JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The urbanising effect even in wildest Africa

Image thanks to Navy’s Solant Amity I Cruise 1960

All that wilderness, and where did they put the temperature sensors? Near a concrete slab. These guys aren’t even trying to be serious.

Talk about a gorgeous view. This jaw-dropping wilderness is also the site of one of the 20 GAWS (Global Atmosphere Watch Station, for the WMO) which tracks stuff like CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. There’s a temperature station there too, and Tim Wood helpfully sent me up-to-date pictures.

You might wonder, at such an important site and among the wilderness, how could anyone find a place to put a temperature sensor that wasn’t a Class I, top notch siting? It was all too easy. By the looks of this photo (below), it might just qualify as a Class 4, since there a large brick or concrete and metal structure… less than 10 meters away. (For info on classifications: Surface Stations Project*, NOAA Site information here.)

Tim W writes:

“As you can see from the pictures, if this is what passes for a world class station then….

Note the gazillion undeveloped hectares in the background that would be more suitable. But that would presumably require someone to do more than walk out the back door.”

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa

Vegetation and shadows encroaching on the Stephenson screen…

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa

The big concrete block under the tower is… close

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa

Cape Point Surface Station, South Africa. Note MMTS in front of tower which carries GAWS air sampler as well as telecom equipment.

Click on the shot to see the larger view.

Where is Cape Point in the Global “GHCN” list (The big global list of stations)?

Chiefio tells me that Cape Point is on the canonical list:

> 14168916000 CAPE POINT                     -34.35   18.50  226   66R
> -9FLxxCO 1x-9COASTAL EDGES   A

But it is not in the 2009 active list. Hence it was lost sometime in the Great Dying of Thermometers.

Urbanized Wilderness, or Ruralized Suburbia?

Curiously that R (as in “66R”) stands for Rural. So when Cape Point is included in the glorious global amalgamations of data it would be homogenized into the Rural sets, and in a way that’s fair: 99% of the surrounding kilometer is rural.

It’s just that the one percent of one percent within 10m that’s full of urban impostors.

Tim also points out that there has been a large increase in ship traffic since 1994 (at the end of Apartheid). “The supposedly pristine Southern Ocean air can’t be that way with heavy fuel oil exhaust gases in the mix!” (See here for shipping traffic, with Johannesburg somewhere between 2000-5000 journey’s per year).

No wonder then, that when people search with the right tools they can’t “find” any Urban Heat Island effect. Urbanized wilderness, or ruralized suburbia, what’s the difference? Rural stations like these blow away the idea that temperature sensors in remote wilderness can be “trusted” without site checks.

BTW: The CO2 graph 1993 – 2008

*No this is strictly an ad hoc random anecdote, not a proper site survey, and not part of the Surface Stations Project. Don’t blame Anthony for all the loose ends here.

UPDATE:

The station was moved in 1995. The Station information is http://gaw.empa.ch/gawsis/reports.asp?StationID=35

The shipping lane graphic is kinda cool:

Shipping lane traffic globally.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
The urbanising effect even in wildest Africa, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2exea7g

47 comments to The urbanising effect even in wildest Africa

  • #
    janama

    I must say I’m starting to find all this fiddling around with tenths of a degree temperatures, square kilometres of Arctic ice and parts per million of CO2 rather tedious. Not much has changed in the past 30 years of worrying about it – the coral reefs are thriving, food production has increased, droughts and flooding rains are typical, yet on and on we go being urged on by the rantings of the true believers who must pray everyday for disasters and catastrophes to prove their penance to Gaia has been fruitful.

    Surely it’s time to just get back to normal, forget about dodgy measuring stations and tell all the warmanistas to take a running jump! Let’s stop posting on Unleashed when they taunt us with naive children or mad professors, let’s ignore the Flannerys, stop watching Tony Jones in all his incarnations, ignore Robyn 100metres William’s Science Show and just get on with our lives.

    I think I’ve had enough!

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    I wonder how much heat is absorbed on a sunny day by those boulders at the base of the tower?

    And WMO’s guidelines for anything are not enforceable.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    janama:

    Surely it’s time to just get back to normal, forget about dodgy measuring stations and tell all the warmanistas to take a running jump! Let’s stop posting on Unleashed when they taunt us with naive children or mad professors, let’s ignore the Flannerys, stop watching Tony Jones in all his incarnations, ignore Robyn 100metres William’s Science Show and just get on with our lives.

