Guest essay by David Archibald
For the first time a major political party has gone into an election with an anti-green platform and won big time. Specifically the Conservative Party platform for the Ontario election on 7th June promised:
- This means no carbon tax or cap-and-trade schemes.
- Stop sweetheart deals by scrapping the Green Energy Act.
The Conservatives made some other promises too but what was interesting about dropping the carbon tax etc. was the lack of agonising over the science, the planet, polar bears, the Great Barrier Reef or anything else. While the Trump administration recently hired a climate agoniser to head NASA, and the head of the EPA hasn’t moved against the endangerment finding on CO2, Ontario voters in a record turnout voted to make global warming a non-problem by forgetting about it, and getting on with their lives.
Ontario may or may not have had global warming in the late 20th century but there is a whole continent that missed out on it together. The following chart shows the lower troposphere temperature anomaly for Australia since the satellites went up in 1978. The data is from Dr Roy Spencer’s group at the University of Alabama, Hunstville.
Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. Given the way the Sun is going, they are likely to miss out altogether.
If they missed out on global warming, perhaps they have experienced sea level rise? No luck there either. One of the longer sea level series is from Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour with records from May 1914. This is how that data plots up:
There appears to be a slight rise but that is deceptive. The first record in May 1914 was a mean level of 1.111 metres. The last record, for February 2018, is 1.018 metres – 93 mm lower. There can be other interpretations of what it all means but there is no emergency. There isn’t even a trend, unless flat counts as a trend. And in the end the voters are likely to pull an Ontario and decide that there are things that are more important. The Conservatives in Ontario promised to spend C$100 million on autism.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years.”
David Archibald plots UAH troposphere temperatures over Australia, thinking this backs his point. But he doesn’t show the trend, which shows a warming rate over Australia of 0.17°C/decade. That is 30% faster than warming for the rest of the globe at 0.13°C/decade since 1979.
UAH data: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
“David Archibald plots UAH troposphere temperatures over Australia, thinking this backs his point. But he doesn’t show the trend, which shows a warming rate over Australia of 0.17°C/decade. That is 30% faster than warming for the rest of the globe at 0.13°C/decade since 1979.”
Mat cites the 0.13 degree per decade warming, thinking this backs his point. But the 1990 IPCC report predicted 0.3 degree per decade, and suggested this was a low estimate because feedbacks were likely to kick in.
The same report predicted seas to rise 6mm a year. It’s been half that.
The trend isn’t a friend of AGW.
Chip, IPCC projections are for surface temperatures. The above data are based on satellite observations of the troposphere (and include part of the stratosphere – see Fig 7 of link below). So the the 1990 projections you’ve provided can’t be compared directly as the troposphere is expected to warm more slowly than surface, and the stratosphere is expected to cool.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
In any case, I’m not making a statement of comparing projections to observations, I’m simply pointing out that David’s assertion of no warming over Australia is incorrect.
An interesting thing about Ontario is its well documented history of extreme weather events. Environment and Climate Change Canada documents details of weather statistics for hundreds of locations, some records date back to the 1800’s.
What these figures show is that extreme weather events such as high temperature values, frequency of days over 30 degrees C, wind speeds, heavy snow falls, extreme cold days, etc. have become more benign with increasing CO2 levels. Trends in extreme rain events being more localized very greatly from site to site but show no overall trend.
The facts are counter to the media narrative but it’s extremely difficult to get straight answers on the topic from out media and government.
The winter of 2017/2018 saw Toronto break cold records that had stood for 150 years. So you have a majority of voters in a land gripped by ice for half the year spending tens of billions on CO2 policies that everyone secretly admits will have zero impact in temperatures.
People are nuts.
And secretly wish is was 3C warmer! If energy becomes expensive in Canada it will not be a nice place to live.
“The Land That Global Warming Forgot”
Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. Given the way the Sun is going, they are likely to miss out altogether.
