Guest essay by Bob Fernley-Jones
Our taxpayer funded broadcaster here in Oz, the ABC, has recently aired a scary story in its “science” TV show Catalyst, entitled Climate Extremes. (For the brave, the video and web page plus comments is here). For extra emphasis on TV there were repeated shots of several heat stressed old ladies on hospital stretchers, stacks of coffins (caskets), and much thunder and lightning etcetera.
But hey, there was this more technical screenshot sequence that rather caught my eye at about 3 ½ minutes in:
The narration elucidated how these bell curves clarified why the weather had become more extreme in the past decade, and, being a tad curious I searched around for the source, but without success. My closest find is contained in a report by our Oz government funded Climate Commission entitled The Angry Summer. (2012/3 DJF) This august body is headed by Prof Tim Flannery and amongst its expert advisors is Prof David Karoly, about whom I guess many overseas readers have heard?
But, engineers like me tend to be suspicious, and one thing I puzzled on was that the change in global average T of 0.80 C took place over a period of ~160 years according to HadCRU, and that the Catalyst show implied that the alleged effects were concentrated into the last decade.
I also worried that Carl Gauss would probably writhe in his 18th century grave to see his statistical normal distribution curve applied to an extremely complex system by our modern wizards of CAGW. In reality, the real distribution must be very lopsided around the global average of 150 C, (288K). And, the absence of units and scale also seems to be a touch odd and I pondered if it might err into an exaggeration. Putting aside the great media reverence for our Climate Commission, it disturbed me enough to compile this stuff below:
I found that not all weather extreme bell curves are equal. For instance, David Karoly is senior co-author in a recent paper entitled; The human role in our ‘angry’ hot summer, which uses a different concept. It employs some modelling projections and is based on a regional sample of Australia only and summer only, (and maybe with distribution closer to normal?). Perhaps it could be fun for anyone who might wish to explore it. Karoly’s retracted Gergis et al SH hocky-stick paper and his conclusions on a biology paper of modelled 10-day early emergence of Melbourne butterflies based on Avalon Airport temperature history, etcetera, do not fill me with confidence though!
Above is an interesting variation in figure 1.9 on page 44 of the 2nd draft AR5 IPCC report. It is a combination of two other bell curves (a) and (b).
Strangely, the Climate Commission’s claim of their source as from AR4 (S. Solomon et al) is not found in the relevant chapter 3. (E.g. 3.8.2 Evidence for Changes in Variability or Extremes – not there)
Part 2:Some more economies in material facts and relevance:
Back to our recent TV show:
NARRATION: This past year in Australia, we’ve seen plenty of heat. At the Bureau of Meteorology, forecasters have been watching record after record tumble.
The first figure from our Climate Commission below left is compared with data from our BoM. Although the BoM have apparently discarded some hotter old records, still yet, NONE of the remaining State or Territory records were broken in the angry summer according to the current BoM table, (right, modified to fit):
But, back to our TV show again quoting a wise doctor of authority in CAGW:
Dr Karl Braganza [BoM]: January was the hottest month on record. The summer was the hottest on record [in Oz]…
The next two graphs give the BoM time-series records for January and summer monthly maximum average temperature data for the crucially important Murray-Darling (rivers) Basin (MDB) “food bowl”. There was nothing special about summer in that vast area covering substantial parts of four States; a map is available here. (BTW, Oz is roughly the same size as the contiguous USA). According to the BoM the volatility of monthly past extremes in the MDB was greater than in the last decade. The master link is here and it has drop-down menus that enable visit to other regions and seasons.
|
So what about the individual States and Territories of Oz? Well here they are (treating the Capital Territory or ACT as part of New South Wales or NSW) for the reportedly hottest month of January, but cut off short for compactness and to ease hotness comparison:
|
|
For more commentary on the earlier unbroken temperature records map above right see this, and here is another reference which includes UAH satellite data for Australia also showing the so-called “Angry Summer”, as rather ordinary.
The drop-down menus enable research of the BoM time-series variously by regions and seasons or months, and my conclusion is that monthly average temperature extremes were greater in the past, and so too was monthly volatility. It would take much space here to demonstrate that but the drop-down menus provide the capability for those that may be interested to research it.
