…
What were they thinking?
The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems. Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.
Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.
Why. Why. Why wasn’t this done years ago?
So much for that facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?
HadCrut4 Global Temperature, 1850 – 2018.
Absurdity everywhere in Hadley Met Centre data
There are cases of tropical islands recording a monthly average of zero degrees — this is the mean of the daily highs and lows for the month. A spot in Romania spent one whole month averaging minus 45 degrees. One site in Colombia recorded three months of over 80 degrees C. That is so incredibly hot that even the minimums there were probably hotter than the hottest day on Earth. In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
Dr McLean audited the HadCrut4 global data from 1850 onwards for his PhD thesis, and then continued it on afterwards til it was complete:
“I was aghast to find that nothing was done to remove absurd values… the whole approach to the dataset’s creation is careless and amateur, about the standard of a first-year university student.”
– John McLean
His supervisor was Peter Ridd, famously sacked for saying that “the science was not being checked, tested or replicated” and for suggesting we might not be able to trust our institutions
Data is incredibly, brazenly, sparse
The Hadley Met Centre team have not even analyzed this data with a tool as serious as a spell checker.
For two years the entire Southern Hemisphere temperature was estimated from one sole land-based site in Indonesia and some ship data. We didn’t get 50% global coverage until 1906. We didn’t consistently get 50% Southern Hemisphere coverage until about 1950.
McLean’s findings show there is almost no quality control on this crucial data. The Hadley Met Centre team have not even analyzed this data with a tool as serious as a spell checker. Countries include “Venezuala”,” Hawaai”, and the “Republic of K” (also known as South Korea). One country is “Unknown” while other countries are not even countries – like “Alaska”.
The real fault of the modern day institutes is not so much the lack of historic data, but for the way they “sell” the trends and records as if they are highly certain and meaningful.
HadCrut4, Southern Hemisphere Temperatures, 1850 -2018.
There are systematic and far reaching problems
..
The HadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
The CRU data covers 10,295 stations, but 2693 – more than a quarter – don’t meet the criteria for inclusion described in Jones et al 2012, which is considered to the best description of what should and shouldn’t be included.
It is impossible to know exactly which sites are included in the final temperature analysis, and whether a site’s records have been adjusted. (If only we could do our tax returns like this?)
The sub-parts of the datasets contradict each other. The land set and the sea set should combine up to be the global set, but they don’t always match. Which one is right?
“It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset. If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries. The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.”
— John McLean
Cooling the past one hundred years later?
In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do need to move, but corrections don’t have to treat old sites as if they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site “ages” buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling all the older original readings – even readings that were probably taken when the site was just a paddock. In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was. Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to take temperatures that a computer “corrected” a century later.
We’ve seen the effect of site moves in Australia in Canberra, Bourke, Melbourne and Sydney. After being hammered in the Australian press (thanks to Graham Lloyd), the BOM finally named a “site move” as the major reason that a cooling trend had been adjusted to a warming one. In Australia adjustments to data increase the trend by as much as 40%.
In theory, a thermometer in a paddock in 1860 should be comparable to a thermometer in a paddock in 1980. But the experts deem the older one must be reading too high because someone may have built a concrete tarmac next to it forty or eighty years later. This systematic error, just by itself, creates a warming trend from nothing, step-change by step-change.
Worse, the adjustments are cumulative. The oldest data may be reduced with every step correction for site moves. Ken Stewart found some adjustments to old historic data in Australia wipe as much as 2C off the earliest temperatures. We’ve only had “theoretically” 0.9C of warming this century.
While each national bureau supplies the “preadjusted” data. The Hadley Centre is accepting them. Does it check? Does it care?
No audits, no checks, who cares?
As far as we can tell this key data has never been audited before. (What kind of audit would leave in these blatant errors?) Company finances get audited regularly but when global projections and billions of dollars are on the table climate scientists don’t care whether the data has undergone basic quality-control checks, or is consistent or even makes sense.
Vast areas of non-existent measurements
In May 1861 the global coverage, according to the grid-system method that HadCRUT4 uses, was 12%. That means that no data was reported from almost 90% of the Earth’s surface. Despite this it’s said to be a “global average”. That makes no sense at all. The global average temperature anomaly is calculated from data that at times covers as little as 12.2% of the Earth’s surface”, he says. “Until 1906 global coverage was less than 50% and coverage didn’t hit 75% until 1956. That’s a lot of the Earth’s surface for which we have no data.” – John McLean
Real thermometer data is ignored
In 1850 and 1851 the official data for the Southern Hemisphere only includes one sole thermometer in Indonesia and some random boats. (At the time, the ship data covers about 15% of the oceans in the southern half of the globe, and even the word “covers” may mean as little as one measurement in a month in a grid cell, though it is usually more.) Sometimes there is data that could be used, but isn’t. This is partly the choice of all the separate national meteorology organisations who may not send in any data to Hadley. But neither do the Hadley staff appear to be bothered that data is so sparse or that there might be thermometer measurements that would be better than nothing.
How many heatwaves did they miss? For example, on the 6th of February, 1851, newspaper archives show temperatures in the shade hit 117F in Melbourne (that’s 47C), 115 in Warnambool, and 114 in Geelong. That was the day of the Black Thursday MegaFire. The Australian BOM argues that these were not standard officially sited thermometers, but compared to inland boats, frozen Caribbean islands and 80 degree months in Colombia, surely actual data is more useful than estimates from thermometers 5,000 to 10,000km away? Seems to me multiple corroborated unofficial thermometers in Melbourne might be more useful than one official lone thermometer in Indonesia.
While the Hadley dataset is not explicitly estimating the temperature in Melbourne in 1850 per se, they are estimating “the Southern Hemisphere” and “The Globe” and Melbourne is a part of that. By default, there must be some assumptions and guesstimates to fill in what is missing.
How well would the Indonesian thermometer and some ship data correlate with temperatures in Tasmania, Peru, or Botswana? Would it be “more accurate” than an actual thermometer, albeit in the shade but not in a Stevenson screen? You and I might think so, but we’re not “the experts”.
Time the experts answered some hard questions.
UPDATE
See the Hadley team reply to #DataGate a week later. Polite fog excuses.
The full report
The 135-page audit with more than 70 findings is available for $8 from Robert Boyle Publishing. You can help support months of work that should have been done by official agencies years ago.
————————————-
Always hard hitting — James Delingpole’s view:
Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit
McLean’s report could scarcely have come at a more embarrassing time for the IPCC. On Monday, it will release its 2018 Summary for Policy Makers claiming that the global warming crisis is more urgent than ever. But what McLean’s audit strongly suggests is that these claims are based on data that simply cannot be trusted.
–read it all.
___________________________
Main points:
- The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
- McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
- Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Colombia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
- Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
- Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
- When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
Gory details of the worst outliers
- For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
- The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
- At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.
Abbreviations
HadCRUT4 is a global temperature dataset, providing gridded temperature anomalies across the world as well as averages for the hemispheres and the globe as a whole. CRUTEM4 and HadSST3 are the land and ocean components.
REFERENCES
Jones, P. D., D. H. Lister, T. J. Osborn, C. Harpham, M. Salmon, and C. P. Morice (2012), Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05127, doi:10.1029/2011JD017139.
h/t Tom Nelson for #DataGate.
Why is this not a surprise ……..
Facts don’t matter to climate activists and self-styled ecowarriors, it’s all about the ‘narrative and achieving the de-industrialiaation of the developed world.
822
Now let’s have an audit of the BoM’s data and collection methods.
They’re all in it together. The eco-warriors and climate-activists are in plague proportions in Canberra. Just as they infest the ABC they also infest BoM and the Environment department.
Audit. Now.
734
They obviously also infest Canberra. Someone make sure PM Morrison is made aware & orders an audit of the BOM with copies to the ALp & gangreens. In the mean time warm up the shredder for the ParisAccord & any other climate toilet paper lying around!
351
Remember when the Minister for BoM reported the data doctoring he was informed about to cabinet where PM Abbott recommended that due diligence, that an audit of the BoM be carried out, but lost the vote? No doubt that Black Hand faction blocked the proposal to protect the BoM and stop the truth about man-made climate change caused by carbon dioxide being exposed.
The hoax and those involved must be punished.
502
And John Hewson says not to vote Liberall. Seems afraid Scomo might bring some inteligent reason to expose alarmist mal practical.
160
Torok’s 1996 thesis detailed many of the problems with the official BoM temperature network. I can’t locate it right now and Torok and Nicholl’s 1996 paper only has a brief list for one station:
http://www.waclimate.net/torok_study.pdf
From memory some of the false readings included parrots destroying the screen, angry wives doing the same, no readings from some stations for months because the agent had died, in one case had fallen down a well, inflated high readings because the agent’s council mates got the day off if the temp cracked 100F and so on.
As for an audit of the BoM it was tried; the pollies rejected it:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf
162
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?
If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.
Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998
1010
Put a piece of paper over the graph before 1998. There is a zero slope.
91
Sheldon Walker, peddle your hyperbolic warning elsewhere.
Chop out the ‘super’ El Nino (1998 & 2015/16) spikes and one observes a temperature anomaly of ≤0.7C over 50 years, within 1 sigma of centennial variations throughout the Holocene (0.98 ± 0.27C) or, using EPICA data, an average standard deviation of 1.12 ± 0.13C (Lloyd 2015).
Given the points raised in this post #DataGate! and the blatant scientific travesty it demonstrates, something we already suspected but now see exhaustively detailed, quibbling over a putative anomaly of 0.02C / century is as absurd as claiming this might be the trivial unmeasurable signal of CAGW or wasting trillions of dollar on looking for Rainbow coloured unicorns.
371
Trends are useful tools used with care, but entirely aribtrary trends can be extracted by fiddling with endpoints (cherrypicking) or by suppressing outliers. The latter is a good thing in sparse data sets where outliers have excessive influence on trends. However outlier removal can become increasingly misleading as the actual data set becomes more extensive. Instead of “removing” a spurious trend or lack of one, you may be suppressing natural variation, which is precisely what the 1998 el Nino was, natural variation. If you suppress 1998, then you need to suppress the more recent el ninos as well, which will decrease or eliminate any “positive” trend. No “warmist would be happy with that.
80
El Nino?
It’s interesting, when climate alarmists cannot explain why their predictions are so wrong, people who claim to have a full understanding and accurate predictive models, they blame El Nino or La Nina, two phenomena not at all understood and unpredicted and unpredictable.
So their understanding of climate patterns is complete except for very big things they do not understand but which they have named? Naming is not understanding. Excuses are not proof.
This is from self appointed Climate experts who consider that meteorology is irrelevant and the opinions of qualified meteorologists are irrelevant, more than half of whom consider the man made Global Warming is wrong.
So we are left with a huge posse of environmentalists, ecologists, botanists, hydrologists, physical chemists, the odd aeronautical engineer and even paleoentologists who consider that ignorance of meteorology is essential for competence in predicting climates. For example, not one person on the Australian government appointed Climate Commission was a meteorologist. Then these unqualified self appointed climate experts grab at named climate phenomena to explain why the predictions are wrong? Unexpected elephants in the room are reasonable if you know their names?
It must be pretty annoying for people who have spent years of their scientific careers studying hard sciences and the mechanisms behind the weather with a view to predicting the weather to be told that their opinions are useless. Only someone with no knowledge of the physics of the weather can make valid predictions. Strangely the only factor they are prepared to consider is the trace gas Carbon Dioxide. Even the sun is irrelevant. This is is politics, not science.
350
What we are dealing with, I read that PM Morrison claims that the Paris Agreement has nothing to do with electricity pricing.
Next we will be told that the audit is news to the politicians who have relied upon the science of climate change advice they received.
So why did the government plan to quarantine politicians from constitutional law relating to international law/treaties being imposed here?
110
Ignore the last El Nino and HadCRUT4 shows 13 years of 0.07°C per century (2001-2014) you can play games like this all day.
30
It’s Gistemp and therefore crap; Giss has always been an outlier:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12
21
Very important research. I would guess the global warming believers will not care in the slightest, they jumped on a broken bandwagon because it fitted their existing beliefs, and facts of any kind won’t change that. And the lawyers and bankers will only jump off the household electricity bill funded unreliables gravy train when a better financial return emerges, or government ends the current rorts.
Poor fellow my country.
494
TENCF, I have posted a couple of comments referring to this paper over at the Fairfax collective blog. Often, but not always, my comments sneak through the moderators so lets see if those parishioners from the Church of Climatologists will actually read the paper rather than just, as they usually do, close eyes, put their hands over their ears and yell “nah nah nah nah” at the top of their voices to drown out the voices of reason!
100
Sounds like “Harry Read Me” unzipped
180
Quoted from Steve McIntyre’s the Climate Audit blog ; Oct 15. 2005
70
Its a scandal the way science has become corrupted.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/04/rewriting-the-history-of-bourke-part-2-adjusting-maximum-temperatures-both-down-and-up-and-then-changing-them-altogether/
321
Typical communist modus operandii…they dont actually do anything constructive, they just tear things down and corrupt things….
130
Ahh …. the belt and road appears constructive to the brics mob.
40
For spreading communism….
40
No they don’t want to get involved with the politics, this is purely a commercial proposition.
31
Um…I doubt that.
00
This is “BIG NEWS” indeed.
After more than a decade of Pleading by skeptics for some sort of enquiry into the integrity of the Climate Data, we finally get something.
I don’t yet know who funded John McClean’s audit, but I am pretty sure it was not the IPCC or other official agencies, who’s job it was to make sure that they were acting on accurate information.
I don’t expect any immediate response.
It may be time to demand, once again, an enquiry and audit of the BOM ACORN SAT adjustments.
450
Delingpole article not available yet.
Clearly there has been an embargo on this story.
140
Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit
James is on fire 🙂
I sent him the info this week. David and I have been talking to John McLean for six months.
541
Thanks Jo,
Can you give some Bio on John McClean. All I know about him so far is that he has a PHD from James Cook Uni, supervised by Dr Peter Ridd.
John McLean – Climate Hero!
270
And as Ive said many times :
“The Climate Lie could not have got this far unless there was systemic collaboration between govt, the UN, Big Business, the Left, ( and all main political parties ) and the Extreme Greens”
There is your problem….
130
John McClean is played by Bruce Willis in Die Hard 5? He brings in a computer hacker to decipher the lies built into the Global Temperature data base by the evil climate alarmist gangsters hellbent on holding the world to $billions of ransom over a fake climate scare. It’s a hard battle but Bruce Willis always triumphs in the end. 🙂
100
In a previous comment I claimed
Jo Nova was the second best
climate science website
( the words “in the world”
should have been included ),
with WUWT as the best.
But when there’s
a well written summary
of John McLean’s work here —
Jo Nova becomes
the BEST climate science
website in the world !
Three cheers for John McLean.
I’ve been reading about climate
change every week since 1997.
It took me only one day to doubt the
100 year predictions of the
average temperature — how many
predictions of anything are right?
The surface measurement quality
is so bad that its possible there was
no warming since 1880, or we’ve
already had +2 degrees warming —
no one really knows
about the accuracy
of so-called “data”
before 1979
( before weather
satellite data,
confirmed by
weather balloon data,
were first available
to verify
surface “data”).
The planet has been “warming”
for 20,000 years —
no one has any idea
when that trend will end.
Sea level is already up 400 feet,
and at least 399.5 feet of the 400 feet
was NOT caused by CO2
greenhouse warming
But never mind real facts —
global warming is going to get us,
unless we do everything
the leftists demand,
without question,
or so they say,
and of course leftists
would never lie
to get more power !
My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
250
The Labor government wants to start scaring children at age 3, they they will have them for life
140
And some of them become the teachers of future decades.
90
To really frighten the 3 year olds they will need to teach the extremes of weather of the last 200 years
50
RED NOISE
Note John Reid’s recent statistical analysis in this context:
“The HadCRUT4 time series of 166 annual values of global average temperature was analysed both deterministically and stochastically and the results compared….The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.” (J Reid, atmospheric physicist, 28 December, 2016)
Reference
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X16686447
70
Is Andrew Bolt or Peta Credlin aware of this. Need exposure through the media.
They seem to be some of the more credible journalists.
40
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/07/damning-audit-climate-change-scare-based-on-unreliable-data/
80
Amazing stuff, Jo. Well done for reporting it for us. Now, how do we use this information? I suspect that the information is too complex for our new Environment Minister. She will not appreciate the import of the step reductions in the historic temperatures on the “official” temperature trend. I presume Jennifer Marohasy is aware of this. I am sure she would be able to take this on from here. You would be a great duo to push this where it has to go. The whole sharade is going to come to an end soon.
360
Agree Peter,
Maybe Outsiders, Bolt & Jones etc could help here!
They’re the only crusaders against this IPCC rubbish!
Angus Taylor MP would totally agree but publicly will NOT come out against it until after the election!
