The Australian Temperature Record- The Big Picture

This is part 8, essentially a wrapup see all other parts 1-7 here: http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

Guest post by Ken Stewart, July 2010

“…getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.”

(Harry the mystery programmer, in the HARRY_READ_ME file released with the Climategate files.)

He’s not the only one.  In a commendable effort to improve the state of the data, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has created the Australian  High-Quality Climate Site Network.  However, the effect of doing so has been to introduce into the temperature record a warming bias of  41.67 %.  And their climate analyses on which this is based appear to increase this even further to around  66.67%.

This post is the summation of what I believe is the first ever independent check on the official climate record of Australia.  It is also the first ever independent check on the official record of an entire continent.

I will try to keep it simple.

Here is the official version of “the climate trends and variations in the Australian instrumental record” published for the Australian public, the government, and all the world at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/aus_cvac.shtml

Trend Map, 1910-2009:

Time Series Graph using their handy trend tool:

0.1 degree C per decade, or 1 degree per100 years.

In the BOM website appears this explanation:

The temperature timeseries are calculated from homogeneous or “high-quality” temperature datasets developed for monitoring long-term temperature trends and variability …….. Where possible, each station record in these datasets has been corrected for data “jumps” or artificial discontinuities caused by changes in observation site location, exposure, instrumentation or observation procedure. This involves identifying and correcting data problems using statistical techniques, visual checks and station history information or “metadata”.

and

“High-quality” Australian climate datasets have been developed in which homogeneity problems have been reduced or even eliminated.

I have given a very brief summary of this process in http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

(I should point out that this method was changed somewhat by Della-Marta et al (2004) who also used a distance weighting method as well and included some urban stations and stations with much shorter records.)

Torok and Nicholls (1996), authors of the first (published) homogenization, rightly state that

“ A high-quality, long-term surface air temperature dataset is essential for the reliable investigation of climate change and variability.”

Here is the map showing the 100 currently used High Quality stations that supposedly meet this requirement:

Before my first post, I asked BOM to explain some of the odd things I had noticed in the Queensland data.  Amongst others, this statement by Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, in an email dated 25 April 2010, caught my eye:

“On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).”

This statement has been the yardstick for this study.

Not having access to the list of stations, the metadata, the software used, or the expertise of BOM, the average citizen would normally accept the published results as they stand.  However I wanted to have a closer look.  Surely the results of any adjustments should be easy to compare with the previous record.

I downloaded annual mean maxima and minima for each of the sites from BOM Climate Data Online, calculated annual means and plotted these.  Frequently, two or three stations (some closed) were needed for the entire record from 1910-2009, and even then there sometimes were gaps in the record- e.g. from 1957 to 1964 many stations’ data has not been digitised.  (But 8 years of missing data is nothing- many stations have many years of estimated data  “filled in” to create the High Quality series).  I also downloaded the annual means from the High Quality page, and plotted them.  I then added a linear trend for each.

I  have exhaustively rechecked data and calculations in all 100 sites before compiling this summation.  I have decided to amend only one, Bowen, by creating a splice by reducing early data and omitting some data, so that the trend matches that of HQ.  This is on the basis of no overlap at all, but makes the plot lines roughly meet.  Unsatisfactory, and Bowen should be excluded.  The net effect on the Queensland and Australian trends is negligible (0.01 C).

Let’s look at Dr Jones’ assertion for the whole of Australia.

“…a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature …”

WRONG.

We can look at the record in a number of ways- here is the graph of the average raw and adjusted temperatures for all 100 stations.  The discrepancy is obvious. 

That’s  0.6 degrees C / 100 years for the raw data.  The adjusted trend is 0.85.

Before anyone complains that anomalies give you a more accurate picture of trends across a large region, I also calculated anomalies from the 1961-1990 mean for the all Australian means (0.6 raw to 0.85 HQ  increase)

and for all 100 stations (slightly different result): (0.6 raw to 0.9- 50%)

But the figure BOM publishes is 1.0C- that’s a two-thirds increase!

We can also look at the average adjustment for each station: + 0.23 degrees Celsius. (The table of all 100 stations is too large to include).

Or we can find the median adjustment (+ 0.275 C), and the range of adjustments:

So much for  “these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network”.

