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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Messages from the global raw rural data. Warnings, gotcha’s and tree ring divergence explained!

Have you wondered what the global raw rural data tells us?

What did those thermometers say before the adjustments, smoothing, selection, and averaging?

This just might be the first time anyone has publicly compared the global raw data to published adjusted data sets in this way.

Frank Lansner has been dedicated in the extreme, and has developed a comprehensive Rural Unadjusted Temperature Index, or RUTI. One of the most interesting points to come out of this extensive work is the striking difference between coastal stations and inland stations. Frank kept noticing that the trend of the inland stations was markedly different from coastal stations and island stations.

alt

Fig1. Red-Blue lines mark regions where there was a different coastal to inland trend. In green areas the two trends were similar.

What he finds is perhaps not so unusual: The coastal areas are heavily influenced by the sea surface temperature. Inland stations record larger rises and falls in temperature, which is hardly surprising. But, the implications are potentially large. When records from some stations are smoothed over vast distances (as in 1200 km smoothing), results can be heavily skewed by allowing coastal trends to be smoothed across inland areas. What Lansner finds is that coastal trends can be smoothed over the oceans, but that there is little justification for smoothing them over land.

Lansner chose the longest records he could find, and checked the sites via Google mapping to avoid the UHI (Urban Heat Island Effect) as best he could. This will always be a challenge. But, the stand-out message from all over the world is in some ways also the bleeding, but unspoken, obvious: Our land masses heat up and cool down faster than the deep expanse of the oceans.

The coastal slice of the world is thin, so it’s small in terms of its land area, yet its influence over the “Global Land Averages” may be far larger than it ought.

Tree ring divergence explained?

Tantalizingly, Lansner also seems able to explain the mysterious post 1960 temperature “decline” in tree rings that was famously hidden from global graphs. Mann et al removed the tree ring record after 1960, saying it didn’t match thermometer recordings, but since most trees grow inland, rather than on coasts (or in the ocean), the trees turned out to be matching the inland trends, not the sea-surface trend. Global inland temperatures were cooling fast by 1960, and the temperatures implied by the tree rings followed the inland raw data.

Yes, there are all the usual caveats: This is one man’s, non-peer reviewed work; it hasn’t been replicated, and some adjustments help us to get a better result, so an unadjusted series has it’s own problems. But, I’m posting the key parts here for discussion, and you will have to visit Frank’s site to appreciate the phenomenal amount of work that has gone into this.

The strange thing is that this kind of detailed research is being done by an unpaid scientist working from home. Lansner feels the coastal versus non-coastal trend is so obvious that many scientists must be aware of it, yet don’t seem to have published on it, and don’t appear to criticize publications that combine the different trends in ways that don’t reflect their relative surface area of  the globe.

The figure numbers on graphs refer to Frank’s original post, where he has over thirty graphs.


 

Guest Post by Frank Lansner

Hide the decline

I am focusing on the coastal areas where the land meets the large oceans directly. In the following, it is shown that temperature stations from coasts/islands generally have significantly different temperature trends than nearby non-coastal temperature stations.

alt

Fig1. Red-Blue lines mark regions where there was a different coastal to inland trend. In green areas the two trends were similar.

 

It is clear that coastal trends (red) are quite different from the more volatile inland trends. Data used in this writing, as in all RUTI writings, are from unadjusted GHCN.

alt

Fig 2. The blue line is the inland regional trends vs the red line marking the coastal surface station trends.

The land and ocean graphs match the Raobcore weather balloon data when it was available from 1959 onwards.

 

alt

Fig2a. Comparison with Raobcore (30S-30N) tlt. Representing half the globe, and around 2 thirds of the area where it was possible to make the 35 study cases. Both land (non-coastal) and ocean (coastal) trends from this writing appears to produce results rather similar to Raobcore data 1958-2008.

Comparing the coastal records to the GISS official ocean report shows the coastal temperatures match the ocean trends well (GISS data taken from the graph that disappeared).

alt

Fig 3 omparison between “GISS Ocean temperatures” and the marine air trend from coastal stations, Unadjusted GHCN. (GISS data taken from the graph that disappeared )

 

The match between GISS ocean temperatures and the coastal air temperature trend is rather good all the way from 1880. In general, the different versions of ocean temperatures from Hadcrut, NOAA are rather similar. Even between newer SST and Marine air temperature datasets, we have similarities (for example, HADISST versus MOHMAT4.3).

Unadjusted GHCN temperatures taken from marine locations like coasts and islands fairly matches normally-accepted ocean temperature trends (SST or MAT).

Could we have expected this match? To some degree, yes, because thirty-five ocean chunks spread out rather randomly over the world are likely to give a fair match to global MAT and SST.

So for the coastal and island Unadjusted GHCN stations, it seems that data to some degree are being verified.

The consequences are broad:

  • Coastal temperature stations are unreliable as indicators for non-coastal areas and vice versa. Often, the warmer-trended coast/island area is just a fraction of the total land area and resembles the sea surface trend rather than the land based trend.
  • Coastal stations ought not be used for long-range smoothing over land areas (or vice versa).
  • Adjustments where a non-coastal station are changed to look more like a coastal station (or vice versa) should be avoided.

 

Tree rings match the inland records

alt

Fig 4. CRU´s total tree ring density dataset (to be used as temperature proxy) and the non-coastal GHCN Unadjusted shows fine agreement, not much “divergence-problem” here.

I think we can conclude that trees grow on land, or is this taking it too far? (CRU´s other parameter for tree proxies, ring width, has a fair match, also.)

The inland trends also match the retreat of glaciers, and the Greenland ice-melt data. Global sea levels rise and fall with some delay between 1930 and 1970, but then (oddly) rise in concert with the inland temperatures.

alt

Fig 4a: Fig 4a. - A handful more trends related to temperature.

Greenland ice-melt index, see fig 4 of this article. The exact same result for Greenland ice-melt trends is found in Boxer et al 2009. Global sea level rise, see fig 4 of this article. Global glacier trends, see fig 5,9 of this writing. For glaciers, I show “retreat-speed” calculated as simple slope.

The mystery of the recent warming.

In the raw data, the inland temperatures rise at a similar trend to the coastal temperatures. Yet, in the GISS graph that disappeared, there is a divergence. There are several possibilities.

1. The raw data for coastal cities is contaminated and warm-biased.

2. The inland raw data is too cool-biased.

3. Oceans are warming as fast as land masses.

 

alt

Fig 5

There are odd differences comparing the non-coastal trends with the GISS records since 1930.

To see exactly how much larger the warming trend was in GISS land readings compared to my unadjusted GHCN non-coastal readings, I took the difference year by year. The graph below shows that from around 1925 till today, the GISS land product has a whopping 0.8 K increase in warming over that of the unadjusted GHCN non-coastal thirty-five chunks of land spread over the globe.


alt

Fig 6: The “GISS land” has more than 0,8 K more heat trend than the GHCN Unadjusted non-coastal stations after 1925, and it happens to follow a near straight line.

 

The primary point of this report is to show that coastal trends are often different from  non-coastal trends, and to indicate the main trend differences. The comparisons with GISS data, proxies, and others are preliminary work done to provide some comparisons with other temperature trends. I feel it is perhaps too early to conclude much on the GISS comparison, but it is important to raise awareness of the nature of the differences.

There are many factors influencing both land and sea temperatures. I’ve graphed solar cycles and PDO/AMO cycles with the coastal/non-coastal temperatures to see whether any patterns appear.

alt

Fig 8 Sketch: Some natural effects on temperatures of the Earth. Graph of sunspot numbers is shown in grey, and may appear to show some compliance with the ocean (coastal) temperature trends over longer periods, that is: Large sunspot cycles seem to make ocean (coastal) temperature trends warm faster, although the PDO appears important for ocean temperatures. Especially the PDO/AMO seems to show fair compliance with the land (non-coastal) trends.(Pacific Decadal Oscillation = PDO    and   Atlantic Multidacadial Oscillation = AMO)

The only period where both PDO is positive and sunspot numbers are large is 1978-2005. Here, both coastal and non-coastal temperatures rise fast.

Marine air can influence land temperatures farther away from the ocean

I have color-coded surface station siting according to four different zones. Both the red (coastal) and brown (high altitude areas facing onshore air movements) zones appear to be influenced by sea surface temperatures.

The marine air meets land in different altitudes:

alt

Fig 12

Some areas do not show differing trends in coastal and island stations and non-coastal stations. Mostly, this has been observed close to the equator and on coasts in bays oriented east-west. Around the equator, winds are generally weak. The trends around the equator are also fast-changing due to the ENSO pattern that has a good match with land trends. Possibly, coasts running east-west may be less exposed to prevailing winds.

 

I have used thirty-five study cases, and will start by illustrating examples from the USA, where many long temperature series are available and the mechanisms employed very easily detectable (the usefulness of my approach can best be confirmed or disproved  using high quality data as available for the USA). I give just one example here, but there are others on my site.

alt

Fig 14: NE USA. In several cases the red coastal area also includes islands. In general for all categories it is best to avoid temperature stations with too much risk of UHI. For practically all stations near towns I have checked position on Google Maps to verify a rural or near rural location. (Yes, that was a lot of work..). If for example a coastal station not that far from a city shows a significantly different trend than the island rural station it will not be used. This I did to make sure that the warmer trend in for many coastal areas is not a UHI phenomenon.

NE USA: red stars are coastal and island stations; blue stars are non-coastal stations.  The blue and green inland sites match in trends fairly well. Coastal and island trends match the high altitude frontline areas (see Fig 18 and 19 on Hide the decline.)

Compare trends from raw data to Hadcrut, GHCN

The temperature of the bulk of the area is found in the inland, non-coastal areas, and areas not facing marine air. These trends are shown by the blue line below. The coastal trend (red) is ”warmer.”

What is surprising is that the Hadcrut compilations show a trend rising so much faster than the rural unadjusted inland temperatures. Has Hadcrut chosen only coastal or urban stations to represent this larger land mass?

How can anyone honestly attempting to do science for this NE USA region choose two Boston stations, one for the City of Syracuse, one for the City of New York, and then a warm-trended coastal island station, to represent the bulk of the area? If the professional scientists working with Hadcrut have not noticed the huge differences between coastal and non-coastal temperatures, why are four of the five selected stations urban?

 

alt

Fig 21 The black graph is the GHCN unadjusted versions of the Hadcrut stations used. The yellow graph is the Hadcrut version of Hadcrut data. (You cant compare the black with the yellow 100% because, not all Hadcrut stations is in GHCN)…

The strange case of missing data

Now, I want to show a situation where data was really hard to get my hands on.

One might think this was Zambia or something, but, no, temperature data is hard to get in Central Europe and the UK. We might also want to analyze the British Islands themselves for coastal versus non-coastal trends, but there is a problem doing so:

alt

The numbers (e.g., “51-64”) on the map are the years of public data available….

If the people of Ireland and the UK demanded the full original data from these temperature stations, the results could be interesting. Remember, they have paid for these data with their taxes, as have the people of Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, and especially POLAND.

Supposedly,  the Irish could not collect temperatures properly before 1950, and the British could only collect them very poorly before 1950 and after 1975.  However, many nations had no problems. For example, Pakistan,  Bangladesh, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Paraguay, Mexico, Sudan, Japan, etc. have plenty of complete temperature series going back to 1900-1920.  Yet, West Europeans failed to produce quality temperature data?

RUTI (Rural Unadjusted Temperature Index)

—————————————————————————————————————

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (14 votes cast)
Messages from the global raw rural data. Warnings, gotcha's and tree ring divergence explained!, 9.1 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/644x4zj

168 comments to Messages from the global raw rural data. Warnings, gotcha’s and tree ring divergence explained!

  • #

    Strangely enough, I’ve been looking into how global temperatures are measured but from anther angle.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/global-warming-and-pathological-science/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nice article.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MaryFJohnston

      Was that Norman Wisdom?

      Good to verbally illustrate that there is a “group dynamic” to the science of AGW as it is important to understand how the Global Warming Edifice was constructed.

      The scientists are like the “hunted” figure in the picture and are involved in the incremental movement towards confirming Global Warming .

      More sinister manipulators (bankers and politicians ) lurk in the background and provide encouragement and support to the scientists to “see’ the light.

      Amazing.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Frank has been working on this for months. I know he is looking forward to seeing comments. (And I needed to write a comment to “subscribe to comments” since he is the author. Another button to fix!). Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TinyCO2

    I can’t say for sure but the temperatures from Warrington UK were most probably meaured at the Butonwood Airfield, during the years it was used by the US Airforce. They left in 1959.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Burtonwood

    It would explain the short record and make the likelihood of additonal data unlikely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    andrew

    What happened to Prof Richard Muller’s much vaunted global temperature project? Was due for May 2011 haven’t heard anything. Hss anybody got any news on this?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gnome

      Yes- they underestimated the difficulties and now expect to release their data, methods and results by the end of this month. No doubt the data will generate a lifetime of further studies, (eg regional, temporal) but at least it should settle some major arguments.