This has to get to everyday Australians!
300
I’m spreading the word amongst my sphere of influence…emails have alrady gone out.
Typical Australians….drill into the crux of a problems and make nuisances of ourselves by exposing the truth 🙂
Usually, the response by the Left will be a smear campaign, or some form of beauracratic harrassment of McLean….
90
Before I discovered SKYE news and Political commentary on the WIN network a few weeks ago, I would have thought that this expos’e would have little hope of gaining much traction in the general public sphere to make one jot of difference to the Status Quo.
But here’s hoping that Bolt, Credlin, Dean etal can take this story and run with it.
90
The audit raises the question
‘Can anything be done to clean up the data?’
If so, which institution will be prepared to do this?
Now that the Southern Hemisphere, based on the Indonesian Archipeligo, was representd by one data point
originally, this must impinge on attempts to work out about our and their coral reefs.
Perhaps the new $A 450 million for the GBR could have 10% put to global data audit, so we don’t end up in a useless scientific loop of diminishing returns.
180
Lewis p Buckingham @ #9
Even today, The stations used in the [ corrupted ] Australian Met Data and the even more corrupted and adjusted New Zealand Data as shown a number of years ago by the NZ Climate Science Coalition accounts for close to one quarter [ 1/4 ] of the world’s current weather and climate data.
From about longitude 90 in the mid Indian Ocean to about the International Date line ; longitude 180, in the mid Pacific and from the Equator to about 60 degrees south, a latitude just north of the Antrctic Peninsula, in our quarter of the Earth’s surface, Australia and NZ are the only two supposedly reliable sources of weather and climate data or so it is assumed by the WMO, a surmisation which we know is highly questionable on the real evidence supplied as has been pointed out innumerable times in posts both from Jo and in other weather and climate related skeptic blogs.
The old saying, A Fish rots from the head first.
Proven once again by the stench of corruption now seen to be beginning right at the top of the pile at Hadley and the NASA GISS climate data centres and which now seems to permanently permeate not only the supremely important and irreplaceable historical and current Data but also nearly ever aspect and claim of the Global warming / climate change scenario and the innumerable and ultimately proven wrong everytime, claims of the ideologues of the climate change faith..
191
Jo writes: “A spot in Romania spent one whole month averaging minus 45 degrees. The only explanation that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.”
This possible explanation does not make sense to me. Having remembered that -40C and -40F are the same temperature, I calculated that -45C is -49F; also that -45F is -42.8C. Given the closeness of these temperatures, how does this possibly allow diagnosis of the problem as being a C/F confusion?
Is it not simply that it is unbelievable that the (daily ‘average’) temperature was that low for that long a contiguous period?
Best regards
170
Nigel, good point. While it appears the failed conversion might explain the high temps (like the 82 average) you are right.
Suggestions welcome of how they could get -45C ?
120
Was it a decimal?
10
My wild guess would be that someone screwed up the F to C conversion by subtracting 32 and then multiplying by 1.8 instead of dividing. e.g. 8 F – 32 = -24 x 1.8 = -43.2.
71
Yes Rick that makes sense. BTW I prefer RPE (ie Registered by law instead of the voluntary chartered). Then you would not have civil (as one president of IEAust)or electrical (as the Chief Scientist) engineers providing opinions (or engineering service as defined in the Qld Act) outside their expertise or experience for which they are registered. All professional engineers in Australia can and should be registered.
40
[checking this – thanks. Removed at commenters request – J]
Having looked at some GHCN data, where there is no data they list it as 999.9, but the HADCRUT data lists as -99.99. Could it be that in Roumania, there were a large number of days without data, and the computer program failed to skip the -99.99s?
[Please leave this is the mod bin for now! – JO]
30
The old conversion we learned in grade school was C=5/9 (F-32). If the F was 24 the correct result would have been -4.4C. Then a decimal lost in writing or typing the result to the record sheet. Certainly a possibility in Romania.
61
Could be a polar vortex that breaks from the arctic and freezes everything in its path and brings down trees and power lines with the weight of ice. They have been reported recently in Canada
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/polar-vortex-analysis-the-arctic-winds-that-brought-cold-air-and-chaos-southwards-9042426.html
40
The strong cyclonic winds around the south pole seem to be fenced in and never rupture anywhere, I assume that would keep us from rapidly freezing as it does sometimes in the Arctic
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-201.36,-88.81,349/loc=-113.427,-89.241
31
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf
Note the anomalous low pressure troughs snaking down from the north-west, bringing rain, and the apparent collapse of the subtropical ridge.
30
I always use the 40 calculation. that is, ADD 40 to the degrees you want to convert, multiply by the factor e.g. 9/5 if converting from C to F, or 5/9 for F to C (0.5555 on your calculator) THEN take OFF 40.
Try it, it works and you don’t have to remember about whether to add or subtract 32.
40
That’s what my father taught me half a century ago. The “common” equations make more sense in a computer program though. Few people seem to know about it or appreciate it.
Note there are an infinite number of equations, I often use C = (F – 68) * (5/9) + 20.
20
I would say yes. But first we need to know what all the adjustments were and why. I doubt if that information will be forthcoming any time soon, partly because there may be repercussions for those involved.
Who would we trust to do it?
130
‘Who would we trust to do it?’
Australian National Audit Office
Jennifer Marohasy and John McLean would need to brief them.
190
I’ll add Ken Stewart to that list and there are probably others.
101
Data can only be cleaned if it is the original data. It is impossible to clean corrupt without all the methodologies used to corrupt that data to hand. Can’t be done, all the more so when the “methodologies” include intent to deceive and complete incompetence.
00
So what has changed ?
Over the last week or so, we have been shown again and again, you need no data or evidence to back up a claim. Just throw it out there and it Must be believed.
All to keep the river of money flowing, whether it be politics or the weather.
What a mess !
210
On the general subject of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), I wrote this back in 2012. Some extracts are:
The oceans have a thermal capacity of approx 1,038 times that of the atmosphere. This thermal capacity of the oceans is about 5.4×10^24 Joules per degree Celsius. The thermal capacity of the atmosphere is, somewhat more approximately, 5.2×10^21 Joules per degree Celsius. [Note, the thermal capacity of the ground near the surface is also of some relevance, but I have not included that in my calculations. Nor have I included the better known latent heat of fusion of all ice-caps and glaciers – which is around 7.6×10^24 Joules, for the 1.7% of the hydrosphere that it represents.]
Interestingly, the total solar irradiance, over a year, for the Earth is about 5.5×10^24 Joules.
The changes we are observing [such as they are] could quite easily be down to very slow climatic variations caused by energy changes between the oceans and atmosphere: and these are beyond our current knowledge.
[G]iven that the thermal capacity of the oceans is so large compared with the thermal capacity of the atmosphere (by a factor of over 1,000), it strikes me as unsound to rely primarily on measurements of atmospheric temperature, even if they come from satellites. The effect of the oceans on climate is very slowly varying (decades to many centuries), but quite massive.
I still doubt we have enough knowledge of the amount of energy stored in the oceans, and the variations in temperature and energy flow that that causes. This covers, in particular, the starting conditions used for modelling. Without that knowledge, we cannot know whether there is an energy net inflow (to the oceans) or outflow (from the oceans). Consider that an average temperature change of 1/1000 degree Celsius in the ocean average would (if not lost to space) cause an average 1C change in the temperature of the atmosphere.
Best regards
111
I’m wondering how many of the models would include the underwater volcanic activity in their starting conditions?
40
None, I’d imagine.
30
Another example of made-up figures. The major temperature station on Svalbard (Spitzbergen) – Isfjord Radio – has continuous data through the 1940s. As I found, the station was destroyed in Sept 1941, and only replaced in Sept 1946. Given the remotest of the site and the extreme average temperature changes, it is not insignificant.
190
Kevin Marshall @ # 12.
.
No doubt not new knowledge to yourself although it might be to some others.
.
A few years ago, NASA’s GISS under Hansens control at the time made numerous unsubstantiatable adjustments without Rejkjavik’s knowedge or input, to the Icelandic’s very carefully measured and quality controlled temperature data when incorporating that data into the GISS data bank.
When informed of these ” GISS adjustments” by a skeptic blogger the Icelandic bureau staff were apparently furious as it both reflected completely undeservedly on their competence and they already had done all the adjustments with the help of a very competent local knowledge of each of Iceland’s stations in both the current and hisrtorical context.
So it seems that the extensive corruption of data allied with gross incompetence are now all geared to achieve a blatantly ideologically based outcome which it seems is now a prime consideration of the global climate data bank operatives and analysts.
[ one of a number of sources ] How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures
170
ROM,
I actually checked on Paul Homewood’s claims concerning Reykjavik and validated them. Trausti Jonsson of the Iceland Met Office had followed IMO procedures for making adjustments for (1) measurement changes (time and no per day) and (2) station relocations. NASA then homogenized the data, causing quite different adjustments. You can see the differences in my post Reykjavik Temperature Adjustments – a comparison
The fundamental reason for these homogenisation adjustments is that the algorithms make pair-wise comparisons with adjacent temperature stations to flush out anomalous trends in the data. This assumes that the real, underlying, in a given area are the same. The problem I found from Reykjavik, and numerous other places is that temperature trends are not the same.There are two major issues.
First, is that real trends will vary with distance, so the more sparsely spread the temperature stations the more anomalous the trends. It is likely the lack of temperature stations pre-1950 has understated the early twentieth century warming and the 1940s cooling as a result of this.
Second, you have compilers of the data sets who have very strong biases, and very strongly opinions on how the data ought to look, along with a lot of quite weird results.
As a result one should not be surprised that with repeated homogenisations on homogenisations that the data will gradually come into line with beliefs.
Summarized in Defining “Temperature Homogenisation”.
120
A very good comment,
Mr. Marshall
and you have
a good blog too.
Consider this thought of mine:
Government bureaucrats
with science degrees are paid
to predict a coming climate disaster
every year, just as scientists were
once paid to declare cigarettes were safe.
Most of their jobs would not be necessary,
as a group, if they declared the
current climate was wonderful,
and has been getting better for
hundreds of years — that’s something
I strongly believe, but then I’m retired and have
no need for a job to use my BS degree.
The bureaucrats making the predictions
also own the temperature actuals,
which is a huge conflict of interest.
No one wants to make predictions every year,
and be wrong … but when you “own” the actuals,
you can “fix” them so your predictions
look good — well, at least better.
Extending this thinking,
there are financial incentives
(and human nature)
that strongly encourage
government bureaucrat “adjustments”
that make the climate models
look better than they otherwise would.
And that’s why the
horrible quality surface “data”,
which is mainly wild guess infilling and
adjusted raw data, does not matter !
It’s good enough for government work !
Why bother with temperature data
quality control when the bottom line
(the answer)
is already known — each year is
going to be warmer than the prior year,
with a few deliberate exceptions,
so lay people don’t suspect
the numbers have been “fixed”.
Temperature data
quality does not matter much
when the end result
for the average global temperature
has been predicted,
by (nonsense) climate models
and the actual temperatures
can be “adjusted” at will !
… And what human could possibly
“audit” the results of a SuperCpmputer
climate model simulation — you just have
to accept whatever prediction it spits out !!!
10
Thank you John McLean.
Given the arrogant attitude of those who push the climate change alarm it’s not a bit surprising. Remember the CRU deleted all its original data. Remember that no debate was ever possible because the verdict was in and could not be disputed. Remember the character of such notable as Al Gore, James Hansen and so many others. Remember the threats when skeptics would not knuckle under. Remember 10-10 and their exploding children.
Remember, remember, remember and all of it was the hallmark of anything but honesty and careful diligent work. They never cared right from the start and that was as obvious as anything ever has been.
As I have said over and over, global warming is a political problem, not a science problem. And now they are caught with both hands in the cookie jar and they still will not quit. The UN is power mad and they will not quit. And President Trump does not understand the real reason he should pull out of the Paris dirty deal.
I hope this expose makes it around the world with the speed of light, landing on the desk of every leader and would be leader everywhere. But then consider this, how many of them will know how to verify any of it. Politics and math are disjoint sets.
But remember that I’ve said one other thing. Nothing sticks around longer than a bad idea. For every step forward, every little battle won they have come back with even more outrageous claims, labeled us deniers and worse and it doesn’t stop. Climate change is now a fact as if by Royal Proclamation.
We must pull the plug on their money or they will pull the plug on us.
370
[…] Who would have thought? John McLean audited the HadCrut4 global data from 1850 onwards for his PhD thesis, and then continued it on afterwards till it was complete: […]
40
For 60 years seared into my thought processes was the humiliation of being marked zero for the correct answer because I didn’t show my workings. Also, qualifying one for the Eighth Circle was adjusting crap data to what it “should” have been. And as for adjusting sound data – that earned you the Ninth Circle.
A recurring phenomenon in my career was the patient who had used the wrong medicine i.e. a laxative for treating diarrhoea. Always the explanation was “it was all there was in the cupboard”. Thus is using data unfit for purpose to support a profound agenda with similar results. Its that or nothing.
Though sometimes nothing is a cool hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDYyg0QskRo
80
I wonder how many decades of research by individual weather and climate researchers are now just garbage as the data they relied on has been provento be so corrupted?
.
I wonder how many PhD thesis written by dried out, sleep deprived earnest wannabe scientists who trusted tottally and relied on the Hadley data as a fully verifiable centre of weather and climate data are now utterly irrelevant in their conclusions and are now fit only for the round file?
.
I wonder how many mega hours of programming using Hadley’s data went into getting the sub routines of climate models sorted for use in climate models which in any case needed no further assistance to be at best grossly misleading and at worst just downright F—ulent, more so now with this revelation of Hadley’s data.
.
I wonder how many half kilometre high stacks of climate legislation that has imposed such immense costs and deprivation on numerous western nations and huge social costs on the various , mostly low income earning people of our society and western civilisation all to Save the Planet from Catastrophic Climate Change based on data from the likes of the Phil Jones [ now Rtd ] controlled Hadley Centre have looked if the politicals knew they were being openly and blatantly conned to the N’th degree as to the actual and now known total incompetency and therefore near f—–ulent claimed accuracy of the Hadley data as controlled by Jones and Co of the Hadley centre?
.
I wonder what would be the public reaction if our Big Banks , like the Hadley Centre has done, would change individual figures, reduce and change quite dramatically the historical and measured criteria of the past, just not bother to keep their data on individual situations up to date, get the wrong areas and properties included in the data and then decide that the orginal figures presented were far to high and arbitarily reduce them and then claim that the data showed the whole situation particularly from an individual data source was so bad that they would no longer be able to continue as was and so the business would have to pay up and be shut won.
.
Ohh! Hang on a bit !!!!!!!!
181
John McClean has been active for more than a decade.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/09/what-peer-review-a-note-from-john-mclean-on-the-ipcc/
140
I understand that. Very unfair. I understand why it still rankles after all these years.
Fair enough. We all did it to make up for our inadequate technical skill in observations. We knew what the answer was supposed to be (well some of us did). Climate scientists have not grown up from that undergraduate stage.
The lowest of the low.
80
Wot! No QED!? Well, I can understand you being miffed, but we were always taught that you did QED and then ERGO! Bad boy!
00
Ouch!
What the hell has been going on?
No wonder the Global Warming gullibles have resisted any outside examination.
The political repercussions will be extreme. All of a sudden those sceptical have an OUT. We accepted the science but it turns out that it was faked!!
Time for a detailed examination of the records followed by a retraction and a change in policy.
180
No, they won’t.
Did Peter Gleicke lose tenure from Yale? Was he prosecuted on criminal charges?
Or did he retain tenure and receive a slap on the wrist from a wet bus ticket? He had to resign from a position promoting scientific ethics, and IIRC, that was about the most onerous punishment I can recall being meted out.
(If I’m wrong, please correct me! I’m all ears. But be warned: I require verifiable proof of all assertions from reputable and accurate sources. No, the Guardian, BBC and NYT are not acceptable—they all fail the Truth Test.)
Otherwise it’s UN Corruption as Usual. Nothing to see here, move along. Yes, there may be a few mistakes but that’s all it is. They make no difference at all. So move along.
It’s not about Climate, so the data doesn’t matter. It’s all about the UN trying to scare the wits out of the ordinary citizen so it can throw Capitalism out, crush Democracy and bring in a sustainable bureaucratic totalitarian form of socialism. Socialism has been shown to not work. It’s too open to corruption featuring diversion and outright theft of money and other resources. Of course it’s popular and the replacement for Capitalism of choice. The average man can’t possibly have a say in how to run a country, it has to be done by X-spurts like Robert Mugabe.
The UN has been creating and putting into place organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Criminal Court, and advancing so-called trade treaties such as the TPP to supersede and override democratic institutions, methods and sovereignty. Wherever there’s a form of centralization, guess who?
It’s The Swamp.
240
It will be brazened out—business as usual.
