Society/Culture Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?

[Dippers Donuts]

Is Cancat on drugs?
This is Adelaide's longest heatwave in November ever.
Got it?
Now in isolation, who cares but when incrementally added to all the other extreme weather events occurring around Australia and the world surely the penny must drop sometime??

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Some people are just too deep in denial to ever admit that they might have been wrong.

Meanwhile, another record tumbles in SE Aus

Melbourne swelters through warmest November night on record

THOMAS HUNTER

November 19, 2009 - 9:52AM
Melbourne has shattered the highest temperature for a November night since records began, outstripping the previous record set in 1901 by almost two degrees, says the weather bureau.
"It dropped down to 28.1 around midnight and that beats the record by a long way," said senior forecaster Phil King.
"The previous minimum was 26.2 degrees set on November 25, 1901, so it's a record warm November and by a significant margin."

Stick your head in deeper, cam, ripper and meds, maybe he problem will just go away!

Last night was indicative of a unusually hot month, with Mr King saying this November is will "smash" climatic records.

"Parts of Victoria are so far above the hottest November averages, Victoria would need to have a record-breaking cold spell to avoid setting "significant new monthly averages", said senior forecaster Phil King.

"Not only are we breaking records for this period of warm weather, but we're smashing the previous records by a significant amount," he said.

"A lot of places through Victoria and south east Australia are running two to even four degrees above previous records for November averages," he said.

"Melbourne is running a full two degrees above the previous hottest start to November.

 

[cancat]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000001/art00003

A critical review of some recent Australian regional climate reports



Author: McLean, John D.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, January 2006 , pp. 13-28(16)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd



Abstract:
Regional Climate Reports prepared by the CSIRO for five states and the Northern Territory of Australia have been accepted by governments for planning and policy purposes without critical analysis. This review examines the credibility of those reports, in particular the historical trends they describe and the accuracy of the numerical models that are used for both hindcasting and forecasting climate to 2100. The reports are found to be lacking in four crucial areas; by the inclusion of misleading trends, omission of relevant influences, use of poorly performing models and, critically, unjustified claims of accuracy for their output projections. As planning tools the CSIRO model-derived forecasts are of doubtful if any value. Caveat Emptor.

Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1260/095830506776318787

 

[bit_pattern]

LOL, the same John McLean who works for the Exxon funded Science and Public Policy thinktank, the same John McLean that doesn't even hold a PhD, who c-authored that shocking and widely debunked paper with Carter and De Freitas? What a surprise!

 

[Ripper]

Lol, the reason the "heatwaves" rofl are longer is a direct result of the quiet sun , as wind speeds have dropped the systems move slower across the country.

These so call "heatwaves" have not had an extreme temperature in them.

This is a heat wave.

For 161 consecutive days to 20 April 1924 the temperature in the town never dropped below 100°F (37.8°C). This record still stands

So that started on the 12th November 1923 through to 20th April 1924.

You will be pleased to know that the cool is on it's way.

It is a chilly 14 degrees here at 8.00AM

Plenty of cloud and a bit of rain around the country as well as big cold front is moving across the south from WA (slowly). Expect some record lows.

 

[bit_pattern]

Lol, the reason the "heatwaves" rofl are longer is a direct result of the quiet sun , as wind speeds have dropped the systems move slower across the country.

These so call "heatwaves" have not had an extreme temperature in them.

This is a heat wave.



So that started on the 12th November 1923 through to 20th April 1924.

You will be pleased to know that the cool is on it's way.

It is a chilly 14 degrees here at 8.00AM

Plenty of cloud and a bit of rain around the country as well as big cold front is moving across the south from WA (slowly). Expect some record lows.

Do you even know what the definition of a "so-called" heatwave is?

 

[bit_pattern]

I'll post this again for your benefit:

Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.

 

[Ripper]

I'll post this again for your benefit:

Exactly what you expect from the systems slowing down. The sun is in a quiet mode not seen for over 100 years. Cycle 24 was due to kick off nearly 3 years ago now.

The record snowfalls in North America & China are also due to the systems moving slower than usual.

Don't forget either that the Earth is nearly at its closest point to the sun for the year (~6W m^2 difference between closest and furtherest) so that will be masking it's quietness in the SH.


Exciting time to quantitatively gauge the effects on us. Won't be too exciting when it gets so cold the crops start to fail and people can't afford the heating bills.

 

[bit_pattern]

Exactly what you expect from the systems slowing down. The sun is in a quiet mode not seen for over 100 years. Cycle 24 was due to kick off nearly 3 years ago now.