We can also look at the  “quality” of the High Quality stations.

Urban vs Non-urban:

“Please note: Stations classified as urban are excluded from the Australian annual temperature timeseries and trend map analyses. Urban stations have some urban influence during part or all of their record.” (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=aus)

In Part 1 I showed how 3 Queensland sites listed as urban by Torok and Nicholls (1996) are now non-urban.  Della-Marta et al resurrected a number of others in other states.

The full list is: Cairns AMO, Rockhampton AMO, Gladstone MO, Port Hedland AMO, Roebourne, Geraldton AMO, Albany AMO, Alice Springs AMO, Strathalbyn, Mount Gambier AMO, Richmond AMO, Mildura AMO, East Sale AMO, Cashmore Airport, Launceston Airport.

15% of the network is comprised of sites that BOM is at pains to assure us are not used to create the climate record.

Long records:

“… the number of stations is much smaller if only stations currently operating and with at least 80 years of data are considered.  To increase the number of long- term stations available, previously unused data were digitised and a number of stations were combined to create composite records… all stations in the dataset (were) open by 1915.” (Torok and Nicholls)

Torok wanted 80 years of data: Della-Marta et al and BOM have settled for much less.  There are six stations with no data before 1930 (80 years ago), but BOM has included these.  Some are truly dreadful:  Woomera- 1950; Giles- 1957; Newman- 1966.

As well, many of the sites have large slabs of data missing, with the HQ record showing “estimates” to fill in the missing years.

Here is a graph of the number of stations with data available for each year.

Note that only 70% of raw data is available for 1910; 90% by 1930; another drop from 1945 to 1960; and the huge drop off in HQ data this decade!

Data comparison:

“Generally, comparison observations for longer than five years were found to provide excellent comparison statistics between the old and new sites…… Comparisons longer than two years, and sometimes between one and two years, were also found to be useful if complete and of good quality… Poor quality comparisons lasting less than two years were generally found to be of limited use.” (Della-Marta et al, 2004)

Wouldn’t “excellent comparison statistics”  be essential for such an important purpose?  Apparently not.  There are many sites with less than five years of overlapping data from nearby stations (up to 20 km apart).  A number of sites have no overlap at all.

This results in enormous gaps in the temperature record.  Here is the map of the High Quality network, with sites deleted if they are (a) listed as urban in 1996 (b) sites with less than 80 years of observations (c) sites with less than 5 years of comparative data overlap- or sometimes all of the above!

The sites left are concentrated in Eastern and South-Western Australia, with an enormous gap in the centre.  Check the (admittedly very aprroximate) scale.

And finally…

Claims made in the State of the Climate  report produced by BOM and CSIRO in March 2010.

Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear…

TRUE.  But the raw data shows the mean temperature since 1910 has increased only 0.6 C.

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030.

REALLY?  That would require between 5 and 12 times the rate of warming seen in the raw temperature record, or between 3 and 7.5 times that shown by BOM’s published figures.

Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades

MAYBE NOT.  See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/political-science-101/

Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real.

TRUE- that’s what climate does.

CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

“Highest quality”?   REALLY?

Conclusion

This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based.  Problems with the High Quality data include:

  • It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
  • The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
  • Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
  • Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
  • The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
  • The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
  • The warming bias in the temperature trend is 41.67%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
  • The trend published by BOM is 66.67% greater than that of the raw data.

The High Quality data does NOT give an accurate record of Australian temperatures over the last 100 years.

BOM has produced a climate record that can only be described as a guess.

The best we can say about Australian temperature trends over the last 100 years is “Temperatures have gone down and up where we have good enough records, but we don’t know enough.”

If Anthropogenic Global Warming is so certain, why the need to exaggerate?

It is most urgent and important that we have a full scientific investigation, completely independent of BOM, CSIRO, or the Department of Climate Change, into the official climate record of Australia.

I will ask Dr Jones for his response.

