JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Climate-trivia headlines and the BoM’s unscientific obession with “hottest ever” records

Bob Fernley Jones takes a close look at Australian temperature records, and finds that while the BoM can fish out records that are technically true, those “records” can also be paradoxically irrelevant and largely meaningless at the same time. Not so long back weren’t these same people telling us that only long term climate trends mattered, and that one hot or cold year, or bad storm was cherry picking and unscientific?

Dare I suggest the obsession with headline records is more a PR stunt than a scientific measure?

Its true, that 2013 was probably the warmest year in Australia averaged over the whole land mass and the whole year, at least since we started recording temperatures  (a microsecond ago in geological time). But even so, for individual Australians it didn’t necessarily mean anything much at all. Nor has it got any scientific meaning; one hot summer over 5% of the surface of the world doesn’t tell us anything about cause and effect and CO2. But who would know that from reading a BoM release? But from BoM data we can tell that:

  • All seven states and territories of Australia have had significantly warmer summers in past years. (So, except for toddlers and young children, almost all Australians have lived through hotter summers before.)
  • January 2013 was not the absolute hottest January in any state or territory.
  • Spring 2013 – not the hottest spring anywhere except in Queensland.
  • South Australia had the hottest ever year, but none of its seasons was a hottest ever season.

In the end, Australian temperature records are only 100 years old (according to the BoM anyway). Parts of Australia are 4,000 million years old. Wouldn’t impartial scientific advisors also point out the bigger perspective on how scientifically meaningless these records are?

– Jo

———————————————————————————————

Guest Post by Bob Fernley-Jones

 More Naughties From The Australian Bureau of Meteorology et al.

Now that temperature data for last summer (Dec – Feb) are out, let’s review some scary authoritative pronouncements from the past year.

The Climate Commission, made much of dramatizing the earlier summer of 2012/2013 with labels like “angry” and unprecedented. (Then they were dismissed by the incoming LNP government [A] ).  On 3 January 2014, Dr David Jones, a senior scientist at the BoM [B] appeared all over the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) with the message that 2013 was the hottest year for Australia on record, and he also emphasised:

“The Year [2013] started with an exceptionally hot January, the hottest month on record at least since 1910” …and… “We had the hottest summer on record”

Furthermore, the BoM has a recent report entitled Annual Climate Report 2013 on its website, from which there is this extract:

“2013 was Australia’s warmest year since national records began in 1910…   …Summer 2012–13 and spring 2013 were the warmest on record, with mean temperatures 1.11 °C and 1.57 °C above average, respectively…  …January was Australia’s warmest month on record in absolute terms, with a mean temperature of 29.67 °C. Temperatures were above average over nearly all of the continent.”

Summers

Summer in this hot dry land [C] is arguably more important than whole year average temperatures, so let’s firstly take a closer look at the BoM data for summer.

Fig. 1 below comes from two BoM time-series graphics for all of Australia, that include the latest 2013/4 summer data.  The pink bars highlight the 2012/3 “angry summer”, and notice that the surrounding six or more years are much cooler (including unannounced below “average” blue) in both cases.  Words like “excessive noise”, “outlier” and “significance” could be used.

 

Figure 1

 

I’ve added green horizontal lines showing two alternative comparative averages over the last seven and twelve-years, (based on the so-called raw data in both cases).  Those high peaks may be mere noisy outliers.

Nevertheless, the so-called “Climate Council” [D] which was reincarnated from the sacked tax payer funded “Climate Commission” has issued another report calling the 2014 summer as another angry summer with even more records broken than 2013.

Strangely, global average temperatures (which include Australia?) from various other authorities start from 1850 or 1880, not 1910 (when BoM records start).  Furthermore, the period 1850 -1910, according to some sources, included extremely hot times in Australia (like in 1896); since discarded by the BoM.

According to the Fig. 1 data, the 2012/3 summer for the whole of Oz was prima facie unprecedentedly warm.  However, there is a paradox to be found in the more detailed BoM data following next.

Summer of 2013 was not a record in any state or territory

When Australian State and Territories are examined, a very different picture emerges for the whole of Australia:

 

Figure 2

In short, ALL seven divisions of Australia have records of significantly warmer summers in past years. It is  possible that when each state had its “hottest” ever year, the other states had cooler years so the net total average across the nation was smaller in those years. But nonetheless the claim that it was therefore an unprecedentedly hot 2012/3 summer is a potentially misleading claim.  Most people in all the states of Australia have lived through hotter summers, and one hot summer in one part of the world doesn’t tell us anything about cause  and effect and CO2.

And, what of Dr Jones’ claim for January 2013?

“The Year started with an exceptionally hot January, the hottest month on record at least since 1910”

January 2013 was not the absolute hottest January in any state or territory

Fig. 3 below gives relevant BoM data for January in all seven divisions of the country, and from those data, again, it is misleading to imply that January 2013 was unprecedentedly hot.

 

Figure 3

Incidentally, if you prefer to look at only maximum temperatures in January or whatever, a starting link is here.  Then use the drop-down menu. The outcome you would find is somewhat similar.

Spring 2013 – not the hottest, except in Queensland

Returning to the current BoM report for 2013, they asserted, (with my bold emphasis):

…Summer 2012–13 and spring 2013 were the warmest on record, with mean temperatures 1.11 °C and 1.57 °C above average, respectively…

So, let’s take a look at their records for spring, even as far back as 1910 in Fig. 4:

 

Figure 4

 

The hottest whole year?

Now let’s return to Dr Jones’ ABC multi-broadcasts that the whole of the year 2013 was the hottest on record, and which the media around the world eagerly repeated. [E]  The relevant BoM time-series graphics are available here. See the analysis by region in Fig. 5:

 

Figure 5

According to this BoM data, four of the seven regions were cooler in 2013 and only one (South Australia) was significantly warmer, (although again, the SA four-year 2010 to 2013 average was much cooler).   Thus, the following claims by Dr Jones on ABC’s AM gave misleading perspectives:

“So 2013 was by far Australia’s hottest year on record.”

“We know last year for example, every single case that we’ve recorded temperatures was above average. We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet”.

But, the BOM records show that only South Australia was significantly warmer in 2013.   It may be that this ambiguity of data arises from the major “noise” alluded above being in random annual and regional distribution?  Thus, usually whilst there may be a big high in one region at a particular time, in others it is generally simultaneously low, such that their average is depressed.   Study of the time-series in Fig 5 reveals that the significant high in South Australia atypically coincided with modest highs in all the other six regions in 2013 such that their combined average was a high number without any significance trend-wise.

A disturbing aspect of this is that statistical matters are a part of the work requirements of the BoM and yet a relevant senior representative (Dr Jones) does not point out how relatively insignificant many of these “records” are.

South Australia had the hottest ever year, but none of its seasons was a hottest ever season

Another interesting consideration WRT the hottest year on record is the seasonal distribution.  So let’s see in Fig. 6 what happened seasonally for the standout hottest State of SA:

 

Figure 6

Strangely, although the record for the whole year was hotter, all of its four seasons were simultaneously cooler.

Anyway, since the BoM 30-year average for winter varies from 19.00 C for Northern Territory to 6.40 C for Tasmania it would seem to be good news if it were warmer in winter?  Incidentally, NT has a noisy but strong cooling trend in winter since 1995.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] In September 2013 one of the first things done by the new Liberal-National Party government, was to dismiss the Climate Commission headed by Prof Tim Flannery.  They reincarnated themselves with crowd-funding allegedly to a million dollars.  A sympathetic Wikipedia article is here.

[B]  Dr David Jones is Head of Climate Analysis, National Climate Centre, BoM.

[C]  There is an iconic poem by Dorothea Mackellar first published in England in 1908 when she was feeling homesick about her sunburnt Australia, (despite the cattle dying etcetera).  Australian version of 1911 is here.

[D]  The Climate Council report does not stack-up with Fig. 2 above and this article entitled “Lies of the Climate Commission/Council: Part 18” is somewhat indicative of its reliability.