130
No. The situation has changed since then as politicians are realising the failure of Green policies and the future cost required.
No longer can they shelter behind “97% of scientists agree” when they are asked “how many tropical islands can you please list that get to freezing in summer?”
Do you really believe that a ship 100 km inland is a stable figure for temperature?
No, at first they will bluster until one side realises that they are on a winner, and calls a Commission of Inquiry. The headlines will destroy the opposition.
Further, it highlights that renewables are based on fra*dulent figures and why pay out for fra*d?
80
I understand what you are saying but the politicians are moving at a glacial pace, still. They are still looking to the UN. It will take a few more years of cooling to `kick their butts into gear’ because the clamour will reach even their high thresholds. Food prices rising faster than sea levels will be the first item to rouse them. Continuing or worsening harvest may get their skates working but food shortages will definitely set off the alarms. We’re not there yet.
The Klimate priests will try to brazen it out. I agree that it’s becoming less likely to work, but they will try. So we have maybe another two or three years before things get so bad the pollies will have to have to abandon Climate Change, CAGW and the Paris Agreement in all their guises and cut free of it all.
Gutierrez is still talking about rising temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, increasing severe weather and increasing storm strength—-just last week. He’s the Secretary General, so he’s our Bellwether. When he looks panicked, the cooling will have hit home, but until then … they will try their darndest to play it all down and brazen it out.
I figure two to maybe three years more. It will be fun watching them wriggle although it won’t achieve anything, in the meantime.
130
Graeme No 3: No newspaper will write the headlines you allude to. Not yet. As long as the UN remains steadfast, so will they, right unto disaster.
90
Maybe off topic but maybe very relevant.
We will have to wait another few years for an answer.
.
There is mounting evidence that China is steadily approaching a point sometime in the next few years where it can no longer regularly feed itself as apparently with more severe and cooler / colder seasons and shorter growing seasons becoming more regular in northern China plus soil fertility problems increasing, crop failures are becoming more wide spread in China’s northern grain growing regions.
Yes, they certainly have the foriegn exchange and the political muscle to buy enough food to keep the population well fed at least for a few more years.
But if the northern Chinese grain growing regions are beginning to experience cooler to colder and shorter growing seasons the shorter growing seasons are probably the most dangerous due to first, the cold slowing plant growth and then a shorter and greater and more drastic unpredictability of the shorter growing seasons which will prevent even good crops from maturing and ripening so as to be harvestable..
.
Its a likely ditto then for Canada, a couple of the northern American corn and grain states, a good swath of Europe although that is protected by the warmth of the Gulf stream albeit the North Atlantic Oscillation has just begun to switch phase to the phase which in the past has meant much colder conditions for Europe.
So even the European grain crop tonnages might be lower and definitely will be of a lower quality as the breeders chase cold tolerance genes in place of quality genes in the european crop varieties.
.
My mentor in agricultural politics in the 1970’s , limited as that was by my choice to a decade here in Victoria, was an Australian Wheat Board grower representative [ the AWB at that time in the 50’s 60′ s and 70’s was regarded as possibly the most respected grain selling organisation in the world] Mr E.E [ Jim] Nuske ,a very good school friend of my father.
Jim Nuske told me that the worst time he ever had in his decades on the AWB board was the world grain shortage in 1973-74.
At one point they quite literally had an ambassador from a large and globally important nation on his knees in the board room begging the AWB to sell his nation some grain, grain which the AWB did not have as it had already allocated the total Australian wheat harvest of those years to other often equally food short and regular customers.
At now eight decades of age, I will likely never live to see that situation arise again in the years that remain to me but if and when it does, and initially it will be spasmodic shortages , then god help millions on this planet including the well off food wise and economically well off nations like Australia.
Most of you and it is not critical of you but experience showing here, plus the politicals of today have no inkling of the moral, ethical and economic and possibly military pressures that will be brought to bear on Australia and other food rich nations if a colder climate leads to food shortages amongst the nations and the billions of humans on this planet.
170
I have emailled some of my relatives who believe the cliamte lie.
You can only stick your head in the sand for so long, until the tide comes in, and you drown, living your foolishness to the end…..what a head stone in a cemetery that would make…here lies a stiff necked fool….no one will have any sympathy. The saddest thing is they were puppets for someone elses agenda, they had their lives hijacked and then squirted against the wall…..
40
RGM: In one of his sci-fi books Robert Heinlein described a grain-shortage situation like this.
20
Last NH winter saw winter food (Winter Vegetables) across Europe and winter grain, at greatly reduced levels, as was the winter before (2016-2017). Summer harvests weren’t too bad with not a lot of losses to late frosts at planting and early frosts at harvest.
North Korea has had drought for the last two years, so they’re on the edge. Their leadership has become very compliant in order to feed their people. The drought extends up into the NE China croplands. It’s looking scary.
The Chinese have seen this coming. Let’s face it, they have records going back nearly a couple of thousand years. so they are acutely aware of the cycles. They have been buying farmland around the globe including in Australia and New Zealand, to spread their risk.
SE South Africa had a poor harvest from drouught last summer (2017/2018). I think (but I’m not sure) low rainfall continues—I’ll have to go look again. Can’t trust the MSM: they should have been all over this but I’ve only found out about this from other sources.
David Dubyne, in his series of videos (youtube) Adapt 2030, is all over the world’s cropping and both actual and coming problems. So far mankind is getting “shots across the bows” but no big disaster yet. That is yet to come. It’s still starting to look scary. Winter in the NH is showing signs of coming early (2018/2019). A NASA scientist (I’ve lost the link, Darn) said something about the cold arriving in two to three years time, not five.
The middle years of the 1840s saw the potato blight which started in North America and crossed through Ireland and Central Europe. That was the aftermath of the Dalton Minimum (1798-1830). It had most effect on population in Ireland, triggering the Irish Diaspora. The second half of the nineteenth Century saw a huge movement of population out of Europe to the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Food security is a big driver.
I’ve `dug out’ both of Brian Fagan’s books to read what they have to say about the fringes (start and end) of the MWP and the LIA.
FAGAN, Brian, [2008],” The Great Warming, Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations” Bloomsbury Press (about 900 – 1500. There were two cooling periods in there: 1030-1080, (the Oort Minimum) and 1280 – 1350 (the Wolff Minimum).
ISBN 978-1-59691-392-9
FAGAN, Brian, [2000], “The Little Ice Age, How Climate Made History 1300-1850“,
Basic Books, 2002.
ISBN 13-978-0-465-02272-4
20
They have no control over the weather, a return to the early 1960s in Europe would scare the bejesus out of them. We then have to explain the cyclic nature of climate change.
‘…so it can throw Capitalism out, crush Democracy and bring in a sustainable bureaucratic totalitarian form of socialism.’
They don’t want to crush democracies, but they do envisage world government and the UN playing a pivotal roll. Unfortunately the organisation’s other useful activities will be blighted by the IPCC fiasco, the transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor nations, under the guise of global warming, is reprehensible.
‘Socialism has been shown to not work.’
Socialism with Chinese characteristics has been shown to work.
61
The UN openly claims to be trying to change the world’s core economics by `replacing Capitalism.’
That’s throwing Capitalism out.
No, they don’t want to crush democratic countries but Democracy as a form of government cannot live in the Sustainable world. It, too, is to go to the scrap heap. The EU system with unelected Commissioners doing all the real work and a figurehead Parliament without any balls or teeth is their desire.
Agenda 2030 is really scary.
Churchill said:
which I take to mean that all other forms of government fall short of it.
110
Socialism:
the Soviet Union: 1917-1988. RIP.
Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc etc all had to face reality (they were keen to, having had enough of Socialism, so that wasn’t so bad
NZ and Oz to had wind back their socialist aspirations but that may be more because of the World Bank than any economic structural defects. NZ has “Visiting Professors” of Economics from American Universities embedded in its Treasury and Reserve Bank to ensure we continue to “toe the line” and for them to run their experiments safely away from Wall St. Urk.
120
What Churchill actually said was ……
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
It was not an original quote though, it had been said before by another – he just repeated it, probably with his own interpretation.
90
Socialism requires brutal supression of human rights.
I wouldnt consider that a functional version of human life nor human dignity…..
100
There is no denying that China keeps a close grip on their people, who are trapped in an Orwellian world where people disappear.
You maybe a good Beijing citizen and yet still make a minor error of judgement, and out of spite the authorities take away your right to travel on very fast trains for five years. Going back to slow trains and travelling with ordinary folk is a penalty to endure.
40
The problem with that is that the Chinese mindset is required. And not all Chinese agreed with the policies (Tienanman Square is one example.) Looking at how the “peasantry” and countryside are treated, it’s fairly easy to see that the road that brand of socialism is on has survived almost only because the people were so beaten down to start with that socialist abuse was/is seen as better. It’s still a top-down, the people on the bottom, governing style, and the people mostly don’t even realize that there is any other way, it’s the cycle of life and maybe, someday, they will be born into a better one – nothing to do but accept what you have, no matter how little. Not at all something most westerners can even begin to grasp. It only works in China and a few of her satellite countries.
70
‘… nothing to do but accept what you have, no matter how little.’
Its the same everywhere, the disparity of wealth is vulgar, but that is how the system has always worked.
50
Since “vulgar” chiefly means “common”, your complaint risks falling into the populist/elitist argument. I think “offensive” or “grossly unfair” would be closer to what you mean.
In order to improve a thing, you have to be able to place it on a better/worse axis. I’d like to hear how you would quantify “vulgarity” (or offensiveness/unfairness).
30
Lacking sophistication or good taste.
Seeing a little Beijing lady driving a very large expensive black SUV in Strathfield strikes me as tasteless and vulgar.
11
Entirely subjective then? You don’t have a way to grade poor taste where you might rank little women in glossy black Hummers relative to guys wearing checked shirt AND striped ties vs. people passing the port from left to right vs people who put tomato sauce on everything vs. people who drink instant coffee, etc.?
It’s just that you’ve mentioned this vulgarity more than once in threads here and I have wondered how you decided that China rated much better than the free market capitalists. I have a feeling there are a few things go on in China that some would consider to be in poor taste.
40
‘… a few things go on in China that some would consider to be in poor taste.’
No doubt.
Traditionally we are understated, which gives the feeling of an egalitarian spirit. Its a myth of course, there are the comfortably well off and the battlers.
‘… how you decided that China rated much better than the free market capitalists.’
China today has all the trappings of any Western economy, except that they are ruthless when tendering because they have the unofficial backing of the state apparatus.
So this new form of capitalism has huge potential.
10
‘Entirely subjective then?’
Like most Australians we don’t begrudge anyone doing well, but its vulgar to flaunt it publicly.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/22/top-1-per-cent-of-australians-own-more-wealth-than-bottom-70-per-cent-combined
10
Thanks for the link; it shows that, objectively, the wealth is unevenly distributed, but it seems to be the exact opposite of the crass flaunting of wealth. There was much hunting around in figures to work out how it was distributed, and not a Hummer in sight.
I do see the traditional boundaries have been drawn — that all those wealthy doctors and lawyers are to be resented. Seems to be the usual politics of envy. Thing is that there are plenty of doctors and lawyers who struggle too. I’d bet a bunch of those recent billionaires owe more to real estate than medicine or law.
No question that the wealthiest 1% live different lives from the rest of us. Always been that way. It’s that way in China too. I’m pretty sure the “rest of us” have better lives here than in China.
00
What politician would dare claim that Global Warming requires urgent action when the scam has been exposed as based on [snip “junk”]figures?
Especially as I point out when they can claim to have believed those touting fake figures?
20
C’mon Graeme, you’re usually more realistic than that: Shorten, Plibersek, Bowen, Fitzgibbon, Bishop, Pyne, Hunt, Birmingham, Morrison, McCormack and probably Angus Taylor. In short, all but the Monash mob. They will be lining up to ignore it and then waiting for the Chief Scientist to explain how it’s all only a student’s project and it carries no weight, and worse yet … Peter Ridd was behind it.
Then Your ABC will go to town on it full-tilt on every program they can muster; trot out Flannery, Steffen, di Natale and a couple of other leftie crocks on Q&A to do a hatchet job on the report.
The carpet will be lifted and the sweeping under thereof will be completed. Problem solved.
If you can’t convince the Oz public and politicians of dodgy BOM practices with examples like the Thredbo minimum fiasco, the Rutherglen scam, the re-writing of cyclone intensity categories etc — stuff happening in their own back yard — what chance do you think you have when the evidence is in England? They will yawn and move on, as always. What is big news to the folks at this site is nothing to Mr & Mrs Average.
180
I agree. Futile with nil impact. Short of the IPCC throwng its collective hands in the air and declaring it all was a stunt nothing will eventuate.Temperatures are declining now and the effects wll be obvious to all.It’s not going to be nice.
40
The so called Climate Science isn’t even false. To be false, it only has to contradict what actually is. There is no connection between the temperature data and reality. It is nothing but a huge set of numbers. Pidgin droppings on statues would be a better representation than the numerical garbage that has been used to steal trillions of wealth from those who create it.
230
Yep, The Science is Settled.
It’s Rubbish, Trash and assorted Crap.
150
I love it, Lionell. It isn’t even “is” to have a meaning in the first place.
Oops, that was someone else I think.
50
Agreed. I am not the first to make that kind of observation but I have found it a polite way to express total disdain for a presumed scientific position that is so far from science to be located outside the known or knowable universe.
The “it isn’t even wrong” concept first statement is attributed to Wolfgang Pauli.
From: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
80
I was thinking of Bill Clinton and his statement, “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.” I should maybe have said, it isn’t even an “is” to have a meaning in the firs place.
But you said it much better than I ever could.
Either way though. Some arguments are so bad that the person who made the argument should wear a bag over their head when out in public in fear of being recognized. I would be embarrassed.
50
But but but… “A small group of Kiwi scientists is attempting to construct the ultimate crystal ball—a mathematical model of the Earth’s natural systems so intricate that it can predict the behaviour of our atmosphere, land and seas, human industry and biological production, far into the future. Behold, the New Zealand Earth System Model [part of] the multimillion-dollar Deep South Challenge, one of 11 government-funded National Science Challenges… that will help fill the gaps in global climate knowledge” [bold mine]. From NZ Geographic, Mar-Apr 2017.
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/esm/
“We have a major cloud problem,” says NIWA’s Olaf Morgenstern. “The reason climate models aren’t matching observations isn’t very clear… New Zealand, however, isn’t building its own model from scratch. We’re harnessing a powerful climate model from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office [ ! ] The portrayal of climate science as being still under debate has nothing to do with reality,” Morgenstern says. “The reality is that 99 per cent of the science community is of the view that humans are warming the planet… If you dispute that, you don’t understand what you’re talking about”.
I dispute that! 99 or 97 or 0.03 – which is it to be? There’s too much vested interest and personal gain to be made from these hordes of gamers and players and concerned climate communicators (CCC) and money shufflers and media tycoons and the UN, and folk simply trying to pay down their mortgages, to worry about a widdle spaling mstake, or a frozen tropical isle, or life before 1979, or data, or history [trigger warning!] because. Besides, it all reminds me too much of Peter Sellers’ bumbling, satirical, 1959 film, The Mouse That Roared –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7L7WLFBYR4
70
Greg in NZ quoted Morgenstern of NIWA:
Whew. They’re going to continue getting it totally wrong. That’s the only part of NIWA’s predictions which is consistent and can be relied on. The UKMO keeps getting the UK weather so wrong so consistently, they are replacing their supercomputer every few years. They still haven’t worked out that all that does is produce the wrong result faster.
Now, if they had bought into Piers Corbyn’s model, I would be worried: they would be in great danger of getting their weather forecasting right far more often. That would really throw the farmers off who are used to taking NIWA’s forecasts and doing the opposite.
100
Don’t I recall that BOM also bought software from UK Met?
Same model?
30
“We have a major cloud problem, …”
He should know since he comes from NZ, long known as “the land of the long white cloud ” -:)
50
““The reason climate models aren’t matching observations isn’t very clear… ” no kidding! I wonder why..looks around sideways..
30
Update on NIWA’s majick crystal ball(s)hit –
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12138885
My very pleasant day’s work was rudely interrupted by hearing THAT voice on the radio this afternoon: Jim ‘New Zealand climate scientist and deputy editor of Climatic Change’ Salinger – he of UK HadCrud™ temperature ‘cooking show’ infamy – still prattling away with his 2 degrees of nonsense. On finding a related article (now I’m home, in boardshorts, with a cold one, in the warm sun), the man is full-monty IPCC fan-boy believer-preacher take-no-prisoners zealot –
Professor emeritus of chemical engineering at the University of Auckland, Dr Geoff Duffy “claims that water vapour is the most important GHG… This is incorrect… 2018 is heading to be one of the warmest years in records back to 1867.” Then a waffle about methane and laughing gas and, well, that was me… I got things to do.
