Guest essay by Dr. B Basil Beamish
On Friday 29 October 2010, The Cairns Post published an article based on a Queensland Government report entitled “Climate change in Queensland: What the science is telling us” (QDERM, 2010). The article referred to predicted impacts of climate change affecting the Far North Queensland region.
One of the statements contained in the article was: “The number of days over 35C in Cairns is expected to triple and the Gulf and Cape can expect longer drier spells interrupted by more intense rainfall.” The reference to tripling was based on an assumed high emissions scenario by the year 2050.
Since the release of this report five more years of data have become available and it is worth comparing the actual trend in hot days for Cairns with respect to the model projections as given in the QDERM report.
QDERM (2010) presented a table on the projected increase in the average number of hot days per year for several regional centres across Queensland (Figure 19, page 29). The model projections for Cairns are shown in Table 1 and are based on three different climate model scenarios: (1) 2030 with a medium emissions scenario; (2) 2050 with a low emissions scenario; and (3) 2050 with a high emissions scenario. The values in the brackets are the range for each scenario projection (10th and 90th percentiles).
Figure 1 shows the trend in hot days for Cairns since 1910 to 2015 using the publicly available ACORN-SAT data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The emission scenario projections contained in Table 1 are also shown in Figure 1 for reference. A 30-year moving average has been added to the graph to illustrate how the average number of hot days is trending from a climate perspective.
Figure 1. Trend in the number of hot days for Cairns from 1910-2010 and model projections from the QDERM report for the average number of hot days by 2030 and 2050.
As 2030 will be the first of the projection dates to be reached it provides an opportunity to look at the number of hot days required to reach the model projections for that year. For example, the average number of hot days required to be maintained from 2011-2030 to reach the median value can be calculated as follows:
Projected average number of hot days by 2030 (medium emissions) = 6
Therefore, the number of hot days projected for 2001-2030 is:
6 x 30 = 180
The number of hot days recorded from 2001-2010 is:
(2 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 4 + 0 + 3) = 21
Therefore, the number of hot days from 2011-2030 required to reach the model projection is:
180 – 21 = 159
Average number of hot days required each year from 2011-2030 is:
159/20 = 7.95
Similar calculations are used for the 10th and 90th percentile values and the corresponding results are shown in Table 1. It should be noted that there has never been a sustained period of hot days greater than or equal to 6 in the entire Cairns temperature record. 30-year moving averages have been added to Figure 2 for the 2030 medium emissions scenario for each of the median value and percentile levels based on the average number of hot days required every year from 2011 onwards to achieve the model projection value for each of these parameters.
Figure 2. Trend in the number of hot days for Cairns from 2011-2030 required to achieve the model projections contained in the QDERM report.
In the years from 2011-2015 Cairns has experienced the following number of hot days, 2011 – 1; 2012 – 0; 2013 – 8; 2014 – 0; and 2015 – 5. This is an average of 2.8 hot days per year, which is well below that required to reach the model projection for 2030. This is visibly apparent in Figure 2 as the observed 30-year moving average has already deviated significantly below the 10th percentile line.
A fourth option (“No change”) has been added to Figure 2 for comparison, which assumes that the number of hot days for Cairns from 2016-2030 will not be any different to the number of hot days from 2001-2015. If this eventuates then the projected 30-year moving average returns to a level similar to the late 1960’s and deviates even further from the model projections.
On Wednesday 28 January 2015 another article was published in the Cairns Post that stated: “CAIRNS may no longer be a comfortable place to live by the end of the century with the amount of days where the temperature rises above 35C set to increase threefold.”
This was based on the release of a joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology report that contains projections of the Far North’s climate by the end of the 21st Century (McInnes et al, 2015). It would seem that the threefold increase in the number of hot days has now been extended by 40 more years to 2090 as a result of these latest model projections (Table 2).
Results of applying the same analysis to the CSIRO/BOM model projections as for the QDERM model projections for 2030 are shown in Figure 3. In this case the time starts from 2016 not 2011 and the average number of hot days required from 2016-2030 to reach the projected value is 8.67 with a range from 6.47 to 13.47. The increase in the number of hot days to reach the model projections is higher compared to the QDERM model projections due to the shorter timeframe to 2030.