      If you go to their homepage you can sign up for email advice on progress and initial releases. (Sorry no link because my connection to slow to break a link once opened, also sorry I can’t tell you yet if they produce much or little because I only signed up for it last night.)

      I am excited- real data, real analysis by real statisticians and open methods at last.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    The incredible complexity of this one area of study, so ably done here, illustrates the main issue that permeates all Global Warming and Climate Change comment.

    The worlds atmosphere is much more complex than many scientists can comprehend and surely suggests that there can be no all encompassing final and definitive theory or model describing it.

    This is not an issue of how big a computer we can access, the final comprehensive Model is totally dependent on isolating and understanding every mechanism involved in our Climate.

    When the full list of items is done in another hundred years we will have a comprehensive picture of the Mass, Heat and Momentum transfer and chemical interaction of all facets of our atmosphere.

    Until that time “Climate Scientists”, Environmentalists and Politicians need to accept that their pronouncements are NOT based on science or engineering.

    More importantly all Taxpayers and Voters need to be helped to understand that such pronouncements are biased by the personal situations of those speaking and are not based on science.

    While ever we have a lazy media the public perception of “CO2 and Climate” will remain as a useful tool for politicians to implement their own agendas.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @TinyCo2, I think the Burtonville appears to have been in use 1940-94 (see upper right in your link) although its use appears fragmented.

    The pattern of numerous missing temperature stations from GHCN and thus normally from public, is shown here for most of NW Europe, see:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php

    Therefore it is interesting to also see so many English stations with very limited period of data. Thanks for digging!

    @andrew
    The project you mention was called BEST
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst/

    And the odd non-progress around March 2011 where they started to claim a huge land 1,2 K temperature increase 1900-2010, was exactly what motivated me to start digging into unadjusted temperature data.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Frank Lansner.

    A really great piece of work Frank. NoIdea posted a very germane link over at my place. The graph it contains of the number of stations plotted against the apparent rise in temperature is a killer.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    TinyCO2, I was also struck by how many of the English sites were RAF or USAF airfields – and I am glad you identified “Warrington” as “Burtonwood”. Trying to remember that name was going to give me sleepless nights forever. It closed before I was born, but, in the late fifties, the USAF bombers used to thunder right over my parents’ house, I’m told.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ih Tiny CO2!

    (Sorry i havent learned to comment directly…)

    So we can learn, that all rural or near rural stations in the flat non-coastal area are from these airports that has been used for military purposes?
    But what does this tell us?
    GHCN has chosen to show just 10-15 years from each. Is this justified?

    But are there not any stations (normal or RAF) in this large area to present the more non-coastal near rural England?

    Thanks again for checking these things out!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      TinyCO2

      Is it justified to use just a few years? Personally I think it’s bonkers but I suspect it has something to do with what they could get hold of. I’m not sure how many years you need to stitch records of different locations together but that’s what they’re doing.

      The UEA/MET office uses a different set of UK stations but none of them are for the full time span despite the probability that there are full records. To be fair, the new locations are less urban, so I suppose they’re trying to remove UHI effects.

      Here’s a paper on the CET that mentions Ross on Wye and Oxford. I haven’t got time to read it right now but it might give some clues why they’re not full records.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/HCTN/HCTN_50.pdf

      And thank you for your hard work!

      Reply link, to the tight of the picture icon, beyond the date and time of the post :-)


      Report this

      00

  • #

    @MaryFJohnston
    You write: “This is not an issue of how big a computer we can access, ”

    True!! for each little area you have to decide what stations, what years to use etc. To claim that such qualitative consideration is taken care of by stuffing it all in one averaged dataset, etc. – that even sceptics seems to do some times – is all wrong.

    Just the choice of what stations to use for what area and what years means 10 times as much for the trends as adjustments, – at least, this is the impression i have after going through 3-4000 datasets

    K.R. Frabj


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The smoothing across vast distances I’ve always regarded as extremely unsound. At the very least you will encounter differences in mean height as you go inland and we all know it gets colder as you go higher, so if smoothing with a temperature from the edge you are hiding the natural temp decrease..

    Also the term ‘smoothing’ I have a real issue with; its not smoothing or averaging, that implies you have a large number of point data sources over which to smooth. The opposite is usually the case as one or two point values get spread like so much peanut butter over an enormous area – a more accurate term would be ‘gross gap filling’ – all the better to make falsely complete plots of the earths temperature to scare people with. If they actually produced plots that indicated the mean distance of contributing values at each point, it would look like on very hole filled swish cheese – but if they did that people would instantly see that they are all fur coat and no knickers…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Pointman
    i will loook forward to reading your article, thanks for link!
    And yes, the data limitation certainly plays a massive role in how todays official temperature graphs appears. One could say, its more “safe” to select data rather than adjust to get the result you want.

    @Ketih you write: “The smoothing across vast distances I’ve always regarded as extremely unsound”

    - well its both pickng the obviously WRONG data stations and then the smoothing.
    And is it not odd:

    Climate research have all the funds they need, and still they insist to retrieve temperatures in an amateur like primitive way that has to fail …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Wonderful, Frank! This is exactly what I found in just maxima in Australia (When I get time ???!!! I will do the same for minima). Well done. Australian Maximum Temperatures


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Ken Stewart!

      Your Australia article in very interesting indeed!!!

      You Write:
      “It quickly became apparent that West Australia behaves differently to eastern states.”

      In my project “RUTI” i have worked my way through most of the world including Australia, and here goes for the WEST – EAST you mention:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig42.jpg

      to say the least: We seem to both get the impression that we have a west and east climate zone on Australia.

      Now here is how “brilliantly” BOM has detected this obvious East – West Australia climate zones:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig47.jpg
      - that is, BOM shows no shadow of this quiet significant Australian characteristic.

      Both pictures taken from:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php

      Where also the DARWIN station original trend is well supported.

      K.R. Frank, Thanks for comment!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ken Stewart

        Gday Frank
        I did enjoy reading the Australian part of your article in depth. I restricted my studies to data from 1910 on, as that is the date from which BOM conducts climate analyses, mistakenly claiming that there were few Stevenson screen before then. Mind you, a lot of the data up to say the 1930s is messy, with some poor practise, but there has been poor practise recently too. I’m pleased to see your findings pretty much dovetail with mine. As you imply, temperature change in Australia has much to do with wind direction- from the desert or the sea, so is affected by pressure changes and the SOI. An interesting point is that urban maximum temperatures, contaminated as they are with UHI, show even less warming than non-urban.
        Best wishes
        Ken


        Report this

        00

        • #

          @Ken
          Its true that for some periods (older) there are not thaaat many stations, but still, when comparing these fewer stations area – to area and also with other parts of the world, they seem to give a usefull hint still.
          The normal pattern around the world is, that non-coastal stations more rarely has public temperature data available… In such areas you would “have to” use a coastal station and get things totaly wrong.
          (Therefore – for ex in South America, Northern part – I simply use NO data before 1950 to represent the big non-coastal area, the size 3 x Spain.)
          K.R. Frank


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Kneel 8250

      Ken, The official weather station in Perth, Western Australia was moved sometime in the 1990′s if my memory serves me correctly and we suddenly had less rainfall and higher temperatures recorded by the BOM.

      Hope that helps.

      Kneel.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    amcoz

    Jo, you nailed it with these words, “this kind of detailed research is being done by an unpaid scientist…” where results of a true scientific approach are not ‘enhanced’ by expected outcomes influenced by the feeding incomes for ‘climbaboardists’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Great article and research Frank. This just shows what happens when the researcher has “skin in the game” ( in this case Frank’s valuable time). All these others will Govt. grants and the need to protect their career and future grants will manipulate whatever to get the “consensus” result.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    wow!!! that is some enormous big work Frank. Thankyou and congratulations. And thankyou to Jo for posting this. Proud to be a fellow sceptic.

    Keep up the good work


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Who among us is a good letter writer?

    I think we should send this off to the Australian Beuro of Metereology accompanied by a very strong letter asking how come an unpaid scientist can produce these but not the BoM. Ask them to justify our dollars and demand a response. Lets put lots lots of signatures on it and hit ‘em with it.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Mr Humbug!

      Allways good wibes from you, and thankyou for kind words.

      I have talked with Jo about publishing the Australia article here at her site – it seems to be the best place – but I wanted to first have made clear, that coastal and non-coastal stations are to be treated seperately. This is very important if you really want to know the true story of Australian temperatures..

      But yes, why did BOM not describe the coastal – non-coastal significant and solid differences? Why have they not pinpointed the obvious split of Australia in East and west with quite different temperature trends? Is it because one of these (East) happens to show a cooling trend 1880-2010? Or why else did they not pinpoint the East-West differences?

      Anyway, Jo is doing an extremely important job of highlighting many issues , but perhaps one day we can have the Australia article for debate here: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    He’s off again. Clive Hamilton having a go at everyone who’s anyone.
    This time reclaiming Science as if it were his own !
    See how he tries to project the ailings of institutional science onto Tony Abbott, turning what the skeptics have been saying for years on to Tony. What a sleaze. He can no longer dismiss these truths so he tries to deflect them.
    What has he got against the ABC chairman ? Does he still write at the Drum?

    http://theconversation.edu.au/democracy-is-failing-the-planet-3832


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gnome

      The man is purely evil. Warmists don’t recognise the “rules of science” or they would establish criteria for falsifiability.

      These days when I encounter a warmist I ask them to use the terms “carbon pollution” and “science” in a single sentence, and ask them if they still believe the hockey stick. If they can do the first without shame and believe the second they simply aren’t worth engaging, no matter how otherwise seemingly intelligent or well informed.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    janama

    Donna Laframboise’s book on the IPCC has been released. You can read a preview here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Barker

    Frank

    Thank you very much. A very good analysis. I have often noticed a difference between my back yard (fenced) and my front yard. The weather channels report the temps at the airports, just local weather.

    Joanne

    Thank you, as always, a very good site!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    Frank – apples and oranges – GHCN won’t be the same as BoM’s analysis using its selected high quality reference data set. You need to check that out. Why speculate about what BoM may or may not have done when you could communicate with David Jones in BoM’s climate centre?

    Tell you one thing though – grain croppers from Dubbo to Emerald have noticed centennial trends in frost frequency (declining) and date of last frost (earlier). Even the plant breeders are onto it. Modulated by ENSO of course. Could there have been a warming. Surely not !


    Report this

    00

    • #

      You’re not exactly an Iago, are you Borg?

      Pointman


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      BOM ‘High Quality’ temp series and David Jones professional conduct have been discussed extensively on this blog. In summary : BOM HQ is a joke and David Jones, on public record, made incorrect statements about methods used to create the series (whether he made erroneous comments in ignorance or he just plain lied is uncertain; either way it reflects poorly upon him professionally). Suggest you search this blog; thorough and detailed discussion backing up my assertions lie within.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      The Borg- You must be joking! You use several mutually contradictory terms in the one paragraph- “high quality”, “David Jones”, “Climate centre”. There is nothing high quality about BOM’s climate centre, offical temperature series, or David Jones’ assertions.

      Ken


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Borg, the:

      Yes one could contact BOM, sure. You have to realise that RUTI is a global project, and that Australian temperature data is MUCH MUCH better available etc than other places on this Earth. (like Turkey, South Africa etcetc.)

      I have already contacted the Chinese to make them aware what bizare things are going on with their data, and presently im investigating Danish problems etc.
      Im only one man :-)


      Report this

      00

      • #

        “I am only one man”

        But what a man… And with such good friends on your journey…

        Loved the article. FWIW, I’ve often used the SFO (San Francisco) vs Sacramento city pair as an example case of why 1200 km averaging is a farce. (In summer, the two move in opposite directions as the sun warmed inland air rises pulling a fog blanket over SFO. In winter Sacramento can be under fog for months while SFO gets bright sunny days.) The two zones tell you a lot about differential weather pattern changes, not so much about any global average anything. If you look at latin America, most of the mountain stations were dropped moving the average measure to the coastal areas. Then it is claimed that this won’t bias the results.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      “selected high quality reference data set” – selected says it all, better than I can.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Dave

      Borg

      You quoted the following:-

      Tell you one thing though – grain croppers from Dubbo to Emerald have noticed centennial trends in frost frequency (declining) and date of last frost (earlier). Even the plant breeders are onto it.

      That’s an amazing data set collection from Dubbo to Emerald by grain croppers and they’ve noticed 100 year trends? Please send the link to this data! Also which plant breeders are utilising this information from the grain croppers?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    Great work Frank.

    Hope it’s not the case but I suspect in depth comment from Australia may be sparse at present. Many would be serious reviewers in this country are currently having problems prioritising their alligator eradication, and swamp draining efforts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Good work Frank … sorry to be O/T, but this article in The Australian is worth a read:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/science-politics-make-bad-bedfellows/story-e6frg6zo-1226167040617

    It dwells on the need to seperate science and State.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kim:)

    Mr. Lansner,Thank you!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    geo

    This will give the Investigative Presstitutes at the A.B.C.(OUR PROPAGANDA)something to ignore or denigrate.Common sense and reality says Climate Change is Natural and Temperature LEADS CO2.Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Sort of off topic, but McCarthy explains some of the UN AGW insanity.