    I totally agree with you BUT when this CAGW Agenda gets INTO the political side then you have to “remove” these believers out…You won’t convince most of them to change because of the money to be made. Vote them out. Spread the word…Another thing you have to remember that this “agenda” happened over time. So they “are” entrenced and well funded. People who believe this fallacy including the “Climate Scientist”, if possible, is a bad policy should openly denounce it. Real Climte Scientists “do” fear for their job so “mum” is the word. But there’s a lot of them that do not believe…Read this article….

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2370.last

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    janama: #1

    Denny (#3) is right!

    The sceptical point of view has made a serious dent in public opinion regarding CAGW.

    The populous may not be highly educated, but they are street-smart. Climategate, and all the stuff that followed makes sense to them. They may not understand the statistics and the models and the long scientific words, but they do understand corruption and fraud when they see it, and they do understand the behaviour of pigs at a trough.

    They also resent the fact that they have no access to that trough, even though they suspect that they are providing the food. They will not be duped again.

    So, the Sceptics have won some ground. But in military terms, it is flat ground, and therefore easy to take with sufficient force (or sufficient evidence).

    But those at the trough, and I include the bureaucrats along with the scientists, still occupy the higher ground, and they will not willingly give up the trough without a fight.

    If you worked in a Department of Climate Change, and it was admitted that there was no change in climate, then your job, the income for your family, and your self esteem, are all on the line.

    The sceptics (going back to my military analogy) will have to fight uphill in order to dislodge the bureaucrats. This will not be easy.

    So yes, I agree with you, it is tedious and mind numbing at times. But it has to be done. The probable long term effects of this lunacy are very unpleasant to contemplate.

    I, for my part, appreciate your comments to this blog. That is one of the reasons I skulk around here. Never give up. Enough is never enough.

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    It is all too typical, as we know. Of course the Joneses and Manns and Hansens of this world (or “of this biosphere,” as they might say) will arrogantly continue to propagate that all the relevant “adjustments” of the data have been made to account for this. Why not simply move the urban sensors a few miles away to the nearest suitable rural site? Nah, too obvious. And too transparent.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    David, UK:

    Why not simply move the urban sensors a few miles away to the nearest suitable rural site?

    Because then they could say “Look, there’s been a station move, and a discontinuity, we’ll have to homogenize the data” and before you can say Climategate they’ll have produced an adjustment that creates a warming trend.
    But they’ll do it anyway if you leave it where it is so you can’t win!
    The stations are poor quality, the data is poor quality, the adjustments are poor quality. Don’t trust any of it!
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Rereke Whaakaro: Post 4,

    Good points Rereke!

    All of this isn’t going to happen over night “unless” another “ClimateGate” in the “Judicial” sense happens,IMO. The charges going against Michael Mann and his “Hockey Stick” are one to take note. And this is a lawyer, not someone on the “same side”, so to speak…making false allegations about his work. One thing for sure though the “CAGW Agenda” IS waking up to the fact that “pressure” is starting to brought upon them…I thought it was kind of funny that only a “small” group of Scientists was spouting off in the above article in my previous post…Where are ALL of these thousands that “Prophet Gore” states all the time???? Oh, talking about the Prophet, don’t know if you have seen this article yet…

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2386.last

    I find it rather “interesting” to say the least, don’t you???? ;-)

    I appologize if this is a little OT Joanne….I’m sure Anthony Watts appreciates your “input” on this particular subject…He’s already disproven alot with this “government + 10 degree warming” sites…Yes, our hard earned tax dollars at work! As citizens, we should be “ashamed” for letting this happen. Trust only goes so far when “not” earned…At least I was taught this!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Seems that Mr Abbott is spreading the word about climate change in our schools:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-scientists-cross-with-abbott-for-taking-christs-name-in-vain-20100509-ulqt.html

    I find it interesting that the president of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Kurt Lambeck, says the comment that is was warmer around the times of Jesus and Jules (Ceasar… Jules to his mates) is unsubstantiated.

    Now skeptic that I am, I am pretty sure there was information knocking around about Roman vinyards quite far north in Britain and the like. Surely that would represent some evidence that it was quite warm back then.

    Then we have a stock standard appeal to authority:

    Professor Karoly said: “It seems strange to me that the leader of a political party would be seeking to disagree with Australia’s chief scientist, the Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and Australia’s support of the work of the IPCC. He obviously knows better.”

    Tony came back later with a very balanced and skeptical answer:

    A spokeswoman for Mr Abbott said last night he thought man contributed to climate change, but there was an argument as to how great that contribution was and what should be done about it.