Figure 3. Trend in the number of hot days for Cairns from 2016-2030 required to achieve the model projections contained in the CSIRO/BOM report.
Over the past 105 years there has been no consecutive 15-year period where the average number of hot days has reached 6.47. In fact the highest consecutive 15-year average is 4.73 for 1923-1937. Consequently, the probability of reaching the lower limit of the 2030 RCP4.5 model projection is practically 0. For each year that the number of hot days falls below the average number required to reach the model projection value, the number required in subsequent years will increase. If this happens it will reinforce that the model projection is unrealistic. Alternatively, if the “No change” option eventuates it would also prove the model projection to be invalid.
In conclusion, the following key points are made as a result of this comparison between observational data and model projections:
- Any model projection needs to be validated against actual observations before any confidence can be placed in the model results.
- Accountability of model projections should be mandatory and comparisons similar to this one should be performed on a five yearly basis, particularly if the models are continually adjusted.
- As each five years of data becomes available it should become readily apparent whether the model projections are either validated or not.
References
Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (QDERM), 2010. Climate change in Queensland: What the science is telling us, Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, 93p.
McInnes, K et al, 2015. Wet Tropics Cluster Report, Climate Change in Australia Projections for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Cluster Reports, eds. Ekström, M et al, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia, 48p.
They hate this.
Wonder if any of the usual suspects (Mosher) will come on and try and defend the models?
Interesting Figure 1 Heat Days chart. If you splice the projected CO2 rise onto the end of it, you will get a Hockey Stick
We are likely coming up on the 15 year period (2015 – 2030) that will make or break CAGW theory. If the Hot Days DO increase as predicted then CO2 may be a driver and have a stronger influence than we think. But if the Hot Days remain their current constant average of 3 – 4 even though ambient CO2 levels increase from 400ppm to 420ppm, the theory and models will need to be reevaluated.
The Dark Powers are hoping to arrive at a political resolution to the inconvenient data, before 2030, wiping it away with a stroke of someone’s pen.
What? The Australian Bureau of Meterology did not take the precaution of altering the historic records to show a warming trend? Bad propaganda 🙂
It’s a well known fact that climate scientists don’t actually measure anything in nature to know if their latest theory is true. It’s more a matter of how big your grants are.
“Projected average number of hot days by 2030 (medium emissions) = 6
Therefore, the number of hot days projected for 2001-2030 is:
6 x 30 = 180”
Very strange arithmetic there. The projection is that the number of hot days will increase to 6 in 2030. But this 180 assumes that it will average 6 over the period starting in 2001.
I can’t find the 2010 report so I don’t know how the “average number of hot days” is calculated. The normal period for climate analysis is 30 years which presumably is the origin for this calculation.
The report is here. They aren’t saying that the average over some period will be 6 days. They are saying that the expected value in 2030 is 6.
Ken,
Glad Nick was able to post a link to the 2010 report. On page 29 it states that:
“Figure 19 shows the average number of hot days
(days with a maximum temperature greater than
35 °C) projected to 2050 for a selection of
Queensland locations. The current number of hot
days is calculated using a base period of 1971–
2000 and the values in brackets are an indication
of the range of projections from the different
climate models (10th and 90th percentiles).”
I have therefore worked backwards from the usual climatology average of 30 years since “the average number of hot days” is what is stated in the report. The maths then drops out from there. It does not make sense to predict the exact number of hot days for any individual year, or are we to assume that the models are that good.
cheers, Basil
No, they simply say in Table 19 that it is the projected number of days per year at a specified time. In the text, they describe that as the average number of days per year at that time.
If you want to get an estimate of the average from observations, you have to average over a period, which fuzzes the years. But they are describing a model result. They don’t have to average over any period. They could average over model runs, for example. And there is certainly no basis for thinking they mean the average of the previous 30 years.
From Nick’s posted link, on page 29 under the figure is the caption: “Figure 19: Number of projected days per year above 35 °C for a range of emissions scenarios in regional centres (Source: OCC 2009, using CSIRO high-quality data set 2009).”
The projection for Cairns in Figure 19 is 6 days per year in 2030 (mid-scenario), 7 days per year in 2050 (mid-scenario) and 13 days per year in 2050 (high-scenario).