Part 3:Breaking the mood with something almost amusing:
I’ve also submitted a wider ranging formal complaint to our taxpayer funded ABC, concerning the bias and other stuff in this story, (the ABC is required by statute to serve the public, and breached its own editorial policies). I closed the complaint off with this:
Ms [Anja] Taylor was the declared presenter, producer and researcher for this show. She presented almost entirely extreme views with an apparent lack of investigative journalism. With the exception of Dr Fischer’s input about the warming effect of dry soils, (which is not controversial if we ignore Prof David Karoly), all other topics were either demonstrably false or controversial. Not content with presenting scientific material facts and balance, (the Editorial Policies require impartiality), she adds inappropriate drama and irrelevance including these images:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thingadonta @ur momisugly 2:32 am:
No ‘angry winter’ in Aus. I suppose the 5 consecutive days of waking up to -5C and hard frost in country Victoria don’t count?
I meant 3:32: sorry about incorrect time.
There was also snow on the surrounding hills.
***
Dr. John M. Ware says:
August 28, 2013 at 6:26 am
Slightly but not grossly off topic: I read a release this morning showing that the US summer of 2013 had the fewest recorded 100-degree(-plus) days in over a century
***
Dunno, but the avg “highest temp” here in rural west MD is ~94 – 98F. The highest this summer was 91F. Certainly nearby city/airport areas were higher from the urban heat-islands. And my oven has gotten up to 400F+ regularly!
Well that’s a nice analysis and would certainly be addressed by a media corporation that accidentally got a few things wrong. Raise your hand if you think that’s the case here….
In my, best work, which was published in recent years about the extremes of weather is: A general perspective of extreme events in weather and climate, by Philip Sura (2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809511000172) – by no gauss distribution.
Especially (just not for alarmists) I recommend the sentence:
“…but the region is more likely to have experienced such extremes in the past and thus to have infrastructure which is adapted to such occurrences.”
The decrease gradients: pressure and temperature – as a result of global warming; if it is dominant, will by reduce the number of extreme events – whether we know how will it be?
Tom Knutson (2008, 2013 – http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/) write:
“To explore which effect of these effects might “win out”, we can run experiments with our regional downscaling model.”
So, we do not know?
At the time of the old warming the number of heat waves (and their extremity) is always decreasing.: “According to Davis and colleagues, the higher latitude continents north of 50N in both periods [max. Eemian, mid-Holocene] were much warmer than present-day climate in winter, not so much warmer in summer. “Climate models don’t do this. „… they are generally too warm on summer …” (blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/12/dispatch-from-agu-an-equable-climate-curveball/).
So when the old warming, did not increase the amount of extremes (and if you grow – that marginally?)
Why should it be different now?
The current increase in the number of extreme events is a (mostly) the sum of the effects: more precise methods of measurement, positive AMO, meandering jet stream; the current warming strengthens or weakens general these effects?
We simply do not know – and that’s all it should be in the IPCC report.
@stan stendera 5:34 am
Lost in the fog of war is what is going to happen to the greens. They are going to be obliterated.
So, they are going from 3 seats to 2?
As an American, I am under informed about the Australian election. In the US Presidential Election of 2012, we had an opposition party that didn’t make an issue of Climate Change policies and Obama wasn’t going to bring it up if he didn’t have to. 3 seats out of 100 in the US Senate is all it takes to change course, and the Republicans couldn’t even do that.
So I guess I’m asking if the Australian opposition is any more talented at building public demand for the demolition of Climate Change policies than the incompetents over in the US?
Please tell me there is a “throw the bums out” current in the electorate that includes directorship of the ABC and all climate commissions.
The Other Phil is (regrettably) incorrect. Of the 3 types of averages, mean is the one fairly described as dividing an area in half.
Mean – Sum of all members divided by how many members (of a set)
Median – Middle number (after sorting in numerical order)
Mode – Most Common Number
For example: of the set 1 1 1 2 2 3 11
Mean 3 [21/7 = 3]
Median 2 [(1 1 1) 2 (2 3 11)]
Mode 1 [(1 1 1) 2 2 3 11]
You can prove almost anything with statistics, especially if you are unskilled in statistics. If climate science shows anything it is that a lack of skill in statistics is a prerequisite to a degree.
David L. says:
Spot on! The temperature for St. Louis was ordinary not extreme yet it was reported as extreme. What a crock!
One of the problems in using averages – and more often anomalies – is that the processing that goes into creating the average and anomalies can create statistical trends where no such trends exist in the underlying data.
For example, in general what the temperature records show is that minimum temperatures are increasing, but maximum temperatures are not. When you use averages this gives the impression that what is happening is that things are getting warmer during the day. But in reality they are not.
What is happening is that the extremes between day and night are decreasing. Which if anything should reduce extreme weather, because weather is largely a product of temperature differences.
Flannery and august body are words that should never been in the same sentance .