Incorrigible b’sturds… yet they get all the media.
20
Difficult and all as it is to believe, sadly i doubt any politician will apply themselves to such a degree that would lead them to an understanding of the ramifications.
After all, Climategate didn’t seem to spark much thinking in any of them.
It may be time to bring out Jennifer’s Rutherglen paper again and using McLean’s revelations as a backdrop, perhaps someone in power somewhere might just be motivated to expose what is IMO the greatest scientific fraud in history.
I am not a scientist(far from it) and i didn’t understand much of Jennifer’s paper, nonetheless it was clear to me that “absurd” was an apt description of what the BOM did in Rutherglen.
Do we have a hero within our political ranks? Someone who is prepared to spend 3 or 4 hours (that is all it would take) to get to grips with this, announce an impartial enquiry and blow the whole sham sky high.
100
We could be in with a chance with Craig Kelly, the Liberal member for Hughes. He has a good layman’s understanding of the climate scam and has shown a willingness to prosecute it.
70
No surprise here. Remember Tony Heller found all the NASA data had been ‘fiddled’ to increase present warming and reduce past heat as in the 1930s ‘dustbowl’ period. The whole earth data is bogus well made bogus by so called ‘adjustments’.
141
Fake science.
60
It was obvious they were fiddling the books when the so-called Nuclear Winter that I lived through from 1943 to 1978 disappeared from the global data set. It was so cold that at least 97% of scientists were agreeing the the world was sliding into a new ice age. And so convinced were they, that oil companies started to design ice breaking tankers to bring oil from the Middle East to Rotterdam, London and New York; I have worked with people who did this. Then warming started up again in 1978, and Global Warming was launched, but warming itself fizzled out by 1998, so the battle cry became Climate Change, and now Sustainability. Global Warming is in theory a measurable quantity, if the data are accurately collected and curated, the other two terms are not – which makes them perfect for the spread of disinformation aka propaganda. Why if it is so clear to MacLean and others, do supporters of the AGW consensus persist, against the facts, in pushing their barrow? Could it be they have a political agenda?
131
Just to make you smile a little at all those old 1970’s memories of what was to come and wonder at the similarity of the language to today’s climate vernacular and perhaps feel a little trepidation as to might yet be in the not so distant future.
And at the rampant denialism of the climate catastrophe believers who in blog after blog commentary claim that the whole global cooling scare of the 1970’s was limited to one or two articles and has been severely exaggerated by today’s skeptics.
A claim by the believers and acolytes of the climate change faith as can be seen by the references supplied of the relevant 1970’s media articles supplied is not only not right, it is so bigoted and biased and bad that it is not even wrong.
Popular Technology. net;
1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
40
This is going global – except on the MSM:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/07/damning-audit-climate-change-scare-based-on-unreliable-data/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/07/35779/#comment-121343
80
Phillip, what are the odds that President Trump will pick up on this? If he does and if he mentions it the MSM won’t be able to ignore it. That will give them a dilemma: ignore Trump or report it.
C’mon DJT… Make Auditing Great Again!!
10
So it’s not a surprise that the data isn’t real? Why even the science isn’t real. Fake data, fake science, fake conclusions.
120
From fake scientists.
30
Since the 117F for Melbourne in 1851 was used as an example, it’s worth looking at the first BoM Climate Data Online temps in the city for evidence of another early temperature distortion perhaps overlooked by McLean.
Those months are May and June of 1855. Convert them back from Celsius to Fahrenheit and look at the decimals recorded by the first observers at BoM Regional Office, presumably one of the most professionally maintained in Australia then and now.
x.0 – 22
x.1 – 2
x.2 – 0
x.3 – 5
x.4 – 7
x.5 – 1
x.6 – 1
x.7 – 1
x.8 – 1
x.9 – 21
36.1% of the F recordings were rounded .0, almost certainly more because many of the 21 x.9F temps were also x.0 but don’t convert to 0 because of the inaccuracies of single decimal conversions. There’s nothing special about May and June 1855 at Melbourne RO … they’re just examples of what happened across Australia for the following 117 years.
It’s likely that more than 50% of all temps were recorded as whole numbers, which is typical of recordings in the early days. When the BoM calculated decimals at 94 of the ACORN weather stations between 1957 and 1971 (the year prior to metrication), it found 51.5% were rounded x.0F. Examples: Bourke pre 1972 = 95.6% rounded; Wilson Prom pre 1972 = 92.2% rounded; Cape Bruny pre 1972 = 89.6% rounded. et cetera.
If you fantasise that all the observers were so diligent they rounded 50% of their temp recordings up and 50% down, no problem because the averages won’t be affected. In reality, it’s almost certain that many observers simply looked at the thermometer scale and saw 62 point something or other, for example, and wrote it as 62. These probably included a fair few .6, .7 and maybe even higher, because 62.0 is sort of accurate and honest, but 63.0 … well, the precise temperature doesn’t even start with 63!
The BoM did three different tests to calculate the influence of all this rounding and concluded there was a 0.1C warming break point in 1972. However, the bureau decided to ignore this and not include the anomaly in its ACORN homogenisation because there were major La Nina events in 1973-74 and 1975-76, and because the five years after 1972 were the wettest ever with 1973, 1974 and 1975 having the highest cloud cover recorded between 1957 and 2008.
So La Ninas with record rainfall and cloud cover probably caused the temperatures to naturally warm by 0.1C. Seriously? Downward temperature rounding by observers before 1972 metrication almost certainly caused a 0.1 to 0.3 C artificial cooling of Australia’s historic climate record, and the same is true of the many other countries that changed from F to C in the 1970s.
Of course, then there’s the unresolved question of a warming influence from one second readings by electronic Automatic Weather Stations introduced since the 1990s, compared to the temperature reaction time of mercury in glass.
So in Australia we’re comparing well over 50% of temperatures before 1972 recorded as rounded .0, almost certainly a majority rounded down, with one second digital readings since the 1990s, and neither influence is included in the homogenised adjustments that are supposed to correct artificial influences.
101
Why am I not surprised to find that the IPCC is not “light on science” but actually has None?
I’ve been suspicious ever since Donna Laframboises’ analysis of the IPCC some six or so years ago, but gave them some benefit of the doubt. Betrayed. They weren’t even worth that. Of course, when there no science, it’s always settled: nothing. Zero, nada, zip. Zero divided by zero is zero, plus 0 and multiplied by zero, it’s still zero and when zero is subtracted we still have zero. The IPCC’s magical Science Constant is Zero.
The IPCC is a Science Free Zone (SFZ) and I’m not going to forget it.
90
The only science the IPCC ever had was going on at the Climate Research Center at East Anglia University. And Climate Gate 1 exposed them so long ago I’ve forgotten the year.
90
Just before the Copenhagen Conference, 2008?
40
The straw man – global temperatures (NOT) correlated with mans increased CO2 emissions – is falling over.
As for response? Nada as happened with the ’emails’ from the same institution (HCRUT) back a few years.
60
This is why I regret not seeking out more badly sited Stevenson screens while on our winter migration .
Trillions of dollars involved in the CAGW industry lead me to believe they can afford the best spin doctors money can buy , but it worries me that given past form they will attack the messenger first.
51
I hope John McLean’s future career doesn’t suffer as a result of bringing the duff data into the sunlight!
120
Buy multiple copies of his ebook !
(Boyle publishers
20
Have done and when finished I will present it to a colleague for perusal.Revelations of OZ adjustments at Rutherglen and Bourke were dismissed.Chipping away at a brainwashed mind is serious work!
20
No more proof is needed to show the alarmists are scam artists pure and simple and that arrest warrants should be issued to the leaders who are blatantly perpetrating what has to be the biggest scam of all time costing the world trillions.
81
[…] according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate […]
40
jo – just saying…Alaska is a State, not a country, so not sure what was meant by ‘while other countries are not even countries – like “Alaska”’. excuse me if I’m missing something.
since Climategate, I haven’t believed a word about CAGW. all it took to open my eyes was reading a bunch of emails.
thanks to Anthony Watts drawing attention to UHI, Tony Heller’s revelations re NASA GISS, plus the work of Jennifer Mahorasy, Lance Pidgeon, Jo and David, etc etc, I’m not even a sceptic.
it’s simply a power/money-grabbing scam that needs to be stopped, by any peaceful means necessary.
have you, or anyone else, sent John McLean’s work to Graham Lloyd, Jo? as good a place as any to start trying to get it into the MSM.
110
So the thousands of uni students studying climate science over the decades never once did any of their own research.
Never fact checked the data,checked old newspapers, books, nothing.
The teachers didn’t bother either, easier to take the money and tow the line.
Wow, bright sparks.
Duds, the lot of them
100
7 Oct: RealClimateScience: Tony Heller: Plummeting September Temperatures In The US
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/10/plummeting-september-temperatures-in-the-us-4/
60
Climate Depot/Marc Morano:
Scandal: First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/07/scandal-first-ever-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
80
IPCC/Hadcrut/NOAA are credible and therefore must be believed, as it only confirms what is known anyhow.
Global warming is not on trial here.
We can’r take the risk of allowing temperature abusers on the court….
Oh, dear, I’m so confused…
Let me go back to my political masters to find out what I’m supposed to believe and demonstrate about today.
And If I need to wear my special hat.
Where would the world be if I weren’t here to save it. All these old pale gents are awful except for the ones telling me what to do.
30
John Maclean mentions that there was only 12% coverage of the Earths Surface covered in 1861. Earlier this year downloaded the HADCRUT4 data set. This divides the globe is divided into 5 by 5 degree grid cells, making 2592 grid cells in total. The coverage I believe is based upon a reading in each gridcell. I then looked at the coverage by year by 8 bands of latitude, from the 0-25 (the Tropics + a bit) to the 75-90 (the Arctic & Antarctic + a bit)
The chart post is here and the main chart is below.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/hadcrut4-latitude-data-cover-prop-of-zone.png
Note that
– Southern Hemisphere coverage is less than Northern Hemisphere coverage particularly pre-1950.
– Antarctica has never achieved 20% coverage in any year and now has just over 10%.
– The Arctic and Antarctic have seasonal differences in coverage.
Gridcell coverage It sounds a lot. Adjacent to a pole (85-90N or 85-90S) the area is quite small – about 13,500 Km2 (my estimate) – so that would be quite good. But at the equator I estimate the area to be about 310,000 km2. That is larger than Victoria (238,000 km2) or New Zealand (268,000 km2)
60
Kevin,
You just reminded me of a question I’ve asked before. What is the meaning of an “average temperature” in the first place? And the point was that an average only applies to a large population.
Example: over many years doctors have measured the body temperature of many healthy people and found it to average 98.6 °F. But if you measure a healthy individual selected at random what you get can fall in a range at least a whole degree wide if not more around that average. Is anyone whose temperature is 97.8 (me) sick?
Never mind but it illustrates my point. 😉
So what does the average temperature of the area covered by one gridcell mean? What does the average temperature of the Earth mean? It’s an even more foolish number when applied to the whole planet because there will be daily temperature variations at different places that differ wildly from each other.
For a long time I’ve thought it was a misuse of statistics to talk about average temperatures.
90
Roy
Like any average an average temperature tries to extract essential bits of information. Tomorrow (today in Australia) the IPCC will produce its report on the impacts of global average temperature rising by more than 1.5C since 1850, or about 0.5C above current. To put this in context compare London’s with Chicago’s (Midway Airport) Climate data from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#Climate
Temperatures in Celsius
Average mean L 11.3 C 10.8.
Ave High July L 23.8 C 29.0
Ave Low January L 2.3 C -7.7
Mean annual high less mean annual low L 38 C 59
So if mean average temperature rose in Chicago to those of London today, would the average Chicago resident really notice much difference. Compared with London today, it would still be perishing in Winter and scorching hot in summer.
It is not necessarily extremes that matter. Take Kirkwall in Orkney. Since 1951 record high is 25.6, record low -7.8. But the rain is more often horizontal than vertical and sunshine hours average 1172 per annum, against 1633 in London.
30
Kevin,
I’m not sure but I think you just agreed with me using a different argument!?
I’ve seen horizontal rain and I’ve seen it come down so hard I couldn’t see the closest other building to me, about 30 or 35 feet tops. You can drown in that I think — Saigon, 1962 and ’63.
60
Roy,
I certainly do agree with you.
With global average temperatures there are especial issues. It an estimated average looking at small changes over long periods with poor data, and variable coverage. Even if the data series was constructed to the highest standards, with proper checking of the data, it would still be a poor estimate. See my comment 14.1.1 at October 7, 2018 at 11:47 pm.
50
It is not just the past data that are a mess. Last week I had ice on ponds and had to scrape ice of my windshield. The official over night low for my location was 52 degrees F. This happens all the time.
80
Let me guess – the weather was clear and the wind still. And your “location” with the 52F isn’t near to your property. Given that you have ponds, there’s a good chance you are in a locally low area with superb radiational cooling.
60
We had a radiation cooling a few days ago.
We are at 2,240 feet elevation.
Killed the last of the garden – squash, most okay
but some a little green.
All that CO2 above us didn’t do its job.
Perhaps there is a hole in the CO2 layer!
60
John F. Hultquist @ # 42.1.1
“Perhaps there is a hole in the CO2 layer!”
Love it!
The perfect verbal grab in a gossip session whenever we get a cold spell and are freezing our proverbials off.
Sarcasm as they say is the lowest form of wit which is well used when it is directed at the rabid climate change ideology acolytes.
30
When the temperature record was checked,
The audit found much incorrect,
Substandard, second-rate,
Now a headline ‘Data Gate’,
Which the I.P.C.C. must reject.
100
Wasn’t it Phil Jones comment “Why should I give you my data? Your just going to look for mistakes.” (I am sure it is paraphrased.)
Well, duh…………
110
Be fair.
That’s one prediction he got right.
110
And the one he should have welcomed, not dodged.
60
For years I’ve been calling it HadCRUD for the unrealistic temperature and trend it portrayed, I’m glad to see my suspicions have been validated.
Three cheers for Dr John McLean and his personal fortitude in uncovering this pile of utter ineptitude.
Hip,hip — hurray!
Hip,hip — hurray!
Hip,hip — hurray! 🙂
140
Well, you did promise big news!
This is tremendous news!
Excellent job John McLean! And JoNova!
90
Indeed it is. Now all we need is arrest warrants to be issued for the leaders of the biggest scam of all time. I’m not joking.
130
Man fined for dud doomsday warning
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/man-fined-for-dud-doomsday-warning/story-fn6ck55c-1226080950490
40
HADCUT4 = Highly Unconvincing Data Confirming Unfeasible Theory 4
50
So it really is worse than we thought and we didn’t think that much of it anyway.
70
‘Makin’ up data the old hard way,
Fudgin’ the numbers day by day,
…..
70
Hide The Decline
https://youtu.be/WMqc7PCJ-nc
70
I was waiting for that!
50
Well we all know what will happen now !!!(at least in Aus) with this “bombshell”of poor and ridiculous data IT WILL JUST BE IGNORED.It will be ignored by the MSM,
the ABC and of course the current Government.And this’ll be especially so because todays really important news will be the latest bit of scare mongering (another report) brought to you by the IPCC.Because like I have said before the sheople are more brainwashed by phrases like Climate Change and Paris Accord and that mesmerising word Emmissions.So anything real like poor data or the lack thereof will not really register in the minds of most of the (scientifically illiterate) public.Because I’m sorry to
say we’ve seen what happened before with data adjustments at Rutherglen fiasco.There were calls then for an audit of the BOM and what happened then? Well the same
hero(the Honourable minister for the Environment and later for Science) who signed us up to the Paris Accord stepped in and overruled such an audit on the grounds that
the BOM’s trust and integrity would be compromised “and so forth an so on”like the famous American satirist Kurt Vonnegut would say.
Cheers Mike Reed
60
When it has always been clear that data is insufficient, and moreover that lumping min and max without regard to cloud, precip, wind etc leads to fatal distortions…why did anybody bother to try out this scam? Why should we bother improving on it now? You don’t pay to fix a busted Ford Pinto or Yugo.
Temps can only go up or down. If they’ve been going up lately, presently they’ll head down. How else can they go? Sideways? Loop the loop?
Meanwhile, let’s occupy ourselves with what we can know without pretending to precision. By all means, draw pictures and representations – no need to be puritans about it – but lay out the doubts and limits, recall the written history, apply commonsense. And there is no commonsense in treating a day with a low max/high min as if it were the same as a day with no cloud but with the same final “temperature”. Statistics don’t have to be ridiculous…they just usually are.
100
John McLean–You are a true scientist. I hope you can find a way to a fulfilling career.
And Jo, you have really done a service in making this more widely available.
I look forward to my copy.
81
Support John McLean financially (he is sure to lose his job).
Pay for multiple copies of his ebook.
And don’t onforward any copies that you haven’t paid for.