[E]  In an advanced Google.au search on 3/Feb for all of words and phrase:    2013 australia “hottest year”   restricted to the past month there were about 7,600 hits globally. This picks-up the start of the Dr Jones affair on 3/Jan.  (Screen shot is available upon request)

Bob Fernley-Jones

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (59 votes cast)
Climate-trivia headlines and the BoM's unscientific obession with "hottest ever" records , 9.5 out of 10 based on 59 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mmo6owx

111 comments to Climate-trivia headlines and the BoM’s unscientific obession with “hottest ever” records

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    “Its true, that 2013 was probably the warmest year in Australia averaged over the whole land mass and the whole year…”

    If I had faith in our thermometer records, I might agree with you. But as it is, I can only wonder if it is true.

    352

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘If I had faith in our thermometer records’, but you doubters also have little faith in proxies! Just look at what derision the hockey stick attracts? Even although it has been confirmed to be a true and accurate representation by several different scientific investigations and methods, such as ice cores, sediments, etc, etc. So doubters can’t have it ever which way as long as they agree with the results!

      568

      • #

        As usual BA you’ve arrived in the nick of time to say something irrelevant. Bravo. The hockeystick is utterly useless here because it doesn’t do proxies after 1980. I wish it did (It’s only a hockeystick because they use the temperature records, and NOT the proxies eh?). I’d love to see and unbroken single proxy that continued from 1200AD to now. But strangely (I wonder why?) no one seems keen to update the tree ring records from 1980 onwards. Looks like scientists cant find any trees that have grown over the last 30 years… or could it be the line just doesn’t do what they wanted it to do?

        736

        • #
          Peter C

          Jo,

          It was only a few days ago that you invited the “Warmists back to your blog.

          Actually I think BA4 has said something relevant.

          ‘If I had faith in our thermometer records’, but you doubters also have little faith in proxies!

          Of course we don’t have any Faith in Proxies. We are doubters. Especially not in Proxies, which are reconstructed records.

          The Hockey Stick is rejected because Michael Mann fudged his record and appended the temperature record to a tree ring record without making it clear that that is what he had done.

          Jo, I know you said that already but I wanted to add my interpretation.

          blackadderthe4th. What is your response?

          280

        • #
          Ian George

          Didn’t Mann find that when they looked at the tree ring proxies after 1960 the temps went down (he called this reduction of temps, ‘divergence’). So Mann had to replace the tree-ring proxies with the temp records to show the ‘hockey stick’ effect.
          McIntyre and McKitrick discovered this when they finally got hold of Mann’s data which he tried to hide for some time. Briffa was advised to use the same ‘trick’ (i.e. to ‘hide the decline’) after his work on trees at Yamal.

          50

        • #
          Carbon500

          Regarding the medieval warming period: here’s a very nice bit of real world evidence for what was happening which seems to have been forgotten in ‘climate change’ discussions. It’s all on the internet.
          Title:Archaeological Discoveries on Schnidejoch and at Other Ice Sites in the European Alps
          Author: Albert Hafner
          “Only a few sites in the Alps have produced archaeological finds from melting ice. To date, prehistoric finds from four sites dating from the Neolithic period, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age have been recovered from small ice patches (Schnidejoch, Lötschenpass, Tisenjoch, and Gemsbichl/Rieserferner). Glaciers, on the other hand, have yielded historic finds and frozen human remains that are not more than a few hundred years old (three glacier mummies from the 16th to the 19th century and military finds from World Wars I and II). Between 2003 and 2010, numerous archaeological finds were recovered from a melting ice patch on the Schnidejoch in the Bernese Alps (Cantons of Berne and Valais, Switzerland). These finds date from the Neolithic period, the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age, Roman times, and the Middle Ages, spanning a period of 6000 years. The Schnidejoch, at an altitude of 2756 m asl, is a pass in the Wildhorn region of the western Bernese Alps. It has yielded some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic human activity at high altitude in the Alps. The abundant assemblage of finds contains a number of unique artifacts, mainly from organic materials like leather, wood, bark, and fibers. The site clearly proves access to high-mountain areas as early as the 5th millennium BC, and the chronological distribution of the finds indicates that the Schnidejoch pass was used mainly during periods when glaciers were retreating.”

          20

        • #
          jon

          I just got an idea on climate models. Climate is a chaotic dynamic system with a lot of known and unknown factors that affect the outcome. Technically it should be very much easier to pick the numbers for the next national lottery/Lotto than forecast the global/regional climate/weather in year 2100?
          They can’t and thereby showing that it’s just political fairytale.
          How can it be that political based fairytale models of future climate have such an impact on national and international policy?

          20

          • #
            jon

            And when everything weather wise is a sign of CAGW it’s like betting on all the numbers on the coupon in National Lottary/Lotto?

            10

        • #
          GreggB

          Joanne Nova says at April 22, 2014 at 8:50pm (comment 1.1.1):

          “I’d love to see and unbroken single proxy that continued from 1200AD to now.”

          Actually Jo, I recently saw a 5-minute Youtube video in which Professor Richard A Muller does update the Phil Jones 1999 graphic (not the ‘hockeystick’, I know). He removes the temperature data (“Mike’s trick” to “hide the decline”) and displays the graphic having reinserted the leaked/hacked proxy data for 1961 onward – all three datasets then go down – one quite dramatically so.

          Oh, what a tangled web we weave…!

          20

      • #
        Andy (old name Andy)

        So you call yourself blackadderthe4th.
        I have problems with that straight away. The character from Blackadder goes forth was always questioning authority and used humor to point out their hubris. You seem to support all authoritative bodies and appear incapable of the slightest hint of lightheartedness.
        You go on to claim that doubters have little faith in proxies. If you bothered to read Jo’s posts before commenting you would find them riddled with proxies.
        Now to my main point, how much weight do proxies carry?
        Ice core vs Ice core. Sediment vs sediment etc.
        Are these local or global? From all your comments it appears that if they are close to your opinion they are global and true.
        Other proxies that you do not like are either local or debunked.
        Seeing as if you are here to set us “doubters” straight why not use some wit by changing your name to baldrick and compile a proxy on turnip growth.
        Finally (you taught me this) mostly irrelevant youtube clip

        241

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Just in case you did not notice, even the CRU decided to very quietly throw the Hockey Stick under the bus late last year, using Briffa’s own figures!

        The rest of us had recognised it for the BS it was a long time ago. Many thanks to Steve, Jo and Anthony for exposing this all too typical piece of ‘climate science’ for exactly what it was.

        http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.org%2F2013%2F06%2F28%2Fcru-abandons-yamal-superstick%2F&ei=lV5WU_-bL6qxsQTqh4CYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFaOnX1dhsJkDVWluZKwOzjkRgcSQ

        100

      • #
        James Bradley

        BAD,

        Doubting = questioning, I find this an essential survival trait especially when defending against self serving regimes that wants to take control of such things as our; money, lifestyle, freedoms, choice, employment, independence… hairstyles.

        Say BAD, what sort of hair cut do you have?

        41

      • #
        TedM

        Since the by far the greater number of proxy records that cover the appropriate time period, show distinct medieval Roman and Minoan warm periods, as warm or generally warmer than the modern warm period and they were made to vanish in the hockey stick,I have to give you an F for this post BA. Perhaps a bit more BS from BA.

        20

      • #

        A proxy is used to infer the value of a variable. It doesn’t measure the variable.

        We know that mercury in a tube will expand and can be used to find the temperature when calibrated. When ever a measurement is described as a proxy, there is no known way to convert to an actual measurement of temperature. There is a rough idea that the proxy is temperature dependent and that is all eg. a tree will grow better if the temperature is around 28°C and growth will stall if it gets into the low to mid 30s. Water and nutrients also make a big difference so the choice of bristlecone pines was a great choice for a proxy of agricultural conditions, not global temperatures.

        20

        • #

          A good example of how to use tree rings for proxies. Trees from a dry land area in Myanmar were used as a proxy for air moisture and it showed a good correlation with PDO.

