JoNova

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



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



Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores a win.

Back on August 6, 2010, when the UK BOM was predicting a warm winter, and every Met Agency in the West was already declaring that 2010 would be the hottest year ever, Bryan Leyland predicted (on a global scale) that before the end of the year, there would be significant cooling. As you can see from the chart, this is exactly what happened.

The UK Met Office has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget, but a retired engineer in New Zealand armed only with Excel and access to the internet and with the McLean is et al 2009 paper, was able to get it right.

Parking the SOI index (the blue line) 7 months into the future suggests things may get cooler still as the temperature (red line) often follows the trend. (Click for a larger image.) Note, the SOI is shifted 7 months forwards in time, and the scale is inverted.

Before anyone scoffs that the El Nino’s are usually followed by cooling, and the SOI indicator is well known, ponder that the well fed agencies of man-made-climate-fame weren’t telling the public that a big-chill was on the way and they ought to stock up on salt and red diesel. (And maybe take their own deicing fluid to the airport.*)

What’s ominous is the potential cooling that’s still in the offing

Bryan wrote to me to make another prediction: “world temperatures will remain cool until June at least. Whether or not this is the beginning of sunspots induced long term cooling remains to be seen. But there is no doubt that the present La Nina has been quite long already and is quite intense.”

The oceans drive the surface temperatures

The link between the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and temperatures is impressive, though, not perfect. The SOI scale is inverted and shifted 7 months into the future to make it easier on us mortals to see the link.

The reason the SOI is so influential is the sheer volume of heat content on-the-move. The cold waters of the deep dark abyss, have snuck up near the surface to steal heat from the ephemeral air. In a post last June, William Kininmonth explains how the whole planet could suddenly “get warmer” during an El Nino, and then suddenly cool again. The ocean floor holds 3km of close-to-freezing water covering 70% of the planet.

Southern Ossilation Index, Global Temperatures 2008 -2010

Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), Global Temperatures 2000 -2010. (Click for a larger image)

The SOI is at a record high

I asked John McLean about the current SOI level, and he replied:

“The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) value for December of +27 is the highest December SOI value on record, as well as being the highest value for any month since November 1973.” From BoM “ENSO wrap-up” webpage.

On the SOI archive webpage I can’t see any similar sustained strong La Nina conditions since 1917, at which time 3 months (Jul, Aug, Sep) were all greater than +27.1 (respectively 28.3, 34.8, 29.7). The only other months when this figure was exceeded are April 1904 (+31.7) and Nov 1973 ((+31.6).

The last 6 months (Jul-Dec 2010) have all high positive SOI’s and this is surpassed only by 1917, which had SOI greater than +8 in 11 months of the year (Feb-Dec) and it continued into the first 3 of 1918. (An SOI of +8 regarded as the La Nina threshold is exceeded for 3 months).

According to the BoM’s data since 1900, the annual average mean temperature anomaly in 1917 was the coldest. (See this BOM page.)

According to the HadCRUT3 dataset, the annual average temperature anomaly for 1917 was -0.507 deg C, putting it within 0.1 degrees of the coldest year since 1850 (i.e. 1911 at -0.582).

Related Posts

The August 6 prediction confirmed: Is the cold weather coming?

Ever wondered how the whole planet could suddenly “get warmer” during an El Nino, and then suddenly cool again? William Kininmonth has the answer.  The deep oceans drive the atmosphere.

*Yes, I do realize that the SOI doesn’t predict the weather at Heathrow.

UPDATE

Richard at the Climate Conversation (NZ) has also written about Leylands SOI Graph.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores a win., 1.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4nfxylx

150 comments to Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores a win.

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Hmm, seven months lag between the SOI and the temperature. That is half a year (more or less). So we are saying that the winter SOI, and hence the winter ocean temperatures, determines the air temperature in the following summer.

    How does that work? What is the transport system? Can it just be ocean currents, and if so, why does the energy not just get dissipated in the process?

    There is a lot going on here that I don’t understand, and I hate that.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    But that cannot be right because it does not mention CO2. /sarc off

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    And for the warmist trolls:
    Notice how the pretty red line follows the nice blue line……..

    For you PhD Climate “scientists”:
    Notice how the pretty red line follows the nice blue line……..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Ahoy Richard

    Does this mean the upwelling cold seawater will degass leading to a CO2 spike to give the catastrophists another disaster herald?

    Wouldn’t it be delicious if the cold spike(first step into global cooling?) is syncronous with a “measured” CO2 surge! Notwithstanding the inferred 600-800yr lag of proxy measured CO2 behind temps.

    On a more serious note; the CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa should be scrupulously compared to Cape Grim. Obviously ML has a volcanic component, a sea-mount upwelling component as well as the nominal atmospheric component. Cape Grim on the other hand would have to be overprinted by CO2 delivered by circumpolar currents & winds.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova has an interesting post on this global temperature prediction. She also reminds us that the SOI trace is inverted, as well [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Richard @ 3

    I’ve never known you to question one of jo’s post before. The times are a changing,/sarc again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Putting this ‘cold snap’ in perspective, it is nowhere near the levels reached in 2008, and only constitutes a drop to the average levels of the 2000′s. Even with the cold snap the temperature anomaly is about 0.4 above the long term average.

    Also the temperature effect of El Nino’s and La Ninas is well known and not news. Climate scientists have been pointing out for years that the temperature spike in 1998 was caused by the biggest El Nino if the 20th century.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    So, somebody else uses a laptop besides Corbyn, who puts the UK Met to shame. Dr. Slingo from the UK Met is still asking for 20 to 30 million pounds for abetter , faster computer, she said that they will have better forecast. Personally I do not see it, the 30 million pound computer just does not cut it, when Dr. corbyn uses a laptop and gets it right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    …1917, which had SOI greater than +8 in 11 months of the year (Feb-Dec) and it continued into the first 3 of 1918…

    Seeing the 1918 was the year of the big Rockhampton flood. Could more of the near future be like 1918? Extreme weather caused by cooling?
    “The cyclone generated phenomenal rainfall: 1411mm in three days at Mackay Post Office.”
    http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/cyclone2.htm

    [that is 55.55 inches of rainfall for the non-metric readers] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    pattoh:
    January 11th, 2011 at 6:17 am

    Wouldn’t it be delicious if the cold spike(first step into global cooling?) is syncronous with a “measured” CO2 surge! Notwithstanding the inferred 600-800yr lag of proxy measured CO2 behind temps.

    More interesting if the falling sea surface temperatures take in more CO2 leading to a fall in growth rates or even a fall in global levels. Combine this with greater sequestration on land from all the water and in the sea from all the fertilisation from the flood waters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Techno Buzzer. Techno Buzzer said: Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores … http://bit.ly/h59gy4 #laptop [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Alarmist of the Year (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/warmist-cant-take-the-heat/story-e6frfhqf-1225878118730) and warmist guru Tim Flannery on the ABC’s Science Show (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101365.htm) on January 1:

    I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesn’t exist yet, but it will exist in future…

    With our technology now, particularly computer based surveillance systems in agriculture and in the oceans and whatever else, we’re developing a sort of nervous system that allows us to convey that message to the planet. We’ll never be able to control the earth, there’s no doubt about it. We can’t control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks really will exist. This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_told_fballery_overboard/

    TALKING ABOUT “BRAINS”, THIS CHARLATAN “Flannery” CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT HE CERTAINLY DOES NOT POSSESS ONE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Barker

    If Gaia’s nervous system incorporates the MET supercomputer, it won’t be winning any debates:-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    That Flannery interview should have been on the the radio national program “The Spirit of Things” with Rachael Kohn. She’s good at those type of fantasies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Janama @ 9:

    Steketee is an absolute coward… he is not allowing replies to that shamelessly misrepresentative response. He would be completely anilhalated if he did. Pissweak… pardon the Francais.

    I see Agenda 21 has a department at Murdoch now:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/8623884/2020-shamefull-wa-lifestyle-strains-planet/

    We now have academics quoting stats from the Australian Conservation Foundation as if it is a reliable source of statistics. I love the promotion of the least efficient form of electricity (household solar PV) as being the way to reduce our “global environmental footprints.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    To refresh people’s memories, John McLean was a co-author of this paper:

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/InfluenceSoOscillation.pdf

    Which hypothesised this:

    “Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric
    temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 19582008 period. GTTA are
    represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period
    1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the
    data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic
    eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close
    relationship between SOI and GTTA”

    There was a rather derisory and aggressively dismissive response to this from the usual suspects:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf

    Foster et al ridiculed McLean et al on the basis that natural variation could not create a trend in temperature and that only AGW forcing could be responsible for any recent trend. Apart from the vindication of this post McLean have been, at least partially, supported by this recent paper:

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jan/6jan2011a5.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A decrease of 0.3 degrees (F or C?) cooling for the last quarter of 2010 for the entire world is ominous. And the Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum hasn’t even shifted up into second gear, yet.

    The people of Britain must disregard the ever-wrong, global warming fantasy ramblings of the UK Met Office and the IPCC. The people must prepare for decades of brutal cold. Planetary orbital mechanics and its control of the Sun’s climate, which ultimately and completely dictates our climate, is totally predictable. Supercomputer projections are garbage in/garbage out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    when SE Qld went on water restrictions, the Premier said she would lift the restrictions when the dams reached 60%. however, she then went back on her word and allowed Wivenhoe to fill to capacity. Now….

    11 Jan: SMH: Wall of water heads for Wivenhoe Dam
    Authorities are conducting new modelling to see what the wall of water ripping through the Lockyer Valley will mean for Wivenhoe Dam, Premier Anna Bligh says.
    Much of the deluge that fell in the Toowoomba region and is now ripping a path of devastation in the Lockyer Valley will move into the catchment of the Wivenhoe Dam system that feeds Brisbane…
    “This wave of water that we saw yesterday is making its way through the valley right now,” she (Premier Bligh) told ABC Radio.
    “We are now doing new modelling on what all of this might mean for the catchment in the Wivenhoe Dam…
    Moderate flooding is expected in Brisbane today.
    And a king tide is expected to combine with water release from the dam to cause flooding tomorrow…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/wall-of-water-heads-for-wivenhoe-dam-20110111-19lnh.html

    the madness of the politicians who listened to Flannery and the likes is now causing untold damage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    this is all we need!

    11 Jan: Australian: Wivenhoe Dam saving Queensland’s capital — for now
    “The dam will see releases over the next two to three days larger than it has ever seen in its history.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wivenhoe-dam-saving-queenslands-capital-for-now/story-e6frg6nf-1225985231803


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Steketee” is a GUTLESS WONDER.

    I’d like to meet him in a pub for a bitch slap…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    thought i should post this October piece to show wivenhoe was full to capacity months before the recent rains. if water restrictions had been lifted when the dams reached 60% as promised, i doubt very much we’d be in the position we are in now:

    18 Oct: Brisbane Times: Thousands trapped for glimpse of a dam rare sight
    Video caption: Wivenhoe Dam reaches capacity
    The Wivenhoe Dam has reached capacity and a spillway gate has opened for the first time in 10 years.
    Wivenhoe’s five gates were opened last week after heavy rain in southeast Queensland filled the dam to capacity for the first time in more than a decade.
    About 98,000 megalitres of water have been released daily…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/thousands-trapped-for-glimpse-of-a-dam-rare-sight-20101018-16pdf.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the ABC is out in defence of the Gaia philosophy:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42794.html#comments

    Yes, that’s Will Steffen and friends. For some reason the comments aren’t showing up for me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    pat@23: You mean to say that without water restrictions, Queenslanders would have been busy watering their gardens in the rain?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    pattoh:
    January 11th, 2011 at 10:46 am
    Sliggy
    BoM says we have just had (local) record SSTs

    Yes “(local)”!?! CO2 as you may know will go into the sea when the sea surface temp is lower and come out when it is higher if all else is equal.

    This http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    says global sea surface temp is “0.50 Deg F cooler than this day las year”

    Jan 11 last year:
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.1.11.2010.gif
    Jan 10 this year:
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.1.10.2011.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    SOI phase relationships with rainfall in eastern Australia
    Article first published online: 29 NOV 2006 in the International Journal of Climatology
    Roger Stone, Andris Auliciems

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370120608/abstract

    Abstract
    “Phases of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) have been identified using cluster analysis. The monthly phases are associated with amounts of rainfall expressed in terms of probability distributions for various locations in eastern Australia. The phase representing rapid rise in SOI indicates above median rainfall during Southern Hemisphere autumn and spring at the locations analysed. The phase representing consistently positive SOI generally corresponds with above median rainfall amounts while the phase representing consistently negative SOI corresponds with below median rainfall amounts. As SOI phases relate to actual rainfall amounts, expressed in terms of probability distributions, the phases have, for instance, direct application to agricultural decision support programs.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Are the BOM, MET, and DEC reading SciFi instead of their International Journal of Climatology Meme?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Bulldust: @24

    I went there and was able to read the comments – there were 134 of them.