As stated in the report, the “current number” of days per year over 35 °C in Cairns was the average number of days per year as calculated over 30 years (1971 to 2000) or 4 days/year i.e. there were 120 or so days over 35 °C in the period 1971 to 2000. The term “current number” is a misnomer as there were 3 days over 35 °C in 2010 (0 days in 2009) when the report was published. So far in 2016, there have been 6 days over 35 °C; in 2015 there were 5 days, in 2014 and 2012 there were 0 days and in 2013 there were 8 days.
The projections are for days/year, and not for 30 year blocks or 30 x days/year, as Nick has pointed out.
From Nick’s posted link on page 29 under the figure is the caption: “Figure 19: Number of projected days per year above 35 °C for a range of emissions scenarios in regional centres (Source: OCC 2009, using CSIRO high-quality data set 2009).”
The projection for Cairns in Figure 19 is 6 days per year in 2030 (mid-scenario), 7 days per year in 2050 (mid-scenario) and 13 days per year in 2050 (high-scenario).
As stated in the report, the “current number” of days per year over 35 °C in Cairns was the average number of days per year as calculated over 30 years (1971 to 2000) or 4 days/year i.e. there were 120 or so days over 35 °C in the period 1971 to 2000. The term “current number” is a misnomer as there were 3 days over 35 °C in 2010 when the report was published (0 days in 2009). So far in 2016, there have been 6 days over 35 °C; in 2015 there were 5 days, in 2014 and 2012 there were 0 days and in 2013 there were 8 days.
The projections are for individual years i.e. days/year, and not for 30 year blocks or 30 x days/year, as Nick has pointed out.
Nick, by the language they use then, and assuming you are correct on what they mean, aren’t they just predicting a number of hot days in 2030 and 2050 that are within the range of natural variability. Those two numbers are no different than what we have seen for individual years over the past century at this location. Why is 6 days in 2030 anything out of the ordinary unless it is a longer term average that indicates a longer term climate change at that location? If it is what you indicate and it is a model result for 2030, then their models are just making predictions within the range of natural variability, which makes the model useless except to throw darts. If it is what Basil is indicating, then unless the world heats up real fast, their models will be shown to be extremely flawed and useless as a forecasting tool. Either way, this looks to be another set of bad science parading as proof of a flawed theory.
Surely, Nick Stokes is right, as he quite often is. The author has built a sponge cake with icing out of a few breadcrumbs. Pity he didn’t just leave it with the graph showing no increasing trend in hot days to date, rather as Paul Homewood at Notalotofpeopleknowthat does to good effect in knocking down similar pronouncements from the UKMO.
Not wise of others here to defend this piece on reflex. Yes, the official climate projections are worse than worthless, because misleading, but…..please keep a cool head or your partisanship shows!
Instead of getting lost in the semantics of what p.29 or fig.19 does or does not say, the crucial question as always remains the same with model based projections:
7 years later, is there any evidence in the empirical data to support the trends forecast for Cairns by the models?
If there is in this case, I fail to see it – which is given the performance of climate models in general is no surprise.
Let’s bear in mind that 10 years ago we were told that based on model projections, the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 at the latest – at the time of writing there is some 5 million sq. km of ice in the Arctic basin [70% of Australia’s land area], much of it thick multi year ice. Not to mention the pesky “pause” – unforeseen and unexplained by all and sundry GCMs- that the model driven climate establishment would have us believe doesn’t exist.
The situation has become so embarrassing for the modeling crowd that NOAA poohbas are now openly arguing that we should adjust the empirical data to match the models – as if GISS hasn’t been doing that for a couple of decades. “Post modern” pseudo science anyone? Popper, Kuhn and Feynman must be spinning in their graves…
No, Nick is wrong. The baseline “current value” of days above 35°C in Cairns as stated in their Figure 19 is 4 days. That number is not the number of hot days for a given year, but for the 30 year average 1971-2000 (OCC, 2009). The predicted value for 2030, 6 hot days, is compared to that baseline number, 4, which is a 30 year average. Therefore the number, 6, must also be a 30 year average. If it is not, they are comparing apples to orangutans, and the entire chart is worthless, if not fraudulent.
