What a bombshell. Despite the non-stop stories of unprecedented heat the original data at 60 of the oldest sites across Australia shows there are no more Very-Hot-Days now than there were early last century. That’s no trend in 40 degree days for 100 years. No change — that is, until the Bureau of Meteorology adjusts the data…
After we were shocked at the latest ACORN changes to our Very Hot Days data, I asked Chris Gillham if we could see the effect of Bureau of Meteorology changes to the original raw data – and he replied it would be too time-consuming writing the code to calculate 40C+ days among the millions of daily temperatures from 112 weather stations across Australia since 1910. Then he did it anyway.
Wow. In 2011, the BoM’s ACORN 1 adjustments wiped out some of the “very hot days” recorded at weather stations in the early 1900s. These were records that had stood for a whole century. Then, quietly six years later, the ACORN 2 readjustments turned the statistical air conditioner on again and cooled people from 100 years in the future.
It’s all especially miraculous given that even the old World War I data was recorded in official BoM-approved Stevenson screens. The BoM won’t consider pre 1910 data because it wasn’t standardized, but even when it is, they still have to “fix” it. And in the intervening years after 1910, the Urban Heat Islands have grown and electronic equipment that can record one-second-records have been introduced across the nation. With the old equipment, 40C+ extremes were harder to get than with today’s micro-minute spikes caused by gusts of hot air rolling off carparks and tarmacs.
What we see in the 60 longest running ACORN sites, all open in 1910, is that the raw temperature data had just as many “very hot days” in the World War I era as it does now. Oh boy.
No wonder the BOM was keen to move the “Very Hot Days” graphics and data and tuck them away in a remote page on their website.
History changing before your eyes.
Here’s a PDF copy of these three animated graphs side by side.
Chris also analyzed larger pools of sites (see below) but these include new stations that have opened since 1910, many of which are in hot arid locations that skew the averages as the proportion of “hot region” thermometers grows. The addition of new “hot” stations probably makes an upward trend all by itself. The 60 long-term stations then, are more useful because they’re the originals, even though many of them have shifted down the road from post offices to airports and got new electronic gizmos. None of them are ideal, but at least they are in the same locality.
Presumably with a million-dollars-a-day the Australian BoM might have been able to do this graph themselves. But somehow we need unpaid volunteers to tell Australians basic things about the trends across the country. With billion dollar decisions about how to change the global weather, you might think a responsible bureau would want to let Australians know that the original temperatures recorded show there are no more 40C+ days now than there used to be?
— Jo
______________________________________________________
No more extreme hot days in Australia than 100 years ago
Guest Post by Chris Gillham, who maintains waclimate.net
Despite a community belief that global warming is creating a climate of extremes with more very hot days in Australia than ever before, analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology’s 112 ACORN weather stations shows nothing much has changed since 1910.
The BoM defines a very hot day as having a maximum of 40C or greater, and the bureau’s own official data show that the recently released but virtually unknown ACORN 2 dataset has significantly increased the frequency of very hot days compared to its predecessor, ACORN 1, mostly by decreasing 40C+ days in the first half of the 1900s (see blog post).
Analysis of the annual 40C+ average numbers and temperatures at the 112 stations allows a comparison between original RAW daily observations and the homogenised ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets. The following analysis is from 1910 to 2017 as this is the final full year of ACORN 1 daily temperatures.
The first analysis compares the three datasets at the 104 non-urban ACORN stations used by the bureau to calculate national and regional average temperatures …
Australian Very Hot Days, Graph, Bureau of Meteorology, Chris Gillham.
It’s clear that ACORN 1 reduced the number of RAW very hot days in the early 1900s, and ACORN 2 has created a staircase.
However, the animation nevertheless suggests a RAW increase in the annual number of very hot days in Australia, although the observable step changes coincide with 1972 metrication and the introduction of automatic weather stations in the mid to late 1990s that are believed to increase maxima because of their instant electronic response to warmth compared to the slower responsiveness of liquid thermometers. The very hot day increase in the new millennium also coincides with the introduction of smaller Stevenson screens that decreased their internal space by almost 74%.
The trend and dataset differences in the 104 non-urban stations are similar among all 112 ACORN stations …
Very Hot Days, 112 ACORN Stations, Bureau of Meteorology
The average number of Very Hot Days recorded across 60 ACORN sites changes after adjustments
Average temperature changes in the 60 station series.
Fewer very hot days, but what about their average temperature?
…
There has been an increase since 1910, much of it following 1972 metrication and the introduction of automatic weather stations with smaller screens (0.15C warmer in 1964-2017 than 1910-1963, according to RAW). However, it seems our grandparents sweltered through a few years of record heat in the 1930s.
Again, similar among all 112 ACORN stations …
….
…
But what about those 52 stations that have opened since 1910 that our earlier comparison suggests were in hotter locations?
Just because they get more very hot days, does that mean their maxima above 40C are hotter than at the 60 original stations? Below compares the annual average of 40C+ days at the 60 stations with the 52 stations, both from 1977 to 1996
….
Yes, the 52 stations that opened between 1910 and 1976 have 37.5% more very hot days which, on average, are 0.24C warmer than the average at the 60 original stations in the same timeframe. That 0.15C warming from 1910-1963 to 1964-2017 at the 104 non-urban stations is now questionable.
And how much hotter are the very hot days at the 60 original stations?
….
Among the 60 original stations open in 1910, the very hot days were 0.09C warmer in 1964-2017 than 1910-1963, according to RAW.
Surprisingly, the ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets have caused a small increase in the average maximum temperature of 40C+ days in the early 1900s.
These illogical quirks of the ACORN area average algorithms saw Albany having Australia’s hottest every day in ACORN 1 (51.2C vs 44.8C originally and adjusted back to 49.5C in ACORN 2). In ACORN 2, Oodnadatta becomes the hottest day ever recorded in Australia (51.1C on 2 January 1960 vs unadjusted raw temp of 50.7C), and Carnarvon has Australia’s second hottest ever day in 1953 (51.0C vs 47.7C originally).
Between 1910 and 1976, the gradual addition of 52 hotter weather stations has contributed to the trend and the artificial warming of the average historic temperature of very hot days.
Very hot 40C+ days are not the same as average maxima, and analysis shows ACORN 2 cooled RAW by 0.2C in 1910-1963 (RAW 25.03C to A2 24.83C).
The issue of very hot days is analysed here, with data on annual average numbers, annual average very hot day temperatures, the very hot day correlation with annual rainfall/cloudy day data since 1910, and the very hot day correlation with annual rainfall/cloudy day data only from November to April when very hot days occur.
This analysis suggests that despite ACORN homogenisation, Australia has had no increase in the number of extremely hot days since 1910.
More man-made warming.
Presumably 2019 will be the 4th or 5th hottest year on record for Australia.
< /sarc-off >
280
It has never been stated more clearly than this.
231
… even if it is totally fictional …
50
Jo I have given this post a big 10 stars.But I do have a complaint.
The ‘flicking’ charts.
Those charts flock from one thing to another in a pre set time which frankly I find dopey.
I want to see the charts and study them separately and THEN compare them.
This modern flicking from one to another does NOT allow me to do that.
133
Feedback from a friend
“What a great piece”
50
Bill,
Just drag it out on to the desktop. It’s then a file that gives you all three graphs separately.
60
Upload the gif to ezgif.com and choose split to frames then download zip is the most straightforward method.
20
That is what I did and then lined them up on powerpoint.
20
@ Joseph ..Excellent suggestion !
I did it and that worked.
Thank you very much !
00
As it happened, I asked Chris and have posted a link to a PDF side-by-side file you can download now.
Here’s a PDF copy of these three animated graphs side by side.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/gillham-chris/2019/very-hot-days/very-hot-days-datasets-static.pdf
30
Animated GIFs can be difficult to read, especially if the duration is very short. I think the charts could also have been presented in the traditional way with the bar graph for RAW and manipulated overlaid in different colours (blue for RAW and pink/red for manipulated).
80
Good point Bill. I’ll talk to Chris and see what we can arrange.
80
You better make it snappy, Bill, have just consulted BoM’s scienterrific crystal ball and it’s prophesying catastrophic change for Adelaide:
“Very hot… ahead of a vigorous cold front”, sending temps plummeting from 42 C today to 11 C Friday – almost a 400% drop – thanks to carbon (sic). If only your million-dollar-a-day public servants understood cold causes hot (albeit briefly) and not the other way round.
BTW the Bureau of Mismanagement is also prophesying “snow” early next week for TAS & VIC high country, yet all we’ll hear about is ‘the heat’ – caused by yet another cold front. No wonder they hold us non-believers in such low regard.
100
Yeah and I just caught a news highlight this morning saying Melbourne had a sweltering night. Odd, as it was pretty cold our way and around 9C this morning. Not even remotely sweltering. Maybe sweltering has also been redefined.
100
Did Melbourne really ‘swelter’ last night? We are two hours’ drive from the CBD and our min. was 5C at 0638. It’s now dry and sunny; 31C at 1414 and humidity has dropped to 24%.
90
We’re around two hours drive from the CBD as well and I think the top temp here was about 27C; working outside all day as it was so pleasant. Humidity outside is now 44% at 3:30.
20
Sorry Greg, cannot be a 400% drop! Just so happens we are using Celsius. The difference would appear to be much different if the temperature was expressed in Farenheit or Kelvin!
Although I can see this is an easy trap to fall into.
21
Greg I’m still here ALIVE & Well in the Adelaide Hills
Of South Australia
But I’m watching the BOM do it’s ‘stuff’
And also keeping a record of their forecast
And failings these past 4-5 days
Where you ask ?
At “BOM Weather Watch” on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2688077244565417/
Was it a “Catastrophic Fire Danger” Day
NO!
“Severe’, OK
But why three Total Fire Ban Days in a row ?
Yesetday, Today and Tomorrow !
10
Bill, glad you survived that one-day ‘heatwave’,
however you may have to dress like Saint Gertrude of Gullibles for the next week (mid-20s) although mittens and woolly hat would be optional for outside attire.
And thanks Rob, I knew someone here would peer review my rough maths: it was a toss-up between 1/4, and 4x or 400% less (40 to 10 Celsius approx.) using zero as the freezing point. My gripe is when people repeat what they’ve heard on ‘the news’ as if it’s Gospel of Indisputable Truth (GIT) – their looks of disbelief when I counter their worldview with ‘alternative facts’ such as record cold, humongous snowfalls, blizzards, sub-zero temps and other failed prophecies, however, never fails to amuse me.
10
Based on my clear memory of summers in Melbourne, it has been considerably colder in summer over the last decade. January is cold now. Even the back to school time of the first two weeks of February is often cold. Even when we get a day of 37+, it rarely lasts more than half a day, not a week.
However at 300km North on the latitude of Perth, Adelaide and Sydney the cooling change seems less but their climates are quite different, the core problem with the usual spring bushfire season in NSW. Our bushfire season is the dry late summer.
So my observation is that the summers are colder and the seas have not risen at all, even a tiny amount. We were promised by Roybn Williams, science guy at the ABC that the sea rise was over 1 metre a year. So why are we closing coal power stations? Manufacturing needs power and around the world, manufacturing is in the cool climates.
If the Melbourne climate is changing, it is getting colder in summer. The last few years in America, it is noticeably colder and colder earlier. Last week was a blizzard in Chicago. Still we are told this is Global Warming and it is man made. The scramble to explain man made Global Cooling will start soon, as predicted by real scientists, not Al Gore and Tim Flannery. Just as the power goes off in Victoria.
342
My first New Year’s Eve in Melbourne was at the end of 2012. It was 40 degrees in the Melbourne CBD. I have not experienced temperatures like that since.
I considered installing air-con but since then, there has been no reason to.
There have been no days at 40 degrees.
220
Absolutely. The last really hot summer that I can remember was in 2017 when we had maybe 4-5 days where it got to mid-30C and our Gang Gangs were feeling kind of hot. The following summer was positively mild with only one day from memory going much over 30C. And so far this year spring has been woefully cold, with heating on almost every day since the start of autumn.
80
I have a feeling that the current predictions of apocalyptic climate change and the demand to act last week if not sooner is because the dupes driving the [scam] realise that their end is nigh. The next climate catastrophe may well be increasing cold and shorter growing seasons with more droughts as evaporation decreases. The BoM is doing it’s best to keep the lie alive and of course those intellectual pygmies in the MSM and parliament are too stupid to see the change coming. How will the alarmists spin a cooling planet? With more lies but the great unwashed just may not believe them this time around.
10
I wonder how this is different from [snip “deception”]. Sometimes it appears there is none, hence the wonderment.
[Please check your email. – J]
60
It certainly looks like purposeful deception.
I hope that like every other financial bubble, this one will burst eventually as well. And when it does, the people will be very angry.
The enormous waste of public money over this Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming is stunning.
160
RE: the first gif image set.
From 21 years of 15 days-and-over for the period 1910-1975, on the raw-original graph, to 0 years of 15 days-and-over for the same period, on the Acorn 2 graph. Maybe, some sneaky bulk shifting going on?