    I just went back and refreshed to see new comments and it came up and there were listed 101 comments and I couldn’t see them!! What’s going on??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re Cohenite #17

    Dr Doug Mackie, a research fellow in the department of chemistry at the University of Otago opines on the MdFC paper at a certain NZ warmist site.

    But as an example of successful whacking I would like to cite the case of the McLean, de Freitas and Carter paper. It was shot down mercilessly. Now I’m not great frequenter of the denialosphere but I have formed the impression that this work is not often cited now that anyone can easily post links to solid refudiations.

    Note the Palin vernacular.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “Solid refudiations”; whatever they are there aren’t any.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Janama:

    The ABC seems to be a bit hit and miss ATM. Right now the boards are working again, but I reckon they are having server issues.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Pat” (21), How can releasing water from Wivenhoe Dam, thus increasing the volume of water in the Brisbane River be hailed as a measure for “saving Brisbane”?????

    Logically, this simply does not make any common sense!

    I would be very interested in their thought process behind this!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    janama@11

    What a gutless wonder is this Steketee. Apart from his pissweak backtracking, I reckon he insisted that his published “reply” must not be subject to reader comments. But then, he is just a political hack so insinuation and smear are his forte.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “cohenite” (31), maybe “Solid refudiations” are what seem to flow profusely from the mouths of RED gillard, tim flannery, any pitman, al gore etc etc……….

    On second thought, that’s more like “bovine excrement”……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    wendy – Wivenhoe dam has been holding back water which is what it was designed to do. But it has now reached it’s holding back capacity and has to start overflowing into the Brisbane river which is already saturated. There’s just too much water. Now that it’s reached its peak the Brisbane river has now burst it’s banks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The latest at the ABC is priceless because it is by Penny Wong’s “principal adviser” (sic):

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42852.html

    My response, assuming it gets posted:

    “So interesting to see the words of a spin merchant first hand. None of the arguments have the vaguest appreciation of economic and technological reality. It is thus that bereft of reason, policy statements are made in an intellectual vacuum.

    If Penny Wong was Labor’s answer to Climate Change Policy and you her principal advisor, how come she was canned from the job? Keep up the good work mate, you make the skeptics job a heck of a lot easier.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    John Mclean points out: “According to the HadCRUT3 dataset, the annual average temperature anomaly for 1917 was -0.507 deg C, putting it within 0.1 degrees of the coldest year since 1850 (i.e. 1911 at -0.582)”.
    That’s the last time we had an SOI index equivalent to the current one, but this year is still one of the hottest on record, as next year will probably be. Tells you something about warming doesn’t it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Just watched Gavin Morris, local weather presenter on NBN Newcastle explaining La Nina and why Australia’s East Coast is receiving so much rain, with a large map behind him showing the oceans surrounding Australia in a subdued shade of red, Gavin stated the La Nina was causing increased ocean temperatures, leading to increased evaporation producing the copious precipitation we are now receiving. This would seem to make sense, if our BOM didn’t explain La Nina’s like this:

    Changes to the atmosphere and ocean circulation during La Niña events include:

    * Cooler than normal ocean temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
    * Increased convection or cloudiness over tropical Australia, Papua New-Guinea, and Indonesia.
    * Stronger than normal (easterly) trade winds across the Pacific Ocean (but not necessarily in the Australian region).
    * High (positive) values of the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index).

    and wikipedia as below:
    During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C.

    I am now totally confused, please help.

    Bob


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Weather in Perth at the moment is unusual – very strong easterlies at night time – not sure of what phase the moon is either, but my Oregon Scientific weather indicator indicated rain (presumably low pressure system about).

    I expect the usual suspects will be crowing from their perches about climate disruption, but more specifically the rather poor understanding of the weather by the world’s meterological organisations that they could not forsee the present disaster in Qld. So many people caught on the hop with so little warning – what? overtime ban over the weekend for the BOM? Interfering with public service leave?

    I suppose this will also be blamed on the conservatives, climate realists and Sarah Palin.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    DavidR @39 is slumming from his usual choice of pontification, Unleashed, and makes the following mysterious comment:

    “but this year is still one of the hottest on record, as next year will probably be. Tells you something about warming doesn’t it.”

    Actually 2010 is not one of the hottest on the record in any meaningful way; as this graph of the global temperature record since 1850, the time when the LIA finished and TSI began increasing, shows:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850

    The graph clearly shows 1998 is the peak year with temperature going downhill since then; and upto 1998 a PDO pattern clearly present.

    I say in any meaningful way because the temperature increase since 1850, while consistent with solar activity, is completely inconsistent with levels of CO2 which have increased monotonically over the 20thC; temperature on the other hand has trended up and down with PDO phase changes and TSI activity.

    As well the increase in temperature over the 20thC has been insufficient based on AGW predictions given the total increase of CO2 atmospheric concentration; instead of an increase of ~0.6C, the amount of extra CO2 should have caused, if AGW was correct, an increase of ~1.3C.

    As for next year probably being a hot year, David obviously has a MET sensibility and we all know their success rate. So what it tells us about warming is, as usual, that AGW belief is a collective delusional pathology and the only thing warming are the fevered brows of the alarmists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Bob #40

    The big picture is the Current Sea Surface Anomaly Plot

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    From this WUWT page http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ensosea-levelsea-surface-temperature-page/

    The “increased” ocean temperatures around Australia are in green but La Nina is the phenomenon of up-welling cold in the eastern Pacific pushing warm water across to the west. As you can see, there’s a lot more cooler water than warm but there is not the -3 C anomaly across the equator that was there a few weeks ago.

    That anomaly is up-dated constantly from the ARGO network and well worth watching. I live on the NZ Bay of Plenty coast and can vouch that the temperature is spot-on here.

    There are also animations on the WUWT page that demonstrate the phenomenon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Should the 2011 La niña replicate that of 2007-2008, it will be interesting to follow how J Hansen, the ‘artful dodger’, deals with it in his global temperature series.
    Remember how the impact of the 1998 super-El Niño was massaged out of the series in order to maintain the appearance of a steadier temperature increase in response to a monotonically rising CO2 concentration.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    DavidR (39),

    Comparing SOI equivalents if you like, the temperature rise 1911-2008 (whatever the cause) is ~ 0.7°C/century.
    Hardly enough to run screaming through the streets about, you will agree I’m sure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Richard C (NZ):
    January 11th, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Thanks for that Richard, much appreciated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    paul statterly

    all climate research funding should be like this starting 2011:

    50% of full amount given for the initial research.
    50% of full amount paid only if forecasts and models are proven correct.

    under this model, british taxpayers would have saved 50% of the millions they spent on the MET office.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    wendy:#34
    January 11th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “Pat” (21), How can releasing water from Wivenhoe Dam, thus increasing the volume of water in the Brisbane River be hailed as a measure for “saving Brisbane”?????

    Logically, this simply does not make any common sense!

    I would be very interested in their thought process behind this!

    Wendy, a dam must release water when nearing full capacity incase the dam wall is breached. If the wall breaches, that’s when the WHOLE OF BRISBANE will be under water up to their rooves.

    As it is, Wivenhoe dam is well above capacity with more water coming in from the catchment area.

    The problem, if there is one regards our dams, is that water should have been released long ago (months ago) However, when the dam authorities first started releasing small amounts, they and the Qld Premier came under fire from people who claimed water was being wasted, IDIOTS.

    This minute (8pm Bris time) many in my suburb of Strathpine have evacuated. My property is under 2mtrs water. House set high but water within 2ft of steps. My driveway underwater, I can’t get out. Waiting for high tide at 1:30am to see what happens.
    The dam upstream from me,(5kms away) North Pine dam, is frantically releasing water so as the wall isn’t breached. Fingers crossed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Good luck Baa, stay safe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Wow – hang in there Baa.

    The Clarence is up to the Pub steps in Tabulam, 7 houses evacuated. Bonalbo, Urbenville and Woodenbong are ok but cut off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The problem, if there is one regards our dams, is that water should have been released long ago (months ago) However, when the dam authorities first started releasing small amounts, they and the Qld Premier came under fire from people who claimed water was being wasted, IDIOTS.

    I believe QLD is retracing the steps of NSW when the 1978 floods came through the Hawkesbury. Warragamba Dam has a dual purpose of both water supply and flood mitigation. Unfortunately, to be effective at flood mitigation they need to get rid of water early (and given Sydney’s well developed water transport infrastructure they had a wide variety of places to dump it, provided they started early). To be effective at water supply they needed to keep as much water as possible — it’s not possible to do both jobs perfectly, a compromise must be reached. In 1978 they failed at flood mitigation. Later on they built a spillway to allow the water to automatically run through after the dam reaches capacity.

    What’s more, with the increasing profits to be made from Sydney residential property development, and the feeling of safety that comes from many dry years and the fact that a dam exists at all (even one with ambiguity of purpose), there were steady releases of Hawkesbury land that previously was considered too dangerous to build on.

    Jump now to QLD, we all know what a “Queenslander” house looks like — up on stilts. My grandmother’s house was well off the ground and the back of the yard did indeed flood (this was not far from the center of Brisbane). However, in recent years most modern QLD houses are starting to look different (without the stilts).

    This all comes down to being able to predict both short/medium term weather and longer term (dare I say it, climate), it also comes down to trusting the guy with hands on the flood gate lever. Of course, no one is going to get their predictions right every time, but some are better than others. I’m coming around to the opinion that the correct way for government to award research money is to offer prizes for successful prediction of events that no one else can predict — prediction is the essential deliverable of science, so taxpayer’s money should buy the deliverable, not the intermediate process.

    King George offered a prize for solving the problem of Longitude, and it worked very well to stimulate practical research. Something to think about.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    ZOMGZ just caught the tail end of a presentation on the Brisbane flood disaster on channel 9 and some weed with a talking head was associating the floods with global warming. This kind of ignorance makes my blood boil. Sorry but that is inexcusable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Good luck Baa.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Warren

    …only thing is the UK Met didn’t predict a warm winter,because it did not issue an official seasonal forecast,no matter what page somebody posted on a blog.

    No cigar,Bryan. It’s pretty easy to guess we may see global cooling until June,because the temperature record shows this sort of variation is not uncommon…while temperatures remain trending upwards over the long term.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Good luck Mr Humbug… la nina is a harsh lady but you guys can do this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Mungo MacCallum repeats Steketee in the Byron Shire Echo and duplicates the errors:

    Going to extremes now natural for weather
    By Mungo MacCallum

    For the first couple of weeks of 2011 the big story has been the weather – it well and truly pushed politics off the front pages. But not for long. Not that the weather is likely to get all that much better, but that’s not the point. From here on in it will become inextricably entangled with politics.

    Indeed, to some extent it already has. When Tony Abbott went to Queensland to inspect the flood damage, he made it clear that his main objective was not to express sympathy and compassion for the victims, but to gather political ammunition. He was there, he announced, to check up on the government’s relief measures, to make sure there was no more waste.

    And then he sent his hapless Mr Fixit, Andrew Robb, into a committee stacked with irrational Nationals to mastermind the construction of lots of new dams. These, he said, would not only prevent flooding, but would also store water against future droughts and generate lots of clean electricity.

    As various experts hurried to inform him, this was all nonsense: dams were hugely expensive and also environmentally damaging and if they were to be built at all it had to be for a well formulated purpose, not just as some kind of political panacea.

    And in any case the real problem was towns located in floodplains; how do you dam a floodplain? But Abbott was happy to have struck the first blow, and followed it with a demand that the implementation of reforms for the Murray-Darling system be postponed for at least a year because he didn’t like them.

    Julia Gillard, meanwhile, stuck to the traditional script, being shocked and sorrowful and promising relief. But if she was genuinely depressed by the human suffering she saw, she must have been equally horrified at the budgetary implications. Quite apart from the billions needed to repair the damage, the loss of revenue from exports of minerals and primary produce will be horrendous; so much for getting back into surplus in 2013.

    And domestic prices will rise dramatically, causing a sudden inflationary spike and the prospect of another interest rate rise. The Reserve Bank may be persuaded to discount the increase in the Consumer Price Index as a one-off event, but is it really? Floods like these are supposed to be one in a hundred years events, but in fact parts of Queensland have been hit by similar disasters three times in the last two years, and the weather bureau reckons 2011 is shaping up to be the mother of them all.

    Certainly some of the problem can be blamed on an unusually intense La Nina, which is unlikely to be repeated soon – or at least it would have been unlikely under the patterns of the last century. But it just could be that the times have moved on; that, like politics, the weather has entered a new paradigm.

    Which brings us inevitably to climate change. The sceptics are, of course, not convinced, pointing out that in Australia 2010 was the coldest year since 2001; true, but that’s because the last decade was the hottest on record. And in fact 2010 was hotter than the average from 1960 to 1990, suggesting that yes, there is a trend. And most importantly in 2010 the sea surface temperatures were also the highest on record, which may or may not have contributed to the La Nina – we just don’t know.

    Looking more widely, in amassing data from 189 nations and territories across the globe the World Meteorological Organisation calculated that the year to the end of October was the hottest since 1850, when they started keeping records. The northern winter may bring this down a little when the annual figures arrive in March but the experts are predicting that 2010 will still be in the top three.