This is a joke right? I hope he’s joking.
As usual, Stokes missed the point.
The point that was made is that after 40 years, the CURRENT temperature is not warmer. That graph line drawn by the computer averages out colder and warmer temperatures and since there were colder temperatures earlier in the period the line trends upward and miraculously we get an increase. That is called missing the point. Similarly for sea level.
So why not just feast your eyes on the -0.4 at the end.
“So why not just feast your eyes on the -0.4 at the end.”
Well, this month you can. But last month it was 0.68°C. And the month before, 0.59°C.
At the other end, the first month Dec 1978 was -1.20°C. Pretty powerful warming since then, huh?
That’s the point about using a stable measure like trend. Otherwise you get a different story every month. And of course, in favorable months a post pops up here.
Ending on a Super El Nino helps increase the trend.
Yes. The record has ups and downs. You can’t just erase a subset.
Nick, exactly. They drew the cherry pick that suited them.
Any mathematician will tell you the trend is up. Heck, ask a class of students (any age) if they think the trend is up.
Spoiler: It’s up.
Only an idiot would draw a line between the first and last carefully chosen points.
No you are wrong. You get warm months, you get cold months. You cannot just pick the month you want and declare that the “temperature”.
The data has to be averaged over a statistically significant length of time to show the trend. Don’t worry, the climate scientists know this and they know how to do statistics correctly.
So that is down to what is it, three countries only now that implement a carbon tax?
If you campaign on saving the planet with a carbon tax ….. your not getting in …. hope Canadian’s smarten up ASAP.
Is the writing on the toilet wall?
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years.”
The graph of the UAH data shows a warming trend, even in the lower troposphere. The surface data collected by the BOM shows a warming trend as well.
Hilariously…a trend higher than the rest of the globe…the exact opposite of Archibald’s misapprehension.
The headline should have read:
The Land That Global Warming took an inordinate interest in.
Big deal both the US and Australia have a trend 1.8C per century and we are supposed to be scared of this? This is supposed to melt all the icecaps and drown us all? Or maybe you think that 2C will kill off millions because they will die from the heat? the trend could easily go the other way and probably will based on previous century cooling. We in Canada will have to pay $74 billion extra taxes in the next 5 years just so we can get the world average temperature down by 0.0037125 C by the year 2100. Yes You read that right 3 thousandth of 1 degree C. That is Canada’s contribution to global warming prevention. This makes me so angry that I want to slap any greenie in the face that I see to get them to wake up to reality.
Luckily it’s not only Canada. It’s a global problem, Canada just needs to pull it’s weight.
“have a trend 1.8C per century” A trend that is likely to accelerate. The increase since pre-industrial is pushing 1C already.
And yes, it is a big deal. It is clear sea levels are rising.
I am surprised that some people have missed my point about the article being wrong. Oh well.
And yet there are shitloads of stupid laws and political decisions in Oz based on this “non-event”.
I agree with you Casey.
Alberta Einstein said:
“Nothing is infinite except the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.”
However, regarding your use of units:
The official SI spelling of this unit is “$hitloads”, especially when referring to the trillions of dollars squandered on global warming hysteria.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Shitload
“A Shitload is considered a base unit for quantity, much like the foot or the metre is for length. It is represented by the symbol ‘$’ in the scientific community. This should not be confused with the dollar sign (also ‘$’), though in most cases they have the same meaning in application.
Though once believed to be a representation of varying quantities due to differing opinions of different individuals, the Shitload has been discovered to be a fixed quantity based on the principles of quantum mechanics and some other stuff. A Shitload is one of the SI Units, and can now be defined as 8.3264∗10^9 units, or 8326400000 …”
Re Ontario’s imbecilic, costly and destructive “green energy” policies – I knew this was false nonsense soon after I started studying global warming alarmism in 1985.