110
Honest people would present the measured data and the varnished data side by side with error bars on both, then try to argue that because an angel told them that primitives, back in the days when special relativity was a novelty, wore oven mitts when reading, or handled hot coffee of a morning while reading the thermometers so the real data needs to go down a memory hole and rectified replacement data stand in their stead, then let the reader decide whether that sounds like fraud, pseudoscience, or both. But seriously, raise your hand if you truly expect honesty from government scientist impersonators unable to find a job in the market of voluntary transactions.
200
Im having to educate my rather smart 14 year old daughter that infortunately a harsh fact of life is that govts lie. A lot. Regularly. Such that generally they cant be believed for a lot of stuff. Regularly.
Its a tough thing for a kid to handle, but in a way its a natural counterbalance for the State brainwashing them in school and laughably calling it “curriculum” or ” edukayshun” and keeping a straight face on a systemic lie, while speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Its theft of your childrens minds by a faceless evil, if you dont push back.
Weve gone a long long lonñggggg way down hill since thd original lie in the Garden of Eden….
220
From mid October.
Sixty years ago, in Newcastle, we regularly had the peak summer period of about 10 days in a row when temperatures were between 100 and 107°F.
That hasn’t happened in a long while.
That’s sixty miles north of Sydney as the crow flies an half a mile from the ocean.
So much for global warming.
We have, however, had unprecedented bush fires caused by the failure of National Sparks and Wildfires to “maintain” the local environment.
KK
270
The progressives: “If reality won’t give you the data you want, change the data. That will show reality a thing or two.”
Wanna bet?
160
It’s amazing to see all of this information collated with interesting graphics.
A great resource for discussion.
KK
110
Question – how do we ensure s copy of the raw data is protected from the BOM “Ministry of Truth” teams?
170
OriginalSteve
Please keep asking that question. Then ask it again.
Chris has done a huge amount of work to look at these 112 stations but checking what has gone missing or has been altered in other ways is also needed. For example for the Canberra site. Would the trend be more accurate if the old Queanbeyan data was used instead of Canberra due to the distance from the current airport Stevenson screen to the old Canberra sites being similar even longer and there being no mountain range in between.
Mound Madjura, Mt Ainsle, Mount Pleasant or a lake vs one little hill and a small river to a site that reported warmer temperatures in the past.
See also http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6350
80
Happy to, is it as simple as all of us downloading a copy of the raw data to make a distributed “disruption proof” data store?
50
Too late for that me thinks. A history dig is required.
40
Would it be prudent if each of us simply researched our closest BoM station, in my case Taree AP? I am unsure how to probe the distant past and I do know the site has been moved but not the details. I am sure there are people here who could advise.
00
From late October.
Local temperature measurements are basically very rough indications of how much wind, rain and cloud there has been in the area.
These three influences are overlaid on the 24 hour Solar input which is the only stable factor.
There’s nothing “scientific” about weather records which are very roughly indicative of the local situation from month to month.
As the Political arm of the Elites, known as the BOM, is obviously unaware of the fact that it is a scientific laughing stock maybe someone should do the right thing and shut it down.
KK
The ” errors ” in reading thermometers sixty years ago were acknowledged to be +/- 0.5 F°.
On top of that comes a consideration of the limit of relevance that comes from momentary shifts in conditions like cloud cover, wind speed and direction and atmospheric moisture content.
Basically, weather measurements of temperature and wind speed are just indicative and should not be given too much importance.
Science is a bit more reproducible than weather and the abuse of science by governments and their institutions is disgusting.
The global warming thing is all about money, power and control and is confirmation of the old saying that; to those who believe, all things are possible.
And they are, seven and a half tonnes of gold must surely weigh on voters minds.
The MalEx444 episode was like something out of darkest Africa.
KK
220
KinkyKeith surely you jest about shutting down our “scientific laughing stock” BOM; next you’ll be taking aim at CSIRO and ABC and the multiplicity of energy management organisations which have sprouted into existence over the last two decades –bring back the less intemperate KalmKeith say I.
40
Australia drought risk revealed in ice core analysis
-Science shows Australia’s climate in primarily driven by deep cycles where droughts are actually the norm.
“So we see the Millennium drought is not unprecedented, it’s well within range. We’ve had droughts like that before, in fact we’ve had a lot worse and will again.”
“I’m not interested in scaring people or sensationalising the issue.
But you have a false sense of security if you only look at the instrumental records and say the Millenium drought is the worst on record – let’s plan for that.”
https://www.theland.com.au/story/5313944/deep-climate-cycles-reveal-australias-real-drought-risk/
150
@#10….
The kind of thing that makes me thoughtful…. I have sale and stocking-rate decisions to make this week.
40
Also @#10…
Many years ago I read the same conclusions, reached by analysis of core samples from nice to brain-corals on the Barrier Reef.
Using sediment content as a proxy for rainfall, they concluded that at times in the past, Queensland had experienced major droughts lasting 30 years.
There is always a reason to be a little cautious when looking at proxies for past occurrences, but when we have three different sets lining up, it’s time to pay attention.
70
Very good link…I have sent to family members ( including one super smart but clueless green voter ) and love the fact that it basically says “build more dams”
Bet the Left will hate this as it makes great hamburgers out of their sacred “cow”
30
Australia has had megadroughts for the last thousand years says ice core study (2014)
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/australia-has-had-megadroughts-for-the-last-thousand-years-says-ice-core-study/
A new study of Law Dome Ice cores tells us that droughts are common in Australia, and that there appears to be eight mega-droughts over the last thousand years, including one that lasted a whopping 39 years from 1174- 1212AD. By their reckoning the 12th Century in Australia was a shocker with 80% of it spent in drought conditions. Things weren’t so bad from 1260 – 1860, at least, as far as they can tell. The researchers are convinced theirs is the first millennial-length Australian drought record. It does seem significant.
30
1936: Professor Ross from University of WA confirmed that:
“Climate Is Not Changing.”
“People forgot the weather of other years, “he added, “and, when an unpleasant heatwave or a very cold spell came, they said it was the worst they had ever experienced.”
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/246719358
141
Throw another shrimp on ACORN-SAT 2.
120
Would end up a blackened crisp !
41
I’d like to get my hands on the older platinum/mercury weather stations so I could do a calibration experiment.
Anyone know where to get?
90
Any good with wood. Build this one. Unlike modern ones it has skirts around the bottom to stop light and radiation from entering the screen via the gap between the vertically separate floor slats.
http://soda.naa.gov.au/record/1973307/1
40
A fair chance these blokes supplied the thermometers
https://www.zeal.co.uk/zeal/thermometers.html
10
With so much manipulation of the data it no longer is the realm of science but science fiction. This is to be expected given the deteriorating nature of our education systems where they stopped teaching critical thinking skills and replaced them with propaganda lies. We are ending up with a new generation of indoctrinated students. So much for Frydenberg’s stupid announcement about the old staying longer in the workforce by learning new skills and help the young do the heavy lifting. What new skills? How to push the CAGW agenda without making it too obvious and pretending to support coal fired power stations where in reality they support reduced emissions? I’ve actually never seen so much hypocrisy in politics. They have overtaken the ALP on that score.
160
I too laugh at Frydenberg’s statement PeterS as anybody who retired in the last couple of decades would require deskilling to join the modern workforce whose illiterate and innumerate shtick would be picked up before morning tea.
30
Yes I know from personal experience. A common excuse is I am over qualified. In other words they want people with less skills not more? It makes Frydenberg’s statement even more stupid. He and the vast majority of the LNP are simply out of touch with reality.
40
The whole lot of them are boringly predictable, rolling out the same old memes to save on pensions. Its a boomer bubble don’t you know.
As the world is in a deflationary spiral Frydenberg is playing the role of distractor, nothing else to see here folks. At least they are fast tracking infrastructure spending.
Premier Gladys is widening the rail tunnels and straightening the line through the Blue Mountains. Not a very fast train, just a fast train at 160 kph.
10
Peter S – the only way to make the BOM Vintage Temperature Manipulation Bureau [BOMVTMB] obsolete is for David Dilley’s ~ 130 year “Global Cooling Cycle” to come to fruition – he predicts GC to commence about now (2019/2020), ie bring an end to the ~ 190 year “Global Warming Cycle” which started when the last LIA finished ~ 1830. I believe this is the only way to torpedo “GW/CC Ideology”. And Dilley predicts a pronounced cooling period in the early part of the imminent “GC Cycle”. Other scientists also believe “GC” is imminent e.g. Dr David Evans (notch theory), John Casey, Piers Corbyn etc. Russian Astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov has it starting later, ~ 2030’s. I recall Dilley saying recently that you can’t get funding at western Uni’s wrt “Global Temp Cycles”. No doubt this is because GT Cycles are at total odds with the IPCC’s “Theory of AGW” – no cooling allowed!!!
30
“He who votes counts for nothing,
He who counts the votes counts for everything.”
– Josef Stalin
60
Did BOM get a mention?
“‘All you need to know about Climate Change… in cartoons’ ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/19/all-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change-in-cartoons/https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/19/all-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change-in-cartoons/
20
Is our message getting out or do only conservatives understand that there is no anthropogenic global warming?
Unfortunately the great unwashed masses, Greens and Labor in Australia, Democrats in the US, still believe in this AGW nonsense.
70
Very few people have any clue about the data manipulation. The BoM do not even hide the raw data because they have demonstrated unlimited ability to spin the need for homegenisaion of data.
91
Haven’t you noticed it yet? Even most conservatives believe in CAGW. Otherwise, both major parties would not still be on a unity ticket about reducing our emissions. The only difference between the two is by how much we should reduce them.
70
Cory Bernardi pulls up stumps and clears out.
00
PeterS — not so. Most conservatives are skeptics. The reason the LNP are afraid to say so is they are scared of the ABC bullies and the other media copycats. Look what they did to Abbott. Look what they are trying to do to Trump.
Once someone is marked as a fearless skeptic in a position of power they are so dangerous to the religion (and the troughers) that they must be made an example off, mocked at every moment, scorned no matter what they do.
50
Troughers include:
J. Hew.
MalEx444
00
I’m new here and can relate. Oddly (perhaps) it was Greta that caused me pause. The emotional nonsense from that speech did not ring true and I’ve spent the last ~2 months reading/watching mostly skeptical material – Youtube algorithms threw me talk Jo did on ruining a perfectly working power grid, which ultimately led me here.
But I am still plagued with questions; unsure if I am correct to doubt the ‘consensus’, being somewhat like an anti-vaxver and seeing conspiracy where there is none, or being like a ‘flat earther’ and interpreting evidence to suit my incorrect narrative. I imagine many skeptics feel like this. It doesn’t help that in our pursuit of inclusivity, acceptance and tolerance, we have (as a people) become utterly intolerant of almost everything. Yay ‘woke’ 🙂
[Welcome Disorganise! Yes we suffer from the comparison to other “conspiracies” but we tend to not go to any antivax, flat earth (personally too funny), 911, etc. Yes we are careful or try to be. Careful to adhere to scientific principles but not everyone is perfect. It isn’t easy but we forge on. Enjoy reading here, search the archives for specific topics you may want answers for and by all means join in the conversation!] ED
10
Scare people and it takes a lot of effort and persuasion to get them back into a rational mindset. Churches have been using this strategy with the wrath of God for centuries.
50
You will not find a single “respected” commentator who does not pay at least lip service to the virtue of the decarbonisation juggernaut which, in consequence of the unending flow of such uninformed assent, daily picks up momentum.
Governments today have become fond of censorship of ideas which conflict with the ideas they are bribed to sponsor. Should Google, Facebook and Twitter succeed in their program to bring down Trump before next year’s election the ramifications will extend to all Western climate politics and sites such as this will be declared terrorism and blocked from view a fate which had Labor won this year’s election would already have occurred.
40
Slightly OT but relevant in a way to this article. We all know this scam is largely about money and therefore politics puts it’s head into it.
To give an indication of the money involved –the EU has just announced it’s budget for 2020. Included in the highlights is :
21% of it’s budget ( 35.4 BIILLION Euros ) will go on climate change related matters
For those interested in the rest of their spend the highlights are here (not good reading for Aussie farmers !)
https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_nov_eu_spends_uk_money
120
Given that the government does not wish to take any action to rectify this deception is it possible to mount a class action against BOM for deceptive behavior? I am not a legal person but I would think there is a very good case to be mounted. I would be happy to contribute to a go fund me page to get the process rolling. Can anyone advise on the possibility?
100
Interesting question MEM , i know it has happened in Russia and I know they do use the past weather to predict future weather along with other variables .
20
And I hate to be a nag, but let’s remember two things…
Min/max is a pretty useless statistic (which means it’s better than most statistics) because it is the record of a single moment’s temp not the record of a day’s temp, and because absence or presence of cloud makes a mockery of “hotter” and “cooler”. Moreover, under “global warming” there is every chance that max readings will be lower, at least seasonally, than under “global cooling” in more regions than not. Because “global warming” is global wetting (think Optimum and Sahara Pluvial). Because CLOUD.
The other thing to remember is that any shift to global warming or cooling is to be expected and is utterly trivial. That temps could ever be stable to within a degree over a century is one of those extravagant ideas we could only accept if we were constantly manipulated by refuse media and dogma-ridden non-observational science. Which is the case.