70
Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-airtemp-data.shtml
It’s worse than we first thought!
40
Indeed it is. The CAGW story a deliberate scam being perpetrated by certain leaders and that’s that. The public have been fooled for so long now coughing up so much money to make certain people very rich while making absolutely no difference to the climate. If that’s not a scam then Bernard Madoff is innocent and should be released from prison immediately.
60
As I understand, Zeller,etal has recently declared a discovery which permits calculation of global warming temperature for any planet within 1 degree C, needing only two things to do that, (1) distance from sun, and (2)atmospheric pressure at the surface of the planet. co2 plays no different a role than any other gas.
Why not compare both satellite and Zeller’s global calculation of temperature with the results derived from existing dubious surface and water temperatures and the subsequent machinations which provide global temperature?
60
Excellent line of research.
00
Peer reviewed?
23
His PhD thesis was peer reviewed as per normal.
50
In March and April, just for challenge, I attempted to calculate the HADCRUT4 temperature anomaly from the downloaded data. I created a comparison with the actual HADCRUT4 and, I believe, came pretty close. I graphed a comparison, so people can judge for themselves.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/hadcrut-4-recon.jpg
My calculation takes all the data into account. There are 2692 5×5 gridcells for each month of data. With 2000 months of data that makes about 5.2 million data points. But as Ian Mclean points out, there is poor data coverage. See my chart at #41. A consequence is the averaging process. My calculation was based on averaging the 72 grid cells for each band 5 degree band of latitude for each month of data. If there was no data across that band of latitude then there was no calculation. Potentially is only needed one gridcell to be filled in one month for an anomaly to be calculated. This could be quite serious in the Arctic where there has been a number of degrees of warming in the past 50 years as there is far more data in the Summer than in the Winter. If the Winter warming is much less than the Summer warming then this can create serious biases in the data sets.
In the post below, I looked at a lot more data, including charting the HADCRUT4 data by 8 bands of latitude, to the NASA Gistemp banda of latitude. There are some remarkable differences.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2018/04/21/does-data-coverage-impact-the-hadcrut4-and-nasa-giss-temperature-anomalies/
60
Why 7 years when calculating your average? Climate is 30 years after all? Also in regard to the lack of data points. Given that the climate is an average of 30 years, any representation is only going to give a trend, and that trend because of the statistical treatment (rolling average in this case) will only give you a relative trend. A T-test suggests that there is a statistical difference in spite of the alleged paucity of data
11
Peter,
The 7 year average is used to eliminate some of year-on-year noise.
Whilst a t-test might suggest a statistical difference between say the Post 1975 warming and the Early Twentieth century warming, one should remember that any statistical test is only the data. If the data is not an unbiased representation of the underlying reality then a statistical test will not be properly commenting on that underlying reality. John McLean’s audit strongly indicates that there are statistical biases in the data.
20
I do agree with the question of the reliability of data. However that is the data we have, and there are other statistical methods to determine its quality. I mentioned the t-test as it is a fundamental method in 1st year Statistics. If that test returns a positive result then it is worthwhile to bring more tools to refine the answer. In this case, you would be looking to resolve the hypothesis of if the observed change is outside a standard deviation. If yes, then you would look for a causal driver. Now that driver could be anything, but you can also use the same methodology to ascribe values to any nominated driver. This is the exact opposite to 99% of the debate normally seen on this topic
10
Peter
The data we have has been used to create an estimate of global average temperature anomalies since 1850. It is clearly not the best that could possibly created as John McLean’s audit clearly indicates. Attributing causes to the changes before sorting out these issues could be grossly misleading. Take the very top level of breakdown of HADCRUT4. It consists of a combination of Ocean and Land data. Earlier this year I charted the two against the combined.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/hadley-global-land-ocean-7yr.jpg
Since 1900 there have been two warming phases. In the early C20th and post 1975. The combined data clearly shows the later warming phase is larger than the earlier one. But the ocean warming (70% of the globe) was about the same in the two periods. The marginal difference is from land-based warming from 30% of the globe.
This suggests to me a data issue, as I cannot think of any clear reason for the difference in basic physics why land should warm at a similar rate to the oceans pre-WW2, and quicker than the oceans post WW2.
The same issue is in the NOAA data set. If anyone wants to check the results, or chart the differently, I provide the links in my post on the subject.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2018/04/01/hadcrut4-crutem4-and-hadsst3-compared/
00
I don’t see a mention of bias in the lead article. Data errors will affect the interpretation of the data in some manner but from what is presented above, and it is just an interpretation of a summary report we are looking at, not actual analysis and data, the simplest hypothesis is that these errors would increase the error estimates.
24
Gee Aye,
The bias I am referring to is not political bias, but statistical bias. HADCRUT is only an estimate based on limited data. If there are errors in the data, or if that data is poorly processed, then it will bias the results compared to what could be achieved without those errors.
If I remember my econometrics course correctly, error estimates are based on assumptions. One of these is that any sample statistic being tested is an statistically unbiased estimate of what it would be with perfect information.
10
Error estimates are calculated form the variablity in the data, adjusted for the number of measurements. This is basic statistics.
10
Kevin… you are wrong actually. Bias and error are different things. An outcome can be different with poor data but not necessarily due to bias. You can use the word “bias” if you wish to point out that the bad data has resulted in a particular outcome but it is not bias in the statistical sense.
00
Even with all the issues the HADCRUT4 data set, I still believe it to be better than the NASA GISTEMP. That might be like saying the 1980s Lada Riva was a better car than a Trabant available to the citizens of the GDR.
An aside for demonstration.
Why do I believe the NASA GISTEMP is worse?
First is that HADCRUT has standardized versions. You can track the revisions. There is some sort of audit trail from one version to the next. GISTEMP is constantly being updated. Climate4you has a tracker on the adjustments in the lat 10 years.
Second is that a few years ago GISTEMP decided to go global by extrapolating from other data. An extreme example is for Antarctica. There were no permanent bases in Antarctica until the 1950s, so no continuous data sets.
So how could GISTEMP produce a temperature anomaly for 64S-90S from 1880? The nearest available data set was at Base Orcadas (in what used to be called the South Orkney Islands) at 66°34′S.
Not only was there massive cooling until 1930 – in contradiction to the global trend. Yet comparing the Base Orcadas data to the NASA GISTEMP 64S-90S data it is very similar.
Post 1960 the temperature anomaly for Antarctica was nothing like that at Base Orcadas. The temperature station clearly has very peculiar temperature trends owing to exposed and very isolated position, so should never has been used as a proxy for other areas.
It is significant, as for 64N-90N there was similar warming of 2C from 1880 to 1940 as from 1975 to present. But the proxy data to 64S-90S cancels out the Arctic warming from 1900 to 1930. Compare for yourselves at
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/05/24/base-orcadas-as-a-proxy-for-early-twentieth-century-antarctic-temperature-trends/
20
This is just the excuse the PM needs to ditch the Paris Accord and get the money back we’ve paid, also Finkel has to be sacked along with any other Govt Scientists that have gone along with this charade.
Surely due diligence would have been done instead of just accepting the work of another Scientist or organisation or is it a case that it had to be true because they told me so .
41
We first need a politician with gumption to call for an audit of BoM data manipulation, only then can we explain why Hadcrut is flawed and global warming a farce.
30
Nice one!
Charge your glasses!
Climate Change Hits Germany, and Winemakers Couldn’t Be Happier
“Of course, climate change brings challenges, but these challenges are manageable,” Braunewell said in an interview.
“We can’t stick our heads in the sand.
It’s nature, and you have to deal with it.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-22/german-winemakers-expect-a-bumper-crop-thanks-to-climate-change
CO2-induced horror: “British growers raise a glass to a record red wine harvest..Long, hot summer creates ideal conditions for pinot noir vineyards from Kent to Wales”
British growers raise a glass to a record red wine harvest
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/06/uk-record-red-wine-harvest-pinot-noir
2018 ‘a cracker of a year’ for South Australian wine
“The longer warm, sunny conditions of the ripening days and the cool nights has made the quality exceptional,” Lisa Bennier, business manager of the Wine Grape Council of South Australia, said.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-04-11/2018-cracker-year-for-south-australian-wine/9639058
Cheers , CO2!
40
I brought up one example a few years ago as well as other reasons for why the global averages must be bogus and I’m still stunned at what a proper audit picks up.
BOM showed a circle of extremely high temperatures in WA. It had only one station in the middle but that station had much more than half the monthly data missing during the base period. In fact barely any data. I looked at GISS and it had data for that period. I was a bit confused until I realised the Giles data from 200 km away was used. What was weird was that despite accidentally having the exact same data for the only two stations in hundreds kilometers of the region, it was still homogenised. I brought it up at wuwwt replying to Mosher. No reply but Warburton was removed.
60
“Why wasn’t this done years ago?”
Because they were too busy with “hide the decline”, eliminating the medieval warm period, and massaging the ‘data’ into hockey stick shape.
People deceitfully manipulating data to support an ideological agenda, are certainly not going to care at all about the quality of original data before they inject their own lies.
In my experience habitual liars don’t even understand the concept of Truth. And yes, I *am* referring to specific cultural entities.
50
I’m not paying $8 to read a distillation of a PhD thesis.
Please, where is the thesis lodged and what institution granted John McLean a PhD?
thanks.
25
Put your nose out of joint hasn’t it 🙂 Too lazy to follow a few simple steps ?
It is $8 Australian for the full report.
If you want the thesis, this is CURRENTLY freely downloadable from JCU.
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/jcu/3EEE19904EEB05089D5676FF4150A41F.html
Since JCU vilified the person the thesis is dedicated to, Bob Carter, former Head of Geology JCU, and fired McLean’s supervisor Peter Ridd, for the blasphemy of casting doubt on the veracity of alarmism regarding the GBR, there is obviously a risk that they will disappear this document as well. I will be maintaining a watch on the link and, as an alumnus, will lodge a formal complaint if this happens.
140
Thanks.
30
Excellent!
Thanks Martin.
Gee Aye,say “thank you”. Now you can fun reading the thesis and save $8.
40
yeah thanks, although I got it from the person who posted it earlier.
Who pays $8 for something you can get for free and free of fluff?
02
See comment #7.1.1 Oct. 7 at 8:12 pm
10
You people should be ashamed of yourself ! First you destroy Santa , then it’s the Easter Bunny and now the IPCC .
At least give me the Tooth Fairy because I do after all barrack for Collingwood .
70
Barracking for the Colliewobbles…..you need a medal….
41
Joanne, well researched, well organized, and well written. My thanks to you for you unending efforts to right the ship of climate fools …
Best to you and yours,
w.
140
I must have missed it. Where is the research?
28
McLean did the research, you must have missed it. Don’t worry, look over there, the IPCC want a return to Medieval society.
‘A special report released today by the world’s main climate change body says “rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” are needed.’ Oz
90
Stated in Main points: “Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.”
There is no letter “U” in the name of the South American nation of Colombia.
Dang. I thought I picked up all those@! – Jo
20
John McClean dedicates his thesis to Bob Carter and Peter Ridd.
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/1/52041-mclean-2017-thesis.pdf
70
excellent@!
15
Best you don’t read it ah gee after all finding out your whole belief system is based on a lie might be too big a shock for you to bear .
101
almost no-one lived in Delhi a century-and-a-half ago, which is just one of many problems with the following, which is being carried by most Indian MSM, plus Yahoo India:
7 Oct: NewKerala: Catastrophic warning: Delhi’s average temperature spikes 1 degree, Kolkata 1.2 degrees
by Vishal Gulati, IANS
The average temperature in the national capital increased by one degree Celsius, by 0.7 degree in Mumbai, 0.6 degree in Chennai and 1.2 degrees in Kolkata in over a century-and-a-half.
These startling revelations by Britain-based CarbonBrief came when all eyes are on South Korea as scientists discuss stricter cuts on emissions. Its newly-developed web app calculates the average rise in your city and regional temperature since 1871…
A New Climate Economy report released last month says benefits from moving towards a low carbon economy could be as high as $26 trillion through to 2030 when compared with business as usual…
This means that weaning off coal and fossil fuels could not only help reduce carbon emissions and help limit the global temperature rise but also result in economic benefits.
The report finds that bold climate action could generate over 65 million new low-carbon jobs in 2030, equivalent to today’s entire work forces of Britain and Egypt combined.
“Typhoons and floods are not new, but we are seeing a broader pattern of more severe and more frequent extreme weather events,” United Nations Environment Executive Director Erik Solheim has said…
https://www.newkerala.com/news/read/54900/catastrophic-warning-delhis-average-temperature-spikes-1-degree-kolkata-12-degrees.html
11 Sept: OutlookIndia: ‘India, China driving global energy market transition’
by Vishal Gulati, IANS
(Vishal Gulati is in San Francisco at the invitation of Climate Trends to cover the Global Climate Action Summit)
San Francisco: Emerging markets India and China are driving growth in energy demand and choosing renewables over fossil fuels. Both are already choosing solar and wind over fossil fuels, a new report said on Tuesday.
Globally, the rapid growth of clean technologies will see fossil fuel demand peak in the 2020s, putting trillions at risk for unsavvy investors oblivious to the speed of the unfolding energy transition, said the Carbon Tracker report released here…
The report was released in the run-up to the three-day Global Climate Action Summit here from September 12…
By 2020, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels in every major region of the world, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency…
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/india-china-driving-global-energy-market-transition/1381112
40
“By 2020, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels in every major region of the world…”
——————-
So funny. Two years ago they said renewables were already cheaper than fossil fuels in every major region of the world.
Here’s a hint: If or when renewables actually do become cheaper, there will be no need for government subsidies. Private business always goes for the lowest cost that can deliver the same or better production.
Here’s my prediction: Two years from now they’ll still be predicting that renewables will be cheaper than fossils within two years.
130
What were they thinking? They were thinking they had a good thing going and the suckers were too gullible to check. Governments and a lot of people might believe it with all their hearts, but the IPCC and all the other people running this scam never believed it from day one.
70
“Typhoons and floods are not new, but we are seeing a broader pattern of more severe and more frequent extreme weather events,” Not from CO2 your NOT! (Statement is untrue anyway from statistics)
Important video on how the SUN is our weather ‘god’. INCLUDING extreme events. Which are NOT caused by a trace gas.
This is a must watch. NOTE: not all theories are absolutely correct in any way. But, Statistical processes and very strong correlations are very strong indicators of causation. Its all in the DATA! NOT the theory.
https://suspicious0bservers.org/
Very good presentation by Ben Davidson. here.[Energy from space https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3929&v=nsqZJP54shg%5D Must watch. Forget all the other rubbish about causes of earthquakes, storms, general extreme events. Its from the major CMEs that we should worry about. The correlations are pretty convincing. Also there have been a number of papers published (as cited in the video) correlating CME (coronal mass ejections) and flares to extreme weather events. Not to mention the power outages. Also including weakening magnetic fields to cosmic ray increases.
There is nothing humans can do about it. Dont tell an alarmist.
30
not wanting to depress anyone further, but…
listen to about 6mins audio, beginning around 7min15sec (just click on the bars about half-way along):
IPCC report/Paris.
PM Scott Morrison, paraphrasing:
when Australia signs up to something, puts its word to something, it means something. important to our partners in the Pacific. It’s not going to effect electricity prices. Angus Taylor has said that too. it’s not going to touch electricity prices, & it’s not going to touch one job. we’re investing in the Reef to ensure that’s secure. Tasmania can be Australia’s battery.
AUDIO: 15min23secs: 8 Oct: 2GB: Alan Jones Show: Interview with PM Scott Morrison
https://www.2gb.com/its-not-as-though-theyre-painting-it-on-there-pm-supports-opera-house-promotion/
50
Wait until the audit of global temperature arrives on the desks of the politicians.
I can’t wait for the excuses they come up with.
50
I think they will close eyes and bury it fast! And just ‘carry on sergeant nothing to see here..’
10
I read somewhere that the BOM truncated rather than rounded the temperature conversions, Deg F to Deg C, in the early 1970s when Australia went metric. If that is so, a negative .25 deg C bias would be introduced to the trend prior to that period increasing the positive slope of the full trend. It was of no real concern then as the CAGW scare had not arrived and it was fit for purpose at the time. Also considering that the measurement accuracy was most likely +/- 1 deg F or greater any way. Computing power and speed as well as available memory and the use the results were to be put to would have made this a reasonable proposition. It does not indicate malfeasance in any way. That came later.
When you consider that it is claimed that the average global temperature has increased by 0.8 deg C since the mid 1800s, tipping the temperature series trend in a positive direction by .25 Deg C is important.
Does any one have proof one way or another on this matter?
John
40
Alan Moran needs a link to this thread.
ianl has posted something in the comments, but no link.
perhaps someone here is able to comment at Quadrant amd include jo and WUWT/Breitbart links. hope so.