(Thanks to Lance for assistance with downloading data, and janama for his NSW work.  Also Jo Nova for her encouragement.)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

in other words, the whole thing is manufactured. the end product is a product of algorithms, not of measurements
and it was “the smoking gun at darwin zero” that first opened my eyes to these shenanigans!

paulsnz

If AGW is true, why the obvious obscuration.

andy

This looks an interesting analysis thanks, but you start poorly by stating results with four significant figures, as if your calculations could be so accurate. Stating a value of “about 42%” makes more sense than “41.67%”. I will read a bit further anyway.

sky

Bravo! If station data, which were never acquired for scientific purposes, are going to be used to estimate reputed changes of ~.1K/decade, then maintenance of a consistent datum-level throughout the period of record is mandatory. By constantly “adjusting” that level in the anomaly series, an unscientifcally arbitrary result is produced. You’ve done a great service by exposing this.

Bob_FJ

Ken, I’m curious;
How does the BOM produce those sexy “contour maps” of temperature trend with so few data points for the centre and lots of WA, such as for the period 1910 to 2009? (your fig 1). Your final figure suggests that well over 5 million square Km have no reliable data, including Alice Springs, at dead centre!!!!!!
Regards; Perplexed of Melbourne

rbateman

Didn’t the Aussie electorate just reject a lot of politicians, who were out to impose a crushing tax & trade over the exaggerations of climate warming?

starzmom

Adjusted data are results, not data. Extrapolated data points aren’t data either. This should be pointed out to the BOM, among others.

Vin Charles

Congratulations on this detailed report. I wonder how D.Jones will wriggle out of this. But I am certain he will wriggle as he usually does when confronted with facts.

Hallett

Thankyou thankyou for this analysis. For those of us scientists ‘Down Under’ who see the BOM and CSIRO’s prophecies on AGW offered as fact, it’s great to get an independent view. I’ve no doubt you’ll get a waffly explanation from the BOM. They’re terribly righteous.

Bill Illis

The adjustments are important because temperatures are already well-below that which was predicted. The CO2/GHG increase to date indicates that temperature should have risen by about 1.4C (give or take a real increase in human-made aerosols reflecting sunlight and give or take the ocean absorbing more of the heating than should be expected).
So a 0.5C increase versus a 1.0C or 0.8C makes a big difference at this point. A 0.5C “real” increase means the warmers actually have to go back to the drawing board and global warming will probably not be a problem at all. A 1.0C or 0.8C means the warming will take longer than expected “and” the climate scientists just need to find a few more negatives like aerosols to explain the lack-of-warming to date.
These few tenths of adjustments are important.

Chris in OZ

An excellent post, confirms what us Australian skeptics always believed.
My next move is to email the “conclusions” to our politicians, TODAY ! with links to WUWT.
Very timely, we do have a Federal election in a couple of weeks time and the “Green Plans” are still on the books !

oldtimerlex

Very interesting. Did you plot a series with just the remaining stations that met the criteria? Regards Alex

John Blake

“High quality data,” indeed– a swagman camping by a billabong, under the shade of a coolibah tree, could spit his jolly jumbuck with more oomph. Why is it, that every time some veddy official body deigns to publish HQD, disinterested observers rapidly expose everything as a charade? Here again, credentialed Cargo Cultists acting in bad faith under false pretenses have vented noxious AGW fumes. Faugh!

Found Dr. Elsasser’s 1942, “Infrared Radiation Heat Transfer in the Atm” on ScribeD.
Page 23 is particularly interesting!
Note to CTM: Please move to tips and notes, which is not working right currently (Tuesday evening.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34962513/Elsasser1942

Scott Brim

Looking at the graph, a rough visual trace drawn between about 1915 and about 1955 shows a forty-year trend of “flat or slightly down.” A similarly rough visual trace drawn between 1955 and 2005 shows a fifty-year trend of “most definitely up.”
If you did statistical analysis against both the raw temperature data set and the adjusted temperature data set for each of those two periods, 1915-1955 and 1955-2005, what would the significance numbers look like for each set for each period?

I notice that BoM gives ENSO as now higher than it has been since early 2008. I wonder if that’s an omen of more decline in need of hiding.

The earth is supposed to be warming out of control this century. If it were, these people would not be having to squeeze a few fake tenths of a degree out of the data sets.
The whole global warming story has become a massive farce. Why would any self-respecting person want to be associated with it?

latitude

What Steve said.
“0.1 degree C per decade, or 1 degree per 100 years.”
So if you only have to fudge 0.01 degree C per year, no problem.