80
G’day m,
There’s a chance you might enjoy this article, if it doesn’t give you apoplexy. So I’d better warn you in advance that Haig uses … as justification for some rather serious predictions(!) the absolute certainty of those 11,000 “scientists”, XR, … and you’ve probably guessed already…
that near-Nobel-winner … their Greta.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/citizens-will-take-climate-action-into-their-own-hands-former-tory-leader-warns-20191119-p53c5t.html?btis
Cheers
Dave B
20
Well, I guess Hague is right about negative interest rates. The old McKinsey man doesn’t go so far as to say that they’re the result of invented money and doesn’t seem to notice that potty green schemes are used as holes to chuck much of the invented money.
And while he notices that public neurosis is at a peak (thanks to the public’s continued addiction to refuse media) he seems to think that more white elephants and Malthusian measures can be the fix. Safe to say that Hague is well and truly over his “Little England” phase. In fact, he’s been able to get over every phase, position and opinion he’s ever had. He’s another dithering warrior for war, debt and waste…the compromised globalist shill you get whether you vote Labor, Green, Liberal or Conservative.
But shame on you for linking to the SMH, David! How dare you! You have stolen my breakfast! You have stolen my morninghood!
50
Ah, I feel a duty to monitor the opposition. Even when it hurts. But I keep hoping they’ll wake up, and sooner rather than later.
Meanwhile I get my realism here.
Cheers
Dave B
40
I suspect the new electronic thermometers, which record an instant spike as opposed to mercury thermometers, have a lot to answer for in these oft reported record max temps. (not min temps as they only go to -10 degrees …go figure! )
10
Apart from actual data tampering, it’s a clear violation of the scientific method to not qualify altered measuring procedures (which also seem to be biased towards providing warmer measurements than the older methods including the use of smaller Stevenson Screens which give an additional 0.5C of warming – a bonus!).
50
They can’t predict what the weather was in the past and we expect them to tell us if it is going to rain tomorrow!
61
“Who controls the past controls the future” – George Orwell.
That’s why they are manipulating the past.
20
Weather vs climate again? Or in this case ADAM vs ACORN.
If you want a royal commission, the this is a very important difference.
Use bom Adam, or bom acorn in search engine of choice to see the difference
116
How is this weather vs climate?
Sure, weather is on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly scale. But counting number of days above 40C over 120 years and seeing zero trend seems to be a climate related statistic to me.
190
ACORN is used in a gridded methodology, where 1 station is smeared over hundreds of square kilometers – it is looking at trends off a 30 year baseline. If the actual weather concerns you then you look at ADAM.
By the way, for those in South Australia, with 40+ and catastrophic bushfires forecast, stay safe
213
“where 1 URBAN AFFECTED and AGW adjusted station is smeared over hundreds of square kilometres”
ACORN is totally unfit for any real climate trend analysis. !
131
Hey, wait a minute, that can’t be right.
They blew up their coal fired power plants, and have the greatest percentage of renewables in Oz, so how can CO2 be causing a dangerous heat level there.
Surely, Fitzroy, you’re not intimating that CO2 has nothing to do with it.
(Careful now, there might be a trick in that statement)
Tony.
190
Why would catastrophic bushfires be forecast? Unless there are dry lightning strikes also forecast? If the fires are forecast, can one infer that someone, somewhere, is encouraging firebugs to get to work in order to bolster all the CAGW panic?
The possibility of fires might be warned of if stupid behaviour isn’t avoided, but ‘forecast’?
60
There goes that attempted deflection from the topic again.
Topic is ACORN, and its anti-science mal-adjustments.
Adjustments and Urban smearing account for all warming in Australia
Both Adam and Acorn are heavily tainted by urban effects and by adjustment of past data.
One is just a subset of the other with manic data manipulation included.
ACORN does not indicate anything about the climate, only about the agenda.
There has been no atmospheric warming over Australia in 20 years, and apart from the slight step at the 1998 El Nino, no atmospheric warming for the 16 years before that
There is no empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes any warming.
There is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 changes global climate in any way whatsoever.
Question for you, PF…
“In what way has the global climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically put down to human CO2 emissions ?”
Still waiting for an answer, with scientific evidence..
You appear to have none
151
I’ve posted this before https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
117
It contains NOTHING but propaganda pap and baseless anti-science
Which particular part shows empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, PF
There is no empirical evidence in the whole load of empty rhetoric.
If you can’t see that, I can only wonder what your education has actually been !!
Rote learning with zero comprehension of what science and evidence actually is.
190
Are you actually Malcom Roberts?.
You are saying NASA is in on it ?
03
Global temperature rise.
No warming except El Ninos in 40 years
Surface temperature highly affected by UHI and anti-science adjustments
No evidence of CO2 warming
Warming Oceans
Decrease in cloud cover, especially over tropics, over that period, This has caused the warming of the oceans. Southern Oceans have been cooling
No evidence of CO2 warming
Shrinking Ice sheets
No change in 10-12 years with highest CO2 levels
No evidence of CO2 effect
Greenland has larger Ice area than most of the last 10,000 years
Any change is totally insignificant.
DMI volume data shows no trend
Glacier Retreat
Some now expanding, Greatest retreat was in early 1900’s, stumps under retreating glaciers
No evidence of any CO2 effect
Decreased Snow Cover
A load of mis-information/lies, NH snow cover has been increasing
No evidence of CO2 warming
Sea level rise.
No acceleration in any tide gauge anywhere.
No evidence of CO2 effect
Declining Arctic sea ice
Steady for 10-12 years, 1979 was anomalously high, current levels are still in the top 5% of the last 10,000 years
No evidence of CO2 warming
Extreme Events
Just unsubstantiated BS
Zero trend in Hurricanes, cyclones etc etce
No evidence of CO2 warming
Ocean Acidification
Modelled BS, no evidence of it happening.
Compendium of all surface pH measurements since 1900 shows ZERO trend
No evidence of CO2 effect
The fact that you fall for such a load of baseless anti-science propaganda BS, shows everyone just how anti-science and zero-fact you really are, PF
160
There is nothing compelling about the NASA info. The increase in CO2 notwithstanding there is no provable attribution. I know the chorus is “what else could it be?” but given the null hypotheses have not been addressed because the establishment will not admit failure on this. Vicissitudes – or perturbations such as minor sea level changes and a minor decrease in the North cryosphere are not out of the ordinary.
70
NASA’s CO2 graph goes back 1 million years. You might say “1 million years is a very long time” … BUT the earth has been around 4 BILLION years, which is 4,000 million … so NASA is graphing just 1/4000 of CO2 changes which is 0.0025% of the age of the earth … graphing **ONLY** 0.0025% of CO2 changes is useless.
GEOLOGISTS have **SHOWN** and **PROVED** (time & time again) that the earth has had CO2 levels much, MUCH higher than 400ppm (up to 7000ppm) and there was NO RUNAWAY WARMING.
90
Tim Ball’s graph on page 6 of this pdf goes back eight hundred million years.
40
When it comes to ice cores, the long term paleo history of CO2 is dodgy and stomata is better proxy.
90
Yes, the reliance on ice cores for accurate readings has always been a worry for me. Lake deposits give much different results. This is never discussed in the media and the public are unaware of the difference of opinion between the geochemists.
50
A great set of assertions, but no rebuttal – this is a summary of the science. If you want to be taken seriously up your game.
014
You obviously don’t know anything about SCIENCE, do you PF
A summary of propaganda memes and non-facts is NOT EVIDENCE.
The page you linked is nothing but a set of baseless assertions and regurgitations of AGW fallacies.
Nothing in it is actual scientific evidence.
ACTUAL DATA rebutting them has been put forward many times
You have chosen, in your wilful infinite ignorance, to ignore such ACTUAL DATA.
Yet you produce NONE.
Stop digging, you are already in way over your head. !!
81
“If you want to be taken seriously up your game.”
Trying the slimy ad homs again, hey PF !!
[snip. Enough said. -Jo]
71
Up yours too.
60
Have to agree with Andy this time Peter, that was a pretty obvious deflection attempt, raising non-related technical issues that appear to have nothing to do with the original report. Not good mate.
90
‘ … obvious deflection attempt, raising non-related technical issues …’
Splitting hairs over irrelevancies is an art form and Fitz is a master.
80
So Chris Gillham produces a report using different methods to the BOM ACORN and then compares that back to ACORN and says “look they are not the same” .
Honestly what do you expect.
06
A BoM audit would clear the air.
50
That’s the whole thing, PF
The method that BOM uses is highly suspect and creates erroneous trends by synthetically mal-adjusting the REAL data.
We expect BOM not to be continually CORRUPTING the original data.
But we do understand that is the ONLY way they can continue the AGW anti-CO2 scare.
Its not as if there is any actual empirical evidence to show warming by atmospheric CO2, is it, PF.
It is noted that you STILL can’t tell us how the global climate has changed in the last 40 years, and how such changed can be scientifically linked to human release of CO2
You just keep avoiding, or try to distract and avoid by posting propaganda summaries based purely on baseless AGW mantra.
40
“Honestly what do you expect.”
We expect HONESTY.
BOM has failed to deliver.
30
Peter, unless you work for BOM, how the heck would you know the method that BOM uses for ACORN? It’s not documented anywhere AFAIK. If it is, would appreciate the link. And PLEASE don’t refer me to the Python code!
30
One of the reasons that peer review is supposed to be such a valuable tool, is that it involves testing the methodology and data to determine if the claimed result are replicable.
Not being open about your methodology is considered Prima-face evidence that your results cannot be trusted.
The application of other methodology of known utility to your data, giving different results, also casts doubt on your methodology.
This looks like another example of the Mann “hockey stick”.
20
Golly. General data, mostly on rain, and min/max temp records aren’t the same and we can use one of those search engine thingies to see the difference. If we want a royal commission. Because one is weather and the other is climate. So to speak. Sort of. If we know what he means. Kind of.
GeeUp! Can we please have a new Pete?
100
You are accidentally correct in one respect, though, PF
ACORN is specifically created for the “climate change” agenda.
Thanks for pointing that out to everyone. ! 🙂
171
BoM is no more than a political organisation disguised as a scientific one.
I’d be willing to bet that 95% plus of “employees” (paid political propagandists) are Green or Labor supporters.
110
As I know several people who work at BOM, I suspect you are very much correct about the 95%.
Those remaining 5% would be keeping very very quiet about their thoughts in climate change.
111
Therein is the real problem. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. The longer that keeps up the more likely we will lose the war against the propaganda lies of CAGW perpetrated by various groups and both major political parties.
50
It’s a war unwinnable by CAGW apostles PeterS, we simply have to wait out the life cycle of the wind plants but it should collapse some time before then when the astronomical extent of the prospective refits becomes apparent.
20
Yes in the end they will lose the war but not without a crash and burn scenario playing out if it is left to go that far. I’m hoping the people wake up well before that but my hope might be of little value.
20
By now, being a rabid leftist and a climate change believer, is probably part of the employment contract. 😉
101
I’ve mentioned here before that when working in support at a state government department I was witness to one of its employees habitually carrying a copy of Stern’s 2006 Review as an essential primer for an interview at BOM (which was successful) tending to support the contention that it’s essential to be able to talk the talk before BOM will take one on to walk the walk.
50
People are still missing the point. The bureaucrats arn’t the problem, it is who appoints them that are the problem. HR departments in govt and private enterprise, appoint everyone. Everyone. They get to choose the mind set for the position, and somehow they seem to be choosing to a particular view point. How did that happen? The university education?? Well now you know how to present to a job interview to increase your chances of being employed.
80
I’ve been trying to make the point for a long time but it keeps being ignored. The real problem is most voters are asleep and keep voting the majors expecting things to improve yet we keep going backwards on so many fronts, not the least being the common stance both major parties have on climate change. At some point some significant event will break the nexus and wake us up. I hope it’s something before a crash and burn, which would certainly be of sufficient impact to do the job.
50
And if you havent already, watch this guy. I love it when he states, back in 1983 — you’re going to get buried under bureaucracies.
Wow, the West is under attack (it used to be just the USA) I wonder how that changed??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-cWbq1PoSw&t=1870s
40
He’s wrong. It was certainly worth taking the violence stance against Hitler.
40
The real scientists of the 1970’s got it right the first time when they predicted global cooling about now. If historic trends are followed, that is exactly what will happen and has already begun. Meanwhile Australia continues to dismantle proper power stations.
91
Which will make absolutely ZERO difference to global CO2 emissions, probably cause them to increase.
I suspect any CO2 decrease in Australia (if any at all) will be eagerly offset by greater increases in less efficient manufacturing elsewhere.
Coal and other fossil fuels will continue to provide around 85% of the world’s energy needs for many many years to come.
Developed countries who go down the “anti-CO2” religion route are only putting themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
101
Sometimes rational people make the mistake of saying that real power stations are being “replaced” by intermittents. While they fully recognise the uselessness of intermittents, it’s a mistake to use the word “replace” because the only replacement for a proper coal, gas or nuclear power station is another of the same.
70
And the political parrots always quote nameplate capacity, the voters are misled to believe that 100 MW of wind turbine is 100 MW.
Capacity factor never mentioned from what I have heard and read.
20
CF is now regularly mentioned by the commenters in The Oz, including today’s SA battery article. So it appears that many folks now understand the difference.
20
An educational book for all. 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/19/all-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change-in-cartoons/
Works out around $36 Australian if you choose normal postage.