    Ah yes, the northern winter: surely such freezing conditions prove that global warming is a myth? Well no, in fact they are more evidence that it is very real indeed. Global warming does not mean a slow, steady increase in temperature across the planet; it mean that as more energy is trapped in the earth’s system, the weather patterns grow more chaotic; extreme events become the norm. Thus we can look forward to an increase in the severity of droughts, floods, storms, cyclones, hurricanes and yes, even blizzards.

    One possible effect of global warming might be to push the gulf stream, the northerly current that skirts the west coast of Europe, further out into the Atlantic; if that happens, freezing European winters will become standard. Prepare for an influx of Pommy boat people.

    And at the same time, at least 17 countries broke their maximum temperature records in 2010 and the ice caps and glaciers continued to retreat. And of course greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continued to rise. Since 1990 the increase has been 27.5 per cent and there is no sign of any global strategy that will reverse the trend. In the last 30 years the mean global temperature has risen by just half a centigrade degree – and look at what has already happened: 2010 saw the second highest level of natural catastrophes in that 30 years and almost all of them had to do with the weather.

    Even if the politicians get their act together and agree to stabilise greenhouse emissions at 450 parts per million, which is the most optimistic of all suggested scenarios but still an extremely unlikely one, global temperatures will still rise by another two centigrade degrees – four times the increase to date. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    This eventuality should give Gillard and Abbott something to contemplate as they ceaselessly circle each other in an effort to score a point for the evening news; but it probably won’t. They may, however, care to note that the problem so concerns Graeme Wood of Wotif.com that he gave $1.6 million, the largest political donation ever disclosed, to the only party he thought was serious about it – the Greens.

    If science and objective evidence will not convince our leaders to act, perhaps the hope of money will.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    I wonder if John Maclean or Brian Leyland can find information to work out the SOI for 1893. Maybe there is information in the files of long term weather forcaster Indigo Jones. The following paper by Jones gives some history on rainfall and floods in Queensland from 1836 to 1931 espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:207605/s18378366_1935_2_6_288.pdf
    I believe Jones based his forcasts on sunspot cycles, movement & position of planets and the moon as well as temperature, pressure and rainfall data which he measured and obtained from places such as Darwin.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    John Brookes:

    Wivenhoe Dam is not supposed to fill. it is supposed to be ready to take in water should rains such as those being experienced at present occur.

    if the qld premier had kept her promise to ease water restrictions eighteen months or so ago when the combined dam capacity reached 60%, the dams would not have continued to fill at such alarming levels. we’ve had many dry months in that period.

    as Baa Humbug pointed out, there was criticism when water was released from Wivenhoe, which, in fact, should have been happening regularly over many months, just as there was outrage when Gold Coast Mayor, Ron Clarke, urged people to ignore water restrictions when their Hinze Dam was overflowing and water was going to be released from the dam and wasted anyway.

    BOM did not give any warning to Toowoomba, Lockyer Valley or Ipswich that they should expect flooding.

    see sources in next post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    18 May 2009: Dam levels bring two-year buffer on water restrictions
    Patchy showers will fall over Brisbane this evening ahead of moderate to heavy rain later in the week, which is expected to push Brisbane dam levels past 60 per cent capacity and further ease water restrictions.
    A one per cent rise in Brisbane dam levels from predicted rain could ease water restrictions for at least two years…
    The combined capacity of Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams is 59.02 pe cent – just 0.98 per cent below the 60 per cent trigger point that would allow the Queensland Water Commission to relax tough restrictions…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/dam-levels-bring-twoyear-buffer-on-water-restrictions-20090518-b837.html

    8 March 2010: Courier Mail: Wivenhoe Dam ready for big spill in Brisbane River
    JUST 40mm of rain is expected to be enough to start Brisbane’s Wivenhoe Dam spilling into the Brisbane River, the first time it has occurred since February 1999…
    But Premier Anna Bligh and water managers say there will be no easing of permanent water saving measures.
    “We can’t be complacent and we must treat water as a precious resource not to be wasted whether our dams are 50 or 100 per cent,” Ms Bligh said.
    “I think the public understands how important water conservation is and have adopted water saving measures as part of the daily lives. One of the reasons the dams are now at 93.8 per cent capacity is because of the community’s water conservation efforts.”…
    Seqwater spokesman Mike Foster said yesterday if Wivenhoe’s flood gates were opened, there should be no fears about flooding in Brisbane, because even when full, the dam retained the capacity for an additional 1,450,000 megalitres (almost three Sydney Harbours) in flood storage…
    “I think people forget just how big a storage it is, three times the size of Somerset and five times the size of North Pine in terms of drinking water capacity.
    “On top of that Wivenhoe has almost the same storage again for flood capacity.”
    With a dry winter predicted by the National Climate Centre, supplies were expected to drop about 6 per cent over the cooler months of the year.
    Somerset Dam is at 98.9 per cent. North Pine is on 98.9 per cent and the Hinze Dam on the Gold Coast and Lake Baroon Pocket on the Sunshine Coast have been overflowing for weeks.
    At “full” supply, Wivenhoe will hold 1.15 million megalitres or about 2000 times the daily water consumption of Brisbane.
    It is expected that during a flood similar in magnitude to that experienced in 1974, Wivenhoe’s flood mitigation factor will cut flood levels by about 2m.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/wivenhoe-dam-ready-for-big-spill-in-brisbane-river/story-e6freoof-1225838427960

    4 Oct 2008: Gold Coast Bulletin: Ignore water bans: Mayor
    MAYOR Ron Clarke has declared his city a wet zone and told residents to ignore ‘unfair’ water restrictions and keep their hoses running.
    The Queensland Water Commission will next week impose High Level Target 170 water restrictions on Gold Coasters when the Hinze Dam dips below 95 per cent capacity.
    Cr Clarke told the Weekend Bulletin that it was ‘complete nonsense’ to force the most extreme water restrictions on unsuspecting Gold Coasters.
    “We use about 0.1 of a percentage point of the capacity each day so that means we will probably dip under 95 per cent within seven days,” said Cr Clarke…
    Cr Clarke said the pipeline to Brisbane dams had not yet been completed and until it was, Gold Coasters should continue to use their hoses and sprinklers at their leisure.
    “That pipe isn’t connected yet. We are supplying over 20ML a day to Logan. Maybe when we’re connected to Brisbane that might change,” he said….
    “The QWC is a bit like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe people will begin to do what they want because they stop believing them.”
    Mr Langbroek said it was ‘ridiculous’ to target Gold Coast residents when water stocks remained at near capacity…
    Premier Anna Bligh refused to engage in a slanging match with Cr Clarke and said most people were happy to keep the restrictions.
    “I think everybody understands we have come through a tough period with water and certainly what people are telling me is that they would rather have a cautious approach and stick with the restrictions than lift them too prematurely,” she said…
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/10/04/17082_gold-coast-top-story.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Cohenite @ 42 claims that 2010 was not one of the hottest years on record and then provides a graph showing that it was. All of the major temperature measures. HADCRUT, Giss, UAH and RSS show 2010 as being in the top 3 years and possibly the hottest depending on the December figures which are not yet available.

    The graph Cohenite presents shows 1 month in 1998 as being exceptional hot, but does not show that the entire year was hotter than 2010. That remains to be determined.

    Next year will also be hot because we are seeing increased solar activity which has historically been a predictor of increased temperature. Generally at the start of a solar cycle temperatures increase by about 0.3 degrees above the long term trend and at the end of the solar cycle they decrease by 0.3 below the long term trend. This pattern has been observed over the past 150 years. However with an increasing trend towards warming the decline at the end of the cycle has been eliminated by the warming as has largely occurred in the last decade where the cooling trend was only 0.07 degrees.

    As manalive @44 points out the temperature increase over the last century is about 0.7 degrees, which compared to the 0.2 warming in the MWP, or the -0.1 cooling since the holocene maximum is a truly exceptional figure. Except of course that the warming of the last 15 years, (re-calibrate cohenites graph for the last 15 years) which is above 1.2 degrees per century.

    Cohenite’s simplistic view that temperatures will trend in line with CO2 levels ignore the reality that their are a wide range of factors that influence temperature of which CO2 is merely the long term dominant factor. Short term variations such as solar cycles, el ninos, and methodology changes have significant short term effects but very limited long term effects. Just as waves have much greater short term effect on sea level than warming there are numerous short term impacts on temperature that briefly swamp the long term effect of C02 Increase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    On a completely different note, those of you who have complained about the wivenhoe dam should read this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110758.htm?section=justin

    The dam is currently at about 80% capacity which is well above its normal storage capacity of about 45%. Without the Wivenhoe dam, about half its current contents would have flowed down the Brisbane river in the last two days causing massive flooding in Brisbane. The dam is designed to reduce the flow in the river not eliminate it which is precisely what it is doing. AGW predicts we will see more extreme weather events like this so it looks like Brisbane is going to need the dam well into the future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    an admission!

    12 Jan: Australian: Pia Ackerman: La Nina weather pattern as strong as the 1974 version
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society president Neville Nicholls said the current La Nina phenomenon was at least as strong as that of 1974, two years after he began working for the Bureau of Meteorology.
    “You wouldn’t have seen La Nina mentioned in 1974,” he said.
    “It wasn’t very high even on the meteorological radar at the time.
    “That flooding was largely caused by actual rain in the Brisbane catchment itself, a stalled system that sat off the coast for a long time and dumped a lot of rain.
    “As far as I can see, this one has been more inland, although it has been raining a lot in Brisbane and around the surrounds.”
    Professor Nicholls said technology had improved dramatically since the 1970s, but it was still difficult to predict the kind of flash flooding that tore through Toowoomba on Monday when two creeks surged. “We will never have the technology to predict that sort of thing that far in advance so people can avoid it,” said Professor Nicholls.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/la-nina-weather-pattern-as-strong-as-the-1974-version/story-e6frg6xf-1225985877914


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Pat@60: “an admission” – An admission of what?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Charles S. Opalek, PE: @19 states that:
    “A decrease of 0.3 degrees (F or C?) cooling for the last quarter of 2010 for the entire world is ominous.”
    No its not Charles, its fictitious! Even if it wasn’t, it isn’t exceptional. We saw 2 similar declines in 2007 alone.

    The paper above uses the RSS figures which show a decline of 0.3 over six months, not three months. but none of the other 3 major records show a similar decline. GISS shows an increase while HadCrut3 is basically flat.

    Short term variations are nothing more than ‘expected’ and making any long term predictions based on them is absurd.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug:
    January 11th, 2011 at 8:03 pm #48

    Hey buddy! Hang in there.

    In 1993 in the US Mid West we faced similar issues where authorities held water (mostly because boaters and fisherman didn’t want it released). Then when the heavy rains hit, the catchment area filled too fast. Then they couldn’t release the water fast enough and we had failing levees and dams all throughout the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi river basins. This becomes very accute when you have a series of dams and flood control structures along a long waterway.

    Anyway, good luck to you. I’ll keep you in my prayers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR from 39;

    you avoided answering my questions here: (in another thread)

    So let me ask again:
    See this graph with trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/to:1979/trend notice the trend 1941 to 1979 almost 40 years which is almost 10 years longer than “climate” right?

    See this graph: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global-sea-level-rise
    And this: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/GlobalSeaLevelChange.gif

    If global sea level is such a strong indicator of global warming, why is there no discernible dip in sea level rise at the time of the 40 year cooling trend?

    As Cohenite aptly states @ 42:

    So what it tells us about warming is, as usual, that AGW belief is a collective delusional pathology and the only thing warming are the fevered brows of the alarmists.

    So which one are you: http://www.czechclimbing.com/fotos/clanky07/c070908bbig.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    G’morn and a heartfelt thankyou to everybody who expressed sentiments. I am especially pleased to hear from my mate Kluger. (Where’ve you been you old ba$tard?)

    (I took a couple hours snooze, first time in about 30hrs.)

    The SES came around in a boat at 7pm, I sent them down to the neighbours (I only have 3 down the road (river now) from me. One had his car totally submerged. He and his decided to evacuate. Me and the other 2 (really old farmers) decided to stay. SES said they’ll check back at 11:30 which they did. GREAT GREAT PEOPLE. A number of houses up from me also evacuated, but they don’t live in a Queenslander like I do.

    The first hurdle for us was the 1:30am high tide, described as kingtide on TV but 20cm lower than the 2pm afternoon high.

    I awoke at 1:20 to find the water had gone down an amazing amount. I can see the tops of my fences, I can see the lower branches of my Moreton Fig trees. Big big relief.

    Next hurdle is 2pm in the arvo, which is the next high tide, but unless more water comes down from upriver we should be fine.

    p.s. to EVERYBODY. Please DO NOT make uninformed statements about the terrible FLASH flooding in Toowoomba. I’m unhappy with the authorities as the next man, but NOBODY could have forseen the Toowoomba event which was a freak. The dam levels are a different story, debate that to your hearts content.