          Mann, Briffa and co chose to delete the data that directly compared the tree ring data with actual temperature measurements.

          00

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Blackadderthe4th
        Doubt about proxies??
        The proxies are almost always calibrated against the temperature (thermometer) record.
        If the thermometer record is not to be trusted, logically, nor can the proxy calibrated from it.
        That is part of the reasons for a lack of proxies in recent decades. Another part is that global temperatures have become relatively constant and it is hard to callibrate a variable against a constant.
        What do you say in response? Perhaps ‘Thank you Geoff for the correction?’

        11

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Totally agree, Greg. Australia’s official temperature record is at best a rough guess and at worst a shemozzle.
      Bob F-J, an excellent analysis. I noted exactly the same effect about the Angry Summer last year.

      153

    • #

      Greg, inasmuch as our satellite records are only 33 years long, UAH also suggests that 2013 was the hottest year. So while I’m as dubious as you about inexplicable adjustments and mystery black box methods, it’s possible that 2013 was the hottest “since records began” (averaged over the continent and the year). As you can see from my intro, my view is that even so, it’s hardly a big deal in any scientific sense. Naturally a proper independent audit which has not been done, might show something different.

      I think it’s very important not to lose sight of the fact that the whole dataset is pathetically short, Australia is only 5% of the global land mass, and that one hot year is not a “climate trend”. The world started warming before we started measuring Australian temperatures and there is no causal link there with CO2 despite it being implied in supposedly scientific “expert” statements.

      371

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Hottest in 33 years. Which is the satellite record.

        But as the author points out, 1896 (before satellites) does seem to be hotter. Since no one had a clipboard back then, it is relegated to “noise” and the meme lives on.

        110

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Yes it’s quite a significant omittance, if I claimed we actually lost 1 hour of daylight during daylight savings time in Australia all I’d do is erase the 2pm – 3pm hour from a bar graph, the graph would show only 23 hours in a day but being a publicly funded authorized propaganda machine I wouldn’t care.

          40

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Actually the graph would show 2-4pm which would add up to 24hrs but the daylight data would be missing which is ok as the rest of the country is too stupid to notice, win win for the YBOM.

            40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Besides which, we have no way to ascribe a useful meaning to average temperature that I can agree with. Temperature at some given point at some given time means something. An average of those recorded T & Ts means about as much as the average human.

        50

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Also Jo,
        It is not record cold or hot years that are damaging so much as cold snaps and heat waves lasting several days at once, the latter with fire hazard in particular.
        You can have a record year or month or season simply by having each day 0.01 degrees colder or hotter than the previous record day-by-day. The numbers would show as a record, but it is doubtful if there would be any meaningful consequence.
        There is only so much that one can do with a historic Tmax and Tmin each day. The more significant metric is some form of energy flux integrated over each day. We cannot reconstuct that for old times.

        00

    • #
      the Griss

      I have faith in the ORIGINAL temperature records,

      NOT in BOM’s highly cooled past.

      REAL data from around the 1900′s-1920′s shows temperature significantly above current temperatures.

      303

      • #
        the Griss

        Also, around 1938-1940 shows real data above the current level.

        Remember, the guys that did all the adjustments at BOM came straight from Phil Jones’ CRU stable and are as complicit as CRU and GISS in the wholesale FABRICATION of the global warming trend.

        243

      • #
        the Griss

        Even if it was the hottest year, What does anyone expect after half a century of the strongest series of solar maximums. since the MWP !!

        But that’s now over.. the sun is going into sleepy mode.. and the cooling has started.

        223

      • #
        the Griss

        Here are a couple of examples of just how much COOLING has been applied by BOM.

        Benalla http://imageshack.com/a/img585/7364/sh6l.jpg

        Echuca http://imageshack.com/a/img801/638/wo47m.jpg

        It really is a monumental FARCE.

        No wonder its so easy to get warm records !

        213

  • #
    scaper...

    Hottest ever?

    “A good year to maintain me suntan, cobber.”

    Wasn’t really.

    62

  • #
    Peter C

    No it is not true!
    I do not know where that came from and I don’t know how it can be true.
    The BOM records are have been adusted.
    The whole concept of a warmest year for Australia is nonsense, given our current measurements and knowledge. It is all conjecture.

    Jennifer Marohasy has a lot more on that subject.

    I would like to give acknowledgement for this quote. I think it was The Griss, who told us, but not sure.

    Mark Twain: ” Science is Amazing. There is such a large dividend of Conjecture for such a small Investment of fact”

    Let’s not fall into that trap.

    263

    • #
      Peter C

      That was supposed to be a reply to #1.

      Its true, that 2013 was probably the warmest year in Australia averaged over the whole land mass and the whole year, at least since we started recording temperatures

      Damned Computers!

      92

  • #
    Peter Miller

    According to the UAH satellite statistics, the greatest monthly anomaly in Australia’s recent past was August 2008, in winter.

    The first couple of months in 2014 were abnormally cool, so for every action there appears to be an equal and opposite reaction.

    112

  • #

    BOMs choice of dates and mix of temperature records, and their reporting (press releases thereof) would appear misleading and therefore a case of flannery. ;)

    From the UBAD (Untrammelled British/Australian Dictionary):

    Flannery

    verb Br/Aus informal: bland, fluent talk used to avoid confuse or mislead when discussing a difficult subject.

    (flannering) Br/Aus informal: use of fluent evasive talk to confuse/mislead
    (flannered) Br/Aus informal: one who has been misled or confused by fluent evasive talk
    (flanner) Br/Aus informal: one who uses such fluent evasive talk to confuse/mislead others.

    192

  • #
    Andrew

    How’s the US and A going? They having a Hot Angry Winter? Are they expecting the ice in the Great Lakes to clear in time to swim on July 4th weekend?

    140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Andrew,

      There’s some rule in this game that says colder equals hotter. So before long those cold winters will be claimed as record high temperatures. Wait and watch. ;-)

      80

      • #
        the Griss

        Weren’t some of those temperature low records by some 10-15C?

        I doubt even NOAA, Giss or HadCrut can manage that sort of adjustment..

        … but they could prove me wrong.

        30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      As Roy said. As for reality, still having freezes (we are usually done by early March in this area), but pleasant days as well (read: 60s, 70s F). However up north (Great Lakes), they are still freezing most of the time. I do not live in sunny California, but appreciate it even more I do not live in the frozen great lakes area either!

      I think the Vegas odds on the Great Lakes being ice free by July is running even money about now.

      60

  • #
    PeterS

    The fetish with localized temperature readings is becoming moronic. Might as well stick thermometers down volcanoes and start saying we have record high temperatures all over the place. Yet the most reliable measurement of global temperature; that by satellite has confirmed global temperatures are not rising at any significant amount for the past 30+ years!! One wonders if we had such readings going back 100 years what we would find. I never trusted surface measured temperatures. They keep changing the way they adjust some of them and delete others. I suggest we scrap all surface readings for the purpose of climate change monitoring, and only use satellite readings from now on to see if global warming even exists before we all jump over the cliff following the screaming alarmist shouting out that the world is about to end. The alternative, which is impractical is to place a remotely sensed thermometer in every square km all over the world.

    60

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    My son is taller this year than he has ever been. Does it follow that 1) His growth is catastrophically out of control, and 2) All boys on the planet are experiencing dangeriously accelerated growth rates?

    100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Colin,

      You never know. So you better check to be sure. ;-)

      70

    • #
      scaper...

      Has your observation been peer reviewed?

      60

    • #
      PeterS

      Perhaps you should use the precautionary principle and do something drastic to stop him growing higher; LOL.

      70

      • #
        Colin Henderson

        Forgot to mention that he is short for his age;)!