In order to get from a 30 year average of 4 to a 30 year average of 6, you must have 60 extra hot days over the 30 year period, or 2 more hot days per year. (I hope that basic arithmetic is obvious to all.) But the 30 year average has not increased since 2000 (ACORN-SAT data), so they only have about 15 years to get those extra 60 hot days by 2030. That means every year must average 4 extra hot days per year over the 2015 30 year average of 4. Each year starting now until 2030 must have an average of 8 days over 35°C. I’d say the weather better get very hot, very fast, or Australia needs to get busy altering adjusting the data.
Note: It’s interesting that the 30 year average for the ACORN-SAT dataset is closer to 3, while the OCC, 2009 cites it as 4. If you use the ACORN-SAT data, the situation becomes even more difficult to believe.
I have to agree with Nick on this. You can’t pick the endpoint “average” of hot days and back cast to get the 180 Hot days over 30 years. But then table 2 is quite deceptive as well. Going back to 1981 when you have hot days out to 17 in the 1930’s is just plain cherry picking.
Nick is, of course, correct. It just doesn’t matter. They are forecasting higher temperatures when the starting observation is a flat line. Only government money can produce something so obtuse!
They state a baseline time period of 30 years, with an average of 4 (rounded up) very hot days per year.
They project the average number of very hot days per year will be 6 in 2030.
Absent a declaration changing the definition of average, one must assume
they intend to use a 30 year average throughout.
(Or you can assume an intent to deceive I suppose.)
If the average number of very hot days in 2030 is 6 (e.g between 5.5 and 6.5) and the period over which the average is computed is 30 years (2001-2030) then the number of very hot days between 2001 and 2030 must lie between 165 and 194 (nominal 180). If it is less or more, the computed average won’t come out to 6. No back-casting required.
Therefore either:
They are stating that they expect the 30 year average in 2030 to be 6 very hot days, which would make Dr Beamish’s criticisms valid, or
They are not stating that they expect the 30 year average in 2030 to be 6. In which case the comparison to the 30 year average of 4 from their baseline period is invalid due to the “apples to orangutans” fallacy so ably explicated by Willligan.
Yes, the math is dubious overall. Extrapolations are often bogus. “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” –Yogi Berra
G’day Basil.
That report deserves special contempt. For starters it contains doctored photos of water vapour and lots of emotive language. Secondly, it completely ignores Queensland’s most important industry – apparently mining is no longer a primary industry; and apparently “biodiversity” is now a “key sector”.
What a joke.
Hi Dr Beamish,
This needs to be seen by those who might make a difference. I suggest you send a copy to Andrew Cripps, State member for Hinchinbrook, and former Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. Andrew is aware of issues that are similar to this, such as the IPCC modelling (RCP 8.5?) that has the 3 degree rise in average temperature by 2100, with associated increase in precipitation of 5% for each degree. This was included in the Queensland State Planning Policy, and is the reason why areas in Cairns, Townsville and other coastal centres that have never flooded in 200+ years are now designated as flood-prone. I objected to this, and sent a copy to Andrew. He sent it on to the Deputy Premier, and that part of the IPCC stuff was removed from the Policy. (The present incumbents have put it back in.)
He has also read and passed on reasoned objections to the current “50% renewables by 2030” objective. (This is totally impossible to achieve in Queensland, but could easily result in a massive waste of resources before reality sinks in.)
No one can live in an area with a week’s worth of days over 95 degrees F? Really? As far as I know, there are hundreds of thousands of people doing just that. Are Australians complete wimps that cannot live the real world or what? 95F for a week is now a crisis????? This is complete insanity.
“No one can live in an area with a week’s worth of days over 95 degrees F?”
No, they don’t say that. They note that Longreach, where people live, has 112 such days, expected to rise to 133. But Cairns is very humid. People there find 35° days very uncomfortable, and will not welcome an increase.
Coastal cities in most tropical zones do seem to be humid.
And what a lot of people consider paradise when it comes to the weather.
“People there find 35° days very uncomfortable, and will not welcome an increase.”
I have heard people living in Florida complain about hot summers. My answer is always, “Then why do you live here?”
I chose to move to Florida because I could no longer stand the misery I felt during prolonged cold, wet spells in southern New England.
I know what you mean Tom. I used to live in Syracuse ny….moved to Texas……winters were just brutal
The theory of CO2 induced warming is falsified constantly. The earths’ temps ebb and flow and predictions such as this are pure fantasy and people do not give a rats ass about any of it, especially the constant threats of catastrophe and pinning any and every extreme weather event…THAT HAVE ALWAYS OCCURRED…on this meme of AGW. Sickening really.