    Thankyou again for your well wishes :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    grayman @8

    I guess then that according to the MET office reasoning my desktop computer, being larger and faster than a laptop, should do an even better predicting job. So how is it that when I ask it what tomorrow’s weather will be, all I get is an error message? Microsoft said Windows can do everything! But I guess not. Or maybe it’s not taking CO2 into account properly…BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!

    All seriousness aside — if a computer is making mistakes, a bigger faster computer will simply make more mistakes faster. That sounds well worth the money to me. /sarc off


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR is at it again — blatant, unsourced claims and spurious conclusions.

    Here are some questions for you, David:

    1)

    As manalive @44 points out the temperature increase over the last century is about 0.7 degrees, which compared to the 0.2 warming in the MWP, or the -0.1 cooling since the holocene maximum is a truly exceptional figure.

    What’s truly exceptional here is your claimed “data”. How about a source? This NOAA Greenland ice core clearly shows the MWP was 1.5 deg above the LIA and still 3/4 deg above current temps.

    2)

    Cohenite’s simplistic view that temperatures will trend in line with CO2 levels ignore the reality that their are a wide range of factors that influence temperature of which CO2 is merely the long term dominant factor. Short term variations such as solar cycles, el ninos, and methodology changes have significant short term effects but very limited long term effects.

    Then how do you explain the multi-hundred year variations in temperatures over the Holocene? (More of the NOAA ice core — last half of the Holocene.)
    Your simplistic claim that CO2 is the “long term dominant factor” is completely impotent to explain any of the many temperature swings in the last 5000 years that completely dwarf the current, unremarkable rise. Your claim that there has been only “-0.1 cooling since the holocene maximum” is truly exceptional — the peak in the last 5,000 years (not even the Holocene maximum) shows 30 times as much cooling to the LIA as your amazing claim. Again, how about a source?

    3)

    … but this year is still one of the hottest on record, as next year will probably be. Tells you something about warming doesn’t it.

    It tells us more about Warmists: Since the record started in the LIA, one of the coldest periods in the entire Holocene, one would expect each year during the recovery to be the “warmest on record” as long as the recovery continues. Simple logic like this is apparently beyond the capacity of the Warmists.

    4)

    Putting this ‘cold snap’ in perspective, it is nowhere near the levels reached in 2008, and only constitutes a drop to the average levels of the 2000′s. Even with the cold snap the temperature anomaly is about 0.4 above the long term average.

    This is not just a ‘cold snap’, it’s a predicted cold snap — predicted at the same time that the AGW hypothesis was predicting the opposite, and predicted by an hypothesis that considers CO2 atmospheric concentrations to be largely irrelevant. If this is so irrelevant, why did the “climate mafia” try so hard to suppress it? (Quote from the above link:

    The editor asks for suggestions (from Forster) for unbiased expert reviewers and Forster et al suggested six. But all six were well known to Phil Jones. Jones comments to friends that “All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.” So much for independent impartial reviewers.

    Currently, SOI +1, AGW 0: The SOI predicts continued cold, AGW predicts a quick return to warming. Nature will call the game. Despite the best efforts of climate “scientists” like Phil Jones (with help from disciples like yourself) a real scientific test of AGW is underway, and the Warmists are running scared (and waxing irrational).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Roy Hogue @ 68: Agreed i do not know how they do it,BoM and UK Met compared to Dr. corbyns laptop but corbyn does it, he is not always right but better than they are. Maybe they should ask him for some tips on how to actually project the weather instead of the party line and more resources would be better used. Baa and all in Australia i will keep you in my thoughts and prayers, may you keep your powder and butts dry.

    [Capital added] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    My apologies to you down under i forgot to capitalize the A in Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    grayman,

    I don’t know how Corbyn does it either. But if I was a gambling man I’d put a lot of money on the hunch that he doesn’t fiddle around with CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Let us assume that I wish to come up with a method of finding 7% of any number, which I will call N. If I divide N by 100, this will give me 1% of N. Now, if I multiply this 1% of N, which I’ve just found, by 7 this will give me 7% of N.

    Having come up with this delicious solution, I decide to let my computer do the arithmetic. I translate the exact sequence of instructions into a computer language and now have a program which can find 7% of any number.

    If however, I thought the correct method was to divide N by seven and multiply the result by 100 and program it accordingly, the computer will simply come up with the wrong answer faster than I could. Computers have absolutely no sense, common or otherwise. All they do is blindly obey instructions input to them by humans. You can run the same faulty program on a bank of Raptor class supercomputers and they will still come up with the wrong answer.

    If you fundamentally do not know how to solve a problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, can help you. This is precisely the situation the Met Office are in.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    pointman @73,

    That’s something I find out periodically when I put in some code that “doesn’t know how to solve the problem” — meaning I don’t know how to solve the problem.

    The difference between me and the MET office is that I’m held accountable for results. So if it doesn’t work I have to figure out why and fix it. The MET office is not held accountable for it’s accuracy but for its political correctness. So there’s no incentive for them to get it right.

    Does that sum up the problem accurately?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Keith Macdonald

    Dear Jo

    In honour of my Australian friends who are have a hard time at the moment, I’d like this to be the first place I publish this.

    The new parable of Noah

    And it came to pass that Noah went far to the south-east, to the land of the queen,
    which was called Queensland.

    He saw many houses on stilts, for that was the custom of the natives of that land,
    which had witnessed many floods in ancient times, and didn’t want another.
    No sir, not one bit.

    But the people of that land called upon their leaders
    – give us more roads and houses, give us more water for crops,
    and a decent cricket pitch.

    So the government of that land build a mighty dam, by the name of Wivenhoe,
    to hold the precious waters for irrigation and crops, and the people rejoiced.
    “You beauty!” they cried.

    http://www.wivenhoe.gov.uk/images_various/WivenhoeDam/WivDam1.JPG

    Now Noah was a wise man too. He said to the people “Let us use this precious water,
    and make a garden of this wilderness” – and he did, and he made it known to the world
    http://www.noahaustralia.com.au
    and he cried “God, this is great”.

    —– ~ —–

    But there was a group of restless prophets from the land of US-Gore,
    who were hungry for fame and fortune. They said to each other -
    “These people are heathens, they do not pay us homage, or grants of gold,
    Let us lay a report on them which will turn their trousers to brown”.

    So they scribed for years, making public many dire predictions,
    and they called it UN-IPCC, which put fear in the hearts of many innocents,
    who were without learning in the ways of Basic Science, Pressure Groups and Stealth Taxes.

    They put their predictions on many pages, and published on the Interweb thingy,
    For Queensland, it proclaimed – there will be dryness and droughts!
    Which was a bummer for the farmers.

    (The leaders of the land of Queensland were not sad, for they were hungry too,
    for reasons to create new tythes and taxes upon the people of the region,
    to pay for their holidays and conferences with riches and first-class travel)

    But copies of the prediction had travelled afar, to places like GWPF in The Old Country,
    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/2160-ipcc-prediction-for-queensland-less-rainfall-longer-droughts-drier-climate.html
    who noted its contents, and patiently bided their time, for they were wise men too,
    they were learned in the ways of Basic Science and Pressure Groups,
    and they could smell a rat as well.

    —– ~ —–

    Now the cry of Noah had taken a while to reach the ears of God, because she’d been away.
    She looked upon the Earth, and was amazed, and she wondered to herself.
    “WTF have they been doing?”
    So she caused the Sun to slow on its axis, and its fires diminished,
    and its warming rays decreased, and the Earth grew cooler.

    Snow fell open the innocents and the UN-Gore false prophets alike,
    even unto their conference in Copenhagen. Which was biblical, and poetic,
    and righteous, because lots of fairy stories had come from there,
    in the name of Hans Christian Anderson in times before.

    And as the Earth grew cooler, so did the waters of the great oceans,
    the Pacific and the Atlantic, and water and snow rose up to the heavens,
    and then it came down again. But not where the false prophets had promised.

    The leaders of the land of Queensland were bemused and confused.
    Had not they been promised drought? So they delayed and dithered,
    and all the time they were delaying and dithering, the waters in
    the dam of Wivenhoe were rising higher and higher.

    “Let out the water!” some people cried. But their voices were not heard above
    the clamour of the warmists,and still the rains came, and the people said
    “Strewth, it’s getting mighty wet round here”.

    Now the wise men of GWPF called out, and they said “Told you so!”
    And Noah was called into action, to do something, for God’s sake.
    So he called upon the creatures of the land.

    “Two koalas, two dingos, two kookaburras, two wallabies –
    stop, none of them blurry cane toads – two crocodiles…..”

    —– ~ —–

    I’m sure I should add something about the Ashes were lost, which was a premonition of terrible disaster.

    Regards
    Keith MacDonald


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug:
    January 12th, 2011 at 2:06 am #67
    G’morn and a heartfelt thankyou to everybody who expressed sentiments. I am especially pleased to hear from my mate Kluger. (Where’ve you been you old ba$tard?)

    Hey buddy, it’s just been a slow adjustment to life outside the war zone. Not finding enough time to sit in front of the computer. I do a bit of browsing and lurking, but not saying much.

    Keep your head above the water!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Two points re trends.

    1) Linear regression is used far too early in the data smoothing process and over time frames that are too short.

    e.g. NIWA promotes a 0.9 C/century rise in the NZTR 7SS, obtained by linear regression of the series. Extracting a trend by empirical mode decomposition (EMD) yields a curve that only shows 0.6 C actual rise over the 100 year period 1910-2009. Regression of that trend gives a linear rise of 0.8 C but the Y intercept starts below the first data point of the trend and ends above the last data point. The linearly regressed line is totally misleading in this case.

    2) No-one is taking into account the normal climate recovery from the LIA.

    e.g. I’ve extracted (by dubious means in lieu of any other) a SH component of 0.14 C/century from the globally averaged 0.5 C/century normal climate since 1850 (Akasofu 2010 and several others). Applying that to the 7SS EMD trend leaves 0.47 C unaccounted for. Most of that occurred between 1940 and 1980 in the EMD trend and is corroborated by Salinger and Mullen (1999) that found an abrupt 0.58 C rise 1950-1976 using RPC analysis and 10 yr Gaussian filter. A similar rise occurred in the Australian record at 1950.

    The case is laid out here (with plots):-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/01/nz-vs-s-hemisphere-temperatures/

    I’m now in the process of finding an appropriate series starting at 1850 from the NZ CliFlo climate database because the 7SS doesn’t start until 1909.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    DavidR@60; what a pompous twit you are and a verballer; I never said temperatures will trend in line with CO2, AGW does; what hypocrisy! CO2 and temperature have no relationship according to Lansner’s findings:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

    And Beenstock shows that increases in CO2 must be exponential before there is a CO2 effect; measurements of OHC also indicate that there is no lagged or pipeline effect from CO2 increases which means the AGW distinction between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity is false; a conclusion which is consistent with ocean reistance to being heat affected by LW radiation of the CO2 relevant bands.

    DavidR says:

    “Next year will also be hot because we are seeing increased solar activity which has historically been a predictor of increased temperature.”

    What a weird little confession; solar is a predictor of increased temperature! Who would have thought; it is also a predictor of decreased temperature as well; and since solar activity is NOT increasing but declining it is likely that next year will be cooler:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/the-sun-is-still-in-a-slump-still-not-conforming-to-noaa-consensus-forecasts/

    I could go on but BobC has done a good job in replying to DavidR’s mischief @69.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] out. Waiting for high tide at 1:30am to see what happens…Fingers crossed.” Comment #48 here. An Australian who goes by the online handle Baa Humbug was mopping up from floods prior to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Baa Humbug” (48), All the best, stay safe……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    David R @ 61.

    AGW predicts we will see more extreme weather events like this ….