30
Sorry, Paid $38.60, not $36
20
ps. More than willing to support Josh in his endeavours 🙂
40
Where are the investigative journalists and politicians asking BoM for an explanation? Has anyone tried?
The news story is probably best told through individual stations to back up Jo’s headline.
How is Rutherglen doing?
80
Most “journalists” support the AGW propaganda and lack the critical thinking skills to work out otherwise since they are mostly the products of Marxist indoctrination in the education system. And most journalism degrees take in the dumbest of the dumb brain dead individuals.
70
Robber, the BOM flatly refuse to allow their data adjustment processes to be reviewed by anybody from outside the BOM. When they have been forced to hand over raw data, they have done it in such a way as to frustrate the enquirer. And there is more than a vague suggestion they are destroying primary collected data to cover their tracks.
Now the banking Royal Commission is over, the BOM should be next. After all, great slabs of the renewable energy policies of both parties were informed by BOM adjusted data.
60
Based on the last TAR report, I don’t believe that the entire adjustment process is fully documented. Therefore I believe that it’s impossible for anybody outside the BOM to review the process.
10
That’s right, in the spirit pioneered by Phil Jones at East Anglia CRU anybody wanting to look at their data only wants to find fault with it so get outa here!
00
Er…..O/T but intersting to see “awards” being handed out within what appears to be the inner circle….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/dr-karl-kruszelnicki-unesco-award-science-communication/11717044
“He might be one of Australia’s most well-known (and loved) scientists and now the winner of a United Nations award for science communication, but Dr Karl Kruszelnicki doesn’t consider himself that brainy.
“”One thing that gives me a great advantage is that I’m not particularly smart, my IQ is only about 110, which is in there with two thirds of the population between 115 and 85,” Dr Karl says.
“”That means for me to be able to understand something, I’ve really got to go into it, but then I understand it.”
“All that time spent delving into science has not only helped generations Australians better understand the world around (and inside) them, it’s seen Dr Karl awarded the 2019 UNESCO Kalinga Prize for the Popularisation of Science in Budapest this week.
“Dr Karl is the first Australian to win the prize, which he received in recognition of his “longstanding commitment to fire up people’s curiosity for science and share his passion for the subject”.
“Previous winners include Arthur C Clarke, David Suzuki and Sir David Attenborough.
( below link picked randomly from search engine )
https://www.facebook.com/drkarl/posts/climate-change-is-real-why-controversydebate-learn-to-make-sense-of-science-resp/542690472537864/
“Climate change is real, why controversy/debate? Learn to make sense of science, & respond to climate change denial.”
30
I still remember the hapless Dr Karl many years ago running for parliament, on the left of course, and having to embarassingly pull out when he got a simple calculation wrong by a factor of 10 or more. As he was a “scientist” it was fatal for his campaign, and I think he spent the next decade working in children’s shows. I never really recovered from that, and still now distrust anything he says which involves numbers or calculations.
I totally accept it when he says he is not very smart, but in winning this award he is in good company with Suzuki and Attenborough.
70
The Dead Sea Trio of “Science”.
Poseurs all.
30
It seems more like an award for being a good propagandist, not an award for popularising real science.
50
If you read the origins of the IQ test it was designed to see if children were smart enough to go from prep to grade one .
It was then adopted and homogenised in America to find out if people from certain backgrounds were too dumb to breed which resulted in a lot of people being sterilised.
Questions are still loaded to this day so anyone from a life of privilege can get a good score , it’s not an intelligence test it’s more a snob test .
10
I think you’ll find that the US military was involved….
Contrary to myth and legend, low-IQ people do not make good soldiers. In fact one finding was that the bottom decile of the population could not be gainfully employed in any function in the military – if only because the supervision required tied up more resources than the low-IQ provided.
30
In relation to the validity of IQ testing check out the questions raised by the Flynn Effect. (Sorry, I tried but didn’t find a non prejudicial internet link for it so you’re on your own.)
00
Karl is a regurgitator of knowledge. Frankly, if it fits him, he buys it without question. A metro type of the looniest order.
40
Was going by this but there’s been a bit of criticism about it .
https://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/videos/why-iq-tests-are-bunk.html
00
I wrote him off as a tedious dimwit years ago and now that I seldom tune in to The People’s ABC I haven’t had to endure the doctrinaire yawpings of his trivial mind for ages.
20
We should archive our own copies of the raw data before it is “disappeared” like witnesses against the Clintons.
60
That’s the convenient excuse to exclude all data from the terrible Federation Drought period of 1896-1903, even from high quality stations, because the measured temperatures then were higher than today. And the Darling River ran dry, and there was a significant human death toll.
The early downward-adjusted temperatures in the BOM ACORN-Sat series are directly contradicted by the measured temperatures during the Federation Drought period.
None of that fits the current alarmist narrative.
110
There is nothing wrong with establishing a time bounded temperature data set based on standardization. In fact that is a valid scientific approach. Conducting sensitivity analysis is also quite reasonable and this is essentially what the BOM has done with ACORN 1 and 2. But presenting the results of sensitivity analysis as hard data is extremely difficult to justify. Earlier temperature data provides an indication of trends that should not be ignored and past rainfall measurement would have been pretty accurate. The bottom line is that meteorologic records aside, historical records stretching back to the first fleet provide a wealth of information necessary to assess the variations in Australia’s weather. I say weather because the drought that some very silly people blame on climate change fits neatly into historical weather cycles.
Australia experiences major droughts every 13 years or so yet for some reason both the BOM and the media completely ignore anything that occurred prior to 1910. DaveR mentions that the The Darling river dried up during the Federation drought. Nothing new, it did the same in the 1826 to 1829 drought. The Australian weather cycle has remained pretty constant over recorded history.
80
Brian, while agree with the latter part of your comments wholeheartedly, the first bit seems a problem.
Are you saying it’s O.K. to integrate and blend temperature data from different locations and from different measuring systems. In such a statistical exercise the limits of reading for the instruments are the easiest to deal with. When looking at other factors such as cloud, relative humidity etc it becomes clear that substantial uncertainties are present and relevance deprivation.
As you say, there’s a significant descriptive history of Australia’s weather that contradicts any idea that Australia’s weather has “changed”.
KK
31
It is indeed OK to integrate temperature data from different locations, measuring systems and historical times Keith. But to do so requires a tad more scientific rigor than is evident with the BOM’s end product. Unfortunately they are not particularly forthcoming with the methodology but I suspect that to a great degree it is subjective. Certainly historic data would require normalisation to convert to a common metric, that is Fahrenheit to Celsius, inches to mm etc but such normalisation is accurate and auditable. But the adjustment of data to compensate for changes in equipment, screens, location or environment would seem to be in the realm of wet finger guesses.
A data set of rural stations that had never moved would provide a reasonably accurate assessment of actual temperature trends than an average encompassing heat island effects as dirt roads gave way to tarmac, traffic jams were invented and air conditioners blast out hot air. The older max min thermometers had a reaction time measured in seconds while the modern sensors are near instantaneous. But is an anomalous whisp of warmer air that last a millisecond indicative of the real temperature? The older reaction time had what could be considered an essential smoothing effect.
I don’t quite follow why variations in cloud or humidity would be a problem? The record is for temperature at the site which is quantitative (The rounding up/rounding down for different stations should pretty much average out in the long term). Cloud cover and type can be somewhat subjective.
10
Good.
Basically I was saying that weather isn’t the perfect lab experiment and the problem is that “some people” don’t acknowledge the variance limits that should be stated.
KK
00
The raw data, entirely consistent with the findings and data presented by Tony Heller. The number of hot days in the continental US have declined dramatically since the early 20th Century.
No self-respecting scientist would manipulate data in such a manner and if they did, the methodology should be as transparent as day light (repeatable and testable) otherwise it simply ain’t science.
70
Excellent analysis Chris Gillham, thankyou for all hard work.
I would really like to see BOM publish the methodology for their ACORN2 homogenization and the details of how it has been applied to each station.
I am sure this must be all recorded and be fairly easy to release.
100
🙂
30
🙂
20
George
After reading this BOM has likely added a couple more locks to the data cabinet
60
you can download the method as a python script, and the data is there in the ADAM dataset (but you will need to filter for the ACORN stations)
012
Sigh… How many more times do I have to say this Peter? The Python code is NOT, repeat NOT, the entire adjustment process!!
As I commented upstream, I don’t believe that the entire process is fully documented, for reasons I’ve commented on previously.
So there is NO WAY we can ever review the entire adjustment process!
90
Ah, Graeme#4 Peter will ignore your comment and reuse it down the track. Strange fellow though – lingering here in order to feel wanted. A bit like the young kid trying to break in to a hit in the backyard. I think though that if he hangs in he might just be a convert. Anyhow we’ll see.
40
Chris uses the same data as does ACORN. If the data is suspect that is a different question. This is a thread about ACORN though
05
I need some advice, the following email was sent to me by a Deputy Mayor following her signing a “climate emergency” letter to the federal government and I asked for her to explain what the emergency is;
“Thank you for contacting me on this. I am sorry that I did not immediately read your email and provide a response.
Please realize that being a Councillor is only a part time job and we are very busy.
You ask me to explain climate change in detail to you.
I do not have time to write a missive on this, but instead refer you to all of the information I have read.
Start with the IPCC Reports – https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
There are many of them and some of them are a heavy read, but I encourage you to make the effort. At last count there were about 50 reports here.
For more Australian based information, you should visit the Climate Council’s website – https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resource/reports/ – and read some of their reports. In some instances they have brief summaries of the IPCC reports.
I appreciate that some people have trouble understanding the science. It is not easy. In my case I have a first class honours degree in science, specifically in ecology, and I can understand the reports and appreciate the need to base decisions on a full understanding of the facts.
I hope you find this helpful, but I do not expect you to want to read them and I respect your right to hold an alternative view to myself on these matters.”
130
What an arrogant piece of work.
I guess when you have a first class honours degree in science, specifically Eco Logy, you may have missed out on a lot of the physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, geology and electrical engineering that make up major components of real engineering and applied science courses.
I looked up the course content of one of the degrees held by a U.S. graduate now big timing it at UNSW in the field of climate science.
The course work was notable for the absence of those important topics listed.
There’s a lot of vigour these days in University life, rushing and pushing to get things published.
Unfortunately Rigour has been dismissed for being discriminatory and calling out people for being lazy and inaccurate. i.e. Non collegial.
KK
100
Yes it does read as quite arrogant…a bit like a pat on the head like an enquiring school boy.
Have you asked her if shes happy to be personally liable for decisions made about said “climate emergency” once its all shown to be bunkum?
I think unless they feel the heat, they are inclined to just go all brain-dead Lefty, and vote along populist Lefty lines….
90
I remember ecology but it was full of generalities. Zoology, Botany and the like are really largely observational sciences. A good memory is far more important than any actual science. Where biochemistry and biophysics are real and complex science, recognizing plants and studying animals like Tim Flannery is fringe science at best. Charles Darwin was the major figure in bringing logical science to zoology with his theory of natural selection. However the modern version of ecologists are in a serious fight against natural selection.
The Climate scientists believe that nothing can survive any tiny Climate Change or even adapt to a few degrees of warming or more or less rain. Certainly not coral. Or any species really. Doomed. Would think a 50% increase in CO2 would wipe out a 2500 km long Great Barrier Reef which varies in temperature anyway by 7C from one end to the other?
Clearly humans have also survived a number of ice ages in the last 100,000 years of Homo Sapiens, as have most insects and animals on the planet.
But you might have to move if the seas go up or down. So what? The Rome of the Ceasars is 15 metres below modern Rome and many old Roman Ports like Ephesus and Ostia are far inland in a mere 2,000 years. Even Stockholm had to be moved 1,000 years ago as the land was rising so quickly at 6mm a year. And the weather in Northern Africa has changed dramatically from jungle to wheatland to desert, without it being anyone’s fault.
So I see the new Climate scientists as in total denial of Darwin. Their view is that not only are humans responsible for all climate changes, sea level changes, rainfall changes but that we humans can stop all change by simply doing nothing, turning off all the power stations and refusing to indulge in agriculture or manufacturing or travel. That is the very madness King Canute tried to dispel by ordering the tide to stop, as crazy then in 600AD as it is today. We humans do not control the planet, despite ecologists claiming that we do because they are ‘scientists’.
I suppose it is like giving an Arts degree to someone who cannot draw, paint or play. Having an Arts degree does not mean you are an artist. Having Science degree does not make you a scientist.
141
Re ecology as taught now.
I got a look at the text for the ecology module of a current agricultural science course Comment was “Tell me when you have finished exams on that and I’ll start introducing you to what was left out – particularly wrt rangelands”.
The pupil was running high grades and it didn’t look like the sort of course where questioning would improve them.
My faith in I.G Simmons (of “The ecology of natural resources”) was bolstered by reading in his chapter on “Water”
“Even a gallon (4.5 litres) of beer uses 350 gallons (1590 litres) of water, most of which appears to remain in the product”
60
G’day Dennis,
I also find it difficult to rebut that sort of letter, but I think it’s worth doing in some form. Where to start is a big question, and to me it has two parts: what you already know, or can find out quickly; and which parts of the references she uses are best, or easiest to challenge.