Harris County Tx (Houston) Pop about 5 million has had an average high temp since July 1 of 96.5 F with an average dew point of 75 F. Data is from KIAH Houston Intr Continental Airport.
They note that Longreach, where people live, has 112 such days, expected to rise to 133.
Still well short of the 160 days above 100 °F (37.8 °C) experienced at Marble Bar in 1923-24.
Can you tell us Nick, WHY ….. in this time of hottest day evah, hottest week evah, hottest month evah, hottest year evah, hottest decade evah ….. has this 92 year record NOT BEEN BROKEN?
I should add, that is 160 consecutive days above 37.8 °C and about two-thirds of that period was above 40 °C.
Nick
Is there a C in AGW or not?
Nick
“Is there a C in AGW or not?”
I am sorry I didn’t see that you sort of answered this in a previous post. Don’t you think this is the critical question to answer? Maybe you should spend sometime on it instead of just being a coup counter here
Prepare to meet millions of Canadians!
Marble Bar in Western Australia averages 154 days a year over 100 degrees F and in 1923-24 managed 160 consecutive days over 100 degrees F.
There were people living there last time I looked.
Bagdad [Iraq] is also warm.
Average maximum temperature through July and August is around 42- 43 degrees C.
People live there as well
When someone realized that the difference between the model’s false predictions and reality was becoming a joke (the area between the lines are already making them look like fools to people who know how to interpret basic graphs), it was obviously decided to activate a massive false propaganda media machine. I believe the plan now is to pass sweeping legislation before even the brainwashed radicals wake up.
Then the world will operate like Orwell predicted in 1984. When the government tells you it’s hot outside, you’ll believe that it’s hot, even when it’s cold — or else.
it was awful hot in the 30s.
Just a couple of comments from Oz.
The Cairns Post is part of the vast international stable of Rupert Murdoch newspapers. But contrary to widespread belief, his editors are allowed a large degree of independence. Except at Australian election time when he declares a preference for a candidate (as he has done in the USA in favour of the Donald) he does not have an editorial policy on most topics including – hot air. The Environment editors of his major Australian papers have published sceptical Climate material for years.
So this is a local frolic where an editor has become excited by our bipartisan government rubbish as dispensed by a couple of government agencies – CSIRO and BOM.
The Oz government has recently acquired some in-house climate critics courtesy of the recent July national election. Several new Senators are not believers in the bipartisan alarmist CO2 view.
Stand by for further developments when the new Parliament gets around to its first session on 23 August.
I’ve never been to Australia and only know what I can google.
Cairns is on the coast and its climate is moderated by the ocean. Compare its climate with that of Alice Springs which is inland.
Cairns – Average January High: 31.5, Average July Low: 17.1, Difference: 14.4
Alice Springs – Average January High: 36.4, Average July Low: 4.1, Difference: 32.3
Given that the climate is moderated by the ocean, and given that global warming within 20° of the equator won’t be much, I would say that the model results don’t pass the smell test.
I was surprised at the temperature swing at Alice Springs. I thought it might be similar to Fargo North Dakota where the difference between average high and low is about 90°C.
Oops. Fargo has a difference between average high and low of closer to 43°C. My bad.
That seems rather extreme, even if the delta is °F, not °C. Deserts or areas with near zero humidity vary close to 50°F (28°C), get to 10-15% humidity and it’s only 30°F (17°C).
Don’t know why I was stuck on diurnal deltas, please ignore.
It took a while to hunt down where the original data probably from the 2007 or 2009 Technical report from http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/
I was unable to find either the 2007 or 2009 report online, but the 2015 version was available:
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/publications-library/technical-report/
On page 98 TABLE 7.1.2 seems to be the current version. Except Cairns all the places have been exchanged and this time they use the data from 1982 to 2010 for the current average, but I assume the methodology described is still the same.
The following is quoted from the Report:
ESTIMATES FOR
THE FUTURE ARE CALCULATED USING THE MEDIAN CMIP5 WARMING OF MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES FOR 2030 AND 2090, AND
WITHIN BRACKETS THE 10TH AND 90TH PERCENTILE CMIP5 WARMING FOR THESE PERIODS, APPLIED TO THE 30-YEAR ACORN-SAT
STATION SERIES
This means, that the 2030 value is not the average from 2001 till 2030, but rather the predicted value for the single year of 2030 using median CIMP5 Warming.