    Will its a pity that all your mates and their fancy computer models did not advise the Queensland Govt. and people it was coming this summer so they could prepare for it.
    The whole point of recent posts by Jo is to show that people like Corbyn and Leyland using different ( and what is shown to be more applicable reasons) can predict these events.
    Note the paper linked by John @ 28


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    john brookes -
    an admission that they gave no warning to toowoomba/lockyer valley and ipswich.

    baa humbug -
    no-one is connecting Wivenhoe to the Toowoomba flash flood, though the flash flood needs to be investigated. a poster on WUWT said he preferred to believe locals he heard saying some wiers that had been built above toowoomba collapsed, but i know nothing of that. however, watching the wall of water captured by a resident with little rain falling, would suggest an enquiry is in order.
    here’s the official version of why Toowoomba was hit by an “inland tsunami” as the media like to call it:

    12 Jan: Australian: Andrew Fraser: Toowoomba copped wrath of La Nina
    On Monday, a series of storms, described by the Bureau of Meteorology
    yesterday as a super-storm, crossed the coast at a point just north of Noosa
    and headed in a line towards Toowoomba…
    As it travelled south, it hit the Great Dividing Range at Toowoomba and the
    elevation “enhanced the storm”…
    Because Toowoomba, like most of southeast Queensland, had been primed by
    weeks of heavy rain, the soil could not take any more moisture and all of
    the deluge turned into runoff.
    “All the streets and gullies in Toowoomba’s suburbs effectively became
    creeks,” Professor Stone said.
    Toowoomba sits on top of the Great Dividing Range at a very steep point
    facing east.
    From the top of the range, the city slopes back westwards, so that its
    central business district lies in a small valley.
    There are two watercourses in the town: East Creek and West Creek. The place
    where they merge was the site of the original European settlement, which was
    chosen as a source of water. Both creeks are at the bottom of the landscape,
    and when the storm hit on Monday water ran straight towards them.
    After the hour or so of heavy rain, both East Creek and West Creek were
    running rapidly. But the real danger came where the two run together, at a
    point near the central business district. It was this confluence of waters
    that led to the flash flooding that devastated the centre of the city.
    Toowoomba is 700m above sea level. To the east, Withcott, at the foot of the
    range, is 270m above sea level, and Grantham, a further 30km further east is
    at 110m.
    The vast majority of the water that flooded the Toowoomba CBD will flow
    west, and end up in the Murray-Darling system.
    But some of the water that hit the northern part of Toowoomba flowed over
    the range and down Murphy’s Creek, which was one of the worst-hit spots.
    This water flowed into Lockyer Creek, then hit Grantham and Gatton.
    Lockyer Creek flows directly into the Brisbane River just below Wivenhoe
    Dam, but many of the other watercourses in the Lockyer Valley flow into the
    headwaters of the Bremer River, which flows through Ipswich.
    They were the foundations of the flood that hit Ipswich yesterday, although
    this situation was exacerbated by rainfall of more than 200mm in the Lockyer
    Valley yesterday.
    That water in turn flows into the Brisbane River, and at a point that is
    below the Wivenhoe Dam, and this flows into Brisbane before finally going
    out to sea.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/toowoomba-copped-wrath-of-la-nina/story-fn7iwx3v-1225985875512


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Ross #82

    people like Corbyn and Leyland

    Holtom and Stockwell make the CSIRO look silly too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the point i’ve been making is we had Wivenhoe way above what it should have been, if it were to be able to withstand current rainfalls and protect Brisbane and surrounding areas, and the Premier seemed to have no clue about leaving space for Wivenhoe to contain flood waters:

    8 March 2010: Courier Mail: Wivenhoe Dam ready for big spill in Brisbane
    River
    “We can’t be complacent and we must treat water as a precious resource not
    to be wasted whether our dams are 50 or 100 per cent,” Ms Bligh (Qld Premier Anna Bligh) said.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/wivenhoe-dam-ready-for-big-spill-in-brisbane-river/story-e6freoof-1225838427960

    surely someone with expertise should have advised the Premier that it was suicidal to allow Wivenhoe to fill up prior to the rainy season. finally some water was released in October, but that was too close to the summer rainy season:

    13 October: SEQWater: WATER GRID UPDATE
    Dam levels and releases
    The supply capacity of South East Queensland’s top three dams remains at 100 per cent, with Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine Dam continuing with controlled releases.
    With all five gates at Wivenhoe Dam now opened for the first time since 1999, the release volume decreased overnight from 130,000 to 98,000 megalitres of water per day. It is expected that controlled releases from Wivenhoe will continue until next Monday.
    http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/water-grid-update

    Wivenhoe is now at the centre of Brisbane and Ipswich/Goodna etc flooding:

    SEQWater: Gated Dam Operations
    Wednesday 12 January (06.00am)
    Gated releases are underway from Wivenhoe Dam, North Pine Dam and Leslie Harrison Dam.
    http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/home


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Pat – there’s another article in The Australian on Toowoomba by Heather Brown that’s a good read:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beautiful-one-day-a-terrible-flood-plain-the-next/story-e6frg6zo-1225985855443


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC.
    The following study examines over 1200 temperature records covering most or all of the past 2000 years. It shows that the maximum warming in the MWP was no more than 0.2 degrees.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract.

    The temperature record over the last 8000 years can be seen here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
    indicating a temperature decline of around 0.1c per millenium since the start of the holocene. I unfortunately omitted the “per millenium” in my previous post.

    The NOAA Green land Ice core graph is a proxy based at a single extreme location. (temperatures of minus 30 degrees) and can in no sense be considered a reflection of global temperatures. Significant localised variations are to be expected, whereas the global variation of 0.7 in a century is truly exceptional.

    AGW predicts long term temperatures with short term fluctuations, the influence of solar cycles, el ninos, and 15 different green house gases is recognised. It predicts a correlation, but not a close correlation between C02 rise and temperature rise.

    Mark D:
    If you had extended your graph to 1935 you could have claimed a 45 year decline. On the other hand if you had extended it to 1980 you would have had no decline at all. Its called cherry picking.

    The actual decline occurred at the start of the second world war when responsibility for the measurement of sea surface temperatures switched from British to American ships. The Americans used a technique that measured the temperatures at about 0.5c less than the British technique.

    There was also significant work done in the 50’s to clean pollutants out of the atmosphere, which also had a short term cooling effect.

    Our current measurement techniques are increasingly consistent and give us a much better measurement of long term trends. So we can be far more confident that the long term trends are accurate.

    Cohenite:

    Here is the latest graph from NASA on the sunspot cycle. As you can see it has been trending up since the start of 2010.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    The correlation between solar cycles and temperature has been demonstrated right through the instrumental record and has not disappeared. However it is now based on the climbing temperatures of global warming rather than the long term average.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    thanx janama -

    article made sense as did some of the comments.
    milly molly said: “Best explanation of this terrible event in Toowoomba I have read so far. Had me puzzled as the water looked as if it came from a broken dam or catchment.” wonder what an enquiry would find?

    btw this is the latest SEQ Water update, showing how much water is being released from Wivenhoe, which some are saying is equal to the water coming in from the catchment. there is not much rain in the region today thankfully:

    SEQWater: Water Release Update (Wednesday 12 January, 08.00am)
    Wivenhoe Dam
    The Flood Operations Centre has begun an appropriate closure sequence to reduce releases.
    The releases from Wivenhoe Dam have been temporarily reduced to 215,000 megalitres per day to allow the peak of Lockyer Creek to enter the Brisbane River.
    After the downstream peak in the lower Brisbane River has passed, releases will be increased to maximum of 301,000 megalitres per day.
    http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/home

    again, my point is Bligh should have lifted the water restrictions eighteen months ago – which has been a topic of conversation in SE Qld for many months – and offered the public x amount of water free so as to free up space in Wivenhoe Dam in case of heavy rains. people cannot afford the ridiculously high water bills that came along when people water restrictions were introduced, so many would not have been able to take advantage of using the water unless it was free. however, brisbane, ipswich etc would perhaps not be flooded and/or threatened with flooding as they are now.

    pity this money wasn’t used to ensure Wivenhoe did not fill!

    20 August: SEQWater: MEDIA RELEASE: Federal funding to improve monitoring work
    Seqwater has been successful in gaining just over $440,000 in Commonwealth funding to improve hydrological monitoring work across the region’s streams and storages.
    This is one of more than 100 new projects sharing in $20 million to improve the collection, management and sharing of water information across Australia.
    Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, made the announcement as part of the third round of funding of the Modernisation and Extension on Hydrologic Monitoring Systems Program, which is administered by the Bureau of Meteorology.
    http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/media-release-federal-funding-to-improve-monitoring-work


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    my final post today:

    with 24/7 coverage of the SE Qld floods on TV radio and newspapers, how come not one journalist has asked the Premier, SEQ Water or BOM – why was Wivenhoe allowed to fill up prior to the rainy season?
    in fact, why was it allowed to fill up at any time?

    is the question taboo?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Nev Nicholls has another unleashed article and, typical ABC, the comments appear to have ceased at 17.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42858.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    meant to say why was it allowed to fill up outside of a flood event.

    somerset dam also has flood mitigation capacity and i believe it was also at 100% long before the rains began.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Cooper (NZ)

    DavidR @#60,

    “Next year will also be hot because we are seeing increased solar activity which has historically been a predictor of increased temperature. Generally at the start of a solar cycle temperatures increase by about 0.3 degrees above the long term trend and at the end of the solar cycle they decrease by 0.3 below the long term trend. This pattern has been observed over the past 150 years.”

    Which star are you orbiting around? It can’t be the one that us earthlings call the Sun! ‘Increased solar activity.’ If the current bout of spotless days followed by issolated, individual spots is what you call an increase then your star must be more often the perfect, unblemished face the church thought our sun to be, prior to Galileo observing sunspots.

    BTW you must be the first Warmista to make the claim that there is a definite link to solar activity and climate, even if you do say that the changes are cancelled out at the opposite end of a cycle.

    To all of our Queensland friends our thoughts are with you. We had our turn in Feb 2004 when 14 significant rivers in the Lower North Island caused damage beyond imagination, and luckily only one fatality. Authorities here really had no idea just how big the emergency was, and no experience of anything of a similar scale in the recorded era.

    I knew that we were in trouble locally when an elderly resident, who had lived here all of his life, was staring gob-smacked at the fast rising waters.I ended up on an island berely 0.5m above the new inland-sea level. The army offered to ‘rescue’ me but I had been up all night monitoring the rising water levels with a series of gauges I had planted next to the creek by my place and was confident enough to stick around.

    The other well known side effect if you like of strong La Ninas in the SW Pacific are an increase in tropical, or sub-tropical storms, sometimes cyclone remnants, dropping down to our latitude. One such depression is predicted for next week in fact.

    With this La Nina being compared to 1974-75 it should be remembered that Cyclone Tracey hit Darwin at Christmas of 1974. Like floods, not all El Nino/La Nina events are the same no matter how similar are the numbers. Having said that, authorities armed with all of the available info should have seen the possibility of “the Big Wet,” occuring and made some contingencies. Then again if those same authorities are so bound up in maintaining a dogmatic stance then they leave themselves, and all of those they serve, vunerable.

    Best wishes to all in Oz.

    Coops


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    DavidR – the link you gave shows the sunspot numbers have turned down. Unfortunately their link is to another chart altogether.

    Climate4you has a chart of past temperatures here:

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SummitAndCulture.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Connolly

    Lest we forget.

    The Courier-Mail
    • September 07, 2008 12:00AM

    “THE proposal to dam the Mary River was not just a local issue but one of national and international significance, Greens leader Bob Brown says.
    Arriving from Canberra to take part in the GetUp! Climate Torch Relay, Senator Brown told hundreds of protesters who gathered at the proposed dam wall site at Traveston Crossing, south of Gympie, that southeast Queensland didn’t need a dam but a “great big dose of common sense”.
    He had earlier carried the torch by horse and buggy before transferring to a kayak on the Mary River, which was flowing strongly after recent rain.
    Hundreds gathered on the Traveston Crossing Bridge to watch as, amid cheers and loud chants of “No dam” and “No way, Mary River here to stay”, Senator Brown held the torch aloft like a crucifix as he led a flotilla of kayaks downstream.
    He then held his arms up high in a victory sign as he paddled under a sign erected across the river as representative of the proposed dam wall.”

    In the name of decency Brown must resign. He is unfit for public office. With or without a paddle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    Trust me – I’m a scientist.

    http://www.csiro.au/news/climate-is-warming-despite-ups-downs.html

    Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.
    28 December 2010

    “Despite 2010 being a very warm year globally, the severity of the 2009-2010 northern winter and a wetter and cooler Australia in 2010 relative to the past few years have been misinterpreted by some to imply that climate change is not occurring,” Mr Hunt said.

    “Recent wet conditions in eastern Australia mainly reflect short-term climate variability and weather events, not longer-term climate change trends. Conclusions that climate is not changing are based on a misunderstanding of the roles of climatic change caused by increasing greenhouse gases and climatic variability due to natural processes in the climatic system.

    “These two components of the climate system interact continuously, sometimes enhancing and sometimes counteracting one another to either exacerbate or moderate climate extremes.”

    Mr Hunt says his climatic model simulations support what is clear from recent observations – that in addition to the role of climate change linked to human activity, natural variability produces periods where the global climate can be either cooler or warmer than usual. Mr Hunt’s results were published in the latest edition of the international journal Climate Dynamics.

    He says some such natural temperature variations can last for 10 to 15 years, with persistent variations of about 0.2°C.

    “Such natural variability could explain the above average temperatures observed globally in the 1940s, and the warm but relatively constant global temperatures of the last decade.”

    Mr Hunt also found that seasonal cold spells will still be expected under enhanced greenhouse conditions. For example, monthly mean temperatures up to 10°C below present values were found to occur over North America as late as 2060 in model simulations, with similar cold spells over Asia. Variations of up to 15°C below current temperatures were found to occur on individual days, even in 2060, despite a long-term trend of warming on average.

    “These results suggest that a few severe winters in the Northern hemisphere are not sufficient to indicate that climatic change has ceased. The long-term trends that characterise climate change can be interpreted only by analysing many years of observations.”

    “Future changes in global temperature as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases will not show a simple year-on-year increase but will vary around a background of long-term warming. Winters as cold as that recently experienced in the Northern Hemisphere, however, will become progressively less frequent as the greenhouse effect eventually dominates,” Mr Hunt said.