Some recent posts here have included details, or pointers to details of the fact that none of the IPCC projections of warming have proved accurate, all being high estimates. Maybe you could start there. A challenge to her to produce the paper which gives experimental proof that CO2 causes significant warming may be appropriate?
Good luck,
Dave B
50
“A challenge to her to produce the paper which gives experimental proof that CO2 causes significant warming may be appropriate?”
And thanks to a certain PF on this blog, we all know that such a paper DOES NOT EXIST
The so-called “greenhouse effect” from atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet. !
110
Andy
They’re trying to beat the Piltdown Man record
1912 – 1953
40
David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz
One suggestion on where to start. I don’t know what ecology teaches, but physics teaches us that heat can’t be trapped. Ask her to explain why physics is wrong and ecology/alarmists (and many skeptics) are correct when they claim CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. If her response is something like: “Everyone knows CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. I do not have the time to educate you other than to refer you to the IPCC reports that I previously recommended you read.” Ask her why if CO2 is so effective at trapping heat, vacuum thermos bottles to keep liquids warm are a dime a dozen on the market, but no one manufactures a thermos bottle where the vacuum space is filled with CO2? If her answer is the cost of such a thermos bottle would be too high, ask her which is more expensive: (a) building a container that maintains a vacuum region for many years, or (b) building an identical container where the vacuum region is filled with CO2 at atmospheric pressure? Since her field, ecology (or at least her understanding of ecology), believes CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, maybe you can convince her to invest in a company that manufactures CO2 thermos bottles while simultaneously performing the invaluable function of carbon sequestration. She’ll make a fortune.
00
But energy can be transferred and moved about.
A simple way to described this the energy in the IR causes changes in the CO2 molecule which is where the energy is located momentarily. The molecule changes back to the less energetic state and releases the energy again in some direction. This takes a finite period of time. Better to think of it as analogous to a tiny battery that stores a tiny bit and discharges really quickly.
So not “trapped” but momentarily stored.
14
That is all very well Gee Aye,
But experimental results from Bill Nye (the science guy) , Prof Maggie Aderin Pockock and the Mythbusters all show that long wave IR radiation Heats the Air.
If that is so the vibrational energy of the CO2 molecules, caused by absorbtion of IR must be transferred to kinetic energy of other molecules. So nothing left to re-radiate.
A blow to the Greenhouse Theory I would say, even if they (the experimenters) did not understand it themselves.
40
Sorry Peter, should have read your response first. There are many experts in the CO2 field who are saying what you have said, and if they are correct, then surely there is no way CO2 molecules in the lower troposphere can contribute significantly to planet warming.
30
you can measure the emitted IR signature.
00
And all that proves is that convection “may” be enhanced by atmospheric water vapour absorbing low virtue, low intensity, ground origin IR to help it float up. CO2 absorbs in the same spectral zone but is quantitatively irrelevant compared to water.
And then it rains, and that’s why we need dams.
KK
10
water and CO2 overlap in one band and each has one in which they do not.
Here are some papers to help you get up to speed
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/papers-on-carbon-dioxide-and-water-vapor-overlap/
further is that in the upper atmosphere there comes a point where CO2 is the major absorber in the overlapping band due to the absence of water.
00
And you tell me to get up!
And then you say;
“further is that in the upper atmosphere there comes a point where CO2 is the major absorber in the overlapping band due to the absence of water.”
Are you aware that at minus 38°C the “trapping” of any energy by CO2, if it occurs, is so puny that it would make a mosquito on an elephants back seem highly significant.
The term virtue in thermodynamics refers the intensity or concentration of that energy.
UV and IR are at opposite ends of the thermal intensity scale and maybe the little blip on the CO2 spectrum deals with the lowest of the low. How irrelevant can you get and still there are some trying to sell us the story/faerietael that if we don’t stop breathing out CO2, we’ll be in Danger.
The only danger we are in is from the U.N., MalEx444 and the IPCCCCC.
And let’s not forget.
Their ABCCC.
10
I really think you need to do more reading
00
Gosh Yes says:
“I really think you need to do more reading”
You could try Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, maybe W @ P.
It might put you to sleep.
And at rest, you will put less CO2 into the atmosphere.
KK
10
As I understand it, the term “warming” as is used in the acronym AGW implies a temperature increase–not an increase in the amount of “stored” thermal energy. “Stored thermal energy–momentarily or not” does not imply a temperature increase. Locate in the vacuum of space a low-surface-emissivity (emissivity near 0) solid sphere (with a constant source of thermal energy at the center of the sphere). When the sphere comes to energy-rate-equilibrium (i.e., the rate energy leaves the sphere is equal to the rate energy is internally generated within the sphere), the surface temperature, Ts, of the sphere will reach a stable (time invariant) value. Now cover the surface of the sphere with a thin coating of high-emissivity (emissivity near 1) paint. Again, when energy-rate-equilibrium is reached, the surface temperature, Ts_painted, will stabilize. Because the emissivity of the painted sphere is much higher than the emissivity of the unpainted sphere, the temperature of the painted sphere will be lower than the temperature of the unpainted sphere. Thus, not only does the addition of material (paint) which can store energy decrease the temperature of sphere, the thermal energy stored in the sphere plus paint is less than the thermal energy stored in the unpainted sphere.
Now it may be that atmospheric CO2 increases the temperature of the earth’s surface; but if so, it’s not because CO2 is a heat-trapping gas–temporarily or otherwise. Since situations exist where the presence of CO2 gas decreases the temperature of objects surrounded by that gas, proof that atmospheric CO2 will increase the surface temperature of the earth requires much more than the claim that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas.
20
Gee, it’s instructive to see what William Happer, amongst others, has to say about energy transfers for the CO2 molecule in the troposphere.
Happer points out that before the CO2 molecule has a chance to re-emit its acquired energy, it’s hit by all the surrounding gas molecules, so the energy transfer occur via kinetic energy, not emission. According to Happer and others, the chances of kinetic energy transfer vary from 100,00:1 to one billion to one.
10
Interesting to get some more details on this.
10
Gee Eye, in my opinion AGW advocates use the phrase “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas” because the use of that phrase makes it fairly easy to convince the general public that mankind’s use of fossil fuels to generate energy leads to global warming. For example, suppose you approach someone with one of the following two arguments.
(1) Mankind’s use of fossil fuels to generate energy is adding CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere. A great majority (say 97%) of scientists agree that CO2 is a “heat-trapping gas” in the sense that (a) atmospheric CO2 doesn’t affect the rate solar energy is absorbed by the earth’s surface, but (b) the heat-trapping nature of CO2 gas means that some of the heat leaving (outgoing heat) the earth’s surface is trapped. Because the outgoing heat is trapped, the temperature of the earth’s surface must permanently rise.
(2) Mankind’s use of fossil fuels to generate energy is adding CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere. A great majority (say 97%) of scientists agree that CO2 is a “temporary heat-storing gas” in the sense that (a) atmospheric CO2 doesn’t affect the rate solar energy is absorbed by the earth’s surface, but (b) the temporary heat-storing nature of CO2 gas means that some of the heat leaving (outgoing heat) the earth’s surface will be temporarily stored. Because the outgoing heat is temporarily stored, the temperature of the earth’s surface must permanently rise.
Although in my opinion neither argument is valid, the first argument is much more likely to convince someone that burning fossil fuels is problem. Most people can envision “trapped heat” causing a permanent rise in earth surface temperature. However, most people won’t associate the “temporary storing of heat” with a permanent rise in earth surface temperature—maybe a temporary rise, but not a permanent rise.
Since apparently you agree CO2 does not trap heat, I assume you don’t have any objection to discarding the phrase “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas,” and using in its place the phrase “CO2 is a temporary heat-storing gas.” If so, good luck convincing the general public that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the earth.
10
I honestly don’t think the semantics matter.
It is your choice to get angry about expressions like acidification or trapping.
00
And it’s your choice to sway the general public by using favorable (to you) semantic obfuscation of physical principles.
20
I do no such thing.
00
“I do no such thing.”
On Mondays and Wednesdays.
00
go to Dr Ronan Connolly and Dr Michael Connolly’s web site and when you find their conclusions, refer your councillor to it too.
(globalwarmingexplained.com, I think)
40
Exactly. However I am told we are experiencing global warming. This week I spoke to an Australian woman freezing on holiday in Florida and people in Chicago freezing and all before Thanksgiving. We are told that it is all Arctic vortexes and other unpredictable phenomena but that the climate is changing. If freezing across America in November is not the climate, what is it? Or is that ‘extreme’ weather. You start to think from your own experience that Climate Science is obviously junk science.
As for editing the data to make out that it is getting warmer, it is epidemic in Climate Science.
And you get deceit like this
“a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer”
Another hockey stick, until you reorganize the graph with the years in the right place.
100
Real mathematicians like Prof Weiss (24:13) from studies over the last 2500 years predicted a peak around 2018 as the PDO and the DeVries cycle coincide and then a rapid fall in the 2020s. That unfortunately is a perfect fit to the real graph. It’s going to get colder very quickly now. But that’s real science, not junk science.
111
Yes, I can imagine all the Lefties in swimmers, snap frozen to death in their pools……oh the irony…..
40
That would include most of the LNP too.
40
Junk science, pseudo science, science fiction, cli-fi, aka
“evangelical science” – J Ravetz, 9 Feb 2010 (WUWT)
“it’s a religion, not a science” – Tony Heller, 19 Nov 2019
“Bu!!sh!t” – George Carlin (RIP).
70
Has the definition of “real” morphed into “that I agree with”? I’m seeing it all the time but Tdef, you are a real exponent of it.
18
Of course. Are you suggesting that something is true simply because someone says so, even if it conflicts totally with your personal experience?
In rational science, that is not acceptable. Cogito ergo sum. Whereas in religion, it is mandatory that you believe, that you have faith as a substitute for personal experience and reason. That is why the world has so many religions. Are they all right? Is any religion right? Read the story of Rene Descartes and his personal journey from religion to science.
I am not telling you what to think. I am saying what I believe. Make up your own mind on what you believe but base it on what you know absolutely to be true. That is science.
And in summary, I cannot believe 1C makes any difference at all to anything, especially the weather. I do not think there has been any sea level rise in my lifetime. I do not expect coral bleaching is a new thing or that I have read any explanation for why particular areas of water are warmer or colder. And I have no reason to believe that Climate models work at all.
This is backed up by the clear picture after 31 years that not a single prediction of climate models has been right. I think the tens of thousands of individual climates around the world are beyond our capacity to simulate in a chaotic complex 3D system the size of a planet and that a complete understanding of the massive energy stored in the oceans and ocean currents is essential to understanding what we call the weather. All weather is water driven. By comparison air is a nearly irrelevant insulator at 1/400th of the weight.
So you have to ask yourself, is what you are being told the truth, or is it it a lie? And why would someone lie to you?
You will know the truth when it fits the facts. And it is utterly wrong for any scientist to alter the data. Ever.
121
And I know absolutely that the % man released CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible, so whatever is going on with the weather in my lifetime has nothing at all to do with farmers or airplanes or cars or cow farts or burps. And the UN Political bureau the IPCC has admitted openly and frankly and more than once that it is all an excuse for redistribution of wealth.
I would assume the same is true for all the other UN agendas like open borders, gender diversity in humans, white privilege and the evils of Christianity.
What this post is about is that individuals in the BOM are editing the published data to suit an agenda. And that is reprehensible and political, not science. It is a very good reason to close the BOM as an anachronism, like the ABC.
91
TdeF.
Not having a crack, my friend, but could you kindly abstain from lumping all “religion” into the one category.
For those of us who believe that there is an objective reality – whether we know it or not, whether we understand it or not, and whether we like it or not – and that the truth is that which best describes reality (I believe that is known as the Aristotelian definition?), faith is not a rejection of fact or a substitute for enquiry, but an extrapolation from what we do know, to what we cannot.
Reason requires us to accept that there is a great deal which cannot be known for absolute fact. We have limits to our ability to observe, measure and repeat. We have limits to our ability to trust even what should be good records – as this discussion shows.
So no….. you do not meet your own standard for “knowledge” when you make statements about what billions of people have experienced, observed and extrapolated from.
Food for thought, maybe, and a little care.
Cheers….
31
Understood. Religion is a great solace to many and a force in their lives and a positive thing. I would not think to criticize anyone’s religion or doubt their sincerity, but they cannot all be correct in fact and they are all based on what the believer thinks is true even without evidence. Last year I visited India and asked about one group dressed in white and gold in Mumbai. I was told they were a religious sect, athiests.
Science is something else. It is a brutal soulless business which reassures no one and gives no spiritual hope. However it has improved the quality of life of most people on the planet. Now when you are sick, you know why and have hope. The mortality rate for mothers alone has dropped from the 30% in recent Victorian times. For infants, from 50% in the first year. And science has given us enough food and agriculture and transport and free time and an unbelievable quality of life by historical standards. Even global literacy in much of the world’s population. We live in a golden age with great hope.
However people need more, a reason for life itself. That is a human need not a science one. For myself, I do not tell people what to think but urge them to think for themselves. Copernicus, Descartes, Darwin and even Einstein were believers who had to reconcile their new science with their beliefs and the first three had a real problem with that. Copernicus was a monk who discovered the earth went around the sun. Darwin was supposed to end up an Anglican country parson. Descartes could not work out which religion was right.
