGW alarmist camp be treated the same way. A scam is a scam.
52
I just completed a study on this issue:
Adjustments Multiply Warming at US CRN1 Stations
A study of US CRN1 stations, top-rated for their siting quality, shows that GHCN adjusted data produces warming trends several times larger than unadjusted data.
The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records.
19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee.
So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.
Details here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/adjustments-multiply-warming-at-us-crn1-stations/
31
How often do we record a period as warmer or cooler when the temp really just indicates how much cloud was about? If you get constant cloud in eastern Oz you may record abnormally high minima and low maxima for the period, as through much of 1950. 65 years on people have forgotten the extraordinary conditions and are processing the numbers, raw of fiddled, as if they were all that mattered about the period in question. Even rainfall won’t round out the story of why, or if, a period actually was cooler or warmer than some “norm”. In my region 1963 was our second wettest year in a long record – but 15% of that rain fell in a single freak day. 1999 was my coolest spring: it wasn’t wet, but the sun just didn’t break through in normally clearer months.
Was 1915 really the hottest year in my region? It was certainly the driest with a temp record, but how does it compete with 1914, nearly as hot by mean max but with a good spread of rain throughout the year.
Was 1974 really so cool? Clouds, as the song goes, got in the way…so who can know?
What’s the point? A temp reading is a poor enough thing already. Why process it into something that looks precise and informative and is even more superficial than the original very superficial materials? Add in urbanisation etc and you don’t have much at all.
Or am I missing something?
20
I wonder if anyone has thought of the effect on climate of the huge increase in use of nitrogenous fertilisers and trash retention in agriculture? High residue retention does cause colder soils and higher frost risk in crops whereas the old bare fallow systems absorbed more daytime heat that radiated back out at night. We are also increasing the density of crops with nitrogen inputs and less sunlight is reaching the soil surface. This is a worldwide change in farming systems, any thoughts?
00
Just as well those sky-scrapers don’t have as much glass as the ‘walkie-talkie’ building. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23930675
00