    Any wonder he has Rudd on the run?

    00

  • #
    janama

    You might ask why would Karoly seek to disagree with the following peer reviewed paper that confirms Abbott’s remark.

    Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282, 268-271.

    00

  • #
    Warren

    The usual silliness. It’s the trend that counts,dears..and you might consider the fact that this site is strongly maritime and consistently windy. Golly,you never learn…

    00

  • #
    Ronnell

    Cameron’s first stupid mistake (James Delingpole)
    Telegraph UK:
    “He announced it yesterday as one of his key priorities if and when he forms his Coalition of the Suicidal with Nick Clegg. He said he would make “the creation of a low carbon economy a priority.” ….A low carbon economy is virtually the same thing as NO economy. …”

    link:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100038729/camerons-first-stupid-mistake/

    blog link:
    http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Although there are apparently a slew of poorly sited US climate stations, I think we need to recognize that even high quality stations that deal in essentially only max and min temperatures plus precip amounts are almost a joke as a basis for forecasting climate, or even describing it.

    Although Cape point is surely not an example of a top-notch station, we need to put it in perspective. I won’t defend the site, but take look at an observation from Cape Point.

    I suspect that most folks never read SYNOPTIC observations, and I haven’t looked at one for at least the last two code revisions, but here is the first ob for Cape Point in 2008. I have decoded it below the transmitted observation that follows. (They had 506 obs in 2008 at 3hr intervals before terminating.) The special climate measurements were probably in the regional 9-group.

    Please notice that there is much more info than max/min temps, which are insufficient to describe/forecast climate.

    AAXX 01004 68916 32370 60602 10184 20158 39880 40147 58002 86500 333 10190 20183 91003 555 91015;

    AAXX (Observation type)
    AA= Synoptic Report from a Land Station
    XX= Synoptic Code
    01004 (Date/Time group)
    01= month (Jan)
    00= 00 Zulu
    4= Wind reported in knots
    68916 (Station ID)
    68= WMO Block 68
    916= WMO Station Number 916
    32370
    3= Precip omitted (amount was zero!)
    2= Manned station observation
    4= 200 to 300 meters elevation
    70= coded visibility: 20km (WMO code table 4377)
    60602
    6= six octas total cloud coverage
    06= wind from 060 degrees
    02= wind speed 2 knots
    10184
    1= Temperature code group indicator
    0= sign is positive
    184= 18.4 C
    20158
    2= Dew point group
    0= sign is positive
    158= 15.8 C
    39880
    3= Station pressure group indicator
    9880= 988.0 hPa
    40147
    4= Sea level pressure group
    0147= 1014.7 hPa
    58002
    5= 3 hour pressure tendency group
    8= Pressure tendency is lower and steady or increasing etc….
    002= actual change in last 3 hours is .2 hPa
    86500
    8= Cloud group indicator
    6= 6/8s cloud coverage
    5= 5/8s low clouds
    0= less than 1/8 middle clouds
    0= less than 1/8 high clouds
    333 (Group ID for section 3)
    10190
    1= Max temperature group
    0= sign is positive
    183 = 19.0 C max temp
    20183
    2= Min temperature group
    0= sign is positive
    183= Min temperature is 18.3
    91003
    9= Special phenomena group
    1003= ?? – the tables are National and determined by WMO region
    555 (ID for section 5)
    91015 (group unknown to me – probably special or regional)

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Warren @ 10

    It’s the trend that counts,dears..

    However when there are unnatural factors that confound the reading then you are not measuring the natural phenomenon. Just as an example, by siting a weather station in the southern hemisphere to the south of a manmade structure you are going to get a trend for that site, however, the measured maxima and minima are not going to be comparable with a site that is not modified by an unnatural encumbrance.

    Even if it is only the trend that counts, what that site is reading is a distorted trend and it would not take a lot of effort or imagination to find a site that is more suitable that does not have to be homogenised for confounding factors.

    And the trend will have had numerous discontinuities because many of the changes/additions will have occurred since records began. Introduction of the comms equipment will presumably have occurred since records began.

    All in all, I would say any trend from that site would be inadmissible.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Bulldust: @8

    Isn’t it interesting that they obtained more than one “professional” opinion yet they always neglect scientist that might damage their story e.g. Bob Carter, Stewart Franks before going to print.

    00

  • #

    As long as the same guys are in power and haven’t admitted AGW was minor to the point of irrelevant, we have to keep up the pressure.