        20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Thanks Colin that extra information now puts the whole Alarmist case into perspective, now I understand the correlation to Global Warming and hence Climate Change:

          “Although the climate was much cooler during the recent Mini Ice Age it has now warmed, but not as much as before the Mini Ice Age therefore Global Warming is now unprecedented because it really can’t be compared to much warmer historical values and is now catastrophic…”

          30

          • #
            PeterS

            In other words we need to back date the carbon tax a few thousand years at least to make up for lost time. LOL.

            10

            • #
              GreggB

              Be careful – there could be missing growth in the deep oceans, which may be unleashed at any time …

              10

    • #
      tom0mason

      There is not enough data to make an assessment.
      You’ll have to keep us up to date with his progress,meanwhile we’ll decide on mitigating action, e.g. altering all growth records to reflect the modeled truth.

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob Fernley Jones takes a close look at Australian temperature records, and finds that while the BoM can fish out records that are technically true, those “records” can also be paradoxically irrelevant and largely meaningless at the same time. Not so long back weren’t these same people telling us that only long term climate trends mattered, and that one hot or cold year, or bad storm was cherry picking and unscientific?

    Dare I suggest the obsession with headline records is more a PR stunt than a scientific measure?… … …

    Another one that falls under the heading of suspicions confirmed. But reality does not intrude on the world of the zealot. Does it?

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Roy Hogue:

      The BOM won’t allow access to records before 1910 because they were taken without using a Stephenson screen. For the capital cities at least this is a straight out lie. Perth had one in 1899 among several recently installed in that State. Other capitals had these screens in use in the 1880′s and earlier.

      As for Media manipulation, Adelaide has “the hottest summer EVER” **. It had 13 days over 40℃, one more than in 1896/7. Conclusive??? proof??? of global warming. AND note that they can use the old figures if they judge them suitable.

      ** never mind that up to mid December and since mid Feb. plant growers have been complaining about cool conditions.

      50

    • #
      James Bradley

      “Slavery is now no where more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty”

      Samuel Johnson.

      00

  • #

    You do have to wonder why a supposedly government body obsesses about the “warmest” whatevers. Perhaps a political agenda?

    Pointman

    BTW Jo, typo in the headline “obession”

    70

  • #
    BilB

    Every one of those graphs show a long term trend of colder to hotter except perhaps one for the Northern Territory. I think you have proven the rising temperature case very well.

    ["I think YOU have proven ...", rather than, "I think the BOM has presented ..."? This is getting a bit personal, isn't it? Please remember, you are a guest here. You have been given a lot of latitude, regarding the ill-disguised market positioning of your proposed solar solution. Please show a little respect, in return. -Fly]

    310

    • #

      Congrats Bil, you have finally realized that Australia has warmed since 1910. I’ve been saying that all along.

      Has it warmed since 1896? You and I both don’t know. Do any of these trends matter to the CO2 debate? A weak correlation over 5% of the surface? It does to Bil, but it would not to a scientist.

      122

      • #
        the Griss

        NoJo, the manipulated BOM data shows a warming since 1910..

        That is a totally different thing from there actually being any warming.

        92

    • #
      Heywood

      ” You have been given a lot of latitude, regarding the ill-disguised market positioning of your proposed solar solution. Please show a little respect, in return. -Fly”

      Perhaps there should be a little disclaimer inserted at the bottom of each of BilB’s comments stating that his company, and therefore himself, profits from the production of solar system and thus has a vested interest in sewing confusion and promoting climate change alarmism.

      Good enough for the proponents of alarm to suggest such things for skeptics. I suppose, we don’t really want to drag ourselves down to that level do we?

      72

    • #
      Ian George

      BilB and Jo,
      I know this is not the BoM graph but this NASA GISS (which tells us the world is warming) graph is a good example of how temps have been adjusted.
      The first one is for the max raw temps for Adelaide (which looks like West Terrace, Kent town and AP combined).

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501946720004&dt=1&ds=1

      The next one is the adjusted version (v4).

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501946720000&dt=1&ds=14

      BoM does the same thing, especially when they transferred the raw data to the now superseded HQ data which these time series are based on. Totally agree, griss.

      By the way, GISS NASA has archived all their v1 (raw) data and it is now difficult to access.

      20

    • #
      Angry

      I ate a bilby for Easter…….

      20

      • #
        scaper...

        We barbequed a warmist over my fire pit in the backyard. Tasted like tofu so chucked it in the fire and gorged out on whale steaks from the latest hunting season sitting on polar bear skin rugs.

        Nothing like indulging in good old fashioned decadence!

        51

    • #
      Snafu

      BilB (and others who may have not seen this), I suggest you read this piece of New South Wales weather (climate) history;

      http://archive.org/stream/climatenewsouth00russgoog#page/n5/mode/2up

      It is called the Climate of New South Wales and was written by the then Government Astronomer of New South Wales in 1877. It contains journal references/abstracts dating back to the First Fleet (1788).

      BilB (and other Climate Hypochondriacs), after you have thoroughly read through this ‘book’, came back to us and tell us that ‘todays’ climate is any worse than that of 1788-1877………and prove it wrong! BTW BilB, I will not be holding my breath for your reply.

      21

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        That is quite interesting.
        On page 47 Russell states:

        It is noteworthy that the mean temperature of Sydney is 62.6, and not 66.0 as given in some standard works of reference.

        If I use wunderground’s Almanac for Sydney (K-S airport) it will tell me since 1999 the avg Max is 21 and avg Min is 13, and split the difference to get the average which is 17°C. Granted, the airport is a different location to Observatory Hill, but the further distance from the city should reduce the UHI effect by some unknown amount.
        Anyhow, Russell’s estimate in 1872 was 62.6°F, which is 17°C precisely. They’re the same.
        Probably just an unrelated random co-incidence.

        WUndergound does not allow custom downloads from “Sydney Regional Office” station any more, but after some tedious clicking and copypasta, the 2-year average there today seems to be 18.4 degrees.
        According to GISS (via Warwick Hughes) the UHI for Sydney is about +1.2.
        Which means Observatory Hill today would be averaging 17.2 degrees without the city.
        About 0.2 degrees warming in 140 years. Gosh, sounds catastrophic.
        But the above data has not been officially adjusted, homogenised, and corrected, so you probably should throw your whole web browser down the nearest Memory Hole at this point.

        10

  • #
    handjive

    Checking the BoM KPI’s:

    National rainfall outlook
    Issued 18 December 2013
    Mixed seasonal outlook for Australia; drier for the east, wetter for the west ( for Jan to March 2014)

    Details
    The chances of exceeding the median rainfall during the January to March period are 30 to 40% over most of Queensland, parts of the eastern NT, most of NSW and northeast Victoria.
    In other words, the chances of below average rainfall are 60 to 70% over these areas.

    Surprise Surprise! It will be hotter & drier, because of Global Warming!

    Reality:

    April 10, 2014 – Wettest start to autumn in 31 years for the Mallee

    Sydney – Wettest start to autumn for 24 years

    Canberra’s autumn rainfall average exceeded in just six weeks
    . . .

    92

    • #
      handjive

      Addendum:
      National rainfall outlook(link above)
      Issued 18 December 2013

      Quote BoM: “So, for every ten summer outlooks with similar odds to these, about three or four of them would result in above-average rainfall over these areas, while about six or seven would be below average.”

      Does the BoM ever wonder why?

      The Australian, 23 April 2014:
      Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York, tells The Australian that a lack of good observational data available when the experiments were conducted led to input values for aerosol concentrations that were probably too low.

      And the current solar cycle has been less active than the last one, so the models overestimated the amount of incoming solar radiation.

      “There is a case to be made that the modellers were unlucky in a bunch of different things, which has meant that in the very short-term trend in the last 10 years or so they (the models) are running slightly warm,” he says.
      . . .
      Bingo.

      32

      • #
        the Griss

        “And the current solar cycle has been less active than the last one, so the models overestimated the amount of incoming solar radiation.”

        NO. They said that solar energy had LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on the warming of the latter part of last century…..

        They DO NOT get to use the now quiet sun as a get-out-of-jail card !