In the context of this post though, a precept of all science is that data is sacred to science. You cannot tamper with facts. That is being done by our government agency and it is really something which should never happen. That is the belief of every scientist.
60
TdeF.
Thankyou for the courteous reply. Something insufficiently common on this topic. You are very right to point out that some – possibly most – religions are self-contradictory. One of my key “beliefs” is that one should be prepared to justify what one believes, and that if I do not do that in a logical, persuasive manner, the fault is mine.
One idea that I find persuasive is that good religion tells us what is right. What is important. I’ve never heard a good reason to believe that science can tell us that without adopting non-scientific propositions. It can tell us how to reduce suffering, but it can’t tell us why that is good.
It can tell us how to cure a disease, but not why one human life is more important than the billions of microbes or parasites that we kill to save the human.
But it’s a discussion for another time.
Cheers.
40
TdeF,
Your comments on the philosophy and conduct of science are rather like mine. My uni education was in Australia, 1960s, B.Eng. aeronautical cut short by a car accident, then B.Sc. Chemistry major.
However, I suspect the more important part was in industry in the 20 years after that. Any similarities? Geoff S
10
No, PeterW,
Religion, as you and I probably were taught it, has nothing to contribute to science in any scientific way. (It might provide havens for thinkers, but we are not talking about that). The objective test is whether a scientific advance would have happened equally in the presence of absence of religion. The answer is, emphatically, that religion makes no positive contribution. That is not to deny that a scientist might be better behaved if personally religious, or might have a larger cohort to help spread acceptance of a scientific advance. I have seen no evidence that thinking a certain way about science other than logically, like religiously, has ever improved the science. Have you?
But, reverse causation is wicked. I might claim that a person derives more of what is sought from religion if well trained in science, especially the education about how to think. Geoff S
00
GeoffS.
Science as we know it, requires the belief that the universe is consistent and logical.
We experimentally “prove” the laws of physics and chemistry, the cause-effect relationships between phenomena that we observe, and assume that those relationships hold good throughout the entire universe. We assume that what we can see, holds good where we cannot see.
That is faith, and and the history of that idea, is a religious one. If the universe was a matter of random chance and accident, there is no overwhelming reason why this should be so. We simply accept it as a matter of reasonable faith, and good religion regards faith in other things by the same light.
Good religion (and there are plenty of bad ones, just as there is alchemy, junk-science and snake-oil medicine) brings meaning to the table.
There is nothing in science that tells us that every human being has equal moral value. Everything that we observe tells us that this is not true. Similarly, there is no argument from science to show that slavery is wrong .. Or murder, rape and pillage.
Try telling a Viking that these things are “wrong”. Why should he believe you when they benefit him and those he holds to be important?
Or an Arab slave-trader. Or an African warlord.
Why was it wrong for the Nazis to murder six million Jews, if sixty million Germans benefitted? Why was it wrong for the Communists to kill 100 million people to remake humanity?
I respectfully submit that science does not offer us so,utiins to some of the most important questions. We sit in a society built at least partly, and however imperfectly, on religiously-inspired principles….. too often we do not give fair credit to the source of those principles.
Cheers…… Peter.
10
which is exactly my point about the comment I was responding to. You seem to be implying that stating “real” means that it is correct. You expect to be taken on your work.
06
just to cut through the insurmountable and garbled gish of a reply you gave, let me help with the problem with your style and why few engage with it.
If you had not used the word “real” you would have possibly attracted discussion by people with some knowledge of mathematics (or statistics at least) who wouldn’t first have to defend their position against the insinuation that it is backed up by peole who you don’t consider to be real. It distracts from your point. It’s passive aggressive and when layered upon other such comments makes for a very muddy read.
26
Substance is important not style. Philosophy not cant. My meaning is clear enough. Do not believe everything you are told.
80
I don’t. As you’ve just observed. It is my job to seek independent verification and I don’t just take the word of some person recalling their childhood.
15
And yet you have been totally unable to find any scientific verification of warming by CO2.
You cannot pretend that you seek verification for one thing then ignore the lack of verification of another.
It puts you in a position of looking like a total hypocrite.
51
Good point Leaf.
00
Really Geeeye?
An assumption looking from your eyes only!
20
It’s an opinion and it’s true because I wrote it.
12
GeeAye, just wondering what you actually think of the massive systematic data editing captured within these graphs above?
Are you in favor of this sort of flagrant editing of the national temperature data, and re-presenting this systematically faked record as the real one to an oblivious population? i.e. do you believe such deceit-in-depth by BOM is OK.
Yes or No?
If yes, please explain why you think such a deception that props-up CAGW, is OK.
40
HI WX. I have once again got to deal with characterisation (“this sort” – what sort?, “Such a deception”, fxxxd record (that’s a libelous term) etc).
As shown above the raw data is there to be examined so it exists unedited. What I want to see is more transparency on what sort of data editing occurs. You don’t know (so you can’t honestly write “this sort”), Jo doesn’t know and nor do I.
There is a lot of data that is missing from BOM as to how they base their adjustments (e.g a new thermometer drifts up in temperature over time as measured using a calibrated standard). Some of it is published in their site information but even then we don’t see the actual calculation for each data point. I’m just scratching the surface here.
So my answer is yes once I know what they are doing but I wont go with yes until I do and it looks good.
34
btw to whoever drew those graphs. They are truncated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph
Bar graphs start at zero (the actual zero for the thing being measured) whereas these start at 273.
03
Gee Aye:
What the h*ll are you on? They start at 40 because there are more than 40 days above 40℃. Suppressing the zero is a way of increasing the apparent change, and is used widely in IPCC and “Climate Change” literature.
And what’s with the 273? Don’t tell me you want to introduce Kelvin figures? That would wreck a lot of the hysterical literature, as people asked for a magnifying glass so they could see the change.
60
wrong graphs; start from the top and yes Kelvin.
05
Sorry. But my criticism still applies; these are days above 40℃, nothing to do with Kelvin.
40
As the coldest air temperature ever recorded was -89C and the hottest +57C, why on earth measure anything on earth in Kelvin?
We are talking about the weather, I assume, not physical chemistry or blast furnaces?
20
Yes, it’s just not right! You should get on to BOM and get them to plot daily temps in Kelvin.
10
start from 0 kelvin? really GA?
So there has been absolutely no discernible warming in over 200-300 years.
Thanks for that GA.
Heck, even if we use Celcius and start at 0ºC there is no discernible warming
You seem to be showing a distinct lack of mathematical understanding GA.
30
OK, you approve of BOMs systematic deception, at least you’ve admitted it.
41
way to twist my answer and ignore everything else I wrote. I’ll keep this in mind next time you ask something that looks like a genuine attempt to engage
13
I asked you a straight forwards question, do you support BOM’s editing to deceive, as is visible within those graphs above?
You said YES, that you did. You indicated you may quibble over some details, but you’re quite OK with BOM’s systematic deception as presented within the BOM data in those graphs.
That’s your declared position. The only “twisting” here is your own.
20
No you didn’t ask a straightforward question. What you did was demand a straight forward answer and I have no compulsion to do as you ask. Your question was couched in assumptions and I refuse to answer in a straightforward way if it means accepting your poorly supported premises.
30
‘What you did was demand a straight forward answer …’
Do you think we need a BoM audit?
00
Here’s something new and loopy to monitor, on a par with the theory of the Black Death causing reforestation causing the LIA…
I fell across an article on “shallow quakes”. Like those bushfires which burn where nothing has ever burnt, these shallow quakes just pop up (crack up?) in places you wouldn’t expect. I mean…you wouldn’t expect a quake in France, would you? Well there are cracks in the ground in France and cracks in the ground at the same time in California. Now we all know that the upper ground is right next to the atmosphere…and yet those climate deniers continue to deny!
On the subject of where to look for the fabians, the brawling/collaborating crime families behind globalism…
Yes, they’re dominant in the UN, the EU, organised religion, academia, the political left (far and centre) and in the gorilla media. They’re also in alternate and right-wing media, the political right (far and centre), big business and right wing factions of the left-dominated alphabet agencies like the NSA, CIA, ASIO etc. They are religious and they are atheists. They are certainly among the court historians who sanitise the history of western capitalism’s protection and promotion of communist slavery.
The one thing these crime families are good at is penetration. They know they need to be everywhere, so they are everywhere.
I call them the gnostic elites, but call them globsters, call them fabians. We need to stop judging the globsters by the standards of normal humans. They have no beliefs, they have no loyalties, they have no home. We know them easily by their cynical plundering on the lower level and their boundless quest for control on the ultimate level.
If you vote Labor or sneak around for GeeUp or read the Grauniad that does not make you my enemy. Christians are definitely not my enemy simply by being Christians. My first responsibility is to not become my own enemy. My job is to make sure that through my own biases and preferences I don’t fall for the fabians’ all-pervasive conditioning, their normalisation of the grotesque, their progressive hijacking of all means of information and communication.
Remember that there are well-heeled and well-edumacated individuals who will soon believe that earthquakes in France are caused by burning coal somewhere else in the world. A number probably already believe this. And through the power of the refuse media, a majority of well-heeled and well-edumacated can be brought to believe it within a couple of years, tops.
Tell me that Kim Jong-un (blurry background but Swiss educated among westerner elites’ kids) is a monster, then tell me he is a cuddly and comical character, then tell me he’s a monster again, then tell me how comical and cuddly he is…See how they do it?
31
mosomoso:
France gets around 2500 tremors each year, although only 10-15 are strong enough to be felt by the public. The UK gets around 20-30 tremors strong enough to be felt, and a few hundred small ones.
20
This is a great blog and confirms what we all suspected. If only the politicians in Canberra would take note.
GeoffW
70
The CQU university library in Mackay has in their possession a set of personal diaries for most of the war years (as I remember, because I gave them to the History collection) which records a goldmine of temperature and tidal conditions(climate) made by a cane farmer on the coast south of Mackay. Possibly a source of useful information??
60
As an addendum the diaries also recorded tidal inundation of his canefields. Here is a true record of sea levels of the period, a concise base from which to study any changes since the 1940,s
50
for two weeks, theirABC, BBC & the rest of the FakeNewsMSM have been carrying unprecedented Australian bushfire caused or exacerbated by CAGW stories, alongside Venice floods caused by CAGW…but I have not heard a word broadcast about the following:
18 Nov: AppletonPostCrescent: Wisconsin broke these cold-weather records last week
by Madeline Heim
It probably felt a little more like mid-January than mid-November when you stepped outside last week…
“It’s been a while since we’ve had this type of air mass so early in the fall season,” said Scott Cultice, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service office in Green Bay.
It has happened, he said. But it’s been a while. So long, in fact, that some of the 17 records that fell in Wisconsin were last set in the early 20th century…
Three different kinds of state records were broken during the cold snap last week: first, the record low temperature for the day, measured in the morning, and second, the record high temperature for the day, measured in the afternoon.
Third, we also broke a few “record low maximums” — set when the high temperature for the entire day is the lowest high temperature ever recorded for that date.
“You really have to have a pretty cold air mass for those record low maxes to be beat,” Cultice said.
Here’s our list of Wisconsin’s broken (and tied) cold-weather records….LIST
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2019/11/18/wisconsin-weather-wisconsin-broke-cold-weather-records-last-week/4201481002/
50
I’m not sure I understand the methodology:
Why use averages of 40+ days per year per station? Is that the method that is used in ACORN?
Why split at 1964? it seems an odd choice as the 2 halves are not equal
Is this a standard way of doing this analysis?
013
It is a great way of showing just how BIASED the “adjustments” really are.
Can you counter this FACT, PF ?
Can you provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2?
(go and look up what empirical means, so as to avoid your further embarrassment in posting non-science propaganda garbage as links)
100
“it seems an odd choice as the 2 halves are not equal”
1910-1963 = 53 years
1964-2017 = 53 years
You have got to get a new job/life, PF..
… you are a total failure at this one. !!
90
not equal in numbers of stations
011
Averages. doh, poor PF!!
doubling down on your errors, yet again PF
So funny to watch 🙂
70
Comprehension FAIL, yet again, hey PF ?
In each case there is a constant number of station.
Try again, its funny ! 🙂
80
So one made up method against another, mostly peer reviewed method? And there are differences? how could you predict that!
012
So, no evidence, still, hey PF !
Except evidence that you are way less intelligent than you think you are. 😉
dig, dig, deeper, deeper, PF
Very funny 🙂
80
@ Peter Fitzroy,
I’m not sure I understand your question but here are some BoM definitions.
I understand that Chris Gillham determined that the BoM averages were the total count of Very Hot Days divided by the number of stations that recorded such data each year. This amounts to a crude simplification to compensate for the varying number of stations between 1910 and 1975 when Learmonth WA was the last of the new very hot stations to be added.
That means that there is an uncompensated probability bias of increasing VHD counts as such hotter stations were progressively added, as Chris has discussed, together with other issues above.
140
Incidentally, the Bureau does hold data for additional stations in older times but in hand-written form. It’s strange that they apparently preferred to digitise more recent data rather than increase the number of long-term time-series back towards 1910. There are many stations with monthly digitised data prior to a 1957 cut-off, but daily remains hand-written
Do you agree that that is strange Peter?