After the election ,if there is any justice, his toast anyway.
Amazing how the BBC, the ABC and our own CBC are all slanted the same way. On the CBC (for those not familiar – the Canadian Broadcasting Corp) it seems every third show either has David Suzuki expounding Climate Whatever and the evils of Dirty Oil, or another documentary showing the same or the news talking about the melting North Pole. Given the taxpayer subsidies wasted on the CBC not many Canadians make it the channel of choice. I haven’t heard too many rants regarding ANY extreme weather. But mind you, I don’t watch it very often. Nothing worthwhile.
ferd berple says:
August 28, 2013 at 7:23 am
One of the problems in using averages – and more often anomalies – is that the processing that goes into creating the average and anomalies can create statistical trends where no such trends exist in the underlying data.
For example, in general what the temperature records show is that minimum temperatures are increasing, but maximum temperatures are not. When you use averages this gives the impression that what is happening is that things are getting warmer during the day. But in reality they are not.
What is happening is that the extremes between day and night are decreasing. Which if anything should reduce extreme weather, because weather is largely a product of temperature differences.
How do you square that with the evidence that new record maximum temperatures are outpacing record minimums? See here for example:
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs.-record-lows
Come September 7 when we vote in a new government with PM Abbott, Flim- flam and Karoly poley will be on unemployment benefits with the Climate Commision as such abolished. The majority of Australians can’t wait for this to happen. Even the present PM KRudd will have a hard time keeping his seat. As for the ABC they are just a basket case.
JohnC says:
August 28, 2013 at 7:12 am
The Other Phil is (regrettably) incorrect. Of the 3 types of averages, mean is the one fairly described as dividing an area in half.
Mean – Sum of all members divided by how many members (of a set)
Median – Middle number (after sorting in numerical order)
Mode – Most Common Number
OK I’ll bite, what is the average of the highest and lowest numbers called. You know the number in all the temp datasets?
Now, I figured I’d watch that taxpayer funded, ABC “science” TV show Catalyst special titled, Climate Extremes, and I’ll admit that I had no idea that it had gotten so hot outside that forests could actually spontaneously combust. So, to get a more accurate picture of just how gosh darned hot it is outside I figured I’d check out the combustion temperature of wood.
Unlike with paper, where there was a book titled with the actual temperature it begins to burn at, there is no similar book for wood so I had to look it up. So, if you choose to write such a book, here is the temperature; Fahrenheit 540. A great title for a polemic on global warming, eh?
But here’s the problem. The global average temperature was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit in 2013. And that’s also coming from a taxpayer funded source and we all know that taxpayers have never put up with their money being ever used for corrupt nefarious purposes. So, that figure must be accurate. And that indicates a rise of 1.44 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) from a preindustrial temperature of 56.76 degrees. That’s quite a long ways from 540 degrees. So the only thing I can assume is that that 1.44 degree rise, which has resulted in an increase in high temperatures aaaaalllll the way up to 540 must be accompanied by low temperatures all the way down to -423.6 degrees Fahrenheit to get that 58.2 degree average. Maybe it’s just me but I think low temperatures down to -423.6 degrees would be quite newsworthy as well.
That is, unless there’s a new math at work where 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2 which averages out to one. No, 1 + 1 = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
You know who was better at predicting the future then the CAGW crowd – Michael Crichton. The alarmists need to stop following his script before someone gets eaten.
From FrankK on August 28, 2013 at 8:33 am:
*sigh*
This is what I’ve learned about Australian politics. The elected parties pull a PM out of a car, said PM turns out to be a clown. After a while the crowd roars their anger and disappointment, the parties mill and run around a bit, then pull another PM from the car. Who also turns out to be a clown, and the last one might go back in the car and get picked again.
You Aussies can vote in as many new governments as you want, the parties will keep pulling people out of the car, as many as it takes to keep the crowd from booing. They’ll still all be clowns.
Wake me up when Andrew Bolt becomes PM. Then I’ll know either virtually the entire country has become focused on sensible reform and rationally restoring their global relevance, or has become so permanently absolutely irredeemably corrupt it even turned that great champion of national sanity. Either will signal there was finally some change from “government as usual” at the Canberra Circus.
For a long time I’ve had problems with using the average daily temperature. I’ve seen it shown several times that most of the measured warming is coming from increase nighttime temperatures not higher daytime temperatures. Nighttime temperatures have the greatest impact from UHI effects as man made infrastructure radiates its collected heat back into the atmosphere. I’m ok with averaging local or regional highs for a week or at most a month. Same for average lows. To allow the use of average daily temperatures invites the CAGW magicians to place any number of cards up their sleeve. With looking at just averaged high temps or average low temps it would be harder for the CAGW gang to explain how greenhouse gases have a greater effect in one 12 hour period and not another. Then the argument can be properly driving to the CAGW purveyors use of poorly sited weather stations and their inadequate adjustments for UHI effects.