Raredog

Great work Ken. I look forward to Dr Jones’ response. Any chance you could get your work into a peer-reviewed journal?

Richard M

Looks to me like the adjustments were about equal … just not temporally. Cooling adjustments during the early years and warming adjustments later on.

Any chance of publishing this?
Peer review would make it stronger and may require a refutation from BOM.
Perhaps with an academic co-author.

Vorlath

Why does New Zealand pop into my head reading about all this?

Peter Jones

I think the comment that “the adjustments have been equally positive and negative” means that they have biased the older years by making them colder and more recent years by making them warmer.

paul

if this is Dr. David Arfon Jones face book page his bias should be seen in its political context

James Sexton

Well, yeh, but this is only a very small portion of the globe. I’m really extra sure the rest of it is very reliable! Well, OK, forget about New Zealand, too. And it’s already been shown how we don’t really need thermometers to know what the anomalies are in certain parts of the world. And the oceans, that’s where most of the world is, shows that its getting really hot down there and we know those are more truthful than land thermometers anyway, so this issue probably doesn’t matter…………..starting now!

Jason Joice

For years now I have conceded that the world has indeed been warming, although the source of that warming was, IMO, not because of human influence. I am really wondering if I need to rethink my position. Perhaps the world is not warming at all and the warming we thought we were seeing has been completely manufactured through data adjustments/manipulation.

Binny

But…. but…. the debate was over, the science was settled, no one told us our work would be checked by independent nitpickers looking for faults……. this is just sooo unfair.

jorgekafkazar

Visual inspection shows that the hottest zones have the fewest sensor locations. I think the next hottest have just slightly more sensors, and so on. I tried to do an overlay, but the maps are not congruent. It’s worse than we thought.

James Sexton

Peter Jones says:
July 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“I think the comment that “the adjustments have been equally positive and negative” means that they have biased the older years by making them colder and more recent years by making them warmer.”
I believe your statement is true.

John Wright

As they say here in France: “Why do simple when you can do complicated?”

rbateman

I am willing to bet that they followed the GISS script on how to manufacture more warming than actually exists.
The pattern match is remarkable.

Doug Proctor

Is it possible to have a meeting with Dr. Jones’ staff who did the work, and figure out why the differences are as they are? In technically based companies with stockholders and bonuses to consider, it is common for a technical person’s “I think maybe” to become “absolutely, without question” three levels up the management chain. Only bankruptcy or insolvency brings reality to the game. Perhaps that is the problem with politicians: there is no equivalent of creditors (voters) taking the shirt from your back, so neither you nor your successor has to ‘fess up to what has gone on.

jorgekafkazar

Max Hugoson says: “Found Dr. Elsasser’s 1942, “Infrared Radiation Heat Transfer in the Atm” on ScribeD. Page 23 is particularly interesting!”
The link is largely illegible in browsers other than Internet Explorer. I got an error message in IE citing a malicious add-on at that site.
NOTA BENE: The continuing risible defense of the indefensible by the Climate Crisis Crew makes me wonder whether they are stonewalling not because they think anyone will believe them, but because they’re hoping skeptics’ focus on the known lies will keep anyone from delving deeper to an even more fundamental layer of fabrication and pseudoscience.
“Pay no attention to that Mann behind the curtain, and whatever you do, don’t look behind him for yet another curtain.”

Chris in OZ

DoctorJJ says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“Perhaps the world is not warming at all and the warming we thought we were seeing has been completely manufactured through data adjustments/manipulation.”
————————————–
At Last ! You’ve got that bit right.
Bit of a slow learner, but don’t dispare, there are another 100 million out there who are at the bottom of the learning curve !!
They just need a bit more time !!

Jeff (of Colorado)

These records were written down in log books, what is the rounding error? Plus or minus 0.5 degrees perhaps. Thermometers must be calibrated so they show the same measurement for the same temperature, I assume this was not done. What is this error? If it is 0.2 degrees or greater, then the total error for just these two items matches what is being measured. Is there a consistent time of day when measurements were taken either at a site or nation wide? Measuring even an hour later than normal would change the measurement significantly. Are there early morning measurement on Saturday? Perhaps Friday night at the pub would interfere with a timely rising! These measurements cannot be used with the accuracy desired to show AGW!