7 Oct: Quadrant: The Warmists Are Starting to Sweat
by Alan Moran
FROM COMMENTS:
ianl: “Audit of the HadCRUT4 Global Temperature Dataset” pb. Robert Boyle Publishing, October 2018
As clinically devastating for the climate hysterics as were the Climategate emails, and destined to be completely ignored by the self-appointed elites. There is no credible empirical evidence for significant, widespread warming over the last 150 years any more than for widespread cooling. In my view, this situation cannot be retrieved as earlier hard data has been destroyed (admitted by Phil Jones, Uni of East Anglia, whose database was the anchor for HadCRUT4). The Aus BOM was protected from independent audit by Cabinet decision in order to avoid exactly this type of embarrassment.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/10/warmists-starting-sweat/
20
don’t laugh:
8 Sept: ClimateChangeNews: ‘Most important years in history’: major UN report sounds last-minute climate alarm
Warming beyond 1.5C will unleash a frightening set of consequences and scientists say only a global transformation, beginning now, will avoid it.
By Karl Mathiesen and Natalie Sauer in Incheon
Only the remaking of the human world in a generation can now prevent serious, far reaching and once-avoidable climate change impacts, according to the global scientific community…
Coal plants will be no more. Electric cars will dominate and 35-65% of all transport will be low- or no-emissions.
To pay for this transformation, the world will have invested almost a trillion dollars a year, every year to 2050…
Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a former lead author of the IPCC, said: “If this report doesn’t convince each and every nation that their prosperity and security requires making transformational scientific, technological, political, social and economic changes to reach this monumental goal of staving off some of the worst climate change impacts, then I don’t know what will.”…
Renewable deployment would need to be six times faster than it is today, said Adnan Z. Amin, the director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency. That was “technically feasible and economically attractive”, he added…
But just when the world needs to go faster, the political headwinds in some nations are growing. Brazil, home to the world’s largest rainforest, looks increasingly likely to elect the climate sceptic Jair Bolsonaro as president.
The world’s second-largest emitter – the US – immediately distanced itself from the report, issuing a statement that said its approval of the summary “should not be understood as US endorsement of all of the findings and key messages”. It said it still it intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement…
The US sought and was granted various changes to the text. Sources said the interventions mostly helped to refine the report. But they also tracked key US interests – for example, a mention of nuclear energy was included.
Sources told CHN that Saudi Arabia fought hard to amend a passage that said investment in fossil fuel extraction would need to fall by 60% between 2015 and 2050. The clause does not appear in the final summary.
But still, according to three sources, the country has lodged a disclaimer with the report, which will not be made public for months. One delegate said it rejected “a very long list of paragraphs in the underlying report and the [summary]”.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/08/important-years-history-major-un-report-sounds-last-minute-climate-alarm/
20
8 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: 37 things you need to know about 1.5C global warming
The UN climate science panel has released its summary of the evidence around the tougher climate goal demanded by vulnerable countries. We break it down
By Megan Darby and Sara Stefanini
It’s a big deal…
The result of writing by committee is a somewhat dense and technical document (LINK)…
35. Directing finance towards infrastructure that lowers emissions and adapts to climate change can help meet the 1.5C goal in a way that supports sustainable development and lowers poverty. This includes private funds from ***institutional investors, asset managers and development or investment banks, as well as public funds…
Say it with confidence
37. On the whole, the authors only put stuff in the summary they are sure of. They indicate the strength of consensus in brackets after many of the statements. “Very high confidence” appears five times; “high confidence” 107 times, “medium confidence” 60 times and “low confidence” just twice.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/08/37-things-need-know-1-5c-global-warming/
10
Proof of man made globull warming is found !
Going by the colour of the faces at the IPCC and other cronies that is .
31
Bolsonaro: 46.1%, 99% reporting; Haddad, Workers Party (PT): 29.1%.
(MSM mostly reporting Bolsonaro has won 47%, sending race to runoff, but his tally has been dropping a few decimal points since then)
Time Magazine: AP: Brazil’s Far-Right Candidate Jair Bolsonaro Surprises With Overwhelming Election Lead
With 92.5% of returns in, congressman Jair Bolsonaro was leading polls with 47% of the votes. If he manages more than 50%, he will win the presidency outright. If he doesn’t, he heads to a runoff with the second-place candidate…
Bolsonaro, however, has far outperformed expectations…
10 Sept: BBC: Polls suggest Mr Bolsonaro is the favourite to win the first round of Brazil’s presidential elections on 7 October with an estimated 22% of the vote…
5 Oct: AAP: The Datafolha poll found Bolsonaro had 35 per cent support, a three percentage point jump since Tuesday…
FakeNewsMSM has all moved on to variations of predictions of a “tied runoff”:
8 Oct: BBC: Brazil election: Far-right Jair Bolsonaro wins first round
CHECK THE REUTERS PICS OF BOLSONARO & HADDAD
With almost all the votes counted, Mr Bolsonaro had 47% and Mr Haddad 28%.
Opinion polls conducted before the election predicted that in a second round the two candidates ***would be tied…
At the scene: South America correspondent Katy Watson
Jair Bolsonaro expected to win the presidency in this first round, even if the polls said otherwise…
Mr Bolsonaro may have soared in the polls recently but Brazilians are going to have to wait another three weeks to find out whether it’ll be him or Fernando Haddad as Brazil’s new leader.
Brazil feels very divided – and fragile. You could feel it when you talked to voters. So many people have told me they would be voting for the ‘least worst’ candidate…
CHECK THE AFP BOLSONARO PIC
Mr Bolsonaro has stirred controversy with racist, homophobic and misogynist comments and there have been mass demonstrations against him…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45780176
10
And this is exactly how I thought the ABC would report on this .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-08/ipcc-climate-change-report/10348720
Even the IPCC wants us to stop digging up the GBR for coal .
30
Wow THEY are worried.
CNN just simultaneously launched a 7 article blitz.
Drastic Changed in all areas of society needed now…
In disputable climate facts…
Ground Zero of Climate change….
Global warming making huricanes worse…
We must set our sights higher….
Cement wall could fight glacier collapse…
wow total stupidity.
50
Er…..more nonsense based on the now discredited HadCRUT data ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-08/ipcc-climate-change-report/10348720
“Australia and the rest of the world must virtually eliminate the use of coal for electricity within 22 years if there is to be a chance to save even some of the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s most authoritative climate science body has warned.
In a report authored by more than 90 scientists, and pulling together thousands of pieces of climate research, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said global emissions of greenhouse gas pollution must reach zero by about 2050 in order to stop global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
At current rates, they said 1.5C would be breached as early as 2040, and 2C would be breached in the 2060s.
If that happens, temperatures over many land regions would increase by double that amount. And at 2C of warming, experts said the world would risk hitting “tipping points”, setting the world to uncontrollable temperatures.
With the world already 1C warmer than pre-industrial times, experts said this report, released by the IPCC in Incheon, Korea today, was likely the last warning before it would be impossible to keep warming at 1.5C.
“We’re not on track, we’re currently heading for about 3 degrees to 4 degrees of warming by 2100,” report contributor Professor Mark Howden from ANU said.”
40
It’s high time the ABC was called to account for misleading and unfactual reporting , last I checked a ph of 8.1 was not acidic .
Predictions of an ice free Arctic in ten years have come and gone but now you reword it to say every ten years .
51
All very interesting, and nothing surprising for the regulars here. But at the end of the day, it was an exercise in counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Taking a 9am temperature reading and averaging that with a 3pm reading tells you what?
Averaging temperature stations of hundreds, and in some cases thousands of kilometres apart, and pretending that all the space between those stations is uniformly distributed… produces junk answers.
Adding land temperature averages to ocean temperature (actual water temperature) averages, is ridiculous in the extreme.
Averaging lands covered with ice, with lands covered with mountains, with lands covered with sandy desert, with lands covered with forest… is also ridiculous in the extreme.
The whole “science” is ridiculous.
50
Yep. Just…yep.
40
Total agreement there.
Scientifically useless data but maybe the temp variations could be discussed are ladies garden parties and a prize given for the best explanations of highs,lows and trends.
Only entertainment value.
KK
30
While this is not just great work but also essential, we need to be wary of a trap. Warming and cooling are inevitable, both in lines and cycles. There can be nothing unusual in either, unless proven. Proof just of warming is no more consequential than proof of daylight after night.
Those who believe that a “world temp” is a possibility need to realise that it is also an utter triviality. In fact, a reduction of cloud cover and humidity in a period of global cooling could very well give you many temps higher than those achieved in a period of global warming. What would the actual min+max temps have been when the Sahara was still grazing land during the African Humid Period, extending to as recently as 5000 year ago, before Lake Tanganyika levels took that sudden plunge and Niger outflows started to drop off?
Sorry to keep harping on how feeble bare statistics are…but they are pretty feeble.
30
Our minders and binders,
Whose blinders betray,
Be fault-finders, stem-winders—
No truth-finders they.
50
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1875/to:1920/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1875/to:1920/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1920/to:2003/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1920/to:2003/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2003/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2003
This is just the sea-surface temperatures looking at the different hemispheres. The period from 1875 to 1920 has a standard deviation for the differences of 0.18°C. They claim the more modern data has an uncertainty of 1Sd of 0.1°C so the differences should have a spread of 0.14 if they were exactly the same with 0.1 of random error. The two hemispheres seem to be very much in sync. Then from 1920 to 1970, not so much and definitely not since 2003.
Considering how little data there was pre 1920, from buckets thrown overboard that could have degree differences depending on who took the sample and the type of bucket, then as the data gets better we see the two hemispheres are very different until the 70s. Then they do their own thing again after 2003. Its very clear that the need for the SH to follow the NH closely is more important than what the meager data actually suggests happened, except for the period where the half degree of cooling in NH data needs to be just a pause in the global temps.
00
Had to correct someone on another blog. This report doesn’t show that they cooked the books. That they get what they want to see despite the data not being fit for purpose does.
00
Trees fall victim to turbine push
Australian – 4h ago
by Graham Lloyd
Rural NSW residents claim thousands of trees will be removed to accommodate the development of a wind farm…
The Crudine Ridge wind farm has pushed through plenty of obstacles in its bid to put 38 turbines in environmentally sensitive woodland
20
Hopefully the Tree Removal gets counted against their Carbon Credits.
20
Now you have Morrison talking Nuclear. Not a bad thing in its way, but Nuclear’s incredible argument is that nuclear has no ’emissions’. Put it in the middle of Canberra then.
20
Also fearless balanced reporter Graham Lloyd is reporting the IPCC pushing of reducing (carbon dioxide) emissions. Sequestration is big. Carbon taxes. Carbon neutral. Lots of graphs of temperature. Billions in cash required to help the third world cope. The usual stories.
Perhaps they should just once show the graph of CO2 vs time and explain why nothing done in the last hundred years has had any effect on steady CO2 growth, up or down. It’s as if CO2 levels have a mind of their own? The world was going to end 20 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Now pretty soon.
So does the IPCC consider for a second that CO2 levels are not man made, as seems obvious?
As for the graphs showing more frequent and stronger extreme events, has anyone explained how CO2 is creating ‘extreme events’? Or is that one a Trust me basis only a Climate Scientist like Tim Flannery would understand?
Also he reports that a 2C increase in water temperature will definitely and absolutely kill 100% of all coral. I thought that had already happened in Australia.
Especially in the Red Sea coral reefs which live in water 10C warmer than our Australian waters. Obviously fatal to coral then.
“Recent measurements found surface water temperatures to be 28 degrees C. (82 degrees F.) in winter and up to 34 degrees C. (93 degrees F.) in summer.”
Still, the IPCC are never going to just make stuff up? Surely not.
51
Made the mistake of ringing abc talkback on this subject and I’m a denier and the IPCC is gospel.
40
I wonder what the global temperature plot would look like if the modellers and their data homogenisers were looking for cooling!
The Global Warming, Climate Change and Climate Disruption is an absolute blight on science. I am glad I am not a scientists tarnished with this obscene mess that has lowered the credibility of all scientists. Anyone taking pride in being labelled a scientists needs to be working through their professional bodies to correct this insanity.
By the way, I have a fundamental disagreement with McLean’s opening sentence:
The spending would be better described as VAST. And often it is not only state funds that are being spent but, rather, funds energy consumers are forced to pay to a third party.
40
Actual observational data here.
Australia’s BOM, photo of an original working sheet for Melbourne, January 1859.
This photo was picked at random from many.
If you examine this closely, you will see corrections that strongly suggest operator confusion. Run your eye down minima temperature of air. See the many over-written numbers? Who did that? Why? When?
If you examine this sheet really closely, you will go nuts as you mentally calculate the huge job of digitising all these, millions of them, from all over the world, again.
But, it is not for you or me to do that. We set up and pay for Governments and Government bodies like the IPCC and/or the BOM to do the leg work.
Time for some fingers to be pulled, some responsibility displayed.
Thank you Dr John McLean. Please keep on digging, if you have not already gone nuts, because excuse after excuse will be found to paper over the errors you find. Just keep ’em rolling in. Set up a blog site so other volunteers like me can add example after example. I can’t do it, I turned crackers long ago.
Geoff.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/bom_jan_1859.jpg
81
Point being if the data is corrupted it is no longer valid .
11
Thanks Geoff.
That is an interesting page. It goes to show that HadCRUT ignored lots of available measurements for the earlier part of their reconstruction.
As for the corrections; I think a lot of the thick strokes and blotches are due to the steel nib pen used, dipped in ink. I got to use one when I visited the Jane Austin house in Bath, England.
It was actually quite difficult to use and write a legible sentence!
20
given the failure of the FakeNewsMSM to pick up on John McLean’s work, it’s worthwhile listening to the following when you have time:
Mark Levin interviews Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist and Joe Concha, The Hill, re the media, especially the coverage, or non-coverage, in relation to the uncorroborated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh:
Youtube: 40min40sec: Life, Liberty & Levin: Mark Levin Fox News. October 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvgoPKPI03k
20
MSM are not interested in facts just scaremongering,the interviewer as soon as I started gave all the usual insults of Denier then the 6000 reports but try and say the reports aren’t the numbers they use it’s Had crut that determines world temps and they just repeat the accusation of Denier and 6000 reports .
Only way this will get anywhere is if sky news ask the pollies and then report on it , otherwise it will be erased from memory .
11
It’s Worse Than We Thought.
10
-45 Fahrenheit = -42.777777777778 Celsius
https://converticious.com/temperature/
10
8 Oct: Guardian: Morrison says Australia won’t provide more money for global climate fund
PM resists calls to withdraw from Paris agreement as energy minister claims Australia is ‘well on target’ for 26% emissions reduction
by Paul Karp
Asked if Australia would be held to the target to reduce emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels, Morrison said: “No, we won’t … we’re not held to any of them at all. Nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund. We’re not going to do that either. I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that nonsense.”
Australia has contributed $200m to the Green Climate Fund from 2015 to 2018, but the Coalition has come under pressure from One Nation to rule out making further contributions. The fund’s purpose is to help developing countries respond to climate change…
On Monday Taylor told Sky News that Australia will meet its Paris commitments, claiming it is “well on target” to achieve a 26% reduction in the electricity sector.
Asked how Australia would achieve a 26% reduction overall – including other sectors like transport and agriculture – Taylor did not cite a single policy, instead pointing five times to Australia’s “track record” in meeting Kyoto phase one and two targets…
Earlier, Morrison told 2GB the Paris target of 26% emissions reduction was “not going to touch electricity prices” and “not going to touch one job”…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/scott-morrison-resists-calls-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement
8 Oct: Xinhua: Australia committed to Paris agreement: PM
Australia’s prime minister has rejected calls from conservative colleagues to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Speaking ahead of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Prime Minister Scott Morrison repeated his previous claim that Australia would meet its emissions reduction target “at a canter.”…
Conservative members of the government have called on Morrison to abandon the emissions reduction target, claiming that abiding by it will lead to rising power prices.
“When Australia puts its word to something, it means something,” Morrison said.
“This is an enormously important issue to our partners in the Pacific, who are strategic partners in the Pacific…
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-10/08/c_137517596.htm
10
OT – just received an email.
We spoke and they listened.
After months of lobbying and advocacy by the ATA, backed by our Cheap Energy Guarantee policy report and the support of tens of thousands of civic-minded Australians like you, PM Scott Morrison today flagged an end to Australia’s nonsensical ban on cheap nuclear power generation.
An end to the ban will ensure that Australian families and businesses are well placed to benefit from cheap and reliable nuclear energy in the long-term.
Nuclear power is expanding throughout the world in nations ranging from Russia to the UAE, China and Japan.
Yet, while we’re a world-leading exporter of uranium with vast reserves beneath our feet- Australia remains alone amongst the world’s top-25 advanced economies to ban nuclear power for our own use. The ban has remained despite repeated scientific inquiries which have found that Australia is ideal for safe, cheap and reliable nuclear power generation within a smart regulatory framework.