    AS long as our Govt spends $90 m a year on a department for nothing, as long as there is talk of a new green tax…

    The fight is not over until 90% of the People know it’s a scam, and they teach logic and reason in primary schools.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Warren: #10 and Rod Smith: #12

    Since when did these sites suddenly become “climate stations“?

    They are weather stations, dammit. They record the state of the weather at regular time intervals. That was the reason that the network was formed – to record maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and barometric pressure – descriptors of the current weather conditions.

    Trends at these sites are important for predicting weather two to three days in advance, ten if we are real lucky. Abnormalities at odd sites are less important, when that is all they do.

    But as soon as you start using the output from weather stations as input to climate models, then the abnormalities do start to become important because their effect is cumulative in the way models work.

    So, we are already living in a state of sin by using dubious weather station readings as input to climate models, let us not compound the crime by implying that weather stations are something other than what they are.

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Jo @ 15,

    Just so!

    And even though the sceptics walk and talk the logic, it’s the money, hypocrisy and stupidity that keep winning.

    When a hypothesis entirely based on the dumbness of a hockey stick and a GCM can overwhelm logic there must be some glittering prizes in it for the carpetbaggers.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The fight is not over until 90% of the People know it’s a scam, and they teach logic and reason in primary schools.

    If anyone has ideas for video games that incorporate elements of logical thought then I’d be interested in any suggestions. I know that educational games have largely fallen flat in the past (they tend to be highly artificial and incredibly boring to play) but my belief is that it can be done right if you build the basic rules of logical thought into the game itself.

    One recent example is “World of Goo” where they build a basic Newtonian/mechanical physics engine into the game and you get puzzle problems building structures with rubbery “goo” objects. Another one with a similar physics engine was “Magic Crayon”. I’m sure that more could be done along this line, especially with input from people working in the field in science and engineering.

    Leaving it up to government education departments (and most of our current teaching systems) will just give us more AGW believers, as it all falls into repetition of orthodoxy long after everyone has forgotten where the original spark of science was struck.

    00

  • #
    SamG

    The station doesn’t appear too dodgy to me.

    Jonova, I have to admit that this post is highly speculative.
    Sometimes this stuff seems almost made up.

    Better to post on what you do know.

    00

  • #
    ChrisPer

    I must say, that weather station doesn’t seem too badly sited compared with the earlier reported ones in the equivalent of paved parking areas and beside aircon outlets.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Some great new videos promoted on Quadrant Online:

    Recent Climate Videos

    Bob Carter has a new book out: “Climate change: The Counterconsensus”

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Samg

    And when was the last time you flew in a plane that didn’t look “too dodgey” ? One wing,or two, sir? There are standards for the weather (sorry) climate stations, and they either comply or they don’t. This one didn’t – but it’s no orphan, and, as suburbia and airportia grow around the older weather stations, they will distort the climate record so beloved by the warmists. Personally, I put more trust in the satellite numbers because they’re not subjected to these changes and they also measure more of the globe – not just the airport bits!

    The other point I think that Jo is trying to get over is that the so-called science behind the AGW scare isn’t all that monolithic – it’s actually got cracks (and some very very serious ones!) all the way through it. Not only wrong, but knowingly so…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    SamG

    The problem with warmism , Speedy, is that some of the conclusions are nebulous. Most of the science is correct but a lot of it is theoretical rather than practical. I’m not in a position to doubt the reality of AGW but I’m sure most of the conclusions are politically driven and exaggerated. Much of the ‘evidence’ presented by skeptics is opinion, such as climategate letters proving the scientists fudged the data. The letters don’t look good but they don’t present scientific fraud. Gut feeling maybe? Similarly, this topic is fairly flimsy. I can’t see the problem here. The entire peninsula is a rock !
    It is true that it is what we don’t know about climate that poses many questions, therefor, it is too early for advocates to pronounce the apocalypse.
    I guess you could say that it’s the data we don’t have that will make this a whole lot more interesting.

    00

  • #
    Paul

    @ Rereke Whaakaro, #

    “your job, the income for your family, and your self esteem, are all on the line.”

    THIS! Especially the last one, and not just for those whose jobs are on the line. That is why there is such vituperous condemnations from warmers, it’s not about the science, it’s about their sense of self, it’s personal for them.