The record snowfalls in North America & China are also due to the systems moving slower than usual.

Source?

Exciting time to quantitatively gauge the effects on us. Won't be too exciting when it gets so cold the crops start to fail and people can't afford the heating bills.

Yah, keep telling yourself that

 

[Chief]

Exactly what you expect from the systems slowing down. The sun

Dude... just drop the sun angle. Nobody reputable actually believes the sun is the cause. On any side of the issue.

While human activity is the source of the problems I'm personally coming around to the idea that we may be barking up the wrong tree in regards to CO2 itself as the major cause, and carbon trading and minimisation as the solution.

This isn't stopping me from working at reducing my own resource use, but we all probably need to think about more than CO2. There are more gasses that we emit that could be doing more damage than CO2. Simply having a meat-free day a week apparently does wonders for reduction of greenhouse gasses (though your personal methane output may increase slightly ).

"Solar cycles" as a major cause are unsupported by any real evidence.

 

[Ripper]

Crikey! I would have thought that a "heatwave" would have at least one temperature of 40 degrees.

Adelaide

Adelaide airport

 

[Clay Davis]

Crikey! I would have thought that a "heatwave" would have at least one temperature of 40 degrees.

Adelaide

Adelaide airport

Yes, in mid November.

 

[bit_pattern]

So Ripper DOESN'T quite get what defines a heatwave?!

The definition recommended by the World Meteorological Organization is when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 Celsius degrees (9 Fahrenheit degrees),

http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDMI/docs/Frichetal02.pdf

 

[bit_pattern]

While human activity is the source of the problems I'm personally coming around to the idea that we may be barking up the wrong tree in regards to CO2 itself as the major cause

What's your alternative hypothesis?

 

[Ripper]

Dude... just drop the sun angle. Nobody reputable actually believes the sun is the cause. On any side of the issue.

While human activity is the source of the problems I'm personally coming around to the idea that we may be barking up the wrong tree in regards to CO2 itself as the major cause, and carbon trading and minimisation as the solution.

This isn't stopping me from working at reducing my own resource use, but we all probably need to think about more than CO2. There are more gasses that we emit that could be doing more damage than CO2. Simply having a meat-free day a week apparently does wonders for reduction of greenhouse gasses (though your personal methane output may increase slightly ).

"Solar cycles" as a major cause are unsupported by any real evidence.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/F0020002/art00010

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...ss.com&url=http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/1106.pdf

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...m&url=http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/prlresup2.pdf

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GL012536.shtml

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000001/art00004

Just a few to peruse. Solar activity was always thought to be the main driver of climate change until the 1990's

We will know absolutely very soon, but at this stage Svenmark is looking more and more on the money.

 

[Chief]

Dunno yet. Probably "meat". Eat less, reduce demand for it etc.

In the end I'm not going to have any say on what actually happens to try to solve the problem, so in our house we just reduce consumption of energy, goods and manufactured food (including vegies farmed elsewhere and sold in air-conditioned shops) to make up for my diesel fourbie ripping up beaches.

Our house uses half the water of the local average, less electricity and I work from home so my car is mostly parked out the front. Grow some of our own vegies and herbs, recycle scraps in the worm farm and grass clippings into the compost.

Really easy stuff to do, but most people won't do it because they have no incentive. Electricity is still cheap, even with recent price rises, so there's only a social pressure which many people will resist for at least a generation to come.

 

[Clay Davis]

More weirdo blogs from Ripper.

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/F0020002/art00010

An Judge and astrologer, exactly the sort of qualifications I look for when trying to disprove climate science! We're talking about a man that thought the rise of Hitler and Stalin was caused solar cycles! It's even better than Meds' water-dowsing expert on sea level rise

And yet you mock RC?!

Man, the shit people will try and cling to.

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf

1996? You're posting a Svensmark paper from 1996? I mean, the man did come up with one of the very few plausible alternative hypotheses but it's too bad he has been debunked over and over again. It is the heights o hilarity that you heap so much criticism on NASA, BOM, RC etc etc then keep rpeating this same discredited nonsense. At least post his 2007 paper next time.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...ss.com&url=http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/1106.pdf

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...m&url=http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/prlresup2.pdf

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GL012536.shtml

More old Svensmark long discredited, see below.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000001/art00004

Yeah, more bunkum

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

And an instructive lesson on how hacks like Archibald use models to deceive the gullible

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/

Just a few to peruse. Solar activity was always thought to be the main driver of climate change until the 1990's

We will know absolutely very soon, but at this stage Svenmark is looking more and more on the money.