    This underlying warming trend, reflected in the projections of future climate and the observation that the past decade has been the warmest in the instrumental record, underline the need to both adapt to what is now inevitable change and mitigate even greater changes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR @87:
    The temperature record over the last 8000 years can be seen here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
    indicating a temperature decline of around 0.1c per millenium since the start of the holocene. I unfortunately omitted the “per millenium” in my previous post.

    The NOAA Green land Ice core graph is a proxy based at a single extreme location. (temperatures of minus 30 degrees) and can in no sense be considered a reflection of global temperatures. Significant localised variations are to be expected, whereas the global variation of 0.7 in a century is truly exceptional.

    Hmm… Strange that the Gisp2 Greenland ice core is “normalized” to -1 deg at the present. I wonder what the rational is for that? If it were matched at the present (the only way that makes sense), it would show the Holocene maximum at > 2.5 deg warmer than today.

    The NOAA Green land Ice core graph is a proxy based at a single extreme location. (temperatures of minus 30 degrees) and can in no sense be considered a reflection of global temperatures.

    But then, you present a graph using an ice core (Gisp2) at nearly the same location — what is the difference? I suppose if you only use temperature proxies from warm locations, you will get a warm answer :-) . That is what the current “Global” temperature values are constructed from, ever since 2/3 of the cold reporting stations were dropped (with no explanation) by the climate “scientists”. (Also, it seems that the older a record is, the colder it must be made by multiple “adjustments” — no explanation about the strange “aging” effect of temperature measurements either.)

    Significant localised variations are to be expected, whereas the global variation of 0.7 in a century is truly exceptional.

    Note that in the linked adjustments made to temperature readings in the last 100 years (repeat link), 0.6 deg of the claimed 0.7 deg is entirely made up of adjustments to actual thermometer readings. Now that is truly exceptional — one is reminded of P. T. Barnum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Oh yeah:

    The following study examines over 1200 temperature records covering most or all of the past 2000 years. It shows that the maximum warming in the MWP was no more than 0.2 degrees.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract.

    Isn’t Phil Jones famous for his “statistical” methods that can create a “hockey stick” graph from random data? It’s a very good method of analysis, when you must get the “right” answer ;-)

    FYI: Here’s how it works. Mann’s proxies (typically tree cores) respond to many things other than temperature — wind, light, rain, crowding, etc. To select the ones that (presumably) respond to temperature, you pick only those proxies that match part of the (adjusted!) instrumental record – 1902 to 1980 in Mann’s case. Typically, these records diverge before the instrumental record, creating the flat average of the stick “handle”. They show the “blade” of the stick between 1902 and 1980, because they were selected for that characteristic. Embarrassingly, they also diverge after 1980 as well (the “Divergence Problem”). To folks (and scientists) without an agenda, this would indicate that maybe these proxies don’t reflect temperature at all. Mann et. al. however, simply paste the instrumental record on at the divergence point as a trick to “hide the decline”.

    You can get the same result by selecting “data” made of random numbers using the same criteria.
    Garbage In — Garbage Out


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    DavidR; as janama observes sunspots are not rising as shown from the NASA graph; this is clearly shown here with a comparison of the latest sunspot cycle and where it was predicted, by NASA, to be:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/swpc_ssn_jan_2011.png

    As you can see it has downturned and is well below its predicted level. Now lets look at temperature since 1998:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

    The rate of increase is basically flat and will be flat when the full 2010 data is in; the role of the sun in temperature trend is obvious from this decadal comparison:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2011/trend

    This sort of temperature response is inconsistent with the supposed effect of rising CO2 but is consistent with TSI.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Janama @ 94: Thanks, I missed the live show.

    It’s really strange watching the talking heads wondering what effect all the “violent” political rhetoric by partisan talking heads has, and COMPLETELY ignoring the overwhelming amount of graphically depicted violence spewing from the “entertainment” industry. (Which industry, of course, has been denying any connection with actual violent events for decades.)

    One wonders if this degree of extreme “double-think” might cause actual mental harm eventually.

    I wonder what the response would be if a conservative group made and released a movie depicting the assassination of “our first black president”. Would they dismiss it as “simply art” and not worthy of concern (as they did a similar movie depicting G.W.Bush’s assassination)?
    Not likely, I think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR @87

    :Mark D:
    If you had extended your graph to 1935 you could have claimed a 45 year decline. On the other hand if you had extended it to 1980 you would have had no decline at all. Its called cherry picking.

    You ARE the expert? (NOT) Cherry picking from a 40 year trend? NO THAT IS CLIMATE by your own warmist side. 40 year forward would bring us to when? and what have warmists said about that 40 year cherry picking trend? AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!

    The actual decline occurred at the start of the second world war when responsibility for the measurement of sea surface temperatures switched from British to American ships. The Americans used a technique that measured the temperatures at about 0.5c less than the British technique.

    Are you unable to read? I ASKED WHY THE SEA LEVEL DIDN’T SHOW THAT DECLINE!!!!

    DO YOU HAVE SOME NEW EVIDENCE OF NEW TEMPERATURE DECLINE?
    SHOW ME WHY THE IPCC DOESN’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN THEIR GRAPHS!!!!

    There was also significant work done in the 50’s to clean pollutants out of the atmosphere, which also had a short term cooling effect.

    My post had to do with SEA LEVEL YOU ARE AN IDIOT. WAS THERE A COOLING EFFECT? WAS IT SHOWING IN THE IPCC LINK?????

    Our current measurement techniques are increasingly consistent and give us a much better measurement of long term trends. So we can be far more confident that the long term trends are accurate.

    Trends of what?

    YOU ARE [snip]. Further, your masters degree could only have been be won from a cereal box.

    Which one are you? http://www.czechclimbing.com/fotos/clanky07/c070908bbig.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    The solar cycles over the past 30 years go from 1976-1986, 1986-1996, 1996-2009.

    The graph of sunspot numbers over the period shows that the current pattern of increase at the start of the cycle is totally consistent with each of the other cycles over the past 40 years.

    The following graph shows the declining trends from the peak of the solar cycle to its end for each of these cycles. This is despite the fact that the long term trend is +0.15.

    Temperature trends 1975 – 2010

    Note that WattsUp, as usual, dishonestly distorts his evidence by claiming that the sunspot number is flat because it has not met some early prediction rather than observing that it is displaying a perfectly typical start to a solar cycle. Its virtually impossible to make an accurate prediction until you know when the previous cycle has finished.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark D,
    So much yelling:

    The paper explaining the apparent temperature decline from 1940-55 was published in 2008 after the last IPCC report. There was no forty year cooling trend, it was a very short change caused by a change in the measurement of sea temperatures caused by the second world war.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14006-buckets-to-blame-for-wartime-temperature-blip.html.

    The reason the sea level did not decline is because the temperature decline was small if it existed at all once the methodological issues are addressed.

    The trend over the 40 year period is shown here with warming occurring from 1950 onwards.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1951/trend


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC,
    The NOAA Greenland measurement of temperatures over the holocene is a single source. The graph provided by Wikipedia averages a much larger set of sources. That is why it does not show the exceptional temperature fluctuations you claim occurred.

    When it comes to measuring global effects the more sets of source data have the better your estimates are


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Konrad

    I’m not sure about this “only a laptop” thing. I do all my 3D computer aided design on a laptop (with external monitor and 3D mouse). 3D CNC milling, profile cutting, models for FEA, STL and rendering, the whole nine yards. I find it as powerful as most desktops with the added benefit of a built in UPS. The MET office tell us they could make better forecasts if only they had four times the computing power. Only poor crafts persons blame their tools….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR: (@ 87)
    January 12th, 2011 at 10:37 am

    The NOAA Green land Ice core graph is a proxy based at a single extreme location. (temperatures of minus 30 degrees) and can in no sense be considered a reflection of global temperatures.

    Let me see if I’ve gotten this right:

    1) AGW predicts that temperature rise in the polar regions will be more (much more, in some projections) than in temperate regions. This will result in ice melt and disastrous sea level rise.

    2) Past temperatures in polar regions are not “a reflection of global temperatures”, hence irrelevant, and of no interest, even if (perhaps especially if) they show that pre-civilization temperatures in those regions were significantly higher than today (and even higher than many of the dire “projections”).

    So; “global temperature” (a vague concept to begin with) is to be defined differently, depending on whether we are talking about the past or the “projected” future. These definitions are to be such that they automatically support the CAGW hypothesis. (Have you been taking lessons from Michael Mann?)

    The more you talk, DavidR, the more you sound like a con man.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:
    Significant localised variations are to be expected, whereas the global variation of 0.7 in a century is truly exceptional.

    Once again, I would like to point out that 86% (0.6 deg) of this “exceptional warming” is made up of unexplained adjustments to the actual temperature readings. (The graph is from NOAA.)

    People who have tracked the history of these unannounced “adjustments” have found that they pivot around 1950: Thermometer readings before that date are “adjusted” downwards, and after that date “adjusted” upwards, with the adjustment amount being roughly proportional to the distance from the center of the century. (This is how 1998 first was, and then later wasn’t, the warmest year in the historical record.)

    Any reasonable person can recognize this as fraud. (If it were innocent, they would have no objection to releasing the code that does the adjustments.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] laptop with public domain data beats the Met Office's super computer and 1500 staff members. Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores a win. « JoNova __________________ if you stop blaming me, I will stop pointing out why you are at fault FACT: [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Laptop beats Met Supercomputer: SOI index (at record high) scores a win. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC
    For full explanation of the adjustments to the US Historical data set check here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

    Please note that the figures are for the US only and are in degrees F not C. They do not represent a significant variation on the global figures as the US only constitutes ~ 3% of the global figures.

    It also seems evident from the explanation that this is NOT the data set used in the major global calculations, which do not make all the adjustments made in the Historical data set.

    I do like the way contrarians complain if the climate scientists don’t correct the data, and complain when they do correct the data without being told to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC,
    As you point temperature variations in the Arctic are predicted to be much greater than the global variations. That is why scientists use as many data sets as they can to calculate global temperature estimates rather than relying on a single extreme set such as the NOAA Greenland ice core.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR @ 103:

    The trend over the 40 year period is shown here with warming occurring from 1950 onwards. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1951/trend

    Excuse me, the graph you post is taken from the same data as what I posted http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/to:1979/trend. Therefore, (using the same logic as you have) I see you agree with me there WAS a temperature decline starting at around 1940 and lasting for at least 30 years (as demonstrated by the trend line of that same period)

    But I am not clear; are you suggesting that all the data sets available to us via the internet are not corrected to account for the methodology used in 1940? This would be stunning news! Further, if that is what you are suggesting, then why are you using the same (incorrect) data to try to prove your point?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:
    January 13th, 2011 at 6:47 am

    BobC
    For full explanation of the adjustments to the US Historical data set check here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

    Please note that the figures are for the US only and are in degrees F not C. They do not represent a significant variation on the global figures as the US only constitutes ~ 3% of the global figures.

    What is described is a one time adjustment procedure — what has been observed is multiple adjustments, every several years, always in the same direction. This has also been documented in Australia and New Zealand, and is probably done elsewhere as well. It is astronomically unlikely that every adjustment should be in the same direction. Even the adjustment for UHI causes rural stations to be adjusted upward, not the urban stations to be adjusted downward, as a number of watchers have observed (including a friend of mine, with a PhD in Meterology, who maintains a station in the Colorado Mountains).

    Despite your lame attempts to whitewash it, this is definitely fraudulent.

    I do like the way contrarians complain if the climate scientists don’t correct the data, and complain when they do correct the data without being told to.

    You are either a fool or a knave.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC,
    The USHDN data set, is as I stated above NOT the data set used in global temperature comparisons as the article explains in one of its sidebars. Therefore any adjustments to it are completely unrelated to the global figures.

    You claimed these adjustments were unexplained, I provided a link to the explanation.
    There are several adjustments listed and it is highly unlikely based on the evidence in the article that they introduce adjustments one at a time. Check the dates on the references for an indication when each was introduced.

    Furthermore you have no evidence that the adjustments all consisted of increases in the temperature record just that the overall outcome of each adjustment demonstrated an increase.

    As this is a US measurement only other adjustments in other countries are completely unrelated.
    There may be situations where the measurement methodology was standardised world wide in an attempt to get a more consistent data set but I have no evidence one way or another on that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark D,
    Yes my data comes from the same dataset as yours. What my graph shows is that there was a period rapid decline and then a steady rise.

    It is inaccurate to claim that the decline continued until the temperature reached its former level.

    There is no evidence that the information has been incorporated in to the current data sets provided by WFT; as the paper was no published before the last IPCC report it could not have been included in those graphs.