Lord Jim

DoctorJJ says: “For years now I have conceded that the world has indeed been warming, although the source of that warming was, IMO, not because of human influence. I am really wondering if I need to rethink my position. Perhaps the world is not warming at all and the warming we thought we were seeing has been completely manufactured through data adjustments/manipulation.”
Except the satellite records since 1979 are a relatively uncontaminated and robust data set.

Tim Neilson

rbateman says:
July 27, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Not exactly. The Labor government were pushing for a cap and trade to be introduced BEFORE Copenhagen so that the then Prime Minister could bask in self adulation live on stage. The Opposition were weakly going for the “me too” approach and agreeing to it, when us neanderthal troglodyte reactionaries started emailing, writing etc demanding they man up. The Opposition dumped its leader, the new guy Tony Abbott managed (just) to have the cap and trade defeated, the media predicted he’d get walloped by the electorate in response, but at two bye elections for the House of Representatives soon after there were swings towards the Opposition. Some time later, partly (though not only) because of that debacle, Labor panicked, axed the Prime Minister and replaced him with our current PM Julia Gillard. She’s desperately trying to walk both sides of the AGW street, making the usual fashionable “climate change” comments but desperately trying to avoid any firm commitment to a cap and trade. There is an election coming up, and it’s likely that Labor will get back in on the basis of Gillard managing to look a lot more conservative on most issues, and who knows what they’ll do once they are back in, so we’re not out of the woods yet.

Roger Knights

Binny says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm
But…. but…. the debate was over, the science was settled, no one told us our work would be checked by independent nitpickers looking for faults……. this is just sooo unfair.

They thought they could get away with it. And why not — there were no “peers” who were going to “review” their work, that’s for sure.

James Sexton

DoctorJJ says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“For years now I have conceded that the world has indeed been warming, although the source of that warming was, IMO, not because of human influence. I am really wondering if I need to rethink my position. Perhaps the world is not warming at all and the warming we thought we were seeing has been completely manufactured through data adjustments/manipulation.”
Like you, I had conceded, in times past, that the world has been warming. Given the work done here and other sites, I’ve maintained for sometime now, no one can prove the globe is warming. Malevolent data adjustments have been shown beyond doubt. Many earlier posts here have shown vast areas where we don’t even track the data. Just by eyeballing it, I’d say half of the land mass of the globe isn’t tracked with a thermometer by the prevalent climate tracking organizations. Of course, there is always the well-known good area coverage of the SST’s. There isn’t a sane person in the world that can tell you they absolutely know the earth is warming.
The lack of coverage is excepted but the warmists say the can extrapolate the temps for areas they don’t cover. The willful manipulation of the data has been shown. On this post and many others. The poor sightings of temp stations have been exposed to the point of concession, except it is maintained that the statistical difference is null in the sightings that are incorrect.
Yeh, given the interpolation of temps we don’t track and the manipulation of the data we do track, the warming inferred by the poorly sighted temp tracking stations could probably equal the other deceptive mechanisms in the warmista’s arsenal. In other words, the fudge factor of one is congruent to the fudge factor of two, which is congruent to the fudge factor of three. See proof positive we’re warming! No one can state affirmatively we are warming over any significant period of time.
What galls me the most, is that people that truly believe this tripe don’t hold the people making the assertions to a standard of truth. The impending Himalaya melt for example. The assertion was something simply pulled out of one’s posterior, yet, it is believed. Later it is shown to be a fabrication. Alarmists aren’t angry at the person that misled them and exposed them as people that will believe anything. They get angry at the people that showed the Himalaya meltists to be frauds and charlatans. Just like the Pat Sajek posting earlier, they don’t get offended that the mouth pieces of CAGW don’t live like they espouse, they get offended at the people that point to the hypocrisy of the way they live. Just coming from me, I’d expect more from my preacher.

GrantB

Email from Phil Jones to Tom Karl and Wei-Chyung Wang, 12 July 2007
“Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA…”
Ken, did Dr David Jones actually correspond by email with you on 25 April 2010 or with someone else? Perhaps there are two David Jones’ at the BOM, one who answers requests irrespective of who sent them and the other, unbeknown to we Australian taxpayers who employ him, only corresponds with his personally vetted climate cogniscenti.