        60

  • #
    the Griss

    Some might recall that I have several times mentioned that the marked changes in UV radiation during strong solar periods (as in the last half of last century) allows for an increase in penetration into sea water.

    I have posted this link several time.

    While I have not had the information to go further with this, a paper has now appeared at the Hockey Stick that shows that changes in UV have a significant effect and a very good correlation with global temperatures.

    Solar variability, particularly solar maximums appears to have a MUCH greater effect on global temperatures than the so-called ” climate scientists” are willing to admit.

    62

  • #
    Fat Tony

    Not sure what the “records” say, but I thought last year was quite nice – after living through 60 of these “cycles”, I am pretty sure I have experienced hotter years in the past.

    61

    • #
      the Griss

      Most of the “heat” for the so-called “hottest heffer” year was out in the centre of Australia.

      The coastal cities were all pretty much as usual, with a couple of very hot days when the heat escaped from central Australia. A normal summer in other words.

      But as I said above, when they apply significant temperature reductions to the past , its easy to say its getting warmer.

      Like Giss and HadCrut, the warming in Australia comes almost totally from the cooling adjustments to the past temperature record.

      And since many places have raw data that actually trends DOWNWARDS, it appears the adjustments may actually be MORE THAN the actual warming.

      82

  • #
    Drapetomania

    blackadderthe4th
    April 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm · Reply
    Just look at what derision the hockey stick attracts? Even although it has been confirmed to be a true and accurate representation by several different scientific investigations and methods, such as ice cores, sediments, etc, etc.

    Dont keep giving us free kicks..:)
    I thought “the Team” taught you guys and gals to not engage in science, you always lose..
    Stick to ad hominems/straw men/smears and sneers..lets face it..you aint got much else.
    For the last time..
    The “confirmation” used the same lousy proxies..with the same problems inherent in the proxy selection..with the same data torture methods.
    If you cared about science, you would know this or at the least, be interested.
    But your side is always too busy with “getting the message out” and not the actual research.
    Idiocy and Noble Cause Cause Corruption explains alot.
    Here
    Here
    Here
    Here

    30

  • #

    October and November were unusually cool for my area near the SA border. I find it very strange that the spring for SA came out above average. We had very late frosts that damaged the neighbours crop. Many other wine areas had record minimum temperatures for October that caused a lot of damage.

    As I have mentioned before, Renmark had broken is record twice in one week for lowest recorded temperature in October but it didn’t even register in the local news despite the effect on crops.

    31

  • #
    pat

    climate trivia!

    VIDEO: 22 April: CTV: Make climate change matter, or else, author argues
    The planet is slowly heating up, says Canadian author Tom Rand, and we need to wake up before the climate change gets worse.
    That’s the message behind Rand’s new book, “Waking the Frog.” Rand uses the old story of a frog swimming in a slowly-warming pot of water to illustrate the dangers of climate change, and the need to adopt new measures like a carbon tax…
    “People don’t react to numbers and rational arguments,” he told CTV’s Canada AM on Earth Day. “You can’t just throw numbers at people because it will just scare them into submission, or they simply won’t let it in.”
    The threat of climate change makes people uncomfortable, Rand said. That’s why the narrative needs to shift from a scientific one to a market-driven one.
    “The language we need to use is one of common sense,” said Rand…
    The former software entrepreneur with university training in philosophy and economics, has become an advocate for clean technologies, as well as a carbon tax, to slow climate change. He said there’s still time for humans to wake up and fight — if they’re given the right push.
    “In a market economy, unless you price something, it isn’t worth anything,” Rand said of his push for a carbon tax…
    The market is the most powerful and dynamic tool we have to solve the climate problem, but it needs a signal to change or it will continue to make the problem worse, he said. “The free market will burn every piece of coal in the ground,” said Rand…
    Rand sees the cost of a carbon tax as a kind of climate insurance that everyone could buy into…
    “We can solve this problem,” Rand said. “We live on the cusp of the 21st century, but if we don’t solve this problem, most of our civic structures will crumble this century.”
    Rand said the financial strain of a carbon tax would be temporary as society shifts to a more sustainable energy model based on solar, wind, geothermal and next-generation nuclear technologies.
    “You need to tell a story about hope,” he said.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/make-climate-change-matter-or-else-author-argues-1.1786746

    CTV’s headline – “AUTHOR” argues?

    Carbon Talks: Tom Rand, Cleantech Investor & Advisor
    Tom Rand is a successful cleantech venture capitalist, inventor of the Green Bond, cofounder of North America’s greenest Hostel, Planet Traveler, and the author of 10 Clean Technologies to save our World. Tom is also Lead Cleantech Advisor at the MaRS Discovery District, Canada’s largest innovation center in Toronto that helps entrepreneurs by providing advice and acting as a catalyst to generate economic activity from promising intellectual property.
    It’s hard to keep pace with Tom Rand. When he speaks it’s like a tsunami of ideas surging forward, leveling pessimism and apathy in its wake. Rand is a big thinker and he is happy to share his views with anybody who wants to make a real difference in the low- carbon economy.
    Unlike many who believe it is impossible for the world to wean itself off of fossil fuel, Rand disagrees. Rand not only believes that it is possible to de-carbonize the world’s economy, he’s written a book about it…
    “It is not rocket science,” Rand commented, “the technologies have been proven and their economic benefits are clear. All we need are courageous leaders and imaginative Chief Financial Officers to drive this change.” All we need, it would appear, are more Tom Rands.
    http://www.carbontalks.ca/innovator-profiles/tomrand

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pat:
      “financial strain of a carbon tax would be TEMPORARY as society shifts to a more sustainable energy model based on solar, wind, geothermal and next-generation nuclear technologies”.
      So switching permanently to more expensive electricity will have no great effect? It would seem impossible unless those next-generation nuclear technologies deliver, because that is the only way possible. In any case how will penalising 25-40% of the economy of a nation deliver 100% benefits? Sounds to me like he could sell snake oil.

      20

  • #
    pat

    anthony has great news:

    WUWT: Multi-million dollar global warming disaster epic ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ beaten in TV ratings by ‘Bob’s Burgers’ reruns
    Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously” aired Sun, Apr 20, at 10:00 PM and didn’t even make the top 100 cable TV shows this week and was beaten in its time slot by a re-run episode of the animated cartoon Bob’s Burgers. Ouch!…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/22/multi-million-dollar-global-warming-disaster-epic-years-of-living-dangerously-beaten-in-tv-ratings-by-bobs-burgers-reruns/

    not at all surprising. MSM is self-destructing.

    40

  • #
    pat

    22 April: NoFrakkingConsensus: Delusions Climactic & Otherwise @ the New York Times
    Three paragraphs down, we read that:
    “The I.P.C.C. is composed of thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists”… [bold added]
    Yes, a newspaper that thinks it’s producing the world’s finest journalism still hasn’t noticed that:

    The IPCC provides no proof whatsoever that it is composed of the world’s top scientists. In fact, it declines to make public the CVs of its personnel.

    Certain IPCC lead authors and chapter leaders have historically been graduate students a decade or more away from earning their PhD (see here and here)

    Other IPCC lead authors are poorly qualified individuals from obscure nations, who were selected to give the report an international flavour.

    60% of the people who helped produce this latest report have never worked with the IPCC before (see the bottom of p. 3 of this PDF). Was there really a 60% turnover rate in the world’s top scientists since the last IPCC report appeared in 2007?

    IPCC personnel have so little power, they aren’t able to alter their chapter title by a single word. In reality, these people are mere cogs in a large, bureaucratic, UN machine.

    Many IPCC personnel are not “scientists” in the way that term is normally understood. They are, instead, economists, geographers, policy wonks, UN employees, and activists. …

    Times readers deserve better than this.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/04/22/delusions-climactic-otherwise-the-new-york-times/

    50

  • #
    Neville

    The ABC’s Alberici jumps in at full flight, only too willing to display her bias and pig ignorance for all to see.
    And this delusional nonsense is paid for by the poor bloody taxpayer with zip chance of balancing this rubbish via a more informed ABC journo. Can anything be more corrupt than this misleading garbage?