But what do I know? I’m not a “scientist”.
@JohnC 7:12am
Of the 3 types of averages, mean is the one fairly described as dividing an area in half
Dividing the area by half is the median point, Cumulative 50% point of the distribution, equal numbers above and below, regardless of how far away.
The mean is the dividing the first moment of the area in half. The balance point or centroid of the Area. Area*(distance from the mean)
The difference between the three is important if the distribution is not symmetric.
(1,1,1,1,2,2,3,6,10) Sum = 27, Count = 9.
Median is 2, (the 5th out of 9)
Mean is 3.
Mode is 1 (most frequent)
The claim that there has been only 0.8 degrees change in the normal distribution of the temperature spread, should mean that if you look at very similar periods of weather data modulated by repeating patterns of cyclic influences in the weather, then the short term patterns should reinforce each other if there is really a cyclic influence of any real strength.
I have compiled an analog forecast using this method based on atmospheric tidal repeating patterns, using the real raw data from each of the equivalent dates separated by 6558 days into the past. The results show that the composites follow the rain patterns, frontal progressions across the face of the Earth both in North America and Australia.
This allows the generation of an up to 18 year long forecast of the expected repeating patterns that can be viewed as detailed maps with a grid resolution of 0.05 degrees or squares with three miles on a side, that you can view free on line with no commercial content or ads. What I usually do is open the forecast maps, click next for a period of about 5 to 7 days, then by clicking on the map itself, it opens in a new tab (in firefox), click the original tab ask for the previous day for the parameter(s) you wish to view, click and save to new tabs what you want and proceed to open maps in new tabs until you reach today’s date.
Then you can save this window for repeated viewing to compare to real time data for a week long period to watch the progress of the frontal systems as they move across the maps in regard to the real time weather. This process allows me to watch the effects that are repeated and the ones that are not, this gives me additional insight as to the short term solar effects of flares and CMEs that weren’t occurring in the past cycles on the dates in question.
One of the trends I have noticed with this method is the weakening of the solar and geomagnetic fields has decreased the size and severity of the storminess, the tropical storms that developed into Irene and Sandy, were right on time in their arrival and close to the same tracks as the storms from 1938-1939.(the fourth pattern back in the repeating cycles). The East to West tracking of the frontal boundary from the past month were the same as the equivalent cycles before.
There are currently maps posted until May of 2014, and we will be adding more out to the end of 2020, as funds to pay the developer become available.
I am an amateur as defined by the old school, of science for the sake of finding the truth, out of the interest and love of it.
Enjoy, Richard Holle.
The stupdity here is AGW theory called for LESS extreme weather/climate going forward not more extreme.
AGW called for a more zonal +AO (ARCTIC OSCILLATION ) going forward which equates to less extremes in climate/weather..
The REALITY is the atmospheric circulation has been trending toward a more meridional -AO going forward which will cause the weather/climate to be more extreme, or at least more persistent which has indeed happened post 2009.
The more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern in turn can be shown to be tied to prolonged solar minimum periods . We have entered a prolonged solar minimum period, commenced in year 2005.
AGW theory is now trying to hijack the extreme climate /more meridional atmospheric circulation concept to fit into their soon to be obsolete theory. A theory which originally called for no such things.
“I also worried that Carl Gauss would probably writhe in his 18th century grave to see his statistical normal distribution curve applied to an extremely complex system by our modern wizards of CAGW.”
Warning: This graph is highly effective in frightening Hollywood actresses and actors, and K-6 school children in a new Common Core science curriculum. Not intended for use outside of these vulnerable populations.
… I puzzled on was that the change in global average T of 0.80 C took place over a period of ~160 years according toHadCRU, and that the Catalyst show implied that the alleged effects were concentrated into the last decade …
———————————–
Added to that is the fact that the global temperature has been steady for at least that period so according to the programme producers CO2 must be having some mysterious direct effect on the climate other than as a greenhouse gas.
Ferd Berple: ”What is happening is that the extremes between day and night are decreasing. Which if anything should reduce extreme weather, because weather is largely a product of temperature differences.”
Excellent point! The Oz BoM does show significant reduction in diurnal range, e.g. here for all Oz in summer:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=dtr&area=aus&season=1202&ave_yr=T