    If it ever is included in the official figures then you can be assured contrarians will make a vast amount of noise about unexplained upward adjustments to the data sets. Expect headlines here on JoNova. So we will be fully aware of it happening.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Bob C. I think David R. is both. I am sorry to say that i have know degree but common sense tells me that there is no such thing as GLOBAL CLIMATE. Climate is regional, I have traveled around the world twice and climate is REGIONAL. Deserts, forest, mountains, valleys, plains, low and highlands and polar. All have different climates and weather and they are not on a clock or calender, I am 48 yrs. old and really the climate here in Austin Tx. has not changed still hot as hell in summer and tolerable in winter with great fall and springs. Honestly .7 C temp warming in what 200 yrs.. I cant tell the difference can you David R., really,can you! Droughts and floods,hurricanes and tornados, heavyand lightsnows or none at all! It happens around the world all the time and nothing you or I will ever be able to do one damn thing about it and NO do not say that they are more severe now, some years are better than others, that just happens. If you live on a coast that gets hurricanes in the world well sorry chances are one will get you sooner or later as with any severe weather around the world, like tornado alley here in the states one will get just a matter of time and a little luck. Sorry for the rant and no disrespect to flood ravaged parts of Australia


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Grayman,
    Perhaps you should check in with the Texas Climate Initiative.

    According to them, Texas can expect $12 billion in infrastructure losses in the Galveston area as a consequence of AGW this century and 100,000 households will be displaced.

    Apparently you are already seeing increased deaths from heat stress as a consequence of warming and various other problems are showing.

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because you haven’t been looking.

    We have a character like you here in Australia. He’s called Bondi Bob. Whenever we get a report showing sea level rises one of the local newspapers puts him on the front page and proclaims that he has seen no evidence of sea level rise in 50 years going to the beach. Apparently he is much more knowledgeable than the experts who accurately measure the sea surface.

    Anyway time to move on, now that GISS had announced 2010 as the equal hottest year on record according to their measurements, its time to see what 2011 brings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    No David R. no need to check with the “TCI” you can qoute all the “GISS” records you want they are still CRAP. Climate has always changed, very slowly so i do not fear the climate around here or any place else for that matter. The reason for the losses in Galveston are as i said before, every body moving to the coast because its the place to be, well ok but guess what storms happen and if you are in its path well you know, hope you have good insurance. Myself i chose to live on high ground because of the flooding that happens around here, especially the flash floods and tornados are very rare here in this area but they do happen, Am i scared, yes worried, no, that will do no good. But as i said before despite what GISS says about temp records i can not tell the difference still pretty much the same, how about your neck of the woods? The AGW this century has not produced any increase in deaths that can not be accounted for by increased population and MSM reporting and internet traffic that puts the news out there for more people to see and hear. YES I HAVE BEEN LOOKING and if you sit down and REALLY think about it and use that head of yours for something else besides a hat rack and look outside for your self and look back in your lifetime you will see that as the old saying goes “the more things change the more the stay the same”! But also look back a little further in your area in the history of your area you will see that it is true, Remember to think for your self and not what some scientist in some ivory tower who really does not get out and LOOK for themselves but thinks a computer model has all the answers!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Here is an analysis of data (in 2007) from the network of “urban” and “rural” stations used in a 2003 study that concluded:

    Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.

    This study is used to justify current “UHI adjustments” that do bizarre things like adjusting the temperature readings of my friend’s weather station (I was mistaken — his PhD is in Climatology, not Meterology) upwards because Denver is within 500Km of this pristinely-sited station with no urban or micro-site issues whatsoever.

    In the 2007 re-analysis, it was found that many of the “urban” stations were actually in very small villages. Nevertheless, a comparison of the raw data showed that the urban set had a 0.7 deg C/century upwards bias compared to the rural data. When the rural and urban stations were separated by a more normal method, the bias increased to 2 deg C/century.

    These differences (equal or greater than the claimed “Global Warming” of the last century) don’t even take into account micro-site effects, which plague many of the rural stations. These siting effects virtually always bias the temperature measurements upwards, as Anthony Watts has documented with his surface stations project.

    In contrast to the official position of the IPCC that UHI has a minimal effect, NASA has just reported that UHI can cause up to a 9 deg C local warming. NOAA’s UHI algorithm allows this artificial warming to affect rural stations out to 1000km from the urban area (to my friend’s perfectly-sited station, for example).

    Despite the obvious impropriety of these “adjustments”, we are to believe that a dangerous warming has been detected. “Dangerous” only because of the predictions of computer models that have failed completely to predict the last three years winters’ temperature trends.

    Since even Phil Jones has admitted (to the BBC) that there has been “no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years”, and NOAA has stated (in The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) that ““The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”, it is time to admit that the AGW hypothesis has no demonstrated predictive skill.

    So, here’s the score:

    1) The temperature records are full of problems (micro-siting, inappropriate “adjustments”, etc.) that can easily account for the totality of the 0.7 deg C “warming” supposedly observed over the last century.

    2) The AGW hypothesis (and the computer models based on it) have been shown (at the 95% level) to have no predictive skill. (That’s according to NOAA: actually it’s even worse than that.)

    Since the claim that “immediate action must be taken” is based on the presumed increase in temperature and the presumed accuracy of the AGW model’s predictions, this claim is shown to be groundless.

    And DavidR keeps telling us “not to look behind the curtain”, everything’s just fine, trust the scientists. (He has a Master’s degree! He must know what he’s talking about!)

    For what it’s worth; I have a BS in Math, a BS in Physics, and a MS in EE — and I think DavidR is a fool.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC,
    The satellite data (UAH, RSS) and ground based temperature measures (GISS, Hadley, Japan) all show the same level of warming ( ~0.14c / decade ) over the past 30 years and are highly correlated.

    Can you explain how UHI biases the satellite data?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR @ 115:

    It is inaccurate to claim that the decline continued until the temperature reached its former level.

    I was asking you to explain why sea levels exhibit no “pulse” corresponding to the same period. Your point made above is irrelevant to my question because the oceans do not have the ability of hindsight. As long as the temperatures were below the start of the decline, they would have either declining or neutral effect on sea level. In other words; sea level would have a relation to temperature (I do not dispute that relationship). The expansion of volume would be impossible until the temperature had risen ABOVE the starting point of the decline. Even if you suggest delays due to thermal inertia this absolutely should be observed in some way (delayed) in the sea levels. IT IS NOT. Therefore, you should recognize a problem with some measurement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sorry, the portion of this sentence:

    they would have either declining or neutral effect on sea level.

    Would represent better what I meant by reading: they would have the effect of either declining or neutral sea level.

    Apologies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark,
    I have acknowledged that the measurements of temperature which produce the decline have been shown to be possibly inaccurate due to changes in temperature methodology. The correct question here is “What caused the apparent decline in temperatures?”. The failure of sea level changes to reflect the temperature graphs may well be an indication that the 2008 paper is correct and it is the temperature records that need to be adjusted. However as that has not been settled I can see no point in disputing or adjusting the sea level measurements which are afterall fairly unreliable at that time anyway.

    As I said early our current methodologies provide much more reliable measures than those from the pre-satellite days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    We have a character like you here in Australia. He’s called Bondi Bob. Whenever we get a report showing sea level rises one of the local newspapers puts him on the front page and proclaims that he has seen no evidence of sea level rise in 50 years going to the beach. Apparently he is much more knowledgeable than the experts who accurately measure the sea surface.

    Let’s say sea level rise is 2mm per year, and Bob has been visiting the same rockpools since he was a kid, sitting at the foot of the same cliff where the high tide comes up each day and chases him off that rock. Over 50 years we would be talking about 1 meter of change, Bob would have to be blind and stupid to not be able to notice a meter of change. You are telling me this is so very subtle it takes an expert to detect such things? I’m not buying your bunk thanks the same.

    Of course very soon now the sea level will rise up and swamp entire cities. Presumably only the true experts will be able to figure out that the city has been swamped. Just thought I’d check the latest Bondi report, need to know whether I’m laying on a towel in the sun getting dry or whether I’m a meter under water — I’ll need a top notch expert to figure this one out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Tel 2 x 50 = 100 not 1000.
    So I doubt he would have noticed the sea level fall from 39.205 at the end of 2009 to 22.563 or whatever it is down to now: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt

    DavidR
    A good way to control the temperature of an oven or the speed of a DC motor is by use of PWM (Pulse width modulation). By increasing the on time compared to the off time the oven will be shifted to a higher temp or the motor will speed up. Increasing the off time slows or cools it down.
    Spotless Days Since 2004: 819 days Typical Solar Min: 486 days


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:
    January 14th, 2011 at 8:16 am

    BobC,
    The satellite data (UAH, RSS) and ground based temperature measures (GISS, Hadley, Japan) all show the same level of warming ( ~0.14c / decade ) over the past 30 years and are highly correlated.

    Can you explain how UHI biases the satellite data?

    And, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    I can’t answer your loaded question, but I can explain the correlation:

    1) The satellite data starts in 1979.
    2) The raw (unadjusted) rural thermometer data also shows an increase from 1979 to 2003.
    3) The adjusted data likewise shows an increase from 1979 to 2003 (but has been adjusted upwards, en bloc).

    Therefore, all three are correlated from 1979 to 2003. What point do you think you are making here?

    My point — which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp (what is your Master’s in, anyway?) — is that the raw data (unlike the adjusted data) also shows a larger drop from 1935 to 1979 than the rise from 1979 to 2003, resulting in a current temperature still below the 1930s. Additionally, the raw data shows minimal increase from 1900 to 1920, unlike the adjusted data.

    The effect of the adjustments to the thermometer record, therefore, is to greatly enhance the “warming” that can be claimed to have occurred in the last century.

    The evidence that the “adjustment” procedures are bogus is simply that they adjust stations that are perfectly sited (according to NOAA’s criteria) because they don’t agree with “nearby” (up to 1000km) stations with UHI and siting problems. The scientists who are maintaining this data obviously don’t care as much about the quality of the data as they do about getting the predetermined answers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    The real point here (which is driving the warmists crazy) is that we have a competing theory to AGW, which has produced predictions that, so far, have been accurate. This theory considers atmospheric CO2 concentrations to have, at best, a marginal effect on climate. In the same time period, the predictions of the models based on the AGW hypothesis have been completely wrong.

    Time will tell which of these theories is the most accurate. To date it doesn’t look too good for AGW, but the data is not yet definitive.

    If Nature continues to disrespect the AGW hypothesis, I expect the Warmists’ arguments to get progressively more irrational — trying to maintain that a theory is right in the face of data that falsifies it is an impossible task, logically.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR @123

    This very recent adjusted temperature graph from NOAA http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html
    You’ll note that the period of cooling that we have been talking about is still there. Apparently ship-board bucket measurements are not swaying the scientists at NOAA. I believe I’ll choose my AUTHORITY over yours.

    I am glad to hear that you agree with me that there are measurement problems. I do marvel though, that the errors you note always support your CAGW position. You don’t seem to have a scientific approach to minimizing bias.

    I’ll let stand my point that sea levels should have reflected the “pulse” created by 30 or more years of temperatures lower than the peak of about 1939. You don’t get to cherry pick either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    A couple of other things to note about the NOAA graph linked in my post at 128:

    Observe the time period of world war 1, and how similar the period with world war 2. Others have mentioned the probable effects of war munitions and fuel burnt by all “sides” to explain the similar declines. This would appear to support that the record accurately reflects a real cooling not a “bucket effect” brought about from data collection errors.

    Also look at what happened starting 1979. Just as BobC has said:

    3) The adjusted data likewise shows an increase from 1979 to 2003 (but has been adjusted upwards, en bloc).

    DavidR, do you have an explanation excuse for what the graph shows starting suddenly at 1979?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    We have a character like you here in Australia. He’s called Bondi Bob. Whenever we get a report showing sea level rises one of the local newspapers puts him on the front page and proclaims that he has seen no evidence of sea level rise in 50 years going to the beach. Apparently he is much more knowledgeable than the experts who accurately measure the sea surface.

    Here is a picture of a 163 year old mean sea level benchmark in Tasmania. As the caption notes, the benchmark is 50 cm long, and is at least that far above low tide. The tidal range is < 100 cm at that spot.

    I'm sure it would take some kind of AGW "expert" to determine that this mark is really 2 meters underwater — to the layman, it looks like it still marks mean sea level fairly well.

    I'm also sure that DavidR would choose to believe the "expert", rather than his lying eyes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BobC @130,

    Thanks for the picture. It’s worth 1000 words.

    I’ve begun to realize that DavidR and his many brethren are like expert witnesses in a courtroom. You can find experts who will tell you 180 degree opposed stories from the same evidence. This is most prevalent in cases involving an insanity plea (apropos since they call us crazy). So it is with global warming. What is the jury to believe?

    Perhaps somewhere in all this there’s a lawyer advising on how to obfuscate the picture and distract the jury from the actual evidence? I wonder… /sarc off :-)

    In any case, this juror will believe what his eyes see in a photograph.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark D,
    I note from the graph you provide @128 that most of the adjustments, made are less than 5 thousandths of a degree and most of the bigger upward adjustments were at the start of the period.