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

    52

  • #
    pat

    Reuters Point Carbon has this as top story today:

    Stand-off throws Australia climate policy in disarray
    April 22 (Reuters) – Australia’s government and the key opposition Palmer United Party (PUP) on Tuesday squared off over future climate policies, leaving power producers and big industrial emitters in near total uncertainty over how they would be regulated from July…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4906943

    Reuters is, presumably, following this political angle, which becomes more insane by the day:

    22 April: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Clive Palmer threatens to block carbon and mining tax repeals
    Guardian Australia exclusive: PUP leader says if government ‘plays games’ over emissions reduction fund ‘they need to be politically punished’
    Clive Palmer is threatening to block both the carbon and mining tax repeals if the Abbott government “plays games” by including its Direct Action climate change fund in budget appropriation bills to avoid its defeat in the Senate.
    And the mining magnate-politician challenged Tony Abbott to hold a double dissolution election if he didn’t like the stance the Palmer United party was taking on key issues, claiming such a poll would only enhance his party’s position…
    “The funds will be part of the budget papers and I doubt the budget will be blocked, unless we’re going to be forced into a constitutional issue,” Hunt told the ABC.
    Palmer responded by saying that “if the government wants to try to play smart … then two can play at that game”.
    “You tell them that if they do that [include the emissions reduction fund in the budget] we will immediately reconsider our position on the carbon and mining tax repeals,” Palmer told Guardian Australia.
    “If they play games like that they need to be politically punished … and reconsidering our support for the carbon and mining tax repeal would be one thing we would definitely consider.”…
    But the independent senator Nick Xenophon wants changes to toughen Direct Action to ensure it is effective, with measures such as stringent emissions baselines for big emitters, which some industry groups are resisting…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/22/clive-palmer-threatens-to-block-carbon-and-mining-tax-repeals

    40

  • #
    Neville

    Yes it really is a religion. And I thought Germans didn’t have a sense of humour. But then again they’d either laugh or cry at their pollies insanity.

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

    30

  • #
    pat

    23 April: Business Spectator: Reuters: Utility to score $400m for carbon capture
    British utility Drax is likely to receive a 300 million euro ($US414.19 million) grant from the European Commission for a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project after Britain this week told the Commission it would back the scheme…
    Drax’s White Rose project is being developed with BOC Group and Alstom SA in a consortium called Capture Power Ltd and seeks to build a new 426 megawatt coal-fired plant fitted with CCS tehcnology in Yorkshire in Britain.
    Davies was one of the architects of the scheme launched in 2009, when the EU promised to finance up to half the cost of at least eight demonstration CCS plants across Europe through the sale of 300 million carbon permits.
    When the pledge was made, the EU hoped to raise 6 billion euros based on prices of 20 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide, but carbon prices have since slumped and the permit sales only managed to raise around 2 billion euros, putting more onus on member states to contribute to funding projects…
    Full-scale CCS plants at power stations are expected to cost upwards of 1 billion euros to build.
    So far the EU scheme has only been able to fund renewable energy projects as all the CCS candidate plants either pulled out or were deemed ineligible after member states were unable to promise financial backing.
    The Drax project is the only CCS scheme left in the competition and could receive a maximum of 15 percent of all funds raised, amounting to around 300 million euros.
    “That would be a very helpful contribution … but it is an order of magnitude lower than the UK will need to put in,” said Chris Littlecott of environmental group E3G.
    Davies said the offer of support by Britain did not amount to a promise of financial guarantees but was enough to reassure the Commission the project is economically sustainable…
    As the bloc relies on coal for some 25 percent of its electricity, the Commission has previously said without CCS it risks missing that goal.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/4/23/policy-politics/utility-score-400m-carbon-capture

    20

  • #
    pat

    23 April: Reuters: Stian Reklev/Kathy Chen: China carbon cash party over as U.N. credit stream dries up
    Longyuan Group signs no carbon fund contracts in 2013
    2013 carbon revenue for top 3 sellers reached just $20 mln
    Sixty new projects looking for domestic carbon revenue
    Revenues for China’s biggest sellers of U.N.-issued carbon credits shrunk last year to a tenth of 2012 values, choking off billions of dollars flowing to clean energy projects in the world’s top carbon-emitter.
    China will now have less money to put into a stepped-up campaign to cut greenhouse gas emissions, clean its air and raise the share of fossil-free energy in its total mix to 15 percent by the end of the decade, from a current 8 percent…
    Since 2006, Chinese companies have been issued 873 million carbon credits, nearly two-thirds of the total. These have been sold in Europe and Japan to bring in at least $8 billion in profits that can be reinvested in new projects…
    The carbon offsets generated in China had offered lucrative low-cost compliance options for emitters when European Union allowances traded at above $25. But after the financial crisis a slowdown in EU industry caused emission levels to drop, creating a huge oversupply of tradable carbon permits.
    As the EU allowances fell below $5 each, historical fixed-price contracts for Chinese credits in the $10-$20 range brought huge losses to European carbon buyers. CERs are now valued at just 23 cents versus contract values tens of times higher…
    The exact number of Chinese projects on hold is unknown. Legal experts estimate it to be in the hundreds, with one lawyer saying 95 percent of the CDM contracts have been breached…
    China has launched pilot carbon markets in seven cities and provinces, and plans to launch a national scheme later in the decade…
    But demand would depend on the government’s willingness to impose strict emission caps on its biggest polluters, and whether other buyers emerge needing carbon offsets.
    “The prospects of the Chinese domestic market depend on pricing and demand in new markets, including other Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan,” said Jeff Huang, China director of the Intercontinental Exchange.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/china-carbon-idINL3N0N725A20140422

    20

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 23 April: ABC Breakfast: Large scale carbon capture projects set for roll-out
    Burning coal for power generation produces more than a third of the world’s man-made carbon pollution. But technology for cleaning up coal is hugely expensive and critics say it is unproven at a commercial scale.
    Despite this, Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS, remains one of the big hopes for slashing global carbon emissions by 2050, and avoiding dangerous climate change.
    GUEST: Dr Andrew Minchiner, General Manager, International Energy Agency’s Clean Coal Centre.
    ***Producer: Gregg Borschmann, Environment Editor
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/large-scale-carbon-capture-projects-set-for-roll-out/5405394

    ***Gregg Borschmann is such a player in the ABC CAGW madness.

    30

    • #
      the Griss

      Burning coal puts out ZERO CARBON POLLUTION

      Any unburnt particulate carbon is well filtered out, as are most other compounds except H2O and CO2, neither of which is a pollutant.

      10

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    22 April: WSJ: California’s Carbon Spending Rush
    Sacramento proves that cap and trade is about income redistribution
    The Senate leader last week proposed a “long-term investment strategy” to divvy up the revenues from California’s cap-and-trade program…
    The state is now giving away about 90% of permits for free and auctioning off the rest…
    So far the auctions have generated $1.5 billion, but cash will start to pour in next year when the cap is applied to fuel suppliers, which account for nearly 40% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Revenues will balloon as the California Air Resources Board reduces both the cap and the free allowances. The state legislative analyst predicts that cap and trade will raise between $12 billion and $45 billion in toto by 2020.
    While state law requires that these cap-and-trade “fees” fund programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Governor Jerry Brown last year seized, er, “borrowed” nearly all of the auction proceeds for general-fund expenses…
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303626804579507840884336078

    30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      One thing is certain. They will not raise near as much money as projected. No tax ever does.

      00

  • #
    pat

    carbon, carbon, carbon.