My co-authors and I confidently wrote in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”
Source:
DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD
PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals, THE GLOBE AND MAIL and LA PRESSE in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
The good people of Ontario finally woke up and threw out the global warming alarmist scoundrels and imbeciles, after a decade or more of costly and destructive green energy nonsense by Doltan McGuinty and Kathleen Wynn.
Next time Ontario, just listen to your Uncle Allan, who has your best interests at heart – my family settled over 200 years ago in Glengarry County, the oldest county in Ontario. I cherish our heritage there and I can assure you that I’ve got your back.
The explorers David Thompson, Simon Fraser and Alexander Mackenzie all lived at times in Glengarry, and major rivers in western and northern Canada are named after these three intrepid gentlemen. For our American friends, Lewis and Clark on their historic trek had copies of David Thompson’s maps of their destination on the Pacific Coast.
This post is from 2010 – note the last line, where the scientist blamed the unusual cold weather on global warming – classic!
In Britain, pensioners are burning books to keep warm…
Hard-up pensioners have resorted to buying books from charity shops and burning them to keep warm. Volunteers have reported that ‘a large number’ of elderly customers are snapping up hardbacks as cheap fuel for their fires and stoves. Temperatures this week are forecast to plummet as low as -13ºC in the Scottish Highlands, with the mercury falling to -6ºC in London, -5ºC in Birmingham and -7ºC in Manchester as one of the coldest winters in years continues to bite. One assistant said: ‘Book burning seems terribly wrong but we have to get rid of unsold stock for pennies and some of the pensioners say the books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves. A lot of them buy up large hardback volumes so they can stick them in the fire to last all night.’
–Metro News, 5 January 2010
Why? Because energy costs in Britain are skyrocketing, due in part to foolish, ineffective green energy policies (Doltan McGuinty and Jeff Simpson, please take note):
Household gas and electricity bills are expected to rocket fourfold to nearly £5,000 a year by the end of the decade to meet Government-imposed green targets. And the price heavy industry will have to pay by 2020 is so high that energy-dependent firms could be wiped out, causing thousands of job losses, said an industry spokesman.
–Tom McGhie, Daily Mail, 3 January 2010
But not to worry, this record cold around the world is allegedly caused by global warming:
Freak snowstorms and record low temperatures sweeping northern China are linked to global warming, say Chinese officials. Tomorrow morning the mercury is forecast to plunge to minus 16, a 40-year low, after a day-time maximum of minus 8. The head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, Guo Hu, linked the blizzard-like conditions this week to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
–The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 January 2010
And there’s a lot of cold out there, all over the world:
ARCTIC FREEZE AND SNOW WREAK HAVOC ACROSS THE PLANET
The Times, 5 January 2010
Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere yesterday, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains.
There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25C (-13F).
The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimetres (10in) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital — the heaviest fall since records began in 1937.
In China, Beijing and the nearby port city of Tianjin had the deepest snow since 1951, with falls of up to 8in and temperatures of minus 10C. In the far north of China, the temperature fell to minus 32C. More than two million Beijing and Tianjin pupils were sent home and 1,200 flights were delayed or cancelled at Beijing’s international airport.
The same far-eastern weather system took its toll of Sakhalin, the Russian island off Siberia, which was hit by blizzards and avalanches. Farther west, in northern and eastern India, more than 60 people, mainly homeless, died of exposure. Thousands of schools were closed. In Uttar Pradesh, the state neighbouring Nepal, the authorities spent £1.3 million on blankets and firewood for needy households.
Western Russia suffered a deep freeze as snow swept across the Baltic and north-central Europe, leaving the worst devastation in Poland, where 13 people died, bringing the toll from the cold this winter to 122.
Up to ten skiers died or were missing in avalanches. The worst incident was in the Diemtig Valley in Switzerland on Sunday, when avalanches hit a group of skiers and then the rescuers who went to their aid. Eight people were pulled from the snow alive, but four died, including an emergency doctor, and three more were missing.
In