    Add in the fact that CAGW has been propagandized to such an extent that it has an angle in just about everything with respect to human interaction with the environment, wildlife conservation, recycling, waste management, etc. Which is why if you try and explain why CAGW or cap and trade, etc., is so much malarky, you will find yourself accused of all sorts of logically unrelated ‘crimes’ such as being against recycling, polar bears, etc., because these are all linked together emotionally thanks to the MSM and the alarmists (including climate ‘scientists’) themselves who have provided them with the fodder to do so. Or at least that’s been my experience, even with my daughter, thanks to the ‘pooblick ejumacational’ system we have, which was crap when I was a kid and is worse now.

    Seriously, whenever I read these scathing, emotionally charged attacks on deniers or sceptics, it pretty much all seems to translate into “Dude, you’re killing my buzz!”.

    00

  • #
    SamG

    Ahhhh, a good non-partisan post.

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    Could we be getting lost on a magic roundabout of details and losing the general picture here?
    It appears to me that most measuring stations are on land (30% of the planets surface) which changes temperature quite rapidly. Land reradiates much heat at night and has a small thermal capacity in that solar heating does not penetrate deeply.
    The majority of the oceans have different thermal properties in that sunlight penetrates the surface to some depth. Bodies of water ultimately release much heat via latent heat transfer to the higher atmosphere, by-passing infra-red absorption by gases near sea-level.
    When I turn my globe to look straight down on Hawaii, most of what I see is ocean so, I think we need to be studying the effect of solar radiation (or the lack of it), wind currents, and water currents upon atmospheric conditions rather than worrying about the dodgy land measuring stations.

    Stevenson Screens frequently fail the basic siting criteria. They are supposed to be 4ft above the middle of a level area of short grass but this is The Water Planet so the reliance upon terrestrial data is bound to cause errors.
    Dropping 800 surface stations in favour of satellite data sounds okay except they calibrate the satellite IR readings against the actual surface temp records which are proving to be variably inaccurate.
    All this suggests to me that both warmistas and others need to be mindful of error bars in all temperature data and avoid reading too much into small periods of data.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    SamG’s on the money I think. Of all the potentially dodgy stations I’ve seen doing the rounds that has to have the most tenuous claims to UHI. It may make sense at surfacestations where there is a catalogue of sites, but it makes no sense as a one off.

    That red arrow pointing to a carpark 2km away??? Hello?

    “Exponential emissions from tourist activity” Hello?

    00

  • #
    Jimbo

    MattB:
    —-

    Have you seen the bolders? When concrete or bolders for that matter get heated by the sun for long enough you can fry eggs on them!!!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jimbo maybe you could write to whoever labelled the photo that they put in some large arrows saying “BIG HOT BOULDERS” lol.

    point is, those boulders have always been there, thus would not have have any impact on a temperature trend.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’m in a picky mood so I’ll be picky.

    The car park 2km away will have an affect on CO2 readings if the breeze is from the right direction. Car/bus exhaust contains much much more than 400ppm CO2. But that’s neither here or there.

    The boulders will have an affect. On a sunny day, both day and night will show up warmer. On a cloudy day day (of equal temp. of a sunny day) both day and night will show up cooler.

    The bushes will have a COOLING affect.
    The shadow of the tower will have a cooling affect.
    The concrete block under the tower may be close, but is above the stevenson screen. Doubtful if it’ll have a measurable affect.
    The extra shipping? Unless they still use the old black smoke chugging steamers in South Africa..well…

    I think the main point of this post is that of all the available clear areas, the monitoring equipment is located PURELY FOR CONVENIENCE. I think you’ll find this is the case for most weather stations.

    Even the modern equipment widely used in the USA are located close to buildings and phone lines (for remote auto reporting).

    many Cape locations develop into tourist attractions because they already contain telecom or government installations. Roads and other infrastructure are already present. Growing traffic and infrastructure is inevitable.

    For me, the one important question is this. Weather station data have been used for AGW climate purposes for near on 30 years now. The resources of large institutions like NASA and CRU have been utilized, yet this data is still like a dogs breakfast. WHY?

    00

  • #

    Guys the other point here is that this station is called Rural, and yet obviously in not in the middle of a paddock. And Cape Point is not all “rock”. (We have one of those in Australia, formerly known as Ayers Rock, and there aren’t many trees on it). Moist soil with grass on it, I’m guessing, would have a different temperature profile thanks to evaporative cooling. The point about urban and rural is that it shows how easy it is to look at a map and declare that a station would be “rural”- when it isn’t really. It shows how easy it would be to homogenise wild rural stations and still not come up with a meaningful rural answer.

    Also the station was moved in 1995, and the tower and buildings haven’t always been there. So those boulders and concrete blocks might matter. Who knows?