    23 April: Irish Times: Harry McGee: Draft climate change legislation to tighten carbon pledges
    Bill will include binding commitment to targets set by EU and UN up to 2050
    Draft climate change legislation to be published today contains several key changes that will tighten the State’s obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    The heads of the Climate Action and Low-Carbon Development Bill will be unveiled today by Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan…
    ***While no specific targets have been included in the heads to be published today, Government sources said yesterday that key changes to the language of the legislation tie the State to an “unequivocal commitment to future and present obligations” for emissions reductions…
    In addition, the Minister will be required to produce a national low-carbon road map every five years rather than every seven years…
    The other major change is that the role of the expert advisory body has been expanded and it has been given more powers. Under the heads, its membership will be increased to as many as 11 members and its role will be analogous to that of the fiscal advisory committee, which gives the Government advice on economic matters…
    The legislation makes an important distinction for agriculture, eschewing following emissions targets in favour of an approach to carbon neutrality. This will be dependent on the acceptance by the EU of carbon sinks (forestry and bogland).
    The full Bill is expected to be published before the summer.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/draft-climate-change-legislation-to-tighten-carbon-pledges-1.1770460

    saving the planet!

    23 April: Business Spectator: Reuters: Carbon traders flock to Hubei
    Expectations for a surge in carbon permit prices in China’s newest emissions market of Hubei have sent speculative traders scrambling to make a profit, driving up trading volumes far in excess of the country’s other markets…
    That highlights the chance it could emerge as the most liquid carbon market in the world’s biggest-emitting nation, aided by low pricing of permits and an absence of capital thresholds for participants…
    In the first 12 trading days after the Hubei carbon market opened on April 2, 1.6 million permits changed hands, compared to a total of just 66,000 permits sold on China’s five other pilot carbon markets in the same period…
    Opening price levels in the carbon markets have been directed by local governments. Traders have seen significant upside potential in markets where starting prices were set low.
    But trading has been less enthusiastic in regions such as the southern province of Guangdong and the capital, Beijing, where prices started at 60 yuan and 50 yuan respectively.
    ***In Hubei, the government set a minimum price of 20 yuan for emission permits, the lowest in China and a mere third of levels in Guangdong.
    The low starting point drove expectations of a steep climb in prices. So far spot permits have risen by a quarter, to 25 yuan…
    Hubei’s current market price does not necessarily reflect the cost for companies to comply with the scheme, said Peng Feng, an official with traders Climate Bridge…
    Many speculators are attracted to Hubei because it sets no capital threshold to bar potential traders, Li Chen, technical director with trading house Treasure Carbon, told Reuters…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/4/23/carbon-markets/carbon-traders-flock-hubei

    20

  • #
    pat

    WOW! JO, THIS IS SURELY A BREAK-THROUGH AND NEEDS ITS OWN THREAD:

    VIDEO: 22 April: ABC Lateline: No evidence that man has caused warming
    Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council (& former Chairman of both the Stock Exchange and the ABC) discusses climate change and says that there is little correlation between carbon dioxide and the warming of the planet.
    TRANSCRIPT:
    EMMA ALBERICI: It’s no secret that you don’t agree that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Given there is now consensus among 97 per cent or so of climate scientists across the world that the view – around the view that human activity is responsible for climate change, what would it take to convince you?
    MAURICE NEWMAN: We know first of all that the survey which came out with the 97 per cent number was flawed in the first place. So we don’t pay any attention to that. What we do look at…
    EMMA ALBERICI: There have been roughly three that have come up with that.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: They all come up with flawed methodologies. So we don’t pay any attention to that. We know that there are a whole host of scientists out there who have a different point of view, who are highly respected, reputable scientists. So the 97 per cent doesn’t mean anything in any event because science is not a consensus issue. Science is whatever the science is and the fact remains there is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are adding to the temperature on earth. We haven’t had any measurable increase in temperature on earth for the last 17.5 years. If you look back over history, there’s no evidence that CO2 has driven the climate either. So I know that this is a view which is peddled consistently, but I think that the edifice which is the climate change establishment is now starting to look rather shaky because mother nature is not complying.
    EMMA ALBERICI: I just want to take you up on that because it would appear that there is strong consensus, at least among – certainly when it comes to the IPCC, that is a group that has brought together under the auspices of the United Nations, the science around the world, it doesn’t actually do science itself, it just collates all the science and puts it forward. Now 195 countries contribute to that. Nineteen academies of science across the world, including I have to say the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, NASA, the American Academy of Sciences, the British equivalent, the Canadian equivalent, some really reputable bodies around the world are now agreeing that it’s human activity that’s causing climate change. So I’m wondering, who is it that’s influencing you so that is so convincing you otherwise?
    MAURICE NEWMAN: I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that’s something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we’ve had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it’s on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.
    EMMA ALBERICI: By?
    MAURICE NEWMAN: By Roy Spencer, who’s carried out a thorough review of all of the models and the empirical data which against both land-based and satellite-based measuring. And they were found to be wrong.
    EMMA ALBERICI: He’s one scientist, climate scientist.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: It’s not a question of being a scientist.
    EMMA ALBERICI: But he is a climate scientist.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: Yes he is a climate scientist.
    EMMA ALBERICI: He is. He was at NASA. His colleagues at NASA disagree with him.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: There’s a study that came out from NASA in the last few weeks which says that the impact of CO2 on the upper atmosphere brings about a cloud and the result of that is a bit like our own body temperature moderating as a consequence of perspiring. So you get an albino effect which reflects sunlight. If you want a correlation between global climate, don’t look to CO2, look to the sun’s activity, there will you find a very close correlation.
    EMMA ALBERICI: What do you mean?…
    EMMA ALBERICI: I think the one thing we can agree on is that neither of us are scientists.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: Correct.
    EMMA ALBERICI: But I’m just going on people with great reputations around the world, including our own Chief Scientist, Greg Hunt, the Environment Minister, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister. I mean, around the world, there seems to be consensus that it is a man-made phenomena.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: But it isn’t a question of consensus. It’s a question of science. And I’m asking the question: where is the empirical evidence to show that increases in CO2 impact temperatures?…
    What do we make about the pause?
    EMMA ALBERICI: That it’s a pause. I guess that’s what scientists say. It’s a pause. They look back 800,000 years as I understand it, so 17 years in the scheme of things isn’t an enormous amount of time.
    KERRY BREWSTER: I agree, but then you’ve got scientists, climate scientists now in Norway, in Germany, in Russia, in America, saying we’re now going in for a period of 30 or 40 years of increasingly cool climate conditions.
    EMMA ALBERICI: I’ll only ask you one more questions on this because I do want to talk about other things, but both Marius Kloppers and his successor at BHP Billiton Andrew McKenzie agree that climate change is human induced. So what if those 97 per cent of climate scientists and all business people across the world, like the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Branson and the miners here in Australia, what if they’re right and you and the scientists you quote are not right. Doesn’t it make sense to have a policy that at least transitions Australia to cleaner fuel sources?
    MAURICE NEWMAN: Emma, let’s not confuse the issues. Cleaning the atmosphere, which is what carbon pollution is about, not CO2, CO2 is not a pollutant. But cleaning the atmosphere, being more efficient, all of that makes sense. That’s got nothing to do with climate. That’s to do with economics and being efficient.
    But I would say to all of those people who are arguing that CO2 creates global warming and man is adding to the global warming to show the empirical evidence of where this is so. Because I’m saying to you that where this originates is from models. Computer models which are wrong. Now, if you can show me where there is some sort of correlation that proves beyond doubt that what we have is global warming as a consequence of CO2 and man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, well then we can have a different conversation.
    EMMA ALBERICI: I’m sure there will be scientists lining up to give you that information but we’ll move on.
    MAURICE NEWMAN: Well we’ll look forward to seeing it…
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3990190.htm

    READ IT ALL….

    60

    • #
      tom0mason

      I agree it needs it’s own post as there is so much sense spoken in this some would find it hard to take in one gulp.

      40

    • #
      Mark D.

      Alberici, so typical, mindless questions, all the logical fallacies, just trying to save the world.

      00

  • #
    James McCown

    Jo, your discussion of the 2013 temperatures reminds me of something Mark Twain once said about a man who had one foot in a bucket of boiling water and the other foot in a bucket of ice water and said on the average he was comfortable.