    Cormac McCarthy –

    “is no such thing as life without bloodshed…The notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is really a dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous,”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    I appreciate the efforts of those who have nothing to gain financially from their research time, making said research available for the rest of us to peruse.
    Some bloody interesting points Frank. Keep punchin’….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin Moore

    http://junkscience.com/climate-features/is-there-a-conflict-between-greenhouse-effect-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

    The One Minute Answer:

    For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

    1.the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;
    2.the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.
    Self evidently then all that is required to show that our greenhouse doubters are misdescribing the world and/or misreading the 2nd Law is to show any energy transfer from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface since that would invalidate their concept of discrete bodies with strict mono-directional energy flow.

    Since the immediate concern is electromagnetic radiation let’s point first to a visible example of electromagnetic transfer from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface – lighting strikes.

    While lightening is a flashy example (sorry) it’s actually trivial when compared with kinetic transfer – think wind-driven waves and sand dunes with atmospheric motion delivering kinetic energy from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface.

    Q.e.d. energy feedback from the atmosphere is not merely possible but commonplace and so their required conditions are not met.

    The one minute response should be sufficient but, if not, read on for the verbose version……”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    this is probably a question that a scientist would not need to ask but then I’m no scientist

    I asked Ken Stewart once whether or not BOM raw data had any adjustments or not and Ken said if I remember correctly ‘who knows’

    How does Frank know whether or not there are any adjustments to the raw data Frank worked on


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    @ Frank Lansner and Pointman @ 7

    As you would know, 1988 was apparently the hottest summer in the US for 52 years and no doubt gave James Hansen confidence for his appearance before a US Committee that year (reportedly with windows wide open and air conditioning off on one of the hottest days of the year)! He did not have the backing of NASA as his former supervisor, senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon made clear after he retired. He said Hansen had “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting. i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it.

    It is evident Hansen had put his reputation and credibility on the line and when the next four years to 1992 showed sharp cooling in many parts of the world, likely to have been exacerbated by the June 1991 eruption of Mt.Pinatubo, Hansen must have been put under extreme pressure, not only by his critics within and outside NASA, but also those scientists supporting the AGW hypothesis.

    It is my contention that this triggered what became known as “The Great Dying of Thermometers” and further distortion of the raw data by adjustments, smoothing, selection and averaging etc.

    E.M Smith (Chiefio) did extensive research on most countries in the world last year on the effect of the various manipulations. In almost every case, when the number of stations fell, there was a corresponding step up in temperatures. Amongst many of his fine posts on the matter, a particularly good one was “Assume a Spherical Cow”.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/assume-a-spherical-cow-therefore-all-steaks-are-round

    At the risk of boring people, some may find this 9/3/2010 Chiefio re-post of mine interesting.

    Chiefio. Sorry I missed your 23/10/2009 article on the march North of Aussie surface stations, but as a Tasmanian, something I found that wasn’t noted at the time may spark some interest.
    For Tasmania it appears that up until 1993 there were 25 stations being used. At the end of 1992 most of those stations were dropped for data gathering purposes, leaving only the ones at Launceston and Hobart Airports for the next six years. This wiped out many rural areas, all our high stations and also those on the colder, more exposed West Coast.

    Two coastal stations were resurrected around 2008 – Eddystone Point on the warmer north-east tip of Tasmania and Cape Bruny on Bruny Island south of Hobart in the D’entrecasteaux Channel. They are probably now automated.

    I have no idea why so many stations were dropped all at once but a good clue arises from examination of the charts. I found that virtually all recorded a sharp drop of between 1.2 to 1.4 degrees Celsius in the four years from 1988 to 1992, which of course would have been a rather uncomfortable fact for those pushing the AGW theory.

    Without the colder areas and combined with the known UHI effect at airports, Tasmania would presumably have then been contributing warmer mean temperatures to the global calculations after 1992.

    However, at the risk of being accused of “cherry-picking”, Launceston Airport may still be an inconvenient truth for the AGW lobby as the trend line has been remarkably stable and refusing to record any “global warming” there.

    The first recorded annual mean temperature was 12.1 degrees in 1939 and 70 years later in 2009, 11.8 degrees. The 1939 mean temperature has only been exceeded five times in that 70 years and only twice with any significance – by 0.4 of a degree in 1962 and 0.6 in 1988.

    Have any other Aussies checked the charts of the 1992 dropped stations in their areas? It would be very interesting to see if they recorded the same four year drop in temperatures.

    REPLY: [ Wonderful information! Every time I've gone down one of the Rabbit Holes, at the end, I've found some kind of "Instrument Change". Your example is a stellar one. Most of them involve Airports ( having more of them, or, like Marshall Islands, turning from a grass shack in the 1960's into a mile long tarmac heat collector now. Sometime just changing the instruments like from Liquid In Glass to the ASOS with a known heating problem - it sucks it's own exhaust and the warmth that the electronic heater makes gets pulled back in...). Some involve location changes over time ( cold mountain in the baseline during a cold spell puts very cold excursions into the baseline, latter replaced - either in the same grid/box or via homogenizing - with data from a flat water moderated beach that just can have those cold excursions from the adjusted mean.) In my opinion, it's the worst calorimetry job ever done. -E.M.Smith ]

    !


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Thanks for quoting me. BTW, that last line ought to have said “from a flat water moderated beach that just CAN’T have those cold excursions”. I’ve fixed it in the original.

      Volatile stations are left in the record when during the cold baseline, then left out during following cooling times. This ratchets up the series as the remaining low volatility stations can not replicate the removed high volatility move. (A very similar thing is done in stock trading where you hold “high beta” stocks during good markets but move to ‘low beta’ during downturns. Swapping your RIMM (Research In Motion) and your Mining Stocks for staid utilities and bonds. And for the same reasons. Your average wealth increases faster if you clip the low going excursions from your ‘record’…)

      Inland stations and high altitude stations are more volatile, so you put them in during the cold cherry picked baseline and take them out toward the end of the warming trend. Capturing the maximum cold to warm half cycle of the PDO. Now hold only water moderated ‘low beta’ stations during the peak to trough 1/2 cycle and you build in a permanent ‘step up’ in the average. Repeat each 60 year cycle…


      Report this

      00

  • #

    A very interesting post. On tree rings, there is one species that lives in the sea, albeit coastal (estuarine in most cases) but also on land but I’ll elaborate further later in the post. Rhizophora, common name is Mangrove.

    I’m not aware of any studies of this species that specifically relate to climate change but will check when time permits. Of interest is that Mangroves don’t have growth rings as such. More so, different shades. Dark brown and light brown and not necessarily annual.

    Nonetheless, environmental information can also be archived in the wood in a variety of other ways, such as in the stable carbon and oxygen isotope ratio composition. I believe further study is required, as due to the environ this species exists in, it could unlock much information to form a better picture of past climate.

    Mangroves have a life expectancy of well over a century, not much of a picture but would confirm or deny climate changes in the industrial age…if indeed outside of the natural variability.

    Now, to elaborate on the fact that Mangroves are capable of surviving above sea level. There is a unique stand of Mangroves the occurs over 12 metres above sea level on an island in the Indian Ocean. A small stand, a third of a hectare that is fed by a fresh water spring. The growing medium is a calcified coral and mud structure on an on shore terrace that has been Uranium series dated back to the last Interglacial in age.

    These Mangroves reach a height of 30-40 metres, have a trunk diameter of up to 800 mm which would indicate their age been in excess of 250 years. This stand is believed to be relict and actively regenerating, most unusual for the location.

    I believe further investigation of this stand would be prudent, if not occurring now. Will inquire if indeed any work has been done or being done as I have a lay interest in this species that derived from my riparian environmental works that I completed late last century on the Brisbane River.

    Oh, the area in question is Australian territory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dlb

    Just looking at Frank’s graphs it almost looks like there was a large pulse of energy into the earth system during the first half of the 20th Century. Possibly the late 20th century warming is just the ocean releasing that heat?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      @dlb
      That the late ocean warming is partly simply a delay of warming is a logical hypothesis.
      There are things speaking for and against:

      FOR: The differences are mostly seen when land meets the very largest oceans. Differences in medium sized ocean areas, like the mediterranian, shows no significant difference coastal vs. non coastal. Thus, the difference is very likely to be related to the slow change of temperatre of the largest world oceans: The Pacific, The Atlantic and the ndian Ocean.
      and..
      Many strong oscillations for non-coastal are also seen in coastal, just with less variability.
      and..
      It is in ful compliance with normal physical behaviour, that a large water volume actually should take longer time to heat up.

      AGAINST: After 1975 non-coastal and coastal seems to warm up with same trend.

      Hard to conclude with 100% confidence, but the FOR arguments appears stronger than the against argument.
      So, it seems that the oceanic warming in recent years is perhaps partly a lag phase from the 1920-50 warming.
      (!)

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Annie

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TEACHERS BRAINWASHING GULLIBE CHILDREN WITH THIS GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD !!!!!!!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_of_conformity/P0/

    Election Now !!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t know where Frank gets the time to do this kind of work. Collecting some references from the ‘net and using them as a basis for an opinion piece is relatively easy. Data collection and analysis is both difficult and time consuming. I’m still digesting the content, but one thing struck me immediately, and that’s the graphic demonstration that it’s the oceans which control climate, and that what happens in the atmosphere is a consequence, not a driver.

    I’ve been beavering away for the last couple of months on sea-level, and it became clear early on that ENSO is responsible for step-changes, possibly accounting for most of the sea-level rise around Australia (and elsewhere in the Pacific) since records began. Only high-quality analysis will bring a sense of proportion to the climate debate (which badly needs that), making the “big picture” clearer. I believe amateurs have a big part to play in this, in a similar way to astronomy, where they have both the time and inclination, and lack of financial constraint, to study that which the professionals can’t or won’t. Well done Frank.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Great work Frank; and like all true science it raises more questions then it answers; for instance the temperature graphs are in anomalies; these are preferred because supposedly they can allow comparisons of trend between different regions and sites; this is wrong; an equivalent anomalous temperature trend beginning at a -30C level has a completely different radiative consequence from one beginning at +30C.

    The sea/land dichotomy is remarkable in that it shows disparities in both trends and levels; it would seem extrapolations are fraught with statistical error and there remains much work to be done on temperature before a clear picture of the extent of any warming can be ascertained. I would suggest the satellites are the base of any further comparisons; and it looks as though the tree-rings have been vindicated, although not in a way Mann would prefer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Frank, based on your work are there likely to have been any periods in the more distant (>100y) past where using tree rings as temperature proxies would be inadvisable?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi John!

      Tree ring data will allways represent individual trees, not the population as a whole.

      That is, if an area has 1000 trees and then starts a warmer period, then perhaps after 10 years, still the trees will show larger rings. But after 20 – 40 years more trees may be able to survive in a better climate and then the same area holds 1100 trees.
      This means that the incividualo trees will start having ring sizes more normal again even though temperatures are warmer… Therefore tree rings may have “temperature” graphs that are not so good at representing multidecadial temperature trends, the trends will seek flatness.

      So im not generally a fan of tree rings.
      But!

      IF you use tree rings for the medieval period, THEN you have to use them today also.
      You cant use proxy to say “no heat in the medieval period” is you cant make it show heat today.

      In the present article, the variations in tree rings appears supported, though.
      (And this supports that “the decline” in temperatures after 1940 is real)

      In short: Im not sure tree rings are good at showing long term varitations for the medieval period.

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The_Borg

    “Yes, what appears to be beyond doubt is that the coastal stations cannot be used as indicator for inland areas.”

    Man oh man – well they’re not ! You’d have to study their Barnes weight average interpolations.

    You’d wonder why we’re still bothering on temperature record debates given http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cohenite

      See my point on anomalies above.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Borg, The.

      You must understand that Im from Denmark… so please be very specific what your points and arguments are, I simply dont know what you try to say, its not bad will.
      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

    • #

      We’re still ‘bothering’ with temperature record debates for the simple reason that the way the GHCN, GISS, and HADcrut series are selected and preened is just full of massive errors. From the very first step where temperatures are averaged (you can not average an intensive property and get any meaning in the result) to the “homogenizing” that is really just a giant “splice artifact” creation and hiding mechanism to the complete lack of any sanity in the error bands size vs the ‘signal’ that is supposedly found.

      Basically, there’s a huge trouble with temperatures as a proxy for heat, and that is exacerbated by lousy collection and handling of the data. So it doesn’t matter how much you show internal consistency between different folks using the same broken methods on the same bad data; all that shows is that they are good sheep and not too critical of the fodder they are fed.