Australia has more natural resources than anywhere else in the world – and we still have the worlds highest power prices. This is just insane, and today’s announcement lays the groundwork for this perverse state of affairs to come to an end.
With your continued support, the ATA will continue to deliver victories for sensible policy that delivers a fair go and improves the lives of Australian families and businesses. This is just the first step in delivering our nine point plan, and there’s a lot more to do!
Thank you for all your support,
Tim Andrews
Executive Director
Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance
30
When working in a mine at Warrego years ago I was told they had to dig through uranium to get to the target ore ( copper and gold) and that uranium was pretty much everywhere up there .
10
No, RR,
That is wrong. No known uranium enrichments at Tennant Creek.
Tennant was our company effort, mostly, finding the mines at Warrego, Juno, Orlando, Gecko, Argo, Ivanhoe, all copper, bismuth, gold operations. Our uranium discovery in the NT was Ranger One, the big one. Geoff
00
not behind paywall, naturally:
8 Oct: WaPo: The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
“There is no documented historic precedent” for the scale of changes required, the body found
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis; Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
DOOM DOOM DOOM
At the same time, however, the report is being received with hope in some quarters because it affirms that 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible — if emissions stopped today, for instance, the planet would not reach that temperature. It is also likely to galvanize even stronger climate action by focusing on 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 2 degrees, as a target that the world cannot afford to miss.
Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the IPCC panel and professor at Imperial College London, at a press event following the document’s release. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.” He added, “What we’ve done is said what the world needs to do.”
The transformation described in the document is breathtaking, and the speed of change required raises inevitable questions about its feasibility…
By 2050, the report calls for a total or near-total phaseout of the burning of coal…
“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that the need to either stop emissions entirely by 2050 or find some way to remove as much carbon dioxide from the air as humans put there “means net zero must be the new global mantra.”…
The radical transformation also would mean that, in a world projected to have more than 2 billion additional people by 2050, large swaths of land currently used to produce food would instead have to be converted to growing trees that store carbon and crops designated for energy use…
“If you’re expecting IPCC to jump up and down and wave red flags, you’re going to be disappointed,” said Phil Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center.
***“They’re going to do what they always do, which is to release very cautious reports in extremely dispassionate language.”…
“1.5 degrees is the new 2 degrees,” said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, who was in Incheon for the finalization of the report…
Risks of extreme heat and weather events just rise and rise as temperatures do, meaning these would be worse worldwide the more it warms.
To avoid that, in barely more than 10 years, the world’s percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power would have to jump from the current 24 percent to something more like 50 or 60 percent…
The report’s statements on the need to jettison coal were challenged by the World Coal Association.
“While we are still reviewing the draft, the World Coal Association believes that any credible pathway to meeting the 1.5 degree scenario must focus on emissions rather than fuel,” the group’s interim chief executive, Katie Warrick, said in a statement. “That is why CCS is so vital.”…
And turning off most coal plants may not be the most radical change required. For instance, the document also contemplates rapid changes to agriculture, where methane emissions, produced by livestock, rice cultivation and other sources, also would have to plummet even as the world will have to feed a growing population…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.99acf1e54826
40
I see. I look forward to seeing the the Chinese ambassador at the UN declaring they will stop building those hundreds of new coal fired power stations and begin dismantling the huge numbers of existing ones ASAP. Of course they would need to replace them all with nuclear power stations. Oh what?! China says no! Oh dear. Perhaps then the UN can invade China to force them to do what the alarmists claim is best for the planet. I dare them to. Otherwise, the UN, Greens and everyone else telling us that coal is bad should just shut the xxxx up!
60
“There is no documented historic precedent”
Nonsense, the MWP was warmer and sea levels higher.
00
” find some way to remove as much carbon dioxide from the air as humans put there”
Which is almost nothing. With a proven half life in the atmosphere of 14 years there is no problem. Man made CO2 in the air is under 2%.
If CO2 was a problem, we would have seen an effect by now. Where are the sea rises, the extra storms, the temperature increases? All hit and myth.
30
I’m guessing any data that contradicted the AGW hypothesis would be checked, re-checked, examined, re-examined and then discredited because.
50
ABC dumping another load of IPCC sewage onto the airwaves with breathless announcement of dire warnings from latest IPCC report
70
BBC here in UK are on the IPCC report as the No 1 news headline FFS.
It even replaces Trump bashing and Brexit hating this morning !!
40
Reduced to trumpeting somebody’s Delingpole-friendly PhD thesis, eh?
McLean’s thesis is neither novel and nor does it bother to explore ways to properly sanitize the data, so it’s pretty much a waste of time.
Much better is some proper grown-up research, eg this effort from 17 years ago:
Effect of Observational Sampling Error on the Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29013%3C0198%3AEOOSEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
And from 5 years ago:
“Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends” – https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.2297
Other useful papers on errors and homogenisation of this data that have already been done include:
The early instrumental warm-bias – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9649-4
Estimating sampling errors in large‐scale temperature averages – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281997%29010%3C2548%3AESEILS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2005JD006548
Attributes of Several Methods for Detecting Discontinuities in Mean Temperature Series – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3662.1
Assessment of Maximum Possible Urbanization Influences on Land Temperature Data by Comparison of Land and Marine Data around Coasts – https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/1/1/51
Global temperature change and its uncertainties since 1861 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2001GL012877
Accuracy of in situ sea surface temperatures used to calibrate infrared satellite measurements – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000JC000246
Assessment of Maximum Possible Urbanization Influences on Land Temperature Data by Comparison of Land and Marine Data around Coasts – https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/1/1/51
Sensitivity of attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset, – https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049324
29
Craig says: McLean’s thesis is neither novel
But provides no previous audits. Instead he googles for keywords, finds papers he can’t explain and pretends this fog means something.
When governments have spent $100b on scientists naturally there will be plenty of irrelevant, metoo, repetitious papers.
PS: Is “Delingpole-friendly” a political movement or a force of nature?
151
Craig’s little outburst shows he does not understand what an data audit is nor what it is intended to achieve. His comment `nor does it bother to explore ways to properly sanitize the data’ is outside the terms of reference both explicit and implicit in the meaning of the word audit.
The links he provides are irrelevant.
40
Jo,
Speaking of criticisms, over on WUWT, Nick Stokes claims, “These are errors in the raw data files as supplied by the sources named. The MO publishes these unaltered, as they should. But they perform quality control before using them. You can find such a file of data as used here.”
[ https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/crutem4_asof020611_stns_used.zip ]
Can you verify whether McLean’s work was with the archived raw data, or the corrected working data?
00
WOW Craig
All your papers written by either
University of East Anglia or Hadley Centre, Met Office?
So consistent. These are the same people responsible Craig for the lack of accuracy!
Philip Douglas Jones is also great at emails too!
🙂 🙂
92
He forgot to mention if he knew all this info wasn’t fit for purpose and if it’s the crux of the Globull warming argument why he is still on the side of junk science !
31
Data that needs adjusting is no longer data CT , it’s just the same stuff that you scrape off your shoe when you step in it , nothing more , nothing less.
32
I also seem to get the , nothing to see here we knew already it was shonky so nothing new spleel.
32
Phil Jones et al probably knew all this way back when he refused to release the data to Steve McIntyre. The excuse he used was that McIntyre `only wanted it to find out what was wrong with it.’ ROTFL. Now we know why … 🙂
Meanwhile, Craig has done his job: he’s denied anything is wrong, he’s got the message out to muddy the waters.
20
… and Excel spreadsheets (according to the Climategate emails) … 🙂
An X-Spurt.
00
Well actually you seem to acknowledge that it is correct.
The problems have been raised before. See “Harry Read Me” from the climategate emails.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/23/john-mitchells-review-comments/
McClean is not trying to SANITISE THE DATA. The IPCC and HadCRUT do that. They do not do it very well according to John McClean.
In your opinion only.
30
Correction to the HARRY READ ME comment, reference. Just in case Craig actually wants to read it!
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-30.html
40
Peter C
A more relevant from Climategate is an email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones (cc Ben Santer) on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 Subject : 1940s
What is being discussed here is fitting the data to the theory. This is the exact opposite of any form of scientific method, which aims at confronting theories/hypotheses/conjectures with observations of the natural world. Or least that is my understanding from the long history of thought on the Scientific Method at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
30
Another climategate email of direct relevance to temperature data is from Kevin Trenberth to Micheal Mann on Mon, 12 Oct 2009. (My emphasis)
When the theory contradicts the data, it is the data that is at fault, a mindset similar to that in #105. This is significant in that the copied to list includes Phil Jones & Tom Wrigley of the Hadley Centre, Thomas Karl of NOAA and Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS. That is those responsible for the three major surface temperature data sets.
40
It’s all falling apart. Now from Prof. Weiss’ perfect fit we will see global temperatures go down. That will be very hard to hide. Just a few years and it will all be arrant nonsense, which means it always has been.
40
From the Emery et al paper …. supports the idea that the data is unreliable.
‘We find that there are large geographic regions that are frequently not sampled by the present drifting buoy network, a natural consequence of the fact that most buoys are not deployed to measure in situ SST for satellite infrared SST calibration. Comparisons between drifting buoy SSTs suggest an error of ∼0.4°C for nearly coincident buoy SSTs.’
30
From Popular Technology.net.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers [ and counting ] Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
.
These are all peer reviewed papers if it amounts to more than a hill of beans for the Climate Change ideologues.
Some sample headings of papers from the “Weather Station” listings;
.
The Recent Maximum Temperature Anomalies in Tueson: Are They Real or an Instrumental Problem?
.
The Effects of Data Gaps on the Calculated Monthly Mean Maximum and Minimum Temperatures in the Continental United States: A Spatial and Temporal Study
.
Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database
.
Sensor and Electronic Biases/Errors in Air Temperature Measurements in Common Weather Station Networks
.
Surface air temperature records biased by snow-covered surface
.
Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network
.
Spuriously induced temperature trends in the Southeast United States
.
Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
.
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
And many more !
———-
In the Cosmic Rays and their influences on the climate section I quickly counted about 137 peer reviewed papers listed in the Popular Technology.net list of papers.
In the “Solar” climate driver and its influences on the global climate section I came up with an approximate 250 plus papers.
————
A word of advice to Craig Thomas.
You are so obviously reading the wrong stuff such the climate change fiction articles you seem so keen on promoting.
So if you want to claim you are right up there with the latest as the global warming / climate change ideology falls over I suggest you try reading something factual such as real research on the climate instead of that monotonous climate change fiction stuff you seem to be so hooked on.
Climate change fiction which we have had forced down our throats for close to thirty years now with continuous promises of imminent climate related destruction events that somehow always seem to be delayed or never even bother to turn up in that fancy climate destroying manner you and your climate change ilk are so desperately trying to convince us will happen, will happen, will happen!.
30
‘An audit of the key temperature dataset used by climate models claims to have identified more than 70 problems which the Australian author said made it “unfit for global studies”.
‘Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship based recordings taken 100km inland.
“The primary conclusion of the audit is the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed,” the audit paper says.
“One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.
“Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as ‘indicative’ of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed.”
Graham Lloyd/ Oz
40
More BS on Channel 7 news tonight from the IPCCrap, ‘we must reduce by 1.5C,’we must reduce,’we must reduce,’we must reduce perpetual song. Of course they (7 news) put it on as total fact.
Also watch Richie Allen show (UK) demolish the AGW lies spouted in the UK last Friday UK time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1038&v=pCFt4bBZFpA, also on https://windowsontheworld.net/.
30
“The real fault of the modern day institutes is not so much the lack of historic data, but for the way they “sell” the trends and records as if they are highly certain and meaningful.”
Exactly the point. how can the IPCC claim 95% probability of anything using these data? It is simply a lie.
60
To quote Graham Lloyd of the Australian
“For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.”
No. Nearly half of Indonesia is in the Northern Hemisphere. Almost none of the rest is lower than 8 degrees South.
None of it is lower than 22 South, the Tropic of Capricorn. The equator is not the Southern Hemisphere.
Even today only 2% of the world’ population live south of 22 degrees South. Most of it is water anyway, including Antarctica. Most is uninhabited. 40% live in the tropics. 58% North of the Tropic of Cancer.
So it has always been a puzzle how anyone could temperature map half the planet without satellites. Even where ship’s data existed, whole oceans were untravelled as ships stick to narrow routes. No one just wanders around.
Even where good records exist in the State records inherited by the BOM, they have been largely ignored. The technology did not change, so our records in Australia are extremely limited. Unscientific guesswork.
So half the planet unmapped for half of the period. I doubt even Michael Mann’s hoop pine records could be extrapolated to the South Pacific. The other real problem is that the weather is so different South of the equator and much colder. The average summer temperature in Antarctica is -25C. In the arctic, it is 0C. Where a city like Murmansk (300,000people) can exist at 70North, you are in unliveable winter areas in the Antarctic bases. The Australian Mawson base is only at 68 South.
Still, a bit of averaging, homogenization and voila, you have the temperatures for half the planet before industrialization. Political science with built in results.
You can hardly expect the giant business of man made Global Warming to admit defeat. It was invented by the IPCC in 1988. It justifies their existence.
80
1. The Australian is running the story!
2. The author got a PhD for this–does that mean that there are at least two, if not three, academics with actual jobs out there that either agree with him, or at least think what he’s done is valid? Does that not mean that there is hope for science yet?
50
[…] Nova provides a summary of the main points from the paper, McLean’s Ph.D […]
00
classic.
7 Oct: WUWT: Josh: The New IPCC report is a work of art
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/josh-the-new-ipcc-report-is-a-work-of-art/
10
what a disgrace!
8 Oct: BBC: Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe’
By Matt McGrath
What’s the one big takeaway?
“Scientists might want to write in capital letters, ‘ACT NOW, IDIOTS,’ but they need to say that with facts and numbers,” says Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. “And they have.”
The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans…
What can I do?
The report says there must be rapid and significant changes in four big global systems:
◾energy
◾land use
◾cities
◾industry…
◾buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food – and throw less of it away
◾drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances
◾take trains and buses instead of planes
◾use videoconferencing instead of business travel
◾use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer
◾ insulate homes
◾demand low carbon in every consumer product
Dr Debra Roberts, who co-chairs the IPCC, says lifestyle changes can make a big difference.
“That’s a very empowering message for the individual,” she says…
Five steps to 1.5
2.Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050
3.Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero
4.Up to seven million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia)…
How much will all this cost?
It won’t come cheap. The report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve “annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion” between 2016 and 2035…
2018 is on course to be fourth warmest year…
Is this plan at all feasible?
Analysis by David Shukman, BBC science editor
It’s mind-bending stuff and some will say it’s hopelessly unrealistic, a climate scientists’ fantasy. So is any of it plausible? On the one hand, the global economy relies on carbon and key activities depend on it. On the other, wind turbines and solar panels have tumbled in price and more and more countries and states such as California are setting ambitious green targets.
Ultimately, politicians will face a difficult choice: persuade their voters that the revolutionary change outlined in the report is urgently needed or ignore it and say the scientists have got it wrong…
Campaigners and environmentalists, who have welcomed the report, say there is simply no time left for debate.
“This is the moment where we need to decide” says Kaisa Kosonen.
“We want to move to clean energy, sustainable lifestyles. We want to protect our forests and species. This is the moment that we will remember; this is the year when the turning point happened.”…
What questions do you have about this story?
Use this form to ask your question… (NO COMMENTS)
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
BBC – why is this person quoted twice?
Twitter: Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace
https://twitter.com/kaisakosonen
20
Odd isn’t it. Environmentalists used to bemoan the devastation from the slaughter of millions of buffalo which roamed America in great herds. Now they will cheer. A rare green frog, to be protected but vast herds of cattle are to be wiped out. Millions of camels. All to save the planet for the cute green frogs.
At what point did ecology become a demand for mass extinction? At what point did the Carbon dioxide from which all living things are made become a poison? When did the recent rapid sea rise threaten any place in the world? And where are all those terrible tropical storms which have nearly halved in frequency? The terrible prophecies of the IPCC, none of which have been realised.
Yes, the world is under threat, from ecologists who want to lower Carbon Dioxide, stop heating and cooling, wreck the quality of life for many and starve billions. At what point did man made global warming become a threat to all life on earth? When the IPCC invented it.
30
And predictably, this is on the news displayed by the Microsoft Bing browser this morning.
Joanne Nova of course, is nowhere in sight.
The UN speaks with authority about a terrible problem so that’s news. Jo speaks, indeed yells as loud as she can and who is she? Just a denier.
20
Facts do not matter. They never have and probably never will. Only a terrible disaster will be newsworthy. That it rests on a foundation of nonsense, mistakes and willful carelessness isn’t sensational enough to the journalism profession.
The Democrats may uee this as additional ammunition in November.