So the article above is fundamentally flawed.
This obviously doesn’t say anything about whether the CIMP5 estimates are anywhere near correct or not.
Blah blah blah. It’s global warming and nothing but warmer warmer warmer will result. The models say so and the models are perfect. We don’t need no stinkin’ observed data, and if we do we will certainly massage it to fit our predictions. Now pay your carbon tax and shut up!! (\sarc…for those of you who did not pick up on the dripping sarcasm)
@Tom S: The important part of any technocratic scam is statistics; we need two constantly increasing variables (or two constantly opposed variables) to start. Then, since we know they’re both changing together, we use this relationship to dupe the statistically uninformed.
My favorite rebuttal to this procedure is to plot the relationship between pork belly prices (which invariably increase over time) to “global” temperature (a value I frequently just pull out of my butt since almost no one has a satellite on hand to resist my Impeccable Logic). Fait Accompli. We’re done. 🙂
And to the credit of our host’s editorial robot, I’ve once again achieved my goal of being moderated.
Hmmm, lets look at some outliers just eyeballing the first chart:
1930’s ~17
1970’s ~14
1990’s ~ 11
2000’s ~ 8
Seems to me there’s a trend there.
Even with spikes in hot days, there doesn’t seem to be a increasing trend, even with the all the supposed warming we’ve had since 1880.
Yes, it looks like a trend to me, too. A downtrend. What more do we need to know from this article? I think the downtrend says it all.
Not familiar with the weather and climate of this location. However, the modest global warming has occurred in tandem with increasing water vapor. This is mainly measured with warmer night time temperatures and more so in the higher latitudes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
There is are actually a couple of negative feedbacks during the day with increasing water vapor that offsets higher daytime max’s. One of them is called “clouds”. Increasing the water vapor will decrease the lifting condensation level. This results in clouds forming at lower levels and sooner in the day(cumulus at least). Low clouds block the stronger SW radiation from reaching the surface during the day and cause a cooling effect, which is much greater than the weaker LW radiation that those low clouds are holding in below. At night of course, they would be more like a blanket, trapping more weak LW radiation/heat(as would all clouds at night).
Studies have shown a decrease in cloud height(base) and increase in low clouds over the past 2 decades at the same time that the warming has slowed down.
Additionally, moist air has a higher heat capacity vs dry air. Adding water vapor to the air, with a certain amount of (solar) heating will result in a lower max vs the same amount of heating with drier air, all things being equal.
Global observations/records of surface temperatures over the past couple of decades clearly show this………many more record high min’s vs record high max’s. Many more of them in the coldest places, especially in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
One other item with clouds. Low clouds are more effective at sending outward LW radiation/heat away from the surface vs high clouds because they usually have a warmer temperature.
You might remember the Stefan Boltzmann black body radiation law(if you’re smarter than me-I had to look it up to get the spelling right).
The warmer something is, the more radiant heat it will emit.
“Low clouds are more effective at sending outward LW radiation/heat away from the surface”
That should say “away from the lower atmosphere, where they are located and radiating from”
Let us look at this a bit differently. Let’s suppose the number of days at 35C or above is a random process (i’ll use poisson process) with a historical average rate of 4 per year. At a rate of 4 the probability of having 6 or more such days in a year is 0.23. Assume the true rate has, for whatever reason, increased to 6 per year. Now the probability of 6 or more such days in a year is 0.55. Assume that each year is an independent trial of this process. The likelihood ratio of observing 6 or more per year in four consecutive years under the two different rates is then 32. A likelihood ratio of 32 is pretty strong evidence of the true rate being 6 as opposed to 4. So, we needn’t carry this experiment out for 15 years–what we do is look at four year-long runs of observations, and a run without 5 or fewer such days would be quite strong evidence of a change from the old rate of 4 to the new, predicted, rate of 6.
It hasn’t happened yet, just carry on.
The heat from hot days 20 years ago was much thinner then today’s heat. So the heat is gradually getting thicker, meaning more heat even though you can’t just casually see it!
Trying out for a position on the other side…How did I do?