The sun WAS the main driver of climate up until th late-seventies, but the correlation broke down as the current GHG warming began. The only reason there was debate up until the ninties is because of the discrepancy between the sattelite temp measurements and the sea/surface temp record, but once it was discovered that the sattelite altimetry was out of whack because of a creping change in its postion over the decades the sattelite record was corrected and suddenly fit quite neatly with the other temp records. That is about the point that the whole 'is global warming really happening' argument died.

And here are a few papers for you to peruse, most a lot more recent than the long dicredited nonsense you hae linked to.

• Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
• Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%."
• Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
• Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
• Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
• Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
• Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
• Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
• Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
• Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
• Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
• Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
• Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
• Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
• Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

 

[bit_pattern]

And some more papers for your perusal, this time on soalr cycles and the lack of correlation with the current warming:

• Kelly 1992 models the effects of a combination of greenhouse and solar-cycle-length forcing and compare the results with observed temperatures. They find that "even with optimized solar forcing, most of the recent warming trend is explained by greenhouse forcing".
• Laut 1998 analyses the period 1579–1987 and finds "the solar hypothesis—instead of contradicting—appears to support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities.
• Damon 1999 uses the pre-industrial record as a boundary condition and finds the SCL-temperature correlation corresponds to an estimated 25% of global warming to 1980 and 15% to 1997.
• Benestad 2005 concludes "There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming."

 

[bit_pattern]

Dunno yet. Probably "meat". Eat less, reduce demand for it etc.

In the end I'm not going to have any say on what actually happens to try to solve the problem, so in our house we just reduce consumption of energy, goods and manufactured food (including vegies farmed elsewhere and sold in air-conditioned shops) to make up for my diesel fourbie ripping up beaches.

Our house uses half the water of the local average, less electricity and I work from home so my car is mostly parked out the front. Grow some of our own vegies and herbs, recycle scraps in the worm farm and grass clippings into the compost.

Really easy stuff to do, but most people won't do it because they have no incentive. Electricity is still cheap, even with recent price rises, so there's only a social pressure which many people will resist for at least a generation to come.

Can't argue with any of that. And, yeah, meat is a huge problem - I'm slowly weaning myself onto a vego diet atm - but at the end of the day it is still essentially the same problem, ie. man-made GHG emisions.

Have a read of this re meat:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/17/700-million-from-livestock/

And for Ripper,

What if the sun got stuck?

 

[cancat]

LOL, the same John McLean who works for the Exxon funded Science and Public Policy thinktank, the same John McLean that doesn't even hold a PhD, who c-authored that shocking and widely debunked paper with Carter and De Freitas? What a surprise!

LOL you say McLean hasn't got a PhD then you refer me to by a review of his work by a computer scientist!

If we are going to exclude people who are funded by 'vested interests' then as AGW is official government policy you can exclude any research by CSIRO too.

Here's the weather forecast for Adelaide. Looks pretty normal to me. But I'm sure you've found some other temperature record somewhere in Australia that suits your agenda.

Forecast for Friday
Shower or two, tending to a few showers in the afternoon and evening. Possible
early thunder. Warm with moderate west to southwest winds.

Precis Shower or two. Possible thunder.
City: Min 24 Max 29

Saturday Early rain, then showers. Min 17 Max 23
Sunday Shower or two. Min 15 Max 22
Monday Morning shower or two. Min 15 Max 23
Tuesday Fine. Mostly sunny Min 14 Max 23
Wednesday Fine. High cloud. Min 16 Max 30

 

[bit_pattern]

LOL you say McLean hasn't got a PhD then you refer me to by a review of his work by a computer scientist!

If we are going to exclude people who are funded by 'vested interests' then as AGW is official government policy you can exclude any research by CSIRO too.

Here's the weather forecast for Adelaide. Looks pretty normal to me. But I'm sure you've found some other temperature record somewhere in Australia that suits your agenda.

Forecast for Friday
Shower or two, tending to a few showers in the afternoon and evening. Possible
early thunder. Warm with moderate west to southwest winds.

Precis Shower or two. Possible thunder.
City: Min 24 Max 29

Saturday Early rain, then showers. Min 17 Max 23
Sunday Shower or two. Min 15 Max 22
Monday Morning shower or two. Min 15 Max 23
Tuesday Fine. Mostly sunny Min 14 Max 23
Wednesday Fine. High cloud. Min 16 Max 30

Actually, it was the links contained in Lambert's post that were important. But silly me for presuming that you might go a little beyond the original link and follow the sources, Robert Grumbine, James Annan, Tamino, all PhD holders who actually work in the relevant fields.