30
So we are promised a really big problem now, perhaps as early as 2040? Perhaps. That’s 50 years after we were warned about tipping point runaway warming and ten years to act? So only 22 years go to now before we see something, really, really important.
Almost no one involved in this debate will be still commenting. The Global Warming bubble will have burst. Michael Mann will be in his seventies and Tim Flannery 82. Bill Nye 84. Many will have shuffled off. Professor Bob Carter would have been 97. Still Mann (75) et al will still be warning us to send more money.
10
Al Gore will be 92. You can only hope for his sake that Global Warming happens earlier. If it holds off until 2050, he will be 102. A long time to wait to be proven right about the danger of global warming.
10
leave people’s money out of it, Bloomberg. 4 writers for this junk:
8 Oct: Bloomberg: Climate Crisis Spurs UN Call for $2.4 Trillion Fossil Fuel Shift
By Reed Landberg, Chisaki Watanabe, and Heesu Lee; With assistance by Jeremy Hodges
The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change, according to scientists convened by the United Nations…
Even a rise of 1.5 degrees would have massive consequences, including a “multi-meter rise in sea levels” over hundreds to thousands of years and a mass extinction of plants and animals. With a temperature increase of that scale, of the 105,000 species studied, 6 percent of insects, 8 percent of pants(sic) and 4 percent of vertebrates lose half their habitat. Those proportions double with a 2 degree gain…
To limit warming to 1.5 degrees would require a roughly fivefold increase in average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies by 2050, compared with 2015, according to the report.
The $2.4 trillion needed annually through 2035 is also an almost sevenfold increase from the $333.5 billion Bloomberg NEF estimated was invested in renewable energy last year…
he IPCC report also recommended that by 2050:
Coal’s share of electricity supply should be cut to 2 percent or less.
Renewables should supply 70 percent to 85 percent of power generation…
Organizations and investors that back green energy said the report makes it clear that the world should accelerate the shift away from coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.
“The coal industry has no role in a climate-stable world,” said Jan Erik Saugestad, chief executive officer of Norway’s Storebrand Asset Management, which oversees $88 billion. “It’s our pressing duty to call on other investors to end meaningless engagement with coal-exposed companies.”
The report also highlights the risk to further investments in natural gas-fired power plants and suggests that more of them should be replaced by renewables, said Han Chen, who follows energy finance for the Natural Resources Defense Council…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/scientists-call-for-2-4-trillion-shift-from-coal-to-renewables
20
Mann & Hayhoe have their quotes ready:
7 Oct: National Geographic: Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for painful problems sooner than expected, as emissions keep rising.
By Stephen Leahy
The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) of global warming…
Global warming is like being in a mine field that gets progressively more dangerous, says Michael Mann, a climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. “The further we go the more explosions we are likely to set off: 1.5C is safer than 2C, 2C is safer than 2.5C, 2.5C is safer than 3C, and so on,” said Mann, who was not directly involved in this latest IPCC report.
“Stabilizing global warming at 1.5C will be extremely difficult if not impossible at this point,” Mann said via email…
The Special Report is like getting a troubling diagnosis from your doctor, said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. “Every possible test has been done and the news is not good,” Hayhoe said in an interview. “The doctor, the IPCC in this case, then explains possible treatment options to ensure our future health. We (the public) decide which option to follow.”…
For example, a widespread dietary shift to eating less meat and reduced material consumption would significantly lower emissions…
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/ipcc-report-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/
10
“The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) of global warming…”
Odd. The past decade has not seen an astonishing rise in temperature. You know this for certain because if it had happened, it would be big news and included in the list. So we have an alleged change of +1.8 degrees, based on records from two centuries ago which do not exist, at least for half the planet.
However we have seen record breaking snow at low latitudes, record breaking cold in Bangladesh, early and deeper winters, fewer storms and no actual warming and a recently plummeting world temperature. All caused apparently by global warming. The only thing wrong then is the data. It clearly needs to be adjusted to show the hidden global warming.
20
How can you claim to know what the climate is doing at the same time as denying the validity of the data?
The cognitive dissonance on here is hilarious.
2016/2017 are the two warmest years (globally) on record, third place is 1998.
9 out of the 10 hottest years have occured since 2000.
It’s unquestionably getting warmer, and nit-picking weather station anomalies or pointing at freak ‘cold events’ is not a robust rebuttal.
Especially when some of these ‘cold events’ are actually believed to be as a result of global climate patterns changing due to the overall warming of the planet.
Record snow precipitation? We know a warmer climate causes more precipitation – and of course there will be many places where it’ll still fall below zero and produce snow.
Earlier and deeper winters (citation required)? Like when the polar vortex descended into north america after the jetstream was disrupted due to far warmer temperatures in the arctic?
Gah why am I even posting in this echo-chamber…
13
Bork… Gah why am I even posting in this echo-chamber…
Because Bork, you can save us all. Just find the paper that shows that CO2 caused the recent “record hot years”.
Go for it…
50
the Lloyd headline – at least online – as it hasn’t been posted as yet. give thanks for Lloyd, even if the article is behind a paywall. thanks to those who have excerpted it:
Claims of 70 problems found with key temperature dataset used by climate models
The Australian · 5 hours ago
—
it’s like an orgy of CAGW:
8 Oct: InsideClimateNews: IPCC: To Avoid 1.5 Degrees Global Warming, Phase Out Fossil Fuels
By Bob Berwyn
“Currently, we are on pace to blow past 1.5 degrees Celsius in a couple decades,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. Even under the current base-case scenario, with the emissions cuts pledged in Paris, the world is on track to warm between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius, he said.
“Every half-degree matters, and 2 degrees Celsius and 1.5C warming shouldn’t be thought of as cliffs we walk off. A better analogy is a minefield. The further out on to that minefield we go, the more explosions we are likely to set off,” he said…
What’s Missing from the IPCC Report?
Despite these projections, some groups closely watching the process say the final version of the report—which had to be approved by all 195 IPCC member nations—doesn’t do enough to warn world leaders about the grim consequences of reaching potential climate tipping points that could trigger conflicts over resources and mass migration.
“I was a reviewer on an earlier draft and was concerned that it left out some of the most important risks governments need to be aware of,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
“There was no mention of the potential for conflicts and mass displacement of people, which is of huge concern to governments. There wasn’t much mention of tipping points. The IPCC has a reputation of not describing high-impact, low-probability events. There is evidence we may have already passed some key climate thresholds, including a meltdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would raise sea level several meters in the next few centuries,” he said.
There’s also a growing risk that warming will disrupt key ocean circulations, including currents that keep Europe mild despite its relatively high latitude, Ward said. That could have dramatic consequences, including a Scandinavian-like climate for temperate parts of Western Europe.
“Those concerns have been documented very clearly the last few years. It would be inexplicable if you don’t talk about some of these biggest risks in the summary for policymakers,” he said…
The report should be a wakeup call to the world to start acting now, said Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, a climate science and policy think tank.
“This report shows that dealing with climate change will become more dangerous and more expensive the longer we wait. Governments must get ready to commit to much more aggressive climate targets by 2020 at the latest, and they have to ditch coal,” he said…
Christopher Weber, global lead scientist for climate and energy for the World Wildlife Fund, said negotiators in Poland should focus on the underlying science.
“This is not a political negotiation, it’s a science report. We’re already seeing impacts like super storms, wildfires and heat waves from 1 degree of warming,” he said. “This report underscores that many of the impacts we thought we would see at 2 degrees we will see sooner, and they may be unstoppable above that.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07102018/ipcc-climate-change-science-report-data-carbon-emissions-heat-waves-extreme-weather-oil-gas-agriculture
10
Yes, it was good how he reported on the IPCC alarms and quickly switched to the news that the data is a mess.
Of course everyone knew that but they did not have the funding or time over three decades to actually check the data. When you consider how much money depends on good data, you would have to think the IPCC man made global warming theory is more important than the facts, far more important. It’s not the first time bad data has caused problems an important theory.
10
“There was no mention of the potential for conflicts and mass displacement of people, which is of huge concern to governments.
‘There wasn’t much mention of tipping points.’
Displacement of people only happens during time of war, as witnessed recently with the flood of refugees into Europe.
A global warming tipping point is a fantasy, but a global cooling tipping point is another matter, remember the mass migration period during the Dark Ages.
10
‘Can Australia invest $US24 billion a year to avert dangerous climate change? That is more than the federal government spends on public hospitals.
‘The answer from the Greens is to shut down coal-fired power stations and stop coal exports, but only about 10 per cent of Australian voters supported this position at the last election by giving the Greens their primary vote.’
SMH/Crowe
10
as Mark Levin says at one point in the video (see comment #90), (paraphrasing) it is as if the media are now the generals, directing the resistance. BBC were blatantly acting like campaign advisers to the Workers Party before the first round of the election, and The Guardian is busy at it for the runoff:
8 Oct: Guardian: In Brazil, only the grandest of coalitions can now defeat Bolsonaro
Experts believe rival Fernando Haddad must position himself as a centrist champion of democracy
by Tom Phillips
Brazilian leftists heaved a huge collective sigh of relief on Sunday night after Jair Bolsonaro – the homophobic, dictatorship-praising far-right front-runner – fell just short of a stunning first-round victory that would have made him president of one of the world’s largest and most diverse democracies…
Just to draw level with Bolsonaro, Haddad would need virtually every single one of the voters who opted for the third and fourth-placed candidates, Ciro Gomes and Geraldo Alckmin, to switch to his side.
“The path for Haddad to close that gap looks almost impossible,” said Brian Winter, the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly, describing Bolsonaro as a “huge favourite” to win. “If you simply add Bolsonaro plus two-thirds of Alckmin’s [5m] votes, it’s over.”…
Heloísa Starling, a Brazilian historian, said she believed Haddad now needed to piece together “a great democratic coalition” if Brazil was to avoid being hurtled back towards “tyranny”. “It can’t just be a left-wing coalition – it must include everyone who is prepared to defend democracy, whoever they may be,” Starling said.
James Green, the head of Brown University’s Brazil Initiative, agreed an “anti-fascist front” was essential if Bolsonaro was to be stopped…
Already on Sunday night there were signs Haddad would seek to do just that.
“I’ve always been on the side of freedom and democracy. I’m not going to give up my values,” the 55-year-old intellectual tweeted, claiming he had already spoken to three of the defeated candidates and was open to “dialogue”…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/in-brazil-only-the-grandest-of-coalitions-can-now-defeat-bolsonaro
00
The non science and nonsense of AGW. The political propaganda of rentseeker bureaucracies…. I though the damning Emails of ClimateGate would lift a lid on this fraudulent “science”. I think most skeptics did, but alas nothing happened.
So lets hope that this time the lid will come off and Climate science is exposed as the funding scam it has become.
20
For most of the time we’ve been taking temperature measurements, the thermometers used were accurate to (at best) +/- 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. That is, the thermometers used only had markings on every degree Fahrenheit. They didn’t have thermometers accurate to +/- 0.01 degrees 150 years ago, or 100 years ago, or even 50. Most thermometers today aren’t accurate to +/- 0.01 degrees Fahrenheit either.
One cannot produce predictions or trend lines that are higher accuracy than the measuring equipment. The temperatures 50, 100, 150 years ago could have actually been 0.45 degrees warmer or 0.45 degrees colder and still give the same measured temperatures. And yet the predictions are in hundredths of a degree.
30
From the preamble to the Paris Agreement: “…..Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, people with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity.”
As Graham Lloyd suggests in The Australian today in a report on the latest IPCC report the agenda of the UN and its fans is clearly far wider than climate change – which is simply in use as leverage for a much wider socio/political agenda. To those involved, the means justifies the ends – even if it involves deliberate misrepresentation of the science to keep their ambitions alive.
40
For a long time I’ve been pointing out that none of the temperature “metrics”** are produced by people with ISO9000 or any other similar system. And now it’s quite clear why – it suits the eco-nutters to have totally unfit systems, because those systems produce the warming they want to show.
**It’s not a real temperature when you add in a MASSIVELY SCALED UP (so no longer temperature) and known warming trend from ocean buoys selected with the sole intention of getting rid of the pause.
30
Mike
You make an excellent point. Climate data should be to clear methods and data checks. It will be auditable against quality standards.
My belief, through studying the data, is that the homogenization processes produce highly unstable results. That is, if you add a couple of years of data to an existing, homogenized, data set, it will produce some quite wierd results, including making adjustments to data from many decades ago.
10
I’d say the worst isn’t the data and the data handling itself. It’s the deeply flawed (even absurd) assumptions lying at the heart of the global average estimation process, especially when going back in time:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/why-there-is-no-reason-for-you-to-trust-the-official-global-temperature-records/
10
This is a very important study. Thank you, John McLean, and Jo!
Coastal sea-level measurement data are much better quality than temperature data, but even the sea-level measurement data contain some obvious errors. For example, the great 9.2 magnitude Alaska earthquake was on March 27, 1964. But NOAA’s monthly sea-level measurement data for Seward, AK jumped one meter in January, 1964, rather than April.
That can’t possibly be right. Sea-level could not have increased by one meter in anticipation of the earthquake!
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=seward&c_date=1964/4-2019/12&co2=0
00
[…] and services requires an evolution of global and national financial systems.” Or these guys: “freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors, large gaps where there is no […]
00
This is raw data. Hopefully you all now understand why homogenisation is important. Take a look at the station data: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm
Errors have been cleansed or removed.
CRUTEM4 and Berkeley Earth correspond very closely even though they use radically different homogenisation techniques: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/the-global-warming-signal/
20
[…] according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate […]
00
From this post acknowledging that the data used by the IPCC are worthless, support is given to:
1. making up data, and
2. using the made-up data and other inspirations, to derive other data points.
3. The end result is achieved as desired, that is average global warming is ..,
and this number is accelerating.
This process used to be called GIGO but now, mixing bigger budgets, more computer power, and gross
egotism the conclusion is that disaster is imminent with a tipping point in a few years unless we pay more money.
21
[…] For more on Dr McLean’s report documenting the unreliability of the Hadley Centre’s data, see Jo Nova’s blog entry, here. […]
00
[…] #DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling town… […]
00
Gory details of the worst outliers
• For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively
The list of stations included in HADCRUT is here
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/crutem4_asof020611_stns_used_hdr.txt
There is no station 800890. It gets removed as part of the QA process; incomplete data coverage make it impossible to calculate an anomaly – and it is thus not actually in HADCRUT.
BTW BEST includes the station but drops the outliers – as it should.
Did anyone who paid for this (what happened to open code and data?) realise that McLean has found issues in data that is not in the product he is ‘auditing’?! If you paid for this squib on this prospectus, I think you’re due a refund.
10
[…] OTOH: First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land. […]
00
For John McLean,
On page 7 of your report, ” The frequency of the upward or
downward adjustments are irrelevant on these scales; it is the size of the adjustment that
matters. For example, five adjustments downwards by 1.0°C are not cancelled out by five
adjustments upwards by 0.2°C.”
This is an important point that I do not have the computing power to deal with myself. Maybe your files are amenable to this type of analysis. Nick Stokes & I had a brief email interchange about it then it lapsed.
I’m using the concept of a torque, badly applied to explain a temperature-time series adjustment. An adjustment applied to a selected portion of such a series can have an effect depending on 3 main factors –
1. Magnitude. How large the change is, e.g. delete 0.5 deg C, replace with 0.75 deg C.
2. Duration. The duration of the change, e.g. a change to a time period one year long has less effect than a change applied to 10 years long.
3. Leverage. How far from the pivot point the change is. Current methodology keeps the most recent observation as the fulcrum point, so a change to a block of data dated dated 100 years ago will swing the outcome more than a chnage of similar smagnitude and duration made 1 year ago (that is like a torque in foot pounds can have the same pounds but many more foots).
Of course sign is part of this, as you noted.
So, each adjusted time series needs to be examined for the total effect of the adjustment considering sign, magnitude, duration and leverage. This is what I see as an analogoe of torque. The program to do this is not daunting to write, but easy access to each temperature-time series used in HadCRUT4 has to be there, preferably cleaned of the other errors you mention.
Running this quality control test would put to rest a whole lot of speculation about the speculated effects of adjustments and homogenizations. It is a complete answer to Mosh’s claims that adjustments to BEST made the past warmer. They might have, but the full test does not seem to have been done yet.
In my book, it is reprehensible for BEST and HadCRUT (and probably others like GISS) to have endured this long before they do the definitive demonstration using this methodology. Maybe they can redeem some reputation by doing it immediately.
Hello to Steven Mosher, my old mate, and another friendly call to Nick Stokes, if you think it important enough. Geoff.
10
[…] leading anti-alarmist scientist (and true empiricist), the Australian Jo Nova, excoriatingly reports that the world’s major climate ‘record’ – on which are anchored many of the IPCC’s […]
00
[…] #DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling town… […]
00