      When the only really good station data we have is observed (those 100 year stations) unadorned with a load of homogenized trans-data laden adjustment, we find flat trends with a PDO/AMO 60 ish year ripple and a bit of a rise out of the Little Ice Age with temperatures clearly lower now than during the Roman Optimum (when sea levels where higher as evidenced by old Roman ports that are now inland).

      So, in the end, the current data series and the processing of them are just a bad joke of poor science with fundamentally flawed thinking (mistaking temperature for heat and averaging intensive variables) that attempts to do a kind of broken calorimetry on the planet while changing all the thermometers (a severe ‘no-no’ in calorimetry) then ‘adjusts’ all the data to get the desired result. Not even up to Freshman College level, IMHO.

      So yes, we’re going to continue to present the truth. You can call it a debate if you like, but it’s really just saying “Here are facts and data. The other guy looks to have it bungled.” And no amount of saying “but his buddies got the same thing!” will change that.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    J.H.

    Lot of work there Frank. Good onya.

    It’s amazing with all the money that has been spent on the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, that such a paucity of real data and information exists… It seems to have been spent more on the politics of climate than the science of climate….. Pity that.

    We need more scientific hardware and less academic software…;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    a mention for John Daly

    The only way surface data can be used with any confidence is to exclude all town/city and airport data – no exceptions. Only rural sites should be used, and by `rural’ is meant strictly `greenfields’ sites where there is no urbanisation of any kind near the instrument. Even when greenfields stations are used, those which are technically supervised (eg. managed by scientists, marine authorities, the military etc.) should be treated with greater credibility than those from sheep stations, post offices and remote motels.

    This would reduce the available stations to only a small fraction of those presently used, but they would certainly provide a more accurate picture than the present plethora of stations, both good and bad, presently used by GISS and CRU.

    Once suitable `greenfields’ sites have been identified, the station history of each site needs to be examined thoroughly, including old photographs, details of site moves, records of maintenance, procedural changes and a thorough on-site inspection of the micro-environment. Only then can meaningful corrections to data be contemplated. Any such corrections should be independently reviewed. In-house review by fellow `peers’ is hardly likely to convince a skeptical public.

    A good example of this attention to station detail can be found with the Alaska Climate Research Center. Their website provides just this depth of historical and local geographical detail about their station network. It is interesting that this attention to such detail has resulted in Alaska returning an overall neutral temperature trend. Some parts show a warming, some a cooling, but nothing to suggest the kind of blanket accelerated warming claimed by GISS and CRU.

    http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

    John mentions the surface record in Alaska and if you go to that site there’s this note http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/news/firstdecade2000.html

    Climatological data of the first decade of the 21st century are now available, and we analyzed the data for Fairbanks (see graph). Related to the temperature, the warmest year was 2002 with a mean temperature of 30.3°F, the 7th warmest in our records of more than a century. Higher temperatures were observed during the following years in order of decreasing values: 1926. 1987, 1928, 1993, 1940, and 1981. The coldest year of the last decade was 2006 with a mean temperature of 25.7°F. Numerous values below that level were observed during the last century. While the overall trend since 1906 shows warming, the best linear fit of the data points of the last decade displays a fairly strong cooling of 1.78°F. Recent cooling has also been observed in other parts of the world, and some climatologists have attributed this trend to the low solar activity we have experienced over the last few years. Another symptom of this can be seen in the aurora activity, which has decreased over the few last years here in Fairbanks. It is worthwhile to point out that during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), a time period of very low solar activity, Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, as agricultural activities became more difficult.

    Nevertheless, the last decade was on average warm, actually the second warmest decade of the last century; only the 1980′s displayed a higher temperature in Fairbanks. The temperature has varied widely over the last century, 1926 being the warmest year. In 1976/77 a sudden and substantial temperature increase was observed in Alaska, which we attributed to a change in circulation, which is expressed in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO shifted from dominantly negative to dominantly positive values. Since that change, the temperature trend has been fairly flat for Fairbanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    and from Warwick Hughes about probs with Aust temp record
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317
    graphs comparing the average temperature trend for the 25 regional and remote Australian stations, for which data was available over the years since 1882, with the average temperatures for the six Australian capital cities.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Frank,

    I knew temperature readings and patterns that are being looked for were garbage science when the period of time is such a short duration to the overall time frame of this planet.
    Many areas of understanding this planet was neglected for the theories that created the current crop of scientists with the consensus approach.

    In the overall time frame and the Universe, every moment is unique due to factors of motion and expansion for every second. Nothing is exactly duplicated. There was never a balance system which is how scientists project fears of the future.
    Many areas of science were never looked at such as the different speeds of this planets rotation and the different circumferences. Salt is a by product of the planets water from the past when looking at the age and land heights they are located. New discoveries has shown Ice in space to have the same composition of our oceans.

    Like you, I’m just researching on my own with no institution or funding. Being ignored is scientists way of saying “go away” I don’t want to be involved as it may effect my research funding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TinyCO2

    Frank, I’ve been playing around with UK/Ireland stations for a while and tried to get some long records to compare with each other. I chose Stornaway, Durham, Armagh, Sheffield, Oxford and I added the CET for contrast. I think I got the data from GISS raw. I started the records at 1883 because that was common to all of them.

    I theorised that Stornaway would be the least affected by UHI and I subtracted the annual temperatures from those of each of the other records. All of them showed an additional warming with Oxford and Durham showing almost twice as much warming as Sheffield and the CET. Armargh was the closest to Stornaway but had still gone up over 0.1ºC faster in a hundred years. I think the differences illustrate the expansion of the cities, Oxford in particular having grown rapidly. Sheffield was very similar to the CET in both rate of warming and year to year variations.

    It would be quite hard to find any truly rural records in the UK because most measurements were taken at airports and cities.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    John Brookes @ 36 and Frank Lansner @ 36.1

    John. Check the John L Daly critique of this peer-reviewed, published Ed Cook et al paper.
    Frank , this reinforces what you said in reply to JB.

    Quote (in part):

    Talking to the Trees in Tasmania.

    In the politics of greenhouse `science’, some scientific papers, fully peer-reviewed, have been published in key scientific journals, the ideological support for the warming scenario being the crucial factor.

    In a noted paper, (“Climatic Change in Tasmania Inferred from a 1089-Year Tree-Ring Chronology of Huon Pine”, Cook et al. 1991, `Science’ v.253, p.1266- 1268), An American tree-ring expert, Ed Cook and his team, presented tree ring data gathered from Huon Pine trees on Mount Read in western Tasmania, and correlated them against historical temperature data for Tasmania. The study received widespread media publicity, as it’s conclusions reinforced the greenhouse effect hysteria promoted by some climate modelers. According to Cook et al -

    “A Climatically sensitive huon pine tree-ring chronology from western Tasmania allows inferences about Austral summer temperature change since A.D. 900.
    Since 1965, huon pine growth has been unusually rapid for trees that are in many cases over 700 years old. This growth increase correlates well with recent anomalous warming in Tasmania on the basis of instrumental records and supports claims that a climatic change, perhaps influenced by greenhouse gases, is in progress”.

    Cook et al made three elementary mistakes in their study.

    Firstly, the huon pine trees they chose to examine were located in the western half of Tasmania. However, the temperature records they chose to correlate them with were all located in the eastern half of Tasmania, in a totally different climate zone, at an average distance of 100 miles from the tree site. They might just as well have correlated their tree rings with temperatures in Brisbane or London.

    Secondly, having taken their records from the wrong half of the island, Cook et al selectively chose only three weather stations to represent the whole of Tasmania, and all three are affected by significant urban heat islands (ie. localised heat from urban growth distorting historical data). They selected Hobart, Launceston (the two biggest urban centres), and finally Low Head Lighthouse.

    The third flaw in Cook et al’s work is that they made no allowance for the Fertilizer Effect of carbon dioxide (or CO2). Studies in the U.S. and in Tasmania, indicate that many types of vegetation around the world, especially trees, are responding to enriched atmospheric CO2 with stronger recent growth caused by enhanced photosynthesis from enriched CO2 uptake. This CO2-enhanced growth is quite independent of temperature.

    The Cook et al study was interesting in it’s treatments of climates over the last 1,000 or so years, but by pandering to the global warming scare in such an unscientific manner, the rest of their work was largely overshadowed. It is not only the Cook team who lacked scientific rigour in their tree study (insofar as it related to the late 20th century), but part of the blame for such bad science should also attach to the reviewers of the paper and to the editors of `Science’ journal itself for accepting such fashionable, but also unsupported, claims so uncritically. end quote.

    Complete article is not long but fully expands on these criticisms. Well worth reading.

    http://www.john-daly.com/huonpine.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    Well Frank from Denmark – I find it interesting that someone would speculate on the nature of Australian climate change analysis without researching what has actually been done locally. Standard sceptic nonsense in fact.

    As for the wood for trees graph I offered – don’t you find it interesting that whatever data set you use – various land, ocean, satellite – you get the same basic pattern and basic trend answer. Then there are the numerous independent reconstructions…. same again. Then of course there would be the reaction of species to increased temperatures – on both land and in the ocean.

    And isn’t it hilarious after all Watts ranting about temperature bias from poor location that his final statistical analysis reveals the trend is upheld. What a waste of time.

    At some point you have to conclude the sceptics on temperature data are simply ranting fanatical time wasters, and also conduct research with bad faith as the a priori assumption.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Gday Borgie

      And I find it interesting that someone would accept Australian climate change analysis without researching the validity of it (as I and several others have done), and then criticise someone who has given new insights into the temperature trends temporally and spatially around the world, not just Australia, which the Bureau has not managed to do. Did you read Frank’s article? Of course not. Instead you go off track with rants against Anthony Watts. Standard troll nonsense in fact. If we sceptics are simply ranting fanatical time wasters, why are you wasting your time arguing with us?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      Borg, I think you are being insufferably and unnecessarily rude to Frank. His post is very interesting and the analysis is novel, so one should at least appreciate the fact he is bringing some quite new to the discussion. I suspect you are a troll.

      You make a number of points I personally agree with you on, but none of them are actually related to Frank’s analysis. I suggest you re-read Franks analysis before posting again, if your intention is to be taken seriously. Suggest focus on the the core novelty of Frank’s method (as I understand it at least), on trying to separate data in order to try and deepen understanding of the signal, particularly difference in plot between inland temps and coastal temps.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Borg says:

      don’t you find it interesting that whatever data set you use – various land, ocean, satellite – you get the same basic pattern and basic trend answer

      .

      That is wrong; see my comment on anomalies above. The really odd thing about this alleged consistency of trends between the land and the satellites which is wheeled out by the alarmists is that on a regional basis it is totally contradictory of AGW which predicts regional differences in temperature movements.

      I really think this is an interesting aspect of the debate and I hope borg is not just a passing troll and can present some substance.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Also of note is that HADcrut, GISStemp, and NCDC all are basically based on the GHCN (with slight divergences in what seasoning is put into the stew) and use substantially the same processes. So would be expected to find the same (broken) result. The Satellites matched for a while, but now have shown that we’ve gone flat (and in some cases cooled) while GISStemp continues on to it’s “hottest ever” nonsense.

        The supposed “concordance” of the results is fictional and the assertion that it has meaning is void. All it shows is that “group think” results in similar behaviours and using the same data in the same way has similar results. None of that validates the methods nor the data.

        The data are sparse, flawed, and biased in selection and adjustment. The methods are seriously flawed and ignore known physics AND things like the new insight Frank has presented here.

        But “borg” is clearly just a troll machine. Never to bother thinking a new thought, only presenting the standard ‘talking points’ and pointers to more groupthink.

        While I laud the desire to get ‘borg’ to actually read the article and think about it, I fear that is asking more than capability allows.

        But, on the off chance I might be wrong:

        Frank has found that there is a strong and reliable variation between coastal and inland trends. NONE of the other series take this into account. ALL of the other series use data where the inland station percentage is dropped while the coastal percentage rises. Given that the higher volatility of the data from inland stations is also ignored: the 1200 km homogenizing ‘reach’ of the codes will bias the inland areas to excess fictional warming (yes, I’ve read and run the codes, and the paper they are based upon). The reason is simple: Highly volatile station in during a cold phase PDO/AMO biases that 30 year period to the cold side. Taking those stations out as they reach their warmest point (fully capturing the cold to hot 1/2 cycle) locks in a high volatile rise and locks in that “gain”. During the present drop in temperatures (strongest inland – see recent inland snow events of large size and early onset – late departure) those cold excursions will not exist in the data. Warmer water moderated coastal data will be ‘homogenized’ inland. This will be based on the OLD period when the inland areas were warmer than coastal, so adjustments will be made to keep THAT relationship, getting the adjustment wrong.

        So think about that for a minute. Clear impact of stations being different inland and coastal. Clear dropping of stations over time in relation to the PDO / AMO state. Clear method bias in the codes in what they will do with this fudged input. AND the codes share methods. (Heck, inside the GIStemp code there are data structure blocks that are a direct match to NCDC and Hadley – ‘they talk’… and share code and methods). You really don’t think that matters? You really think that showing NCDC, GISS, and Hadley get similar results means anything other than that they are all good buddies and use the same methods?