Too logical, Robert! Try banging on your skull with a hockey stick for a while. Meantime, you’re down here in the minors with the rest of us. You could probably get a grant to expand your idea though! Just make sure to include the magic words!
Yer gonna need to add more drama and techy talk, I think, Robert;
*The heat from anomalously hot days even 20 years ago was incrementally thinner then today’s thermal accumulation. So the heat is gradually getting ominously thicker, meaning more dangerous heat, even though you can’t just casually see it as many scientifically illiterate troublemakers like to believe ought to be the case.*
Name one location on earth that is too hot for a naked human to survive, so long as there is shade and a supply of fresh water.
There are millions of locations that are too cold, but except for volcanic activity, there are no locations that are too hot. Even the hottest deserts on earth are survivable with shade and water.
So when someone proposes that global warming is a risk, they are talking nonsense. Humans are one of the best adapted animals on earth to deal with heat. It is cold that kills us.
The average temperature of the earth is 15C. At that temperature the naked human dies of exposure. Without technology humans cannot survive temperatures below 82F/27C. Below that temperature our bodies radiate more than the 150 watts heat energy we generate internally from food, and we die of exposure.
Without technology, just about the only place humans can survive on earth are the tropical jungles. Everywhere else is too cold.
Ah, but then the bigger, stronger, smarter animals would eat you. That would be 97% of all animals (Cook, et al, 2004.)
“Name one location on earth that is too hot for a naked human to survive, so long as there is shade and a supply of fresh water.
There are millions of locations that are too cold”
Yes, there is a reason why the show “Survivor” happens only in warmer climates. The idiots would be dead if they tried that in the cold.
Amazing! The 30-year average of 4 days is taken by the models as a random year’s number. The models then do their “model mean” magic and project it to be 6 days at 15 years in the future, using all their differing estimations of net forcing changes. A 50% (fifty percent) gain in 15 years seems exaggerated based on a look at past data.
Notwithstanding Gavin Schmidt’s previous hand-waving, a 3 degree C spread in the models’ estimates of absolute world temperatures means that the models do not agree on the basic physics/math, much less the values (even +/- signs) of the various forcings. Complicated and expensive speculation. Good money and tenure, though.
Dave Fair, as always.
Caligula–you don’t even mention “Naked and Afraid.” That show is hard to watch because of the stress experienced by the subjects, but the few times I have tuned in briefly to it, it is always in hot places. Those places are a stern enough test, to be sure; but a far sterner test would be–say–Maine mountains and woods in November (to say nothing of actual winter). And yet native Americans lived there, and in Montana, and Canada. Not naked, of course; but without mod cons.
That chart is another tidbit of evidence that the extreme heat of the 1930’s was global.
Thanks, I’ll file that one.
No, TA, it was not. The 1930 years were locally quite a bit warm here and there, e.g. in the USA, or in Northern Europe.
Please have a look at this map, produced by the Tokio Climate Center of Japan’s Meteorology Agency:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
1. Select the year: 1930
2. Select the mode: annual
3. Click on “+1 year” or “-1 year” and compare.
Look at Australia between 1930-1940, and especially at this place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cairns+Queensland,+Australia/@-16.8805053,109.8561611,3z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x697862555ba22413:0x400eef17f207860!8m2!3d-16.9185514!4d145.7780548?hl=en
In not one year you will see a red spot there: that indicates us how local this Cairns temperature record must have been (and above all, you selected Tmax >= 35 °C).
When I get some time to do, I’ll isolate, out of the worldwide GHCN unadjusted data record, all Tmax data belonging to the period 1930-1939, perform a sort on it, and upload the result so you can see it.
cu
“When I get some time to do, I’ll isolate, out of the worldwide GHCN unadjusted data record”
Obviously you won’t use ACORN SAT
Obviously you won’t use ACORN SAT
Of course I would if it could make sense! But…
The dataset employs the latest analysis techniques and takes advantage of digitised observational data to provide a daily record of Australian temperatures over the last 100 years.
My emphasis in the answer to TA wasn’t on Australia’s climate. I would like to extract worldwide all temperature data between 1930 and 1939 out of the GHCN record.
And you don’t think Australian climate impacts worldwide climate?