    The Station information is http://gaw.empa.ch/gawsis/reports.asp?StationID=35

    It’s just another example, adding to the long list, that shows Climate Scientists could have done better if they were serious about getting the information right.

    Where is the rigor? The Discipline? Where are the standards we can respect?

    00

  • #

    BTW – yes I was/am skeptical of the effect of shipping. But if you look on the link I provided in the story, it is apparently a very high traffic shipping site (look closely above at the image on the post now), and there are also stories like this one about the global effect of shipping emissions, as well as the black soot effect. No I’m not making any big assertions, but it seemed worth mentioning the shipping traffic. If those boats can affect such large areas, maybe having sensitive equipment close to a major shipping lane is not a great idea.

    I added the graphic of shipping lanes to the post Update :-)

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Warren @ 10:

    …….. It’s the trend that counts,dears..and you might consider the fact that this site is strongly maritime and consistently windy. Golly,you never learn…

    Warren, It’s the noise silly the noise that counts. Gawd will you never learn…….

    00

  • #
    Grant

    JPA Knowles @ 26

    Extremely good point. 75% oceans/water bodies acting like huge heat exchangers. As you say temperature on land fluctuates enormously diurnally as well as seasonally. There is a lot slower response from bodies of water.

    And they are using the most thermally volatile component of the biosphere to assert a trend. As Mark D points out in 33 there is so much noise.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Grant, JPA Knowles:
    Ocean currents, winds, clouds, humidity, rain, drought….. All affect weather/temperatures, and land far more than ocean. Even the Coral Sea temperatures fluctuate some degrees (not sure how many- 1 or 2 at least) between cloudy rainy summers and drier, sunnier summers. If we only knew that we don’t know much.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Binny

    I think one of the issues here is that weather stations were never meant to be all that accurate plus or -2° is not that big a deal in regard to their original purpose. It only becomes an issue when you have people trying to find a human signature in the climate that requires accuracy within .01 of a degree. Even in ideal situations the instruments are simply not that accurate, and that is where everything becomes a farce.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Yes I agree Binny @36. But I suggest you check these stations from BoM. Check the maximum temps and then the minimum temps. You’ll generally find the max temps to be stable whereas the minimum temps are rising. Clearly man’s signal due to UHI and not due to AGW from burning fossil fuels.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    should hurt the AGW’ers to the core;

    Nah – they’ll just attack him with a barrage of ad homs.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    janama: # 39

    … they’ll just attack him with a barrage of ad homs.

    Are these fired out of “Cackling Guns”?

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Well, the AGW’ers love authority and party line’s.

    Look who that is. What he is doing on a daily basis.

    hehe.

    00

  • #
    Jaytee

    Bulldust @ 8

    On the Tony thing, Andrew Bolt’s column today is worth a look:

    Of course, archeology and history are not exact science, are they? Not like climate science. /sarc

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] data from Africa might be as badly compromised as in the [...]

    00

  • #
    anne

    can someone please explain the contents of the climategate emails. what does ‘hide the decline ‘ and ‘ cant explain the lack of warming’ actually mean ‘. a decline in what ? the lack of warming in what ?

    00

  • #

    Some anonymous commenter keeps posting to this thread under different names. “Tony”, “Wheeler”, “Anne”, “Truth seeker” whoever they are, doesn’t seem to realize we are still waiting for some sign of honest conversation from ages ago, when he/she/it was held in moderation awaiting a polite response (or an apology). They keep sending futile illogical comments which go automatically into the wordpress “sin-bin”. Anyone can post here as long as they are honest and polite.

    00

  • #

    The multi-name commenter still doesn’t get it.

    Who-ever you are, you’ve have been placed in the moderation list (sin-bin), a place only a few people get to. I have sent you an email asking for a specific response or apology. You keep ignoring it. It was months ago, sent to one or more of your many pseudonyms. Search through your intray. Find it and reply. That’s an honest conversation. Until then, your attempts to comment are a waste of your time. I place a single requirement on people. Some people cannot stick to one line of thought, cannot lift their standards and hold a conversation without ignoring replies, wandering off topics, being rude, resorting to ad homs (your baseless lies about my funding are a great example. I am funded by donations from individuals, and it doesn’t add up to a “salary” – it barely covers costs). Why should I allow these weeds-of-reasoning to grow in this garden?

    Those who spread lies under the cloak of anonymity are parasites who destroy conversation and deserve no respect.

    If you can’t find the email I sent you, I guess you shouldn’t have posted under fake names and emails then eh?

    00