    These adjustments therefore have virtually no impact on the long term trend and any impact they do have would tend to decrease the warming trend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Tel,
    Assuming 2mm sea level rise per year, the total rise would be 10cm not 1m. Do you think given the size of the tides and waves that BB could really spot any change?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC @126
    Please provide your source for “raw data”. Your claims do not match any of the accepted global temperature measurements which show an aprox 0.02 drop from 1935-1979 and a greater than 0.4 degree rise from 1979-2003.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR @ 135

    Please provide the data (not models) that prove that human emissions are driving temperatures at rates that are unprecedented in the Holocene.

    Your claims to date have been logical fallacies, particularly “argument from authority”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    BobC,
    The raw data is here:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/

    Feel free to download it. The models then use this data to make predictions and to confirm that their models agree with the historical data. Each of the models uses different analytical methods so that the correlation between them demonstrates the high probability that they are accurate.

    An explanation as top where the data comnes from is here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network

    You can see graphical representations of them at Woodfortrees None of the available global measures support your contention that the drop from 1935-1979 matches the rise from 1979-2003

    So where is your data? Or a reasonable interpretation of it? What is your alternative theory?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Here is a site that uses NOAA’s raw data (they give you the links to the NOAA repositories) to see what the temperature history looks like if you don’t “adjust” it. Here is a graph of raw data from global rural stations (with a sine wave best fit) — here is the same data after NOAA’s “adjustment”.

    100% of the “global warming” is caused by post-adjustments to the actual thermometer readings.

    Note that the actual data shows no global warming. All the “global warming” in the NOAA database is created after the thermometer data is taken.

    Here is a particularly egregious example (graph & site) of turning a single temperature series at the Kathmandu airport from a 1 deg/century cooling to a 4 deg/century warming — all this while the population of Kathmandu grew rapidly, and UHI effects would have been expected to require a correction in the opposite direction.

    This adjusted “data” is featured in reports of “rapid warming in the Himalayas”, and warnings of catastrophic glacier melting.

    The “adjusted” data is bogus.

    Perhaps you are now going to claim that NOAA’s raw data is not “accepted” — gotta agree with you there, if you mean accepted by the CAGW con-artists posing as “scientists”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    BTY: The data you link to has been “homogenized and adjusted” — See my links for instructions on how to access the actual thermometer readings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    BTY, DavidR:

    I asked you to provide the data that “…prove(d) that human emissions are driving temperatures at rates that are unprecedented in the Holocene”.

    You responded with a link to NOAA’s “homogenized and adjusted” data that shows bogus “global warming” in the 20th century.

    If you see some logical link there, please let me know what it is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Here’s the temperature data with trends from 1955 and 1979, the trend after 1979 is stronger but not much. What should I explain except the obvious that the decline after 1940 was extremely short lived.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1955/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1955/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend

    BobC ,
    your links @ 138 are unsourced graphs with insufficient information to give them credence.
    WattsUp typically provides half truths that on cursory examination can be shown to be distortions of reality. If you wish to provide ‘evidence’ please use a scientific source not a contrarian blog,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:
    January 24th, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    Here’s the temperature data with trends from 1955 and 1979, the trend after 1979 is stronger but not much. What should I explain except the obvious that the decline after 1940 was extremely short lived.

    Once again, let me try to explain to you: If you want to see what the effects of the adjustments are on the raw data, you can’t only look at the adjusted data. Your link is to the adjusted data only.

    your links @ 138 are unsourced graphs with insufficient information to give them credence.

    So, I take it you only looked at the pictures? You seem to have missed the links to the actual thermometer readings in the NOAA archives. Here they are again — perhaps you will notice them this time:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
    http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

    Are these easy to use? No. They are probably hoping you’ll just use their adjusted and homogenized data with asking questions. With you, they guessed right.

    Data Analytics starts with the raw data, and asks whether NOAA’s and NASA’s adjustments make any sense. I hate to keep repeating something so obvious, but you can’t do this kind of analysis, if you just start with the adjusted data.

    If you wish to provide ‘evidence’ please use a scientific source not a contrarian blog,

    Nothing short of bizarre that you don’t consider the NOAA archive of raw data a “scientific” source. According to this “reasoning”, nothing NOAA or NASA say about temperatures should be given any credence, since they don’t start with a “scientific source”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR: Still waiting for the logical connection I asked for in #140.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavvidR

    BobC,
    You have already been provided with the estimated temperature graph for the Holocene and the have then be provided with the graph of the current temperature rises. There is no evidence in the Holocene graph of a temperature rise of more than half a degree in half a century, whereas there is clear evidence of that in the current century.

    We do not have sufficiently good records to proclaim unequivocally that the current event is unprecedented, however there is no evidence of any similar rise in the past 10,000 years. Based on the evidence we have the current warming is unprecedented. If you have alternative evidence provide it otherwise it’s Evidence for 1 : Evidence against 0.

    Quoting an unscientific calculation by an amateur is the standard we expect from WattsUp. Just present any nonsense and claim its scientific. Bloggers can make their evidence up endlessly. No one has time to disprove it all. Its impossible to even work out the methodology used in the paper you referred to let alone determine if it is scientific.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    “DavvidR”:
    January 25th, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Change your name, or just mistyped?

    BobC,
    You have already been provided with the estimated temperature graph for the Holocene and the have then be provided with the graph of the current temperature rises. There is no evidence in the Holocene graph of a temperature rise of more than half a degree in half a century, whereas there is clear evidence of that in the current century.

    What you’ve linked to is manipulated and processed data. What I’ve linked to is the raw measurements. When the processed data tell the opposite story from the raw data, most people of normal intelligence would begin to suspect that something is awry.

    We do not have sufficiently good records to proclaim unequivocally that the current event is unprecedented, however there is no evidence of any similar rise in the past 10,000 years. Based on the evidence we have the current warming is unprecedented. If you have alternative evidence provide it otherwise it’s Evidence for 1 : Evidence against 0.

    “Data” that has been processed to promote a pre-determined conclusion is not evidence, it’s spin. Raw data is evidence. Here is a graph of temperatures from a NOAA Greenland ice core. (Here is where the data comes from — that notorious unscientific and contrarian organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

    This is a record (one of those you say we don’t have) of the temperature of a place on Earth for the last 5,000 years (the actual core goes for 50,000, if you’re interested). It is data, and it shows that the current temperature rise is anything but unprecedented, in either rate or amount of rise. Very many temperature changes at this location, up and down, dwarf the current one, even over the last few thousand years only.

    “Estimating” the temperature of the Earth is an unscientific enterprise, as there is no scientific way to define a single temperature for the Earth — the concept is meaningless. All there are are proxy records of temperature histories at specific places, like the above ice core. That is what constitutes the data — and many such records do indeed show very many temperature changes similar to the GISP2 core above.

    Quoting an unscientific calculation by an amateur is the standard we expect from WattsUp. .

    I’m curious: What makes a calculation “unscientific”? The fact that you can’t follow it?

    Just present any nonsense and claim its scientific. Bloggers can make their evidence up endlessly

    In this case, the blogger got their evidence from NOAA’s raw data archive, as I’ve pointed out several times already. Quit being deliberately stupid. (If you’re actually stupid, I apologize, but then quit posting and wasting our time.)

    No one has time to disprove it all. Its impossible to even work out the methodology used in the paper you referred to let alone determine if it is scientific.

    (I’m still curious as to what your definition of “scientific” is.)

    The methodology used in the their analysis is quite simple: Starting with the raw thermometer readings in NOAA’s archives, they used a simple criteria to sort them into “rural” and “urban” locations; Then they aggregated them on 1 degree lat.long. grids and averaged. Pretty much the same as NOAA and GISS do, except that they didn’t “adjust” any of the readings first.

    The results are that the rural locations show no global warming over the last century, while some urban locations show warming (but others don’t), an unknown amount of which is due to Urban Heat Island effect.

    GISS’s adjusted “data”, on the other hand, shows strong warming over the 20th century (but still minor compared to the GISP2 data).

    It looks like most (if not all) of the “global warming” in the 20th century is indeed caused by Man — not his industrial activities, but the NOAA and NASA scientist’s manipulation of the data.

    (BTY: If you can’t even follow the simple methodology used in this analysis, how can you claim to follow the arcane and poorly documented adjustment methods used by NASA-GISS?)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Oh, I forgot to mention that DataAnalytics provides the source code for their analysis, making it quite easy to repeat, assuming you are working on a Unix machine. (Just click on the “Show Source” tab below the “Monthly gridded data in easy to use format” post.)

    Its impossible to even work out the methodology used in the paper you referred to let alone determine if it is scientific.

    What did you say your MS degree was in, again?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    What you linked to was an amateur unscientific paper that manipulated the data to justify its own point of view. That paper referred to raw data howeverit did not present raw data. It presented one particular manipulation of that data. Without a scientific analysis of the methodology used there is no way of asessing whether the paper is of any value. The quality of the paper suggests that it is not worth further investigation.

    The fact is that your position relies solely on papers produced by untrained amateurs. The real scientific papers are carefully scrutinised and therefore have much higher reliability. The fact that there are five different analyses of the data, by expert climate scientists, all reporting the same level of warming is significantly more reliable than the output of an amateur.

    By the way I have never claimed to have a masters in science. One doesn’t need that to separate nonsense from science. One needs to understand the importance of the methodology to any profession and recognise that nonsense does not follow the scientific methodology. Mathematics and Statistics are not science, they are tools used by scientists.

    The calculation will be unscientific if the data selection methodology is unscientific. It is impossible to determine from this paper if a scientifically acceptable methodology was used.

    The NOAA ice core data is information from a single location. You can not infer from that that global temperatures varied in the same way that those at that location did. GW theory says that the temperature changes at the poles are significantly more extreme than the average.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Whether you choose to bury your head in the sand, or feel you have no choice due to intellectual inability, is irrelevant.

    You are incapable of downloading data from (NOAA’s) website, and therefore claim that the data is invented.

    You are incapable of reading, understanding, or even running the source code provided by DataAnalytics, and therefore claim that they improperly manipulated the data (which you think they made up in the first place).

    You claim to be able to “separate nonsense from science” without a technical background and without being able to understand or analyze what you proclaim is “nonsense”.

    (Actually, those without a technical background can still perform due diligence on technical claims, if they understand logic. Unfortunately, you don’t appear to understand logic, either.)

    You haven’t even bothered (I bet) to read the material on this site — and probably couldn’t understand it if you did.

    You’re stone ignorant, DavidR, and have nothing to contribute to this forum except unsupported opinion. Since you’ve made no secret of your ignorance, I doubt your opinion will have much impact on anyone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:
    January 28th, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    That paper referred to raw data however it did not present raw data.

    Apparently I need to add “poor reading comprehension” to your problems as well. “That paper” (actually several posts on this site) have a number of graphs:

    The first two graphs are plots of the average of the raw data of all stations in the NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) database, for different time periods.

    The next plots include only stations that have 100 years (1909 – 2009) of (nearly) continuous data — again, raw unadjusted data. This raw temperature data fits a sine wave with a 60 year period and an average cooling of 0.3 deg C/century.

    Several graphs on, they plot the average temperature anomaly (variation from the mean of each station over the 100 years).

    This raw average anomaly graph should be compared with NASA-GISS’s global temperature anomaly graph directly below (which claims to use the same raw data set).

    NOAA’s manipulations have had the effect of both minimizing the year-to-year temperature swings, and adding a strong warming signal over the last 50 years — a signal that doesn’t exist in the raw data.

    By following the instructions on the site, it is relatively easy to reproduce the analysis (especially if you use the convenient source code provided for downloading and gridding the data).

    On the other hand, it is impossible to reproduce NASA’s “adjustments” because:
    1) They have made dozens of adjustments of past temperature data over the last 20 years, often without announcement.
    2) Their “documentation” doesn’t allow for more than a one-time adjustment. Hence the adjustments they make don’t follow their documentation.

    Hence, the “official” temperatures of the past keep changing, a situation that defies logic, unless the purpose is manipulation to achieve a pre-determined outcome. (Here is a “blink comparator for the 2000 and 2009 versions of the “official” world temperature anomaly — note that temperature readings 100 years old are changed, and in such a way as to exaggerate warming over the last century.)

    I repeat:

    When the processed data tell the opposite story from the raw data, most people of normal intelligence would begin to suspect that something is awry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    One more illogical broadside from DavidR:

    The NOAA ice core data is information from a single location. You can not infer from that that global temperatures varied in the same way that those at that location did. GW theory says that the temperature changes at the poles are significantly more extreme than the average.

    Except, I didn’t compare the changes in Greenland to the changes in the average world temperature (whatever that is — there is no rational way to define a temperature for the Earth). I compared the changes in Greenland’s temperatures over time, and found that past changes dwarfed current ones, at that location.

    That, indeed, is evidence that the current warming is not unprecedented, in Greenland. Hence, the warmist claim that Greenland is melting at an unprecedented rate is falsified. This general method can be used to falsify such claims at hundreds of specific sites around the world (for example, in the Sargasso Sea, a tropical location)

    DavidR would like to have you believe that, even if current warming is well within historical variability at every single location on Earth, the fact that the data can be manipulated to show a lessor variance in some arbitrary Earth average constitutes a crisis.

    Perhaps it indicates a crisis in mathematical and logical education.


    Report this

    00