First of all 35 c is not hot. Actually it rather nice, I live in Arizona and if it in the 35 c it is only warm, 40 c is normal high for the summer and 45 it getting hot. I presently in North Dakota and they had one of their rare32 c day I felt it was rather nice in those temperatures it time to leave the long pants behind and go to shorts and less than that required long pants. I had to purchase a pair of jeans in Wyoming because the 27 temperatures were just too cold. Oh by the way I spent 55 years in North Dakota and Minnesota, I will take 45 C over -45 C anytime. I been in both, and the -45 was not wind chill.
“First of all 35 c is not hot. Actually it rather nice, I live in Arizona and if it in the 35 c it is only warm, 40 c is normal high for the summer and 45 it getting hot.”
I live near Cairns Mark, I like the humidity most of the time (less dust in the air) but I’ll take your dry 45C over our humid 35C… I do agree though that hot is better than cold – wouldn’t live in the tropics if I didn’t, I suppose.
January 1st 2006, Ashfield, inner-west Sydney Australia 47c and about 15% humidity. Hot? Sure, but nice. 30c with 95% humidity, same place, horrid.
The 2010 report references CSIRO 2009. They offer , in conjunction with BoM, this snapshot-
http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/pvfo.pdf
‘The world’s oceans currently absorb about 25 per cent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by humans – about 40 per cent of this is absorbed in the Southern Ocean. The CO2 absorbed by the ocean makes the ocean become more acidic. Recent research shows that ocean acidification decreases the ability of marine plants and animals to form shells.’
‘There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. ‘
The IPCC mantra. No mention of the “hiatus”. Are they den!**s?
The Greatest Hiatus Evah!
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160818/b43kfves.jpg
Have you got one from HadCRUT showing the El Nino inspired spike falling?
“The Greatest Hiatus Evah!”
And all in the face of increasing CO2. Natural Variability?
Have you got one from HadCRUT showing the El Nino inspired spike falling?
It’s there lee, you just can’t see it, the plot is a bit compressed (it starts by 1850 after all).
And all in the face of increasing CO2. Natural Variability?
There can’t be a climate response to CO2 like you wish:
– too much of it is stored into the oceans actually;
– recently I’ve read a paper reporting about huge CO2 transfers from NH to Antarctica at very high altitudes, would be good for us all 🙂
recently I’ve read a paper reporting about huge CO2 transfers from NH to Antarctica at very high altitudes, would be good for us all 🙂
OCO2 doesn’t show it.
lee, I pick up your hint on the El Niño guy.
Here is a comparison of one of El Niño’s (and La Niña’s) best surveys, the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/
with HadCRUT’s temperature data:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160819/75zw8t2n.jpg
You see here and there good similarities, but also many differences, especially from 1995 to now: while HadCRUT’s 60 months running mean is ascending, MEI’s is descending.
Even if we zoom into this small time 20 year interval
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160819/cm7jrg9e.jpg
we see that MEI’s OLS trend is near null, but that HadCRUT’s is clearly positive (0.15 °C / decade).
Thus yes: temperatures often follow the ENSO (in the absence of volcano activity) but this process has its own rules and exceptions.
OCO2 doesn’t show it.
You are certainly by far more qualified than I am to have a closer look on it:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
More model junk!
Dr. B Basil Beamish,
CAGW narrative is breaking apart – but the lapse rate!
Needs time for CAGWers to recognize.
Dont worry Nasa will come to the rescue and those pesky figures will get a “scientific” bump up.
Brilliant. Thanks you pommy bastad! 🙂
I happen to be in Perth, Western Australia on business. The home of the University of Western Australia. On the local TV news, one of the headlines is that Perth is on track to have the coolest August (late winter here) in 16 years.
Global weather change is largely determined by the Gleissberg solar cycle of 87 years.
This was already reported by William Arnold back in 1985 before the CO2 nonsense…:
|’A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.|”
My results indicated that Arnold was out by 5 years, it was in fact 1995.
So if you want to know where we are in climatic history: 2016-87= 1929.
some warm days are coming up for Cairns in 5 or 6 years from now…
bindidon says
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/17/comparison-between-observational-data-and-model-projections-for-cairns-au-hot-days/comment-page-1/#comment-2281181
henry says
clearly you can see from the records that hadcrut4 has been fiddled with in recent history to suit a political narrative
I’m so sad of all these fiddling syndromes. It slowly reaches psychiatric level I guess 🙁