As for Adelaide, you're still not getting it, the statistical improbability of three heatwaves in two years of the magnitude we've occurring without GW is so ridiculously high that you would have to be wilfully blind not to recognise its significance.

 

[Ripper]

Can't argue with any of that. And, yeah, meat is a huge problem - I'm slowly weaning myself onto a vego diet atm - but at the end of the day it is still essentially the same problem, ie. man-made GHG emisions.

Have a read of this re meat:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/17/700-million-from-livestock/

And for Ripper,

What if the sun got stuck?

Oh , dear. It is now a year on and purports to show that UAH is the "odd man out" in the global temp series when it has shown to be the most accurate.

After looking at the gisstemp code it is liitle wonder that the correlation went away in the 80's.

 

[bit_pattern]

Shown to be the most accurate? ROFL! By whom? Roy Spencer?

You should stop reading whcko, extremist blogs. Who the hell is Jeff Id when he's at home anyway?

 

[bit_pattern]

As always, Denial Depot have nailed it when it comes to Blog Science!

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Correcting GISTEMP

GISTEMP is the NASA GISS global temperature surface record and it belongs to James Hansen.People sometimes ask why climate skeptics criticize GISTEMP so much? Well it started off as a hunch, we felt that if our arch nemesis James Hansen was running it, it must be wrong. If this was merely politics that would be all we needed to believe it was wrong. But this is science and science demands evidence, so dutifully we sought out evidence to back our conclusion.
Here I bring together all the lines of evidence we have manufactured and furthermore I show how GISTEMP would look after corrections.
GISTEMP disagrees with the satellite record
The first piece of evidence is a simple observation. Since 1979 satellites have been measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere. GISTEMP is trying to measure the temperature of the surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are not exactly the same thing, but you'd expect the temperature trend in both to be somewhat similar.
But look at how GISTEMP shows far more warming than the UAH satellite record. The disagreement is astronomical. This is what Blog Science has been banging on about for years!

Urban Heat Island Effect
Warmists will tell you there is no such thing as the urban heat island effect, but that's a complete strawman because their very own studies say there is an urban heat island effect. In fact they even try to correct for it in GISTEMP!

As Blog Scientists we must assume they don't correct for UHI enough. Blog Science knows that GISTEMP is contaminated by UHI bias. In the following graph I correct GISTEMP for UHI by 0.01C/decade.

If this was the full magnitude of UHI contamination that Blog Science was suggesting we would be just making a big deal about nothing! Don't worry we aren't. So obviously we must be talking about a far bigger correction being needed. Lets try correcting GISTEMP by 0.05C/decade for UHI bias.

That's more like it. We can now see that the allegations against GISTEMP not correcting for UHI make a big difference!

Micro-site Biases
The surface record relies on sensors. Sensors are uncannily aware of the tidiness of their surroundings. They are very partial on having nice tidy surroundings and being checked on by men in smart lab coats. If these conditions are not met they refuse to measure temperature properly and just spin around, warmer and warmer, out of control.
It has been proven by Blog Science that James Hansen hasn't personally kept all the sensor locations tidy. In fact noone seems to have bothered and tourists have left rubbish like barrels and boats lying around, items known to cause warming trends. Even worse some people have installed AC units near sensors. Blog Science knows that by installing an AC unit or a boat next to a sensor, that sensor will read ever higher temperatures each year until eventually the sensor will melt.
Warmists claim that the GISTEMP algorithm statistically detects and removes such significant biases from the record. But as Blog Scientists we assume otherwise. We also demand to know why science isn't performed like in the movies? Why aren't there teams of good looking men and woman scientists in shiny suits going around in futuristic metallic science vans tidying up the sensors? Blog Science can only conclude that microsite biases are not properly accounted for in GISTEMP and that these biases cause GISTEMP to be too warm.
Like with UHI bias the microsite bias must be somewhat large or else we would just be making a big deal about nothing! So I propose another correction of 0.05C, this time for microsite bias. The following graph shows the total correction (0.1C/decade) for UHI bias and microsite bias.

We see that correcting for UHI and microsite bias has reduced the warming a lot! So much for the IPCC's predictions of children melting within 20 years.
Now lets compare the corrected GISTEMP to UAH satellite record again. The following graph shows that the previous disagreement between GISTEMP and the satellite record has disappeared thanks to our Blog Science efforts. It has been replaced with a new disagreement though.

Now the satellites show too much warming. The conclusion is obvious. It is time for Blog Science to attack the reliability of the satellite records.