        At this point I expect the next thing from ‘borg’ will just be more troll talking points and a link or two to to another warmista page. We’ll see…


        Report this

        00

    • #

      @Borg
      Take a look at fig 2a. Here you see unadjusted coastal and non-coastal matches the overall Raobcore. As you may know, Raobcore has a very nive match with satellite data, Raobcore is a kind of extended satellite curve.
      But the striking divergence happens before 1960 between coastal and non-coastal. Therefore I had no idea what you wanted to say with a graph beginning in 1979.

      More, Even though for example UAH maybe has match with GISS not thaaaat bas (you say) then, if you split up UAH in land and ocean, you will see that is only the ocean part that shows compliance. It is exactly the land part of UAH that is not really in compliance with GISS etc :

      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UAHUHI/UAHurban2.jpg

      Here I suggest that the problem might be UHI, but it could be adjustments and other things too that go wrong. (pictre taken from: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/uah-reveals-urban-heat-209.php )

      Then, you argument that because Watts project may not have had a large impact – and that he is a sceptic (?) – then any analysis or point anyone else has will turn out to have little impact too?
      Look, I asked for precise arguments, not this opinion/believe based “logic”.

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The_Borg

    [snip Mr /Mrs Borg formula post. "Insert name of skeptic, deride and insult, don't explain, don't substantiate. Mention next skeptic, repeat..." Borg, anonymous astroturfers need to earn their money. Use your brain. Perhaps you are Borg the Bot? -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Hi Frank

    I’ve just tried using GISS plotting tool to see if I can tease out a signal that matches your analysis of lesser trend inland.

    Here is full 1925-2010
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1925&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    And a plot for 1940 to 1970. (I chose these dates because based on your plot above, this plot I would expect to see the greatest difference between inland and coastal)
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1940&year2=1970&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    My eyeball is not thoroughly convinced that the above replicate your results.

    Your thoughts?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Andrew!

      I think its a 100% logic approach you use.
      I have 2 comments:

      1) GISS is mostly an adjusted version of the adjusted GHCN. Temperatures has been aligned “to adjust for UHI” and more, so I personally would never use GISS or similar to compare areas locally.

      2) I showed how Hadcrut had chosen only urban or coastal stations in NE USA. (I think Hadcrut and GISS station choice is somewhat similar): 2 Boston stations, one new York, syracuse and then one coastal.

      So the wrong station choice is not only the “love” for coastal stations.

      Here some more examples
      USA SE: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Coast/Studycases/USA/fig5.jpg
      So many stations available and still Hadcrut chooses Atlanta, Jacsonville, Charleston etc. An then some very coastal sites.

      USA SW: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Coast/Studycases/USA/fig18.jpg
      Here hadcrut for climate science (cherry-) picks Reno, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego….

      Europe: For reasons very well linked to marine air dominans, In Western Europe, where the Alps shoots up, suddenly Hadcrut has more rural stations than in the rest of western Europe.
      They just happen to pick the warmer areas for trends:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/alps.php

      etcetc.

      My points: it doesnt matter where geographically you look, Hadcrut/GISS is often seen to pick the warmer trended graph, the coastal stations are then just a possibility to pick rural sites that too are warm trended.

      So if the coastal areas where the only place where warm trended stations where preferred AND GISS data where not stronly adjusted.. THEN your analysis might have shown warmer trends near coast.
      At least I would say: Dont work too much with adjusted adjusted data like GISS :-)

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Andrew!

      In the general introduction to RUTI, I show in examples EX1a to EX4, how typically data series due to missing years and more go totally wrong when just averaging without making sure only to average for areas of similar trends:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php

      Take EX4, data i call “Graitti data”. I have mostly met this when rural datasets has been limited to just show a few years in fragments before 1950, that is for typically warmer years.

      Here graffiti data from China. Rural data has been cut down to fragments, but still tell a story seen all over the world:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Asia/China/fig22.jpg
      See RUTI: China.

      Other places like Europe, huge areas are far mostly represented by urban sites.
      Heres what happens to all Europes temperature data when analysing area for area, using rural:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe.php
      From RUTI: Europe.

      And the fantastic data.murders of Turkey, South africa, ONLY non-rural sites are allowed to be used in the long data series:
      RUTI Turkey:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/turkey.php

      ETCetc.

      Nice little bizaro from Zimbabwe:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/africa/zimbabwe.php
      - Check how Hadcrut SQUEEEEEZES all heat out of pre 1950 data, amazing.

      etc.

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Robert

    Wow, I see The_Borg finally jumped the shark. Though it is a fitting handle for him/her as all we ever get is more nonsense from the collective.

    Frank, I’ve been running a private weather station for around 10 years now. It’s a Honeywell rig that is pretty accurate (Hideki electronics makes the guts I think). I’ve moved 4 times since I first set it up and siting is always interesting.

    I can (and have) gotten temperature deviations of 10-30 F just moving the sensor enclosure from one location in the yard to another. Direct exposure to the sun, wind be blocked or diverted from the enclosure, whether the enclosure is fan aspirated or not, how high above ground level, what specifically the enclosure is over (grass vs. concrete for example) all of these things can result in wide variations in readings within the area of my yard.

    After comparing my readings with surrounding stations (downtown, local airport, international airport, other home based stations, etc.) over 10 years I have seen wide variations as well within a 50-60 mile radius.

    Some of this is due to UHI, some to siting issues, and some to wind patterns. That’s just three of the main contributors to what can cause the deviations, pressure fronts, and altitude differences can also contribute.

    I still don’t believe there can be any such thing as a “global mean” the fact that someone tries to convince us there is simply illustrates to me that some people just like playing with numbers to create things that don’t exist.

    The work you’re doing I find very interesting in that it indicates to me the values we keep hearing about have been calculated incorrectly based on numerous assumptions (which are also incorrect) as well as an inadequate spread of data points to properly generate anything even remotely “global.”

    As they say, “garbage in, garbage out.” I suspect from what I have seen over the years that if we really want some accurate data we need to start collecting information from the “enthusiast” stations that are out there. From everyone I have spoken with that is running a station we seem to put more effort into our siting than the “official” stations appear to.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Brilliant to have a real pro on temperature stations commenting!

      Your comment remind me of a station compare between 2 Berlin stations 30 apart:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/NWeurope/fig28.jpg

      where I wrote: “What is then supposed to have happened to cause all these jumps in temperature? Did they move the station around on their lot of land? Perhaps they have a mobile temperature station for off-road use?”

      Fig 28 of http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php

      Anyway: When diferences are so huge very locally, then it should be no surprice, that we have some differences coastal vs. non-coastal etcetc.

      Here an example, Pakistan-India, where the high altitude Southern Himalayas shows trends similar to the coastal sites:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Coast/Studycases/IndiPaki/fig2.jpg

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joel Heinrich

        “Your comment remind me of a station compare between 2 Berlin stations 30 apart:
        http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/NWeurope/fig28.jpg

        where I wrote: “What is then supposed to have happened to cause all these jumps in temperature? Did they move the station around on their lot of land? Perhaps they have a mobile temperature station for off-road use?””

        Berlin Tempel[hof] was the main airport of Berlin. A quick look at the available metadata for Tempelhof shows thermometer relocation (since 1948) in 1951, 1952, 1957 and 1970. Likewise the airport was opend 1923, then it grew rapidly with constructions in 1924 and 1928. Then from 1936 to 1941 the new terminal was built. It is until now the second largest building in Europe.
        Up to 1945 it was the major airport in Berlin then it was part of the American sector in West-Berlin and was used as military airport, from 1951 to 1975 a civil airport, then to 1985 just US-mil airport and from 1985 to 2008 open for private aircrafts. Since 2008 it’s not an airport anymore, and it is not yet quite clear what they are going to do with the area.

        So, yeah, quite a few changes.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Hi Joel!

        Your info is truly appreciated!

        You Write: “why do you only use GHCN (and CRUTemp)? Why don’t you look at the sources of GHCN, like DWD or KNMI or DMI? You can find (missing) data for Aachen, Bremen, Regensburg, Stuttgart, Hannover and many more stations, just look also for daily or monthly data. ”

        First of all: I use Unadjusted GHCN, not the normal GHCN.
        And the data I have gotten my hands on from KNMI from stations appears more like adjusted Hadcrut and GHCN, not unadjusted.
        DMI has only around 5-6 stations public available (Coastal!!!), I have scrolled through around 100 writings, but only these 5-6 stations keeps appearing.

        Nordklim is rather brilliant, though the DMI contribution for the Danish area is pretty much just the same as DMI makes available. No stations from the bulk of non-coastal jutland etc.

        DWD : Do you have a link for UNadjusted data?
        (Even DMI has certain data available which matches adjusted Hadcrut, not unadjusted GHCN.)

        The kind of information you provide is exactly what im looking for, hope to find some good useful original data.

        And thanks for info on the precice location of the temp station in Potsdam!

        K.R. Frank


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      great… like the rest of us. Publish or perish


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        Why? I am making observations and discussing my observations with someone else who is doing their own research. I do not have to “publish or perish” as you say, I can continue doing what I do and discuss the matter with others. If they find anything of interest they can publish or not as they choose.

        Publication does not make fact. Many things have been “established” over the years by peer reviewed, published research that were later shown to be completely wrong. So publication made them correct? Publication only allows the particular view a wider audience. Having accurate data is no less accurate because it is not published.

        Given the freak show the climate “science” publications have shown themselves to be along with the biases and agendas of many of the publications of late having it in “print” doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore.

        Accept the real scientific method or perish. It may not sound as hip but it has more validity than your statement.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Looks like a good job of BBQ’ing spherical cows.

    But where’s the beer? ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Frank Lasner, you did a big job. In the process, did you notice that: where is water – milder climate – no water = more extreme. Doesn’t that prove that water controls the climate, not CO2? Around a coal powered electricity generators, the climate is better, trees bigger, than in the desert. In countries with rice paddies – climate is milder – in Australia rice paddies are treated as the biggest evil, because they IMPROVE the climate. For me, and for the trees, when is milder = better, extreme temp between day and night = bad climate. H2O is as shock absorber. not just the sea, but dam, swamp, rice paddy.

    On the other hand, around Kyoto city, Stuttgart, is much better climate, than in Australian desert – with much less CO2. Water, or dirty cloud / or combination = upper atmosphere warmer – on the ground milder. Clear sky = more extreme between day and night. Therefore, if you collect most of temperature data on the ground only, isn’t it deceiving? There is more upper atmosphere than the first 2m of the ground.

    Frank, I just found that you asked me on another page; how does CO2 absorbs more heat than (oxygen +nitrogen)air can. I was busy promoting my book, didn’t read your comment on time. If I find your website, I will explain. If not, all the proofs / facts and formulas are on my website: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com P.S. congratulation to all Skeptics, Julia just passed the carbon rip-off legislation in the lower house; the only reason she succeeded is; because is not known to the public, what is on my website. Because the Skeptics suffer from ”truth phobia” same as the Warmist.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Stefan!

      Thanks for commenting!

      You ask if I notice “where is water – milder climate – no water = more extreme.”
      YES!
      This is a very correct point. Not only is there difference on the coastal – non-coastal in trends, but often, the coastal has smaller variety than the non-coastal, this is true.
      And you write “H2O is as shock absorber” – yes, I agree.

      K.R. Frank, I will check your link.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    Frank Lansner.Thank you for a very interesting post.

    Frank. As mentioned in my earlier post @ 30, E.M.Smith did a huge amount of work on this topic and he has pulled it all together at the following link.

    NOAA/NCDC:GHCN – The Global Analysis

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

    He explains what started his search as follows:

    “The World, and The Hemispheres

    Early on, I noticed that the history of the thermometer record had “The Thermometers March South”. Initially I assumed this was just an artifact of the spread of technology, and time, spreading from the north to the south. And perhaps some spread of wealth and thermometers in the Jet Age as airports spread to tropical vacation lands. Yet there was an odd discontinuity at the end. In the 1990′s, the thermometer count plunged overall, and the percentage in the Northern Cold band was cut dramatically. This was the early investigation that lead to all the other links here.”

    I’m sure you will find it very interesting and for others it’s a great resource.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      Borg.

      Firstly, the RSS link is irrelevant, and Frank has already explained to you why. The RSS data is from 1979 onwards. But the key point of interest in the data, the divergence between inland and coastal temperatures manifests itself between 1940 and 1970. From about 1980 onwards the track quite closely. So looking at data from 1979 onwards is of no relevance to further exploration of this analysis. You are looking at a boring part of the dataset, and yet you are surprised when you find nothing of interest there?