Graeme W

Jeff (of Colorado) says:
July 27, 2010 at 9:26 pm
These records were written down in log books, what is the rounding error? Plus or minus 0.5 degrees perhaps.

Is there a consistent time of day when measurements were taken either at a site or nation wide?

As I understand it, old records are manual reads, so a 0.5 degree error is certainly a possibility. The modern readings are down to a 0.1 degree, so the error is probably 0.05 (though I don’t know what the instrument accuracy is).
On the second point, the BOM reports minimum and maximum for the 24 hours prior to 9am. In the old days, this was done using thermometers that showed a max/min value, which was reset with each read at 9am. In modern times, they just keep monitoring them and determine what was the max/min. However, I don’t believe there is any adjustment made for daylight saving, the 24 hour range is different in the states with daylight saving in summer as compared to those states without daylight saving, or historical temperatures before daylight saving was introduced.
As the max/min is almost always well away from 9am, this means there is almost no TOBS bias.

Ken has not yet got around to the all the uncertainties. Waht aboiut taking the mean of a maximum and minimum measured once a day. The error can be a degree or two. Then averaging for the week, month, year. Each stage uncertainties, usually skewed. Then subtract from the average for the reference period. The true uncertainties must greatly exceed the supposed “trend”

rbateman

jorgekafkazar says:
July 27, 2010 at 9:15 pm
NOTA BENE: Yes, they are stonewalling, for behind the next curtain they are certainly up to something.
How long & loud did NOAA scream about oil leak worse than we previously imagined, then Thad Allen pops up today and asks:
“Where’s the oil?”. 800 skimmers reportedly gathered 54 gallons today. Say what?
He went > thataway <.

Ian George

The difference between raw data and the ‘high quality’ temp graphs at the Aust BOM is well-known. For example, Darwin’s temps in the early part of the 1900s have been dumbed down in the HQ data sets. Just check the raw data at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=014016
against the HQ data at:-
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=nt&station=014015&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=5
For instance, 1910 has max av temp at 32.4C – the HQ graph shows 31.8C.
This happens right across the board. No wonder we’re warming when the earlier temps have been ‘dumbed down’.
And there was a Stevenson Shield operating at Darwin PO from the 1890s.

John F. Hultquist

andy at 5:37 pm % ?
Why make a big deal about significant figures when it is immaterial to the context of the topic?
If I have $3 and you only have $2, then you have two-thirds the amount I have. How many significant figures would you use to represent such a notion in percentage terms?

jorgekafkazar

John F. Hultquist says: “andy at 5:37 pm % ? Why make a big deal about significant figures when it is immaterial to the context of the topic?”
Desperation?

DoctorJJ says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm

For years now I have conceded that the world has indeed been warming, although the source of that warming was, IMO, not because of human influence. I am really wondering if I need to rethink my position. Perhaps the world is not warming at all and the warming we thought we were seeing has been completely manufactured through data adjustments/manipulation.

I’ve been having the exact same concern this last year, and it’s growing…

Dr. Robert Talisker

I just checked the records for my local BOM Weather station. July mean was 15.3 degrees. The mean for the last 70 years was 15.4

Patrick Davis

Great work. Not one bit surprised at he bias from the BoM. Australia is the “me too” country next to New Zeland. NZ has an ETS, so too will Australia if either Labor or the Liberals “win” the election in August.
Shame they haven’t yet had a whif of the fact that every other country, in particular, is or had dropped any such policy.
Good on Australia, the lucky country where, soon, we’ll all be lucky to have jobs!

Patrick Davis

Well, spelling is shoot, not a surprise after working 31.5 hrs in 48!!
Great work. Not one bit surprised at he bias from the BoM. Australia is the “me too” country next to New Zealand. NZ has an ETS, so too will Australia if either Labor or the Liberals “win” the election in August.
Shame they haven’t yet had a whif of the fact that every other country, in particular the US, is about to or has dropped any such policy.
Good on Australia, the lucky country where, soon, we’ll all be lucky to have jobs!