90
But that is exactly my point, Bob. Let me state it this way – I would suggest that the number of 40+ days per/week/month/year by station might be a more reliable estimate than the average temp of those 40+ days in a month. The reason is that if you had 1 day in a particular month, it carries the same weight in the calc as if you had 30.
I would also suggest that unless you are using the same methodology as the BOM, you cannot expect to get an answer that matches that of the ACORN product
As to the digitisation question, I’m sure we could set up a gofundme page to get it done. BOM obviously have other priorities which take precedence
07
We agree, unless you deliberately adjust the data using UHI smearing and other biased AGW mal-adjustments….
… you are going to get a REALISTIC answer, rather than a FAKE BOM one.
Wouldn’t you rather look at ACTUAL DATA, rather than some sort of fabrication, PF ???
30
@ Peter Fitzroy,
You are clearly confused or did not actually read the post in full. The primary first three charts and four tables report on the facts in the averaged number of very hot days (annually), not average temperature.
There follows under the sub-heading; Fewer very hot days, but what about their average temperature? some hypotheses of a secondary nature
You also appear to be confused as to why the BoM digitised hotter stations in recent times rather than do the sensible thing of increasing the number of long-term records
30
Average again, my point stands, Bob
04
Yes, you are clearly confused, PF.
You prefer deliberately, and dare I say, maliciously, adjusted data over actual real data.
That says a lot about your scientific acumen and integrity.
20
“I’m not sure I understand the methodology: Why use averages of 40+ days per year per station? Is that the method that is used in ACORN?”
40C+ days are defined by the BoM as “very hot days”. Daily temperatures are available since 1910 in the RAW, ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets, so it’s worth knowing how many “very hot days” were recorded each year.
“Why split at 1964? it seems an odd choice as the 2 halves are not equal”
The split is 1910-1963, which is 54 years, and 1964-2017, which is 54 years.
Is this a standard way of doing this analysis?
This analysis hasn’t been done before and since it’s a unique analysis it may as well claim that, yes, this is the standard way – comparing the first half of the temperature record with the second half. There are various ways you could gauge trends but the easiest one for a general overview is simply first half, second half.
10
My reply, and thank you TdeF for the link I attached to it;
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my emails.
Of course we are all entitled to our opinions including mine as a climate change sceptic, but I am supported by many other sceptics on UN IPCC Climate Change politics.
Thank you for the links.
You might find this interesting;
All Climate Change is Natural – Professor Carl-Otto Weiss
91
From the Mayor replying to my email to the Deputy Mayor for your interest;
Good afternoon and thank you for your very interesting letter.
I am happy to support he statement ‘Emergency’, not as a consequence of the current human influence but because we are just not looking after our home, you comment on Aboriginal Land Management says it all.
If declaring an emergency can change the way we do things be it reducing green house gasses to modifying the way we waste resources then I am happy to be on that band wagon.
We have to have extremists on both sides in my mind to come up with a moderate consideration of all things that influence our life on this planet.
I recall back in the early 70’s there was a report from somewhere, can’t remember where however it reported we were in the way to an ice age! Go figure.
Kindest regards
91
Dennis, well done, and please ask the Mayor if they support vandals and sabotage and breaking the law, because that is what a declaration of a “Climate Emergency” will do.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-unseen-danger-of-declaring-fake-climate-emergencies/
160
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSgCsb34Bfs
40
Now that’s a real scientist. Too bad he’s ignored by both our major political parties.
50
Extract from The Pickering Post current article;
“The Minister of Attack
And now comes Linda Reynolds’ role as Australia’s No 1 traitor. It is commonly said that the outcome of battles is determined in advance by the morale of the respective forces.
You think the Taliban were scary
By supporting the Afghanistan witch-hunt she is undermining morale across the services. What Linda Reynolds is saying is that our servicemen could perform heroically in battle, as Mr Roberts-Smith did, and be prosecuted after the event.
Not good for esprit de corps and self-sacrifice, and winning battles. With no personal interest in things that explode and kill people, Senator Reynolds is leaving the running of the ADF to the self-perpetuating leftie claque who captured it.
It is apparent that promotion beyond the rank of captain requires having the correct views on things like global warming. The Army brought in professionals to aid in this screening and indoctrination process.
It has commissioned psychometric and psychological testing of its senior officers with respect to ‘personal beliefs, attitudes and associations’. A desire to maim and kill Australia’s enemies is likely to be a career-ending view.”
100
Author of the above;
David Archibald
David is a geologist by background. He has lectured on climate science in the US Senate and House of Representatives hearing rooms. His current research shows promise in a major gynaecological cancer.
40
They also introduced a heat index that looks at occurrences of 6 consecutive max min temperature at or above the 90 percentile. These adjustments could easily drop the old 90 percentile to 89 so that the exact same weather looks like a 60% jump in extreme weather.
40
If the BOM jack the temperatures high enough they’re on a winner (/s)
“Plastic Waste “Crisis” Solved!”
“Pyrolytic conversion of plastic waste to oil.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/11/20/plastic-waste-crisis-solved/
50
followup to comment #38 which is now out of moderation:
while our bushfires and Venice’s flood have daily news grouping results on google by MSM worldwide, the record-breaking cold in the US is lucky to get a single new article per day:
15 Nov: USA Today: Not so fast: ‘Normal’ temps remain days away as record-smashing arctic blast subsides
by John Bacon & Doyle Rice
The arctic blast that smashed hundreds of records across the nation since Veterans Day was easing Thursday, but a return to normal November temperatures remained days away, forecasters said.
Almost 400 daily cold records, including record lows and record-cold high temperatures, have been set or tied this week, said Marc Chenard, a forecaster for the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center…
“We have broken records all the way from Texas to the northern Plains to the East Coast, he said. “The geographic area and duration make it a rare event.”
Temperatures in several major cities – such as Detroit, Cleveland, Nashville and Birmingham, Alabama – fell this week to lows not seen since a similar cold blast in November 1911, AccuWeather said…
Paul Walker, senior meteorologist with AccuWeather, said a second front could break additional records in New York state and New England this weekend…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/14/arctic-blast-eases-after-hundreds-records-set/4188884002/
14 Nov: Accuweather: Ruthless cold breaks dozens of long-lasting records in major cities throughout the East
by Mark Puleo
Temperatures in several major cities fell this week to lows not seen since the Taft Administration, shattering dozens of records as a bone-chilling cold front swept through the eastern half of the United States. As a punishing wave of January-esque Arctic air brought dangerously cold conditions, some cities had low-temperature records that hadn’t plunged that low in more than 100 years…
In the heart of cold on Tuesday was the frozen state of Iowa. At least seven cities recorded subzero temperatures, including the capital city Des Moines, which broke its record low temperature when it reached minus 1 F. Ames and Marshalltown both broke records set in 1911 when the cities each reached minus 7. Cedar Rapids, the second most populated city in the state, reached minus 6 while nearby the city of Independence had the lowest mark in state, at minus 11.
Tuesday’s lowest temperature in the Midwest could be found in Hibbig, Minnesota, where the mercury showed minus 13, smashing the old record of minus 9 from 1966…
In the Northeast, New York City set low-temperature records on back-to-back days. Starting on Tuesday, the mercury bottomed out at 25 degrees Fahrenheit, breaking the previous record of 26 for Nov. 12 that had stood since 1926, according to the NWS. On Wednesday, the temperature in Central Park hit a low of 23, breaking the previous record of 24 for Nov. 13 set in 1986…
The dreadful conditions sparked Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to open warming centers for citizens looking for a safe and warm place to stay…
Those centers were certainly necessary on Wednesday morning, when the city recorded a low of 7 F, breaking the previous record set in 1986. Rockford, Illinois, also had a record-breaking low thermometer reading when the mercury dipped to 3 degrees, according to the NWS.
At Chicago O’Hare International Airport, the low of 7 on Tuesday beat the old daily record of 8 set back in 1986 in the Windy City. Even when the temperature rose during the day, it didn’t provided little relief as it topped out at just 17 degrees, smashing the previous record for the lowest high temperature for the day by a whopping 11 degrees. According to the NWS, the previous record low high temp for the day in Chicago was 28 set back in 1995.
The record-challenging cold also made its way into the South, with locations along the Gulf Coast, such as Mobile, Alabama, setting new records. In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the low of 24 at the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport broke the previous record of 26 set back in 1907…READ ON
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/ruthless-cold-breaks-dozens-of-long-lasting-records-in-major-cities-throughout-the-east/627067
70
Fair enough comment!
https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/121995-since-the-joke-thread-is-gone-here%E2%80%99s-something-to-chuckle-at/page/31/?tab=comments#comment-1357388
30
Very funny
00
Now we just need a persistent series of blackouts in SA and Vic, and a Rowan Dean segment on Sky featuring these graphs. 😉
50
how WaPo & NYT have spun the approx. 400 record-breaking cold temps in the US:
19 Nov: WaPo: Capital Weather Gang: Enclosed by extremes: Record heat and cold touch every corner of the U.S.
The nation is boxed in between extremes, with records set over the weekend in Alaska, California, Florida and Maine.
By Matthew Cappucci and Jason Samenow
In every corner of the nation, new records were established, showing off its enormous diversity of extreme weather:
•Anchorage experienced record warmth and set a snowfall record on the same day.
•Los Angeles set a record high of 93 degrees on consecutive days.
•Key West, Fla., finished its longest stretch in recorded history with high temperatures at or above 80 degrees.
•Caribou, Maine, dropped below zero the earliest it has in recorded history.
All but Caribou showed off record-setting high temperatures, consistent with expectations in a warming world, while the Caribou record shows pockets of extreme cold can and do linger…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/18/enclosed-by-extremes-record-heat-cold-touch-every-corner-us/
12 Nov: NYT: The Arctic Plunge: From Feeling Like 92 to Freezing in a Day
Temperatures have plummeted across the eastern United States, but spare a thought for McAllen, Texas, where the drop was precipitous.
By John Ismay and Vanessa Swales; Mariel Padilla and Derrick Bryson Taylor contributed reporting.
In Texas, recent warm weather gave way to numbing cold, with the “feels like” reading dropping from 92 to 31 in places. Schools from Ohio to Vermont called off classes as the snow piled up. People in Little Rock, Ark., could have been excused for thinking they were in Alberta, Canada. Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky., canceled races, facing temperatures that were not fit for man or beast. And daily records were falling even in places like Chicago that are no strangers to the lower end of the thermometer.
By the time the air mass moves on, it is expected to have broken more than 150 daily-temperature records.
“This kind of weather is coming a month or two earlier than normal,” said Marc Chenard, a National Weather Service meteorologist. “I wouldn’t call it extreme cold, but it is extremely below average for this time of year.”…
In Chicago, forecasters expected the high temperature on Tuesday to reach just 18 degrees, 10 degrees below the previous record for the coldest high temperature…
In Indianapolis, the National Weather Service said Tuesday morning’s frigid temperature of 8 degrees set the record for the coldest temperature this early in the season…
***If it’s so cold, what about climate change?
With such a drastic drop in temperatures across so much of the country, questions are often asked about how it can be so chilly if climate change is warming the globe.
But such questions may confuse weather and climate. While climate refers to the long-term averages and trends in atmospheric conditions over large areas, weather deals with short-term variations, which is what happens when Arctic air visits your hometown.
And, of course, an Arctic blast can still occur in a warmer world, even if the air that comes down from the north is not as cold. Some studies suggest that climate change could actually make frigid waves of Arctic air more common, a result of shrinking sea ice…
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/weather-cold-temperatures.html
20
“Texas blue norther”
https://weather.com/news/news/blue-norther-20121003
00
OT: worth a read, governments (other than just in Australia) are increasingly not defending the presumed ‘right’ to free-speech. Courts and authorities are disallowing a presumed right to dissent and discuss facts and alternate views or to freely associate minus intimidation and threats. Spineless sovereign democratic constitutional nation-states blame the law-abiding victims.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/19/thugs-bully-munich-conference-center-force-cancellation-skeptic-climate-conference/
40
Burn the books!
20
lengthy, read all:
18 Nov: Daily Caller: Exclusive: inside the media conspiracy to hype Greta Thunberg
by Chris White
•More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
•Two of the largest media outlets — BuzzFeed News and HuffPo — did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
•The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change.
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalism’s flagship magazine to shape control of “climate crisis” coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference. The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate “news” be added to seemingly unrelated stories.
Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature. More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers…
In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others…
The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR)…READ ALL
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/18/greta-thunberg-climate-change-media/
40
meant to include this excerpt:
– Thunberg’s activism and Covering Climate Now’s media blitz seemed to fall flat with the crowd of United Nations diplomats: No major promises were made to tackle climate change at the summit. –
50
Going “cold” on the idea of “warming” are they?
30
Recently I saw the word “prithee” used.
Somewhat modified to
“Pry-thee”
it would be a suitable new slogan for modern journalists (IMO)
10
18 Nov: Deutsche Welle: Heavy snow in Alps causes avalanches and travel disruptions
Schools and roads were closed on Monday in Austria as heavy snow and rain cause disruption across the region. One man was killed and two women were rescued by firefighters after their houses were destroyed in a mudslide
Snow first began in Austria last Wednesday but grew more severe over the weekend, as an unusually harsh and early winter kicks off across Europe. Heavy snow claimed one life in France…
15 Nov: Deutsche Welle: Southeast France thrown into chaos by first heavy snow
Snow, ice and heavy rain have caused power outages to tens of thousands of homes. Authorities urged people to stay off the roads after a motorist was killed by a falling tree.