      Secondly, the BOM data. The BOM data you link to is the HQ series. I happen to have on my computer HQ, Raw and alot of R scripts to process BOM data, (if you search Jo’s blog you will find details of my own past analysis which confirms Ken’s Stewart’s work). I tweaked the code a bit to separate stations based on altitude of 50 meters, assuming 50 is inland. Crude, but possibly useful for a first snapshot. I did a OLS line fit from 1940 to 1970 on anomaly results. Here are figures for raw data:

      Stations 50m : +0.42C per century

      Without considering confidence intervals, # of stations etc, and my gridding system, I would say that tentatively this confirms the hypothesis. But not perfectly; because there is still a +ve trend. But this is just one continent, and when you look at GISS plot I posted earlier, you will noticed that between 1940 and 1970 SH tends to warm, but NH is cooling.

      Now – lets look at the homogenized data. Just for fun:

      Stations 50m : +0.77C per century

      Wow, it’s the opposite. Yet, didn’t you say earlier that homogenization does not change the final trend anomaly? This may be the case when using GISS data and you run it through a gridding algorithm to crunch it to a single number (possibly a Simpson’s paradox artefact?), but not when BOM get their hands on the data. They homogenize it good and proper.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew Barnham

        For some reason, formatting did not work correctly. Think Jo’s site is not dealing with HTML special chars very well. I’ll try again:


        Raw
        Stations <50m : +1.03C per century
        Stations >50m : +0.42C per century

        HQ
        Stations <50m : +0.55C per century
        Stations >50m : +0.77C per century


        Report this

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Andrew is that right? They’ve adjusted the coastal trend down and the inland trend up?

          00

          • #
            Andrew Barnham

            Trends in all cases are up. But according to my data, HQ stations trend higher inland, but raw stations trend lower inland. It is an interesting result though. One thing to consider, HQ data set contains more stations (98), whereas raw contains 62 stations. My scripts are geared towards calculating anomaly using CAM method, as per practice of CAGW signal chasers, yet I cowardly refuse to include any station which does not have sufficient data in the calibration period. I’ll follow up in the morning with a recalculation of HQ stations which appear in raw dataset only.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew Barnham

            Limiting to same stations only changes HQ trend figures by 0.01. So original figures I posted are good enough.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew Barnham

            Correction, I misread your post. Yeah, looks like stations under 50m are trended down whereas stations above 50m are trended up. But this is analysis of the 1940-1970 period only. Not the entire data set.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Hi Andrew – I made an answer more to you comment 45.
          K.R. Frank


          Report this

          00

    • #
      cohenite

      In respect of the Australian trends read this:

      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf

      In respect of the global:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend

      The SST trend is 0.0129898 per year, the global trend is 0.0150619 per year which means the land temperature trend is 2 X the average minus the SST = 0.017134; the difference between the sea trend and the land trend is 4.1442^03 per annum or a tad over 0.4C per century which is about the adjustment figure on the Australian temperature record for the past century.

      Make of that what you will.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hi Cohenite!

        by the way, here my overall results for the approx 10 Australian areas, in one weigthed RUTI – Australia graph, compared with the BOM:

        http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig46.jpg

        RUTI (using unadhjusted GHCN, and ONLY averaging temperature series INSIDE areas of similar trends) has an Australian heat trend 1900-2010 of hardly 0,1 K.
        BOM has around 1 K it seems.

        I have used around 300 datasets to make the entire Austrlia temperature trend, and ..

        IF BOM WAS CORRECT, THEN I SHOULD ADD 0,9K HEAT TREND TO EVERY SINGLE DATASET USED.
        (or vice versa).
        Its true i have not yet digged into the specific methods of BOM. As i recall from the CRU mails, we had a programmer writing in the files, that Australia data was a complete mess. Im sure he had no idea about what he was talking about..

        K.R. Frank


        Report this

        00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hi Borg,

      I thought we got rid of you in Season 5.

      What about the trendmap from about errrr, 5 Billion years ago ?????

      Do you think BOM will comment on that?

      You really are a borg, conforming to a green society !! HAHA :)


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Borg you write: “So does ….support Frank’s hypothesis.”

      What is my hypothesis? You must think of the conclusion, “consequences”:


      •Coastal temperature stations are unreliable as indicators for non-coastal areas and vice versa. Often, the warmer-trended coast/island area is just a fraction of the total land area and resembles the sea surface trend rather than the land based trend.
      •Coastal stations ought not be used for long-range smoothing over land areas (or vice versa).
      •Adjustments where a non-coastal station are changed to look more like a coastal station (or vice versa) should be avoided.

      I have shown examples that Coastal temperatures often has a different temperature trend than the near by non-coastal series.
      Want more exampled, see:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php
      From fig 12 and foreward. also links at the buttom.

      You can go check this yourself anytime, I can help you if needed.

      So it is not a “hypothesis” that coastal stations are unreliable as indicators for non-coastal areas.

      And the odds that Hadcrut, GISS should not have noticed this banal issue is minimal.

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Frank,

        I’ve noticed that same pattern response.

        We both just look at the data and ask them to speak for themselves. That, then, gets attacked as a ‘hypothesis’. It throws some folks for a loop when you don’t start with a preconceived notion of what you expect, but just go take a ‘look see’ and report. I didn’t set out to discover that the high altitude stations were removed from the Andes in GHCN. I started out with “I wonder if there is a pattern in South America, over time and over latitude, longitude, altitude, and urbanization?”. The idea of “discovery” seems alien to the trolls.

        So you wondered if there was a coastal / inland pattern, and went looking. That is not “agenda driven”. But the warmist camp is very strongly agenda driven and can not conceive that someone else might not be (especially if they are a ‘skeptic’…). So you found a pattern; in their minds that means you had a hypothesis to justify.

        Then the character attacks begin. Classic propaganda playbook.

        At any rate, I love to see what patterns are in the data, wherever it might lead. If it had lead in the direction of “There is REAL warming being under reported”, that is what I would have posted. I actually set out on this journey from the point of view of wondering “This warming thing could be bad, I need to learn more about it” and originally ported GIStemp to run on Linux just to see how it worked and expected to find justification for the results. (What I found was a rats next of old crummy code with poor science behind it and based on a very bias prone dataset with massive instrument changes over time and space. That’s not good science and can not justify ANY conclusion, warming or not.)

        BTW, I’d assert that the folks at NCDC, GISS, and Hadley can easily not discover anything that would be contrary to their preconceived notions. “Self confirmation bias” can be a strong master. That’s part of why I just ask “What do these data have to say?” and don’t enter an investigation with a hypothesis. I think it’s part of the forensics mind set. You never know who you are looking for until the evidence speaks… IF you suspect someone, it can lead to looking in more depth in some places, but you must be open to either outcome to do it right. The evidence can exonerate as much as convict. But once the evidence speaks: there is no room for agenda driven conclusions nor hypothesis defense.

        So you found some evidence. Coastal areas do not match inland areas in trend. That is being ignored.

        Those are just facts.

        You state that ignoring it is an error. Is “wrong”, if you will. That is also just a fact.

        It would be wonderful, just once, to have a warmist say something like: “Gee, that’s interesting. I’ll have to work that into a model run and see what happens.” But I’m not holding my breath. At best you can get “Well, I’m going to work up a defense of my hypothesis and see ‘from this conclusion what assumptions can I draw’” (Often followed by a gratuitous “you idiot”…)

        At any rate, it’s something for me to think about and work into my understanding of the patterns in the data and station changes. (For a while, GIStemp had reduced all of California to 4 coastal stations. San Francisco and three down near L.A. Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Maria. After some pointing this out, they put some of the USHCN back in. Haven’t seen a retraction of the “hottest EVERY” claim for California based on those bogus times, though…) Can you imagine having removed the high Sierra Nevada and asserting that San Francisco is a decent proxy? That Los Angeles is a decent proxy for Yosemite? Apparently they can…


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Dave

    Borg @ 21.6

    Answer the question please! You do not have the manners to reply! Refer copy of comment below!

    You quoted the following:-

    Tell you one thing though – grain croppers from Dubbo to Emerald have noticed centennial trends in frost frequency (declining) and date of last frost (earlier). Even the plant breeders are onto it.

    That’s an amazing data set collection from Dubbo to Emerald by grain croppers and they’ve noticed 100 year trends? Please send the link to this data! Also which plant breeders are utilising this information from the grain croppers?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    ” the divergence between inland and coastal temperatures manifests itself between 1940 and 1970″ yes well …. decadal variability
    In fact why not abandon all hope in terrestrial temperature measurement and use two sets of ocean data http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf

    I wonder what EOF1 looks like (strangely the same story again !)

    To pesky Dave with bad manners himself

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/frosts.shtml

    http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/nnn/pubs/stone.pdf


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      Borg

      So are you pointing out that the divergance detected by Frank corresponds with IPO trends. Frank identified this already. He graphs AMO/PDO against his temp series and comments on it. What are you trying to say exactly by reiterating this? That all Frank has discovered a a LST based proxy for IPO only? That Frank’s work in no way casts doubt upon existing methods of managing and aggregating LST datasets to extract a global trend measure? How exactly do you arrive at this position; what is your precise chain of reasoning. Still, it is interesting is it not, that a proxy exists and it is inland. Doesn’t this make you a least bit curious?

      You say “why not abandon all hope in terrestrial temperature”, yet only a moment ago you were chastising Frank for not referring to BOM’s LST based HQ series?

      You clearly know the core material, I guess that you either work at BOM or CSIRO or are a ES student. I think that your capacity to influence thinking and discussion here would be greatly improved if you stayed on topic and you kept an open mind to Frank’s work. Frank does not irrationally state “there is a divergence, ergo CAGW is falsified”; he is saying, look at the data when you slice it and dice it by various geophysical discriminators, are not the emergent signals interesting? Also how do we square this against the signals that folk like GISS and NOAA extract?

      There is one thing Frank commented that I personally find quite provocative and I am initially auto-sceptical of, that trend in Australia is is only 0.1K per 100 years based on RUTI data set. This contradicts every data set I have laid eyes on for Oz. Looks like some fertile ground and opportunity for you to play the ball as opposed to playing the man.

      The pdf you link about frosts is very interesting; and quite persuasive argument for a changing climate. It is a shame the paper fails to mention controls for UHI. Also, the paper states in data and methodology section that frosts are counted by analysing temp stations. So essentially the paper is merely an analysis of min temp data; so maybe all the paper is diligently measuring is urban expansion in regional centers on the East Coast of Oz, not AGW.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hi Andrew!

        Well spotted, I remebered slightly wrong on the AUS trends, heres copy paste from the writing:


        For the years 1882-1896 around 64% of the Australian area are represented:
        Central Australia
        North Australia
        SE Australia
        West Australia Coast
        SE Australia, West Coast
        West Australia Coast

        After 1898 89% of Australia is represented. After 1906 all areas are represented. BOM often show the 1910-2010 interval for Australian temperature anomaly. For this period the RUTI results gives a +0,29 K/century temperature trend.

        The “flat trend” 1882-2010 has a slope of +0,13K/century.

        So, the correct compare with BOM is +0,29K/century vs. BOM´s nearly 1 K/century.

        Australian areas used:
        http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig40.jpg
        From this writing:
        http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php

        (And remember, I use GHCN unadjusted temperature data)

        K.R. Frank, and thanks for comment.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Hi E.M. Smith!

    Thanks for all the inputs!
    You write : “From the very first step where temperatures are averaged … to the “homogenizing” that is really just a giant “splice artifact” creation and hiding mechanism to the complete lack of any sanity in the error bands size vs the ‘signal’ that is supposedly found.”
    First of all, its very obvious when reading your comments, that you have had hands on a lot of temperature records and know the severe weaknesses. The “art” is now to show all problems in a solid way so all “observations” and “impressions” can be condensed into hard simple facts easy to use.
    After having gone through all Unadjusted-GHCN station datasets, I have never been more sceptic. It’s a shocking experience. One example, see Turkey: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/turkey.php .
    In turkey, they have around 250 stations… over 100 rural stations. But rural – not urban – and small urban has very consequently been limited to the 1960-90 period while still larger cities has still more years public.
    I have listed some very typical data-limitations that leads to wrong results when simply averaging:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php

    I have seen even well known sceptics go at handle data just by averaging blindly, and then concluding that generally official temperature data are “OK”. THEY ARE NOT! And then sceptics are quoted even at “sceptical science” for believing that temperature data is on solid ground, very useful for the AGW.

    And this is the heart of the climate debate.

    You write: “When the only really good station data we have is observed (those 100 year stations)…”
    Fortunately, when working with one small area after the other, it becomes clear, that for many areas you can splice datasets in a solid way (solid = confirmed by several stations). Therefore in RUTI I have reconstructed much more areas than would be possible just with rural 100 year stations.

    Checkout how SOLID NW Europe (incl De-Bilt) temperature can be reconstructed even when data has been cowardly hidden:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php

    You write: “So yes, we’re going to continue to present the truth” – Yes!

    You write: “The data are sparse,”
    Yes, but sometimes when checking out an are then the sparse “grafitti” data can be seen as a solid trend, East China Rural non-coastal:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Asia/China/fig22.jpg

    You write: “But “borg” is clearly just a troll machine.”
    Yes, but did you notice… there where only one std troll in this debate? Are the troops a little.. starved?