    60

    • #
      the Griss

      Basically everyone in Australia was standing with both feet in a nice warm sand or water. ie a normal Australian summer.

      Only the lizards and camels out in the central parts got any real extra warmth.

      21

  • #
    tom0mason

    It took 116 years to dispatch the theory of phlogiston (1667-1783).

    It may take longer to remove this UN inspired nonsense, and cost everyone many $trillions, as well as costing many innocent lives.

    All very depressing!

    90

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Speaking of obsessions, how about a scientific obsession with “hot” records, such as records of the Hockeystick team’s emails? Perhaps it’s old news for some, but this wasn’t covered here last week when it first broke, but was mentioned on WUWT, and it sounds like a bit of bad news unfortunately.

    Judges rule that climate scientist Michael Mann’s communications are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. (April 22, 2014)

    Justice Donald Lemons wrote in the court’s decision that handing over the e-mails would have put the school at a “competitive disadvantage,” thereby allowing it an exemption from FOIA.

    ATI’s attorney said in a statement that “the Court did not discuss ATI’s many specific examples of how the emails failed to offer any competitive advantage to the University. Instead, it accepted UVA’s unsubstantiated fears that release of the emails would significantly chill intellectual debate and on that basis allowed UVA to continue to operate under a veil of secrecy that the citizens may not penetrate.”

    The court judgement summary reads in part:

    Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the university that prevailed below, it produced sufficient evidence to meet each of the higher education research exemption’s seven requirements.

    The contentious 2nd requirement says:
    (2) such data, records, or information is of a proprietary nature
    IANAL, but… when read in context of requirement 7:
    (7) such data, records, or information have not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented.
    …it sounds like the original intent of “proprietary” was information and discoveries with military or commercial applications in which an IP right has been gained by the government/private sponsor by contract with the educational institution, since that information is the type that would need to be kept secret until their patent application could be granted (or longer in the case of a secret classified patent).

    Hopefully there is some “original intent” argument that can be made in appeal.
    But no more hockeystick smashing for the time being.

    20

    • #
      tom0mason

      If the original supporting data, and all other evidence, is not allowed to be seen then it is not science, and everyone, no matter how qualified can sneer and vilify the paper as the product of a fevered mind. It will have as much merit as the advocates of eternal luminiferous aether or phlogistan.

      I recommend this action to start immediately.

      20

    • #
      BilB

      Not that I am interested in reading anyones emails, but if I were I would be really interested in reading Roy Spencers’ correspondences. This is where the real conspiracy will be found I believe.

      [And who is a conspiracy theorist then? - Jo]

      11

  • #
    Peter Styles

    The UAH Satellite temperature for the World recorded the same average for 1983 and 2013.The fact that Australia recorded higher is not relevant. With CO2 increasing 25%in the same period it proves it is not warming the World climate. So finally the science is settled.

    80

    • #
      Carbon500

      Peter: Whilst agreeing wholly with your sentiments, have you made an error in your calculation?
      According to my figures, CO2 in 1983 was 343.03ppm, and in 2013 396.48ppm. That’s an increase of 53.45ppm, which I calculate to be 15.58% – call it 16%.
      Have you perhaps got the total increase in CO2 since readings at Mauna Loa began in mind? 315 in 1959, and 396 in 2013 if I recall correctly – that’s 25.7%?

      00

      • #
        Peter Styles

        Yes Carbon500 you are correct and thank you for correcting my error. I did take my calculations from 1959 until 2013 by mistake. The fact still remains .as you agree that CO2 is not creating Global warming

        00

  • #
    manalive

    Furthermore, the period 1850 -1910, according to some sources, included extremely hot times in Australia (like in 1896); since discarded by the BoM …

    The July and December averages shown on these maps published in 1890 (6 down, 4 in – click on to enlarge then zoom) are at least as warm as those on the equivalent average maps on the BOM website.
    The capital cities are at least as warm as the 1961 – 1990 averages and most if not all of the interior is shown as mostly warmer.
    Now I realise their instruments weren’t as accurate and there weren’t as many stations back then but the statistics gathered on other matters are extremely concise so there is no reason to assume the temperature data is not similarly as meticulously recorded.

    70

  • #
    Carbon500

    Record temperatures? Of course it’s all PR.
    According to the UK’s Central England Temperature record (CET), the year 1686 had the highest average temperature (10.13C) since records began (in 1659).
    Then in 1733 we see another record: 10.47C, equalled in 1834 and 1921. Then in 1959 we see a new record set: 10.48C!
    After that, we see 10.63C in 1990 and 1999 and 10.82C in 2006 – and can we realistically attach any credibility or importance to figures in hundredths of a degree anyway?
    What these ‘records’ don’t tell us is that there have been warm and cold periods during all this time, which are well documented and described.
    The ‘records’ are trivial average temperature changes from year to year of which far too much has been made by the publicity seekers and scaremongers. There are five years in the CET with an average temperature of 8.83C: 1956, 2010, 1902, 1754, and 1659. The yearly average tells us nothing about what actually happened during that year – was it a cold winter? hot summer? – and so forth.
    There’ll always be a ‘record’ somewhere waiting for the propagandists to milk for all it’s worth.

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Please be careful with the CET as early figures may not have been that accurate, although 1686 was probably OK as Hooke had checked and calibrated the thermometers a few years previously.
      The early 1700′s through to about 1778 are not that accurate through changes in what was measured and how.

      As for your query about averaging figures read to 0.5℃ (at best) being averaged to 50 times that accuracy..well, I am sure you know the answer.

      20

      • #
        Carbon500

        Graeme No.3: I agree regarding your comments re the accuracy of temperature figures.
        I haven’t kept the email (perhaps I should have), but a few years ago I wrote to the Met Office about this very subject and was told that their thermometers were considered reliable to 0.5 degrees C.
        Readings of smaller fractions were estimated visually to the nearest tenth before the advent of electronic thermometers – which I have to say surprised me at the time.
        My overall view on this is that since the Met Office consider such readings to be accurate enough for their records, then they’re good enough to draw certain conclusions from – and as you see from my comments I like to see other accounts of what was happening at any given time.
        Even with reservations about aspects of its fidelity, I think it’s good that this record is available. I’ve found it a very valuable tool in my arguments with the warming brigade, because it certainly shows that any warming which there has been is trivial. It’s also interesting to note that at no time has the temperature reached 11 degrees C, even in recent times.

        10

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Nevertheless, the so-called “Climate Council” [D] which was reincarnated from the sacked tax payer funded “Climate Commission” has issued another report calling the 2014 summer as another angry summer with even more records broken than 2013.

    As a resident of Newcastle, NSW, working permanent nights, I often use a small A/C unit so I can sleep on hot summer days. In many past summers it has run on most days, during this “2014 summer, another angry summer” it was rarely needed. I say B.S. to their claim.

    30

  • #
    Snafu

    Jo and/or mods. Can you have a look at my comment made @ 6:33pm (#11.4). It has been in moderation for over an hour.

    Thanks in advance.

    00

  • #
    James McCown

    What really amuses me about all this wailing and gnashing of teeth by the warmists about Australia’s temperatures is they are ignoring the fact that Australia’s population (less than the state of Texas) is a tiny portion of the world’s population, about 0.3%.

    So, even if the doomsday scenarios prophesied by the warmists are true (and please don’t think I believe them), Australia could do nothing about her CO2 emissions and still have virtually no effect on the climate. Countries like China, India, USA, Brazil, etc will have to bear most of the burden. If it is determined that India and China both need to reduce their CO2 emissions by 50%, then if each country reduced their emissions by 50.5%, that would likely take care of Australia’s contribution.

    20

  • #
    Mindert Eiting

    ‘Dare I suggest the obsession with headline records is more a PR stunt than a scientific measure?’
    You may, Jo, because this record stuff comes from the world of sports and entertainment. You will never see a good statistical analysis of these records because they are by definition severely dependent upon each other: something is a record only if it beats another record. It’s garbage to be used for fun or propaganda.

    00

  • #