About 300,000 people were left without electricity in the departments of Drome, Isere, Rhone and Ardeche, power company Enedis said.
Rail traffic was expected to be interrupted in and around Grenoble at least until Friday afternoon because of fallen trees on the tracks.
Cars and trucks were left stuck in the snow and many roads were closed across the region. Authorities urged people to avoid the roads…
18 Nov: Swissinfo: Record November snowfall affects ski stations and roads
Heavy snow over the weekend was recorded in the southern and eastern parts of the country. The record for November has been broken and ski stations at Saas Fee and Saas Grund are cut off…
A record monthly snowfall of 71cm for November was registered in Santa Maria in canton Graubünden in eastern Switzerland. The previous record for November snow was 69cm, set also in Santa Maria, in 1959…
15 Nov: TheLocalSpain: Spain’s weekend weather report: More snow and rain in store
Much of northern Spain will remain submerged in a winter wonderland this weekend, with heavy to moderate snowfall forecast for Friday in mountainous areas of Cantabria, Asturias, Galicia, the Basque Country, Aragón, La Rioja and Castilla y León.
Temperatures will also drop even further in the northern half of the country.
Cities in Spain’s interior such as Teruel, Cuenca, Vitoria, Pamplona will see the mercury drop to zero or further still this weekend. The beautiful fortressed city of Ávila will freeze from 8pm on Friday (-6 C forecast) whereas in Madrid it will be a chilly 3 C at nighttime…
On Thursday Spain’s state meteorological agency AEMET issued weather warnings in 38 provinces as a cold blast hit the peninsula bringing winds of up to 100 km/ph, freezing temperatures and snow…
13 Nov: Electroverse: Sweden Suffers its Biggest November Snowstorms in [at least] 40 Years
by Cap Allon
It appears fall has completely skipped Scandinavia this year. Norway, Denmark and Finland have been breaking all-time cold and snowfall records since October, as has Sweden — best not tell Greta…
Swedes have been suffering weather typical of January this week, particularly in the central parts. Cold-weather warnings were issued for Värmland, Dalarna, Gävleborg, and Jämtland on Monday, where more than 20 cm (8 inches) of early-season snow wound up accumulating…
According to authorities, this is likely the earliest such a strong snowstorm has hit Sweden in at least 40 years.
Forecasts reveal hard frosts will follow the snow, with the mercury in northern and central parts predicted to tumble to -20C (-4F). This follows the new seasonal record low of -33C (-27.4F) which was set over the weekend…
https://electroverse.net/sweden-suffers-its-biggest-november-snowstorms-in-40-years/
19 Nov: UK Express: BBC weather: Europe braces for more snowfall and thunderstorms
THUNDERSTORMS are set to hit Europe as wet and wintery conditions spread across the continent this week.
By Svar Nanan-Sen
The weather will also become more wet and wintery in Spain, while France will continue to experience snowfall…
It comes as Severe Weather EU has claimed the polar vortex is set to “collapse” by the end of the year which creates acute winter conditions and can lead to extreme weather…
UK snow forecast MAP: Met Office issues cold weather warning for UK as temp plunges to -9C…
Snow weather warning: Blizzards forecast for White Christmas as temperatures plummet…
UK deep FREEZE: Deadly polar blast to strike Britain as temperatures plunge below zero…
“Still pretty cold with further snow across northern parts of Scandinavia.”…
Related articles
BBC Weather: Severe warning as polar vortex ‘collapses’ across Europe
BBC Weather: ‘Half a metre of snow’ covers Europe as temps plummet
UK weather warning: Swirling vortex of freezing fog to smash into UK
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1206399/BBC-weather-Europe-snow-snowstorm-thunderstorms-France-Italy-November-thunderstorm-Greece
30
hot reporting:
20 Nov: 7News: Port Lincoln, Lower Eyre Peninsula has power shut off amid catastrophic fire danger day
by Emily Olle; with AAP
SA Power Networks has shut off power to Port Lincoln and Lower Eyre Peninsula residents as South Australia faces a catastrophic fire danger day…
Adelaide is on track to smash its November temperature record as the state swelters amid catastrophic bushfire conditions…
Extreme heat
The city was forecast to have a top of 42C on Wednesday, just below the November record of 42.7 set in 1962.
But by 11am the mercury had already soared close to 40C at the Bureau of Meteorology’s Kentown observatory.
At Parafield, in the city’s northern suburbs, the temperature reached 42.2C.
In the regions conditions were even hotter, with Cummins on Eyre Peninsula posting 42.9C before midday…
A cool change is expected to sweep across the state early on Thursday morning, bringing milder conditions, with temperatures for most centres dropping to the mid-20s.
https://7news.com.au/news/sa/port-lincoln-lower-eyre-peninsula-has-power-shut-off-amid-catastrophic-fire-danger-day-c-565863
40
What!
“But by 11am the mercury had already soared close to 40C at the Bureau of Meteorology’s Kentown observatory.”
Still using mercury thermometers in ultra-modern South Australia?
40
A great comment on WUWT:
“Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”
90
Especially if you realise that a rise of half a degree still would not bring the “global temperature” up to that in the early Holocene (in the warm bits of the first 6,000 years).
30
“Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900…”
Business as usual. AGW signal ‘climate change‘ to the noise and magnitude of ‘climate variability‘, indiscernible.
20
I can see the coolness of the 1970s, the warming in the mid-1980s, and I can see the cooling caused by continent-wide heavy rains around 2010, but what I don’t follow is why there’s a cooler period around the 1998-1999 El-Nino? That was the hottest period In my life on the north east coast but it doesn’t show on these graphs.
30
WXcycles … remember, the charts present the number of very hot days at or above 40C recorded at the weather stations each year, not the annual maxima.
The cooler period (in terms of very hot days, not maxima) was 1999 and 2000 when Australia’s summer rainfall averaged 303.6mm, compared to the 1910-2017 average of 212.5mm.
Because of the increase in cloud cover associated with rainy days, the average number of very hot days in 1999 and 2000 was 8.5, compared to the 1910-2017 average of 13.2.
The national averages aren’t necessarily the same as the north east coast, aka Queensland.
Actually, the north east coast rarely gets to 40C but it’s warmer there on average than in the southern states. Also, if you check the time series charts (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Dqld%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0) you’ll find that Queensland’s summers (40C doesn’t happen in winter) had ACORN anomalies of -1.32 in 1999 and -0.69 in 2000, so they were pretty cool.
10
Re “climate emergencies”
I’ve just checked Eric Newby on Venice’s flooding. It involves the sirocco wind and low barometric pressure as the main drivers, not necessarily a high tide. Known as the “l’acqua alta”.
Records start in the thirteenth century – e.g
“the water rose to the height of a man in the streets” 23rd September 1240.
With more examples. 1967 it was 5 feet above average sea level.
I scanned that section and emailed it to Jo.
60
That from the chapter on Venice in “On the Shores of the Mediterranean”
30
In 1976 I was in Venice and Saint Marks Square was flooded, but inches not feet deep.
Another visit in 1997 or 1998 it was again flooded at high tide.
20
For what it’s worth BOM’s reasons for biasing ACORN 1 and 2 include DE-URBANISATION.
They say –
The stronger warming trends in the homogenised datasets, relative to AWAP, largely reflects the tendency over time for sites to move from in-town to out-of-town locations, something which largely accounts for the negative bias in adjustments, particularly for minimum temperature(section 6).
There are a number of reasons why version 2 would be expected to show stronger
warming trends than version 1. The most prominent are:
• Removal of the rounding bias in adjustments. As noted in section 3.3.1, the expected impact of this is 0.025 °C per adjustment (for those adjustments which use percentile matching without overlap, about 80% of all adjustments), which, given the mean number of adjustments per location, would equate to 0.08-0.09 °C per station.
However, a number of long-term stations in remote areas have a particularly large
number of adjustments (for example, Alice Springs has 4 for maximum temperature and
11 for minimum temperature, although only 7 of the latter use percentile matching,
with the others using monthly adjustments as outlined in section 3.2.3); as remote
stations in data-sparse areas have a greater influence on the gridded analysis than
stations in more data-dense areas, it is likely that the expected impact on a national spatial average would be slightly higher.
• More effective treatment of the transition from manual stations (often in towns) to automatic stations (usually at airports or similar locations). This predominantly occurred From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s (Figure 13). Most such transitions involved a substantial period of overlapping data, which was used in version 1, but it was found in the course of version 2 that some of these overlap periods were unrepresentative; in these cases, other stations in the region were used as references instead.
• Adjustment of more recent data. Version 1 contains no additional adjustments after
2009, with unadjusted data being appended to the dataset, whilst version 2 includes
adjustments up to 2013. This encompasses a renewed period of movement of stations
out of towns, particularly in Western Australia and New South Wales; several of these moves involved substantial cooling of minimum temperatures which was not adjusted for in version 1. Separate to this, there have also been recent negative adjustments at some key stations, including maximum temperatures at Halls Creek and Kalgoorlie, and minimum temperatures at Alice Springs.
http://www.bom.gov.au/research/publications/researchreports/BRR-032.pdf
10
Earlier observations reflect a society which
Was far smaller and
Used far less energy per person
And thus generated a far smaller Urban Heat Island effect.
Thus BOmMs reasoning “URBANISATION’
Is fake reasoning.
And in any event the BOM has long along given up
Trying to ensure it’s weather stations comply
With it’s own guidelines.
See Ken Stewart’s work at Kenskingdom
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
239 so far are FAILURES
Including many ACORN stations
GI=GO
20
I was thinking about Urban Heat Island too.
I did a quick search of the BOM ACORN document for any mention of adjusting the raw data for Urban Heat Island or the like, but couldn’t find anything.
Seems strange to me when you see the tremendous urban buildup in the cities.
20
Chris Gilham,
Excellent work, as usual. The magnitude of these adjustments is huge, compared to the alleged total national heating of 0.8 deg C for the century from 1910. It is also broad, with few if any stations being free of adjustment.
The results you show are in qualitative agreement with those heat waves, broadly defined, from our six state capital cities. Since most of us live in these capitals, they should interest us more when planning matters like equipment for protecting homes from bushfires and hospitals to cope with heat stress.
It is easy to search this site of Jo’s for older studies, terms like “heatwave sherrington” bring them up. Surprising to some who think the last 3 years since those studies have been horribly hot, adding them onto the old studies scarcely changes the outcomes. Perth remains the city with a history of increasing heat waves, but it is dependent to an extent on which Perth stations are chosen for analysis.
The errors in past temperature measurements are large enough to cast doubt on many conclusions. I was re-Jackreading some 2010 Climate Audit posts today, where several bloggers asked an expert dendrologist more or less “How can you claim that the range and accuracy of tree ring proxies is better than the instrumental thermometer record?” Good question, one that applies to many claims of catastrophy from global heating. Geoff S
30
Real climate changes happen irrespective of human involvement. Such as when the isthmus of Panama rose out of the ocean 3 million years ago and stopped currents flowing freely between the Pacific and Atlantic. This changed the global climate and made Africa much drier. The landscape went from dense forests to more open savannahs dotted with trees. Some primates decided to drop out of the trees and walk upright and adapt themselves to the new conditions…
As Steve Jobs might say, are you getting it? These were the ancestors of homo sapiens.
10
Hi Jo, Another great post which I see Craig Kelly has made good use of on FarceBook.
A request: If you have control of the format of your website, could you please include the date at the beginning of your posts? Because I read so much these days, I like to check the date first to see if an article is current.
Love your dedication ……
20
I would like to hear David Evans’ acknowledgement/opinion on the X Factor Dry Cycle Hierarchy,(as described in Alex Gaddes’ work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’,1990 and subsequent notes.)
The existence of these ‘orbiting’ Cycles means there can be NO valid average temperature, or average precipitation data, anywhere on the planet – because the progressive Start and Finish Dates – and associated Longitudes, are only repeated every 81 Years.
These Dry Cycles (and the alternate Wet/Normal Periods,) account for the fluctuations in temperature and precipitation – and subsequent ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic. NOT ENSO!
A 24 month overall parameter Dry Cycle, with a Terrestrial Footprint of 16 months, which started over 80 d E in November 2017 and affected Australia from June – Sept 2019, has just ended over 80 d E,(Sri Lanka.)
The next Dry Cycle will have an overall parameter of 12 months and a Terrestrial Footprint of 8 months – starting over 160 d W in February,2020 and affecting Australia from May to November 2020.
For those wishing to peruse the ‘mechanics’ of these ‘X Factor’ Dry Cycles, the recently revised and updated work is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
10
sounds fascinating. tell us more.
00
Perhaps You could tell us more.
00
I don’t want to spoil the surprise ending
00
I am happy to forward the complete work as a free PDF, to anyone who sends me a request and forwarding email address to [email protected]
10
So, can anyone explain how the BoM regales us with Average Temperature and Average Precipitation data, when valid readings DO NOT/CANNOT EXIST?
No wonder both Acornsat 1 and 2 have not worked!
10