    You write: “So you found some evidence. Coastal areas do not match inland areas in trend. That is being ignored.
    Those are just facts.”.
    Knowledge is power, and this “coastal-card” is just one more card turned on the table. More to come (!)

    Thank you for commenting, very encouraging.

    K.R. Frank Lansner


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    E.M.Smith @ 51.4.1 and other posts.

    Hi E.M. A warm welcome to Jo’s site from this still “alive and kicking” Tassie old-timer. As it appears my references to your work (and thank you for allowing that) have been the catalyst for your posts here, you have brightened my carbon-tax darkened day considerably!

    Your post nailed the main difference in approach between the “settled and overwhelming consensus” make the science fit the theory brigade and those like you, Frank Lansner and so may others who seek to examine all relevant data and evidence, establish the facts and then genuinely report the outcomes. Contrary to what warmists would have people believe, there is far more real science being done independently and without funding than has ever been done by the lavishly resourced UNIPCC and other related entities.

    The huge problem is that the compliant MSM make sure the gullible public is only fed a diet of scaremongering AGW propaganda from the usual suspects and most of the real science being undertaken round the world goes largely unreported.

    Frank Lansner @ 50.1 and 50.2

    Thank you for your kind words and the link. It is just a joy to have you and chiefio interacting on Jo’s site. More and more people are turning to these blogs for the real information available and as I’ve said here and elsewhere, they are a fantastic resource for links to many great sites and provide a forum for all those who have continually butted their heads against the wall of the perversion of “peer (pal) review” and unhealthy editorial contol on publishing by a cabal of self-interested grants-driven “scientists”(?).

    The late great John L Daly was a pioneer in providing such an outlet and deseres a very high place in the AGW skeptic Hall of Fame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Annie

    This video will provide a terrific ad for the next election against the COMMUNISTS who are trying to destroy our great nation !

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

    MAINTAIN THE RAGE !!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Forget the communists. The people driving this are sane and capitalistic particularly the banks and carbon trading speculators and the anti-capitalists with a moral superiority complex have grabbed the notion. (Alarmists, grant beneficiaries,Al Gore, TERI Europe and India, headed by that Dr Patchauri, PETA, Greenpeace, IPCC just to name a few). If you wish to sell anything such as energy products, then one has to prove your competitors are selling you something dangerous to your health and climate changing.This is coal fired generators, livestock methane emissions, eating meat,petrol and oil, your home being flooded by rising seas, terrible storms etc, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions (maybe I have exaggerated there I haven’t heard alarmists, stating increased volcanic eruptions are caused by climate change). Then you have those whose palms have been greased by the holy dollars. But basically who wins the argument, the clean energy industry/ies. And China of course our biggest trading partner who are taking over the wind turbines and solar panel manufacturing. (Not that I particularly disagree with this as they are an industrious nation with a huge population, and the Americans owe them heaps anyway).

    Now we know wind turbines are not worthy of driving electricity 24/7, and have been found to create environmental damage and health problems with people who live near them. Solar is so expensive its alarming,including the subsidies involved, electric cars need electricity, and now that carbon trading is on the table, the EU are breathing more freely as their system is failing and crashing. All for what?

    To change the b….y climate, like King Canute who tried to stop the tide coming in, when proven the science is corrupted by those who wish to benefit by it, either morally, politically or financially.

    I hate what is happening in Australia, but I got a letter from Tony Windsor that the Opposition also believe in AGW
    as do the government, and both have the same commitments to cut carbon emissions by 2020. (I wasn’t aware of this, were you?)

    It’s the clean energy manufacturers who will benefit from this, and horribly fail to produce.

    I sent the letter from TW to Jo so she can comment.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark

      G’day Bush bunny.

      I’d have to say that if Tony Windsor told me that the sun was shining I’d be taking an umbrella out with me. I wouldn’t believe a word that came out of the mealy-mouthed mongrel’s mouth. He’s only trying to rationalise his own treachery, not just against his own electorate but the whole country.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    The_Borg

    Andrew Barnham – thank you for your retort

    Not BoM nor CSIRO nor a student – just a dabbler.

    A few points of clarification.

    My points simply are to say there are other data sets to check if the story is consistent. therefore the spatial pattern of warming/cooling ex-satellites, independent ocean temperature data sets such as Parker at al.

    The frost trends are also backed up with anecdotal observations.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Borg.

      Where ever you are from, i believe that you must think you have a case somehow.
      So lets do the arguing as I said many comments before, with precise arguments and logic so nobody makes themselves look religious or paid, ok?

      You write “there are other data sets to check if the story is consistent”.

      Now, if you want to go into a dialog, thats what the rest of us is here fore, then tell exactly
      1) WHAT data sets
      and
      2) HOW can these data sets be used to check if the story s consistent?

      I hope you will answer rather quickly so we can have a real dialog, with real arguments.

      In my view – troll or not – my ponts stands better with a little real debate, so do your thing ;-)

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Annie

    Labor’s Greek chorus, paid for by AUSTRALIAN TAX PAYERS !!!!!!

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

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!

    This “climate institute” is nothing but a labor funded anti Australian organization!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Annie #60 it’s not Labour funded; it’s taxpayer funded. Same as ABC & SBS – they are taxpayer funded, but they work for Labour. If Tony wins, he cannot change anything; as long as he has Hokey, Hunt, Payne and Turnbull on his front bench. Those 4 are ABC’s Trojan Brummbies, in the conservative party. Hunt is climate from changing Stopper.

    The climate never stopped changing for one day in 4 billion year – but he is same as Greg Combet – a climate from changing stopper…? People that expect too much from him – will be disappointed a lot. That’s why, people need to know what is on my website, before the election. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com If you are concerned – inform the people what is on my website. Greg Hunt and Greg Combet have same Green odour. Both of them are senator Brown’s lap-tops. Think about it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Annie

    What the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax means to ALL Australians…..

    POVETY !

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Frank … I’m a bit late to the party but you might find some interesting data at http://www.waclimate.net/ where I’ve got an ongoing comparison of average annual mean minimum and maximum temperatures at 32 different locations across Western Australia over 100 years, including pre-1900 from colonial records.

    The 32 locations are the only ones on the public database for WA with consistent historic weather records from around 1900 to 2000 and/or 2010. Some location records are pre 1900 and some begin just after 1900, and some locations have seen their temperature recording stations moved since 1900, usually to a nearby airport.

    I’ve been comparing the coastal and inland subsets of those 32 locations for several years. Comparing late 1800s/early 1900s average minima with the 12 months to September 2011, coastal locations (pop 20,000>) have risen 1.25C while average max have risen 2.53C. For coastal populations below 20,000, min up .7C and max up .91C.

    For the 16 inland locations, min up 1.03C and max up .67C. About 95% of WA’s population is coastal and the UHI influence is obvious.

    Most of my findings are similar to yours, including the stable or falling temps over 100 years in the WA northern subtropics. You question on your page http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php the weird dip in Albany temps. That’s undoubtedly the shift in readings from Albany Town 12km inland to Albany Airport in 1965:

    Albany Town
    1881-1910 (30 years) / min 11.2 /max 18.9
    1951-1965 (14 years) / min 12.1 / max 19.6
    Shift to airport
    1961-1990 (26 years) / min 10.4 / max 20.3
    1971-2000 (30 years) / min 10.6 / max 20.3

    Blame the colder inland nights. However, the Albany Town readings are still maintained by Australia’s BoM:

    12 months from October 2010 – September 2011
    Mean annual minimum 12.88
    Mean annual maximum 20.38

    You can have a chuckle about Albany because if the early temp readings were accurate, the town saw it’s average 30 year max of 18.9C (1881 to 1910) leap .9C to 19.8C (1921 to 1950). Since then, the average max has risen .6C to 20.4C in the year to September 2011. I think this latest bout of global warming is quite mild compared to the good old days. :-)

    Kneel above questions the movement of the Perth recording location affecting temps … there were two changes, 1967 and 1992 (9034 to 9225), which immediately changed the min and max … http://www.waclimate.net/perth-temperature-history.html. As I’ve said before, Perth’s temperature readings only date back to 1992 and they’ve been as flat as a pancake since records began.

    If you notice a sharp shift up in WA temps a couple of years ago, it’s worth checking http://www.waclimate.net/bom-bug-temperatures.html

    http://www.waclimate.net/bomhq-giss-adjust.html and http://www.waclimate.net/bomhq-giss.html are also entertaining.

    Anyways, you’ve done a great job and you’re linked from my analysis page, http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html, which has a few other study links on it that may interest you.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Chris!

    Thankyou so much for a golden chest of links and info, I will tew my way through it.

    Albany: Yes, to te sure to be “objective” i did not use Albany, although it certainly is “yummi” for a sceptic.

    Since beginning of August, I have saved graphics of temperature predictions for Australia daily. This to make a flash film to show how temperatures appears now in a strongly cold PDO period. In all these “film cips”, the Albany corner actually shows to act syncroneously with East Australia. If this continues, well, at some points it seems possible that the Albany data actually speaks at least some truth.

    K.R: Frank

    PS!

    Check out this “quick-response” to the Berkeley “BEST” results:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Corrinne N

    Frank Lansner,

    All I want to say is thank you. You put the whole blasted bunch at IPCC/CRU to shame.

    That bunch should be labeled politicians not scientists because what they have done has nothing what so ever to do with science!

    I would also like to thank Pointman for his analysis of the pathology involved. I call it out right greed and dishonesty, but you show how they can do this and still look themselves in the mirror.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Corrine N!

      Thsnkyou so much for comments. Its feedback like this that gives a huge motivation to go on.

      You write “but you show how they can do this and still look themselves in the mirror.”
      Exactly!!
      Im so happy that this message gets accros:

      GHCN can make HUGE adjustments WITHOUT making adjustments, simply by picking what data to share and what to limit.

      Hadcrut can make HUGE adjustments WITHOUT making adjustments, simply by picking the stations that suits their purpose, and even include rural stations… from the coast and similar.

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Tilo

    Frank,

    I also looked at some shore effects and how they caused GISS divergence. But I did it at the Arctic to see how extrapolation, from shore stations where the ice was melting, over the ice that was not melting, would effect the GISS record.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/giss-temperature-record-divergence.html

    This effect also applies to extrapolation inland from such stations. And it applies to the BEST kriging method as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Frank Lansner said:
    October 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm · Reply
    @Rereke and TinyCO2:

    The odd thing is, that if you remove these RAF stations… there are NO source of near – rural quality in the whole flat non-coastal area of England. According to GHCN.

    And you might wonder: WHY do they show all these stations when they just have a ridiculously short period? To make the impression that the area is covered – when its not? Or?

    Frank, if they had a thermometer on every farm in England for the last 500 years – would that be any better evidence of the global temperature? Without any data from Oceania. Without any data for every 10m from the ground to the stratosphere… Pretending that one is debating atmospheric temperature… I hope some day soon, crime becomes crime again. English temperature can tell as much about GLOBAL temperature as much as an English worm can tell about the intelligence of people that believe your crap.

    Frank, by debating that selective data is sufficient = you are dignifying / doing the Warmist dirty job. Frank, can you remember this: atmosphere is not like human body; if under the armpit gets a degree warmer = the whole body is warmer by that much. IF YOU DON’T HAVE DATA FOR EVERY CUBIC KILOMETRE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND EASTER ISLAND – FROM THE SURFACE TO THE STRATOSPHERE = YOU TELL US WHAT YOU ARE!!!

    NOBODY KNOWS EXACT ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE FOR THE LAST YEAR, FRANK! Winds never stop – same as you cannot stop pretending that you are talking science. What was the temperature 123km NE of Fiji 456m altitude at 7,30AM ON May 12 last year, Frank? the atmosphere between Wellington – Hawaii and Tasmania is 123 bigger than England; isn’t that on the same globe? Why IS IRRELEVANT FOR EVERY bullshit artist PRETEND SKEPTICS ARE DOING MORE HARM TO THE TRUTH, THAN Al Gore. From Gore is expected to lie…

    If shonky scientist know that: all money on shonky science and brainwashing, must be returned to the taxpayer – with modest interest; when they are proven wrong – 70% of them would spit the dummy tomorrow. Was reading a comment above: they will collect lots of data and in 100y, we will know for sure if is going to be global warming. Wrong, the data and proofs exist today, and for the last few months on my website – people avoiding it, because doesn’t suits them, are indirectly responsible for the carbon tax and other laundering of tax $$$ Guilty as hell. So, don’t rely: in 100y, from today; people will forget. No need to wait 100y!! People will know long, long before, think about it. CARBON TAX IS LEGALIZING EXTORTION. They are legalizing crimes, because of people like you pretend that: only a bit extra data… WRONG!


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Although Stefan is quite brutal in his delivery, it’s hard to argue against his main point, as demonstrated by none other than James Hansen himself.

      GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
      The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)

      Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
      A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.

      Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
      A.
      Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.

      Although the wamists will argue the point that absolute temperatures are quite different to anomalies.

      Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
      A.
      The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70°F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be ‘hot’ in winter and ‘cold’ in July, since by ‘hot’ we always mean ‘hotter than normal’, i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.

      Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
      A.
      In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

      Let me see if I can come up with an apt analogy to hansens above quote..

      “I don’t know how much money I’ve got in the bank account, but I know I got $20 more than I had last year.”

      I think that about sums up Hansens bullshit.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      @Stefan
      (nah, Ive seen much more brutal comments in :-) )

      Frank: “The odd thing is, that if you remove these RAF stations… there are NO source of near – rural quality in the whole flat non-coastal area of England. According to GHCN.

      And you might wonder: WHY do they show all these stations when they just have a ridiculously short period? To make the impression that the area is covered – when its not? Or?”

      Stefan: “Frank, if they had a thermometer on every farm in England for the last 500 years – would that be any better evidence of the global temperature? ”

      Stefan, im aware that there is quite another discussion: “Can we measure temperatures, really?”

      My stand in that discussion i have not revealed in this article.

      FACT is, that land based temperatures ARE USED by the AGW agenda.

      And if they make false data in this context it HAS to be shon to the world.

      If I just leaned back and said: “Who cares that AGW are makin up false data that are seen en all medias world wide, because they are irrelevant”, THEN I would be doing what AGW wants sceptics to do: Nothing.

      Its fine that we debate if it makes sense at all to talk about land measurements, but never forget: These data are what AGW use, none the less, and simply therefore HAS to be scrutinized to show the world that not even these data really points to a significant recent global warming.

      You want perfection, but reality is: Land data MUST be attacked :-)

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #

    TILO #66 says:I also looked at some shore effects and how they caused GISS divergence. But I did it at the Arctic to see how extrapolation, from shore stations where the ice was melting, over the ice that was not melting, would effect the GISS record.
    This effect also applies to extrapolation inland from such stations. And it applies to the BEST kriging method as well.

    stefanthe denier says: TILO, the ice on the polar caps doesn’t depend on the warmth! Average temperature on the polar caps is minus – 32 degrees centigrade. That is twice as cold than in your deep freezer. freshwater freezes on zero degrees. On Arctic ocean, the ice is melted by the salt-water currents / from below. ON SHORE, THE ICE IS CONSTANTLY MELTED BY THE THERMAL HEAT. Summer and winter. Because the thermal heat is protected by the ice from the unlimited coldness. Therefore: the amount of ice on the polar caps depends on the availability of raw material, to replenish itself. Not on the atmospheric temperature. 2] When is colder on Arctic, Arctic has lees ice!!! Not by populist Warmist and pretend Skeptic’s theories…

    So, you can look at the Arctic’s data until the cows come home, but can mislead yourself and the others even more. Because of less ice, Arctic absorbs extra from the unlimited coldness – water spreads half of it in Atlantic = less raw material for replenishing the ice for next season. The other half of the extra coldness absorbed; goes on the top of the normal extra coldness for January / February – radiates extra coldness south = in Europe / USA that extra coldness intercepts all the moisture = bigger and bigger blizzards every year. But less moisture left to replenish the ice on Arctic’s waters… Plus, because of the extra coldness at those months – colder air shrinks much more than normal – lots of air from the southern hemisphere goes there = less air on the S/H, we get extra hot / extreme bushfires. All thanks to shonky scientist researching, researching… the truth is boring, the truth will put some of them out of work, others in jail. Now is on the record, Tilo, if you don’t inform them that Stefan has proven the propaganda wrong – I wish I can put you and others; one day soon on a witness stand, under oath! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

    If the truth is known, jail therm to the shonky scientists that are using those ice crusher ships; that are senselessly demolishing the ice cover / insulation for the water from the tremendous coldness. 2] people as senator Brown that are against extra dams – in court for treason. Only on the land we can increase evaporation = extra raw material for extra ice. 3] if people know that ice depends of the amount of raw material, not on CO2 – other people will stop covering up what is on my website and in my book: one of it: any fat, oil, olive oil or industrial – when ends up on the top of the seawater = evaporation decreases; do you know what that means for the ice???!!! Do you know what means for the ice, when obsessed about CO2 and the non-existent warmer temperature; instead of starting to address the real problems?!?!?!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Stephan has it.

      It’s true that the atmosphere is too complex to pin down total world temperatures in any meaningful way.

      The best approach is to look at the physics of incident UV plus Visible energy and the re radiated IR from ground and calculate relative absorption and dispersion of energy by CO2 using first principles.

      It works,

      It works better than trying the impossible like heat balances using watts/m2 for every heat source and sink – except the ones you haven’t thought of yet.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    truthseeker: i did not go in complete details again; to make you happy; you like to look for something measing; but always avoid what is there. The two Gregs have being ”pre-programmed” by Senator Brown. But if you think that training a dog is easier than programing a laptop – I don’t complain. I don’t even know if dogs and laptops are alowed in parlament; but if they are not; senator Brown has proved us wrong again…?

    Greg Combet is doing his green job. But Greg Hunt (will not say similar as you) he is stuck into carbon, came as most of the Skeptics and all the Warmist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Stefan, I am impressed. The use of the term “lap-tops” in that context now makes sense, but it would have worked better if you had put in a reference to the two Gregs being “pre-programmed”. A lap dog in this context is used to suggest the the person is a silly little animal that is totally dependant on their master for everything and has no functional purpose (a dog that sits in master’s lap waiting for treats etc – hence “lap-dog”). So you see it also works, but in a different way.

    I do try to look for what is there, but it is difficult when important pieces of information are left out of the explanation.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    baa humbag says: Although Stefan is quite brutal in his delivery, it’s hard to argue against his main point, as demonstrated by none other than James Hansen himself.

    humbag, you cannot take 50 or 100 feet as an average place for monitoring; would be pointless taking one, any place. Because: when is cloudy – upper atmosphere is warmer – on the ground milder. b] depends how big the cloud is / how high up the clouds is/ how long the cloud stays / is the cloud above water, or desert, or rice paddy = always similar but different affect. Not enough computers on the planet to monitor the lot.

    2] if the hottest minute of the day is not EXACTLY ON SAME MINUTE, every day / on every place – taking the hottest minute is more than pointless as data. b] sometime for prolong time of the day is close to the hottest minute, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME. Can you understand? unless is a Pattern, there is many degrees plus / minus inaccuracy. When I see on their charts – ”they know that this year was warmer / or cooler by 0,2degrees”… I feel ashamed to be a human.

    Furthermore, as you said: ”if the 6feet from the ground are warmer today, is meaningless” because for example: between 300 – 700 feet is colder = is much more air there than on the first 6feet. Doesn’t that air counts? It doesn’t for them; because they are not interested in the truth; but you keep pointing to them. Because you really hit the nail on the head. Isn’t 1345feet altitude, on a same globe? Not just horizontal, but taking the different speed of the vertical winds. (the hang-glider boys will explain you all the different speeds)

    Anybody stating that he / she knows the last year’s temperature on the planet; cannot be honest. When they start talking about middle ages / sunspots… Sooner or lather; the world will know the truth. Then they will be going trough the ”pretend” Skeptic’s writing. Take my word for it; many Skeptics prefer the truth never to be public. You keep the good work humbag, there is only one truth and lots of different lies about a same thing. If they come to count the bush-flies in Australia – they will be more accurate, and more interesting. BECAUSE, OVERALL, THERE IS SAME WARMTH UNITS IN THE EARTH’s ATMOSPHERE. Same as when you have a bucket full of water in the yard – rain increases – rain decreases = always is same amount of water in the bucket. Extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative – because of my formula. In the past, they used to shift the sandpit – now grown up Smarties collect data…? Only this time they are very harmful / destructive. Crime shouldn’t pay.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Frank #71.1 Sorry Frank for the delay, I had relative from Europe visiting; busy with him + trying to make people to read my book. The last person I gave a copy, he said to me: the last book he has read was in Vietnam, during the war. So I told him to read his second book; not to wait for another war in Vietnam. Television killed book reading.

    If you encompass my theory, that; without having data for every cubic kilometre / for every few minutes – it’s completely deceiving. Because I am convinced that: public sees; Warmist throw a lie – sceptics are correcting them. Gives legitimacy to the Warmist lies. Even though you are correcting them; the public interprets as: Warmist must be wrong on 10-15%. Wrong!!!

    But if is presented as: show us the minimum necessary data, I.e. unless is data taken on every few cubic METERS, for every 10 minutes (because after 10 minutes the temperature changes) evenly distribution of monitoring, for every latitude / longitude and altitude, from the ground – to the edge of the troposphere – anything less = MISLEADING. Not because is me, but I am the only one talking about the self adjusting mechanism the atmosphere has:

    I’m the only one talking about the vertical wind. That’s why I pointed to humbug, to ask the hang glider people. The wind and tactic they use. Here is few: they like rocky ground / exposed red soil below. That’s where the vertical winds are strong, was keeping me 80kg + the glider for 2h in the air. Because where / or when is hotter on the ground – THE VERTICAL WINDS INCREASE = self regulation. Whoever made this planet, was a brilliant genius. Which means: when the temperature close to the ground gets warmer / for ANY REASON, cooling increases. Hang glider people hate swamps, rice paddies – pulls them down. (in the army book says: when you are firing over rice paddy or a swamp – you must lift the beryl of the gun buy 3-4degrees – otherwise the bullet will not reach the destination). Above rocks hotter than average air = vertical winds are fast = cooling is much faster

    Same as: when the engine on your car runs faster – the fen increase speed + extra speed cools the radiator better. Earth’s radiator was designed to INCREASE IN VOLUME when the atmosphere gets warmer oxygen + nitrogen that are 998999ppm, expand up. Where they expand, is much cooler, than the country toad for your radiator.

    Frank, would you do an experiment for me, please; and record it all on film: take a plastic balloon – blow it with cold air. That’s O+N that represent the troposphere. (Forget the stratosphere, anybody talking about stratosphere, is to mislead / confuse others, or is confusing himself. gases in the stratosphere are useless – they don’t bring coldness to the ground, aerosol, O3, helium) back to the balloon:

    Warm it by 5degrees. Balloon will expand by 4-5% – imagine the balloon is the troposphere – warmed – expands – but instantly the expanded part in some of the coldest solution – the expanded percentage to go into, FROM THE BEGINNING. Not to expand first / or do it both ways. You will see that: that unlimited coldness that the troposphere expands up into; will prevent the planet’s atmosphere overall to get warmer even for 0,0001 degree. The self adjusting mechanism INSTANT EXPANSION OF OXYGEN + NITROGEN will never permit the whole atmosphere to get warmer by 0,0001 degree; how the hell they predict warming of 5-6 degrees????!!!???!!

    Ice ages confuse even honest Skeptics scientists – therefore;; you will find on my website, what ice ages were. There is legitimate proofs for everything. Planet’s atmosphere doesn’t get warmer, or colder overall, only warmth and coldness change places. Same as the ripples in the pond – the bigger ripples = bigger groves in between. Bigger ripples don’t produce more water. My definition (adopted by a leading OZ sceptic, without acknowledging where it come from) I call it the ‘‘children’s see-saw plank”. The more one side goes up – the more the other side goes down. Both sides cannot go up/ or down simultaneously!!! I.e. both hemispheres cannot get hotter / or colder simultaneously!!! the laws of physics and my formula do not permit that: EH=AE=ECI (Extra Heat = Atmosphere Expands = Extra Coldness Intercepts)

    My formula can put the end of the rip-off, even put the top manipulators in jail. Unfortunately, with all the sceptic’s: albedoes, wavelengths, anthropogenic, crapogenic – Warmist see that they don’t have mature opponents. I am asking you again; please go to my website: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com read every article, without skimping a sentence. I don’t crowd lots of text every second day. But every article is related to the other. What is there – is enough to see the end of the rip-off. It’s up to you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Oksanna

    Thank you for this, Jo. I checked Frank’s site for the Australian data. So fascinating to see that over the previous hundred years, Eastern Australia has (roughly) cooled by about half a degree, while the Central and Western Desert areas have warmed by under one degree, according to the RUTI analysis on their website. That’s probably oversimplifying, but that’s what it looked like. I note that they had difficulty obtaining some of the raw data for 1990-2010.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey there, You have done an incredible job. I’ll definitely digg it and individually recommend to my friends. I am sure they will be benefited from this website.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Ytterligare exempel på resultaten av homogeniseringar ger Joanne Nova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Someone necessarily assist to make severely articles I would state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and so far? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual post amazing. Magnificent process!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    This page certainly has all of the info I wanted concerning
    this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

    Here is my page … dieta daneza originala (Natalie)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I became proposed your blog by using the cousin. I’m not certain regardless of whether this specific publish is definitely authored as a result of your pet while nobody else recognize these kinds of specified regarding my personal difficulties. You happen to be fantastic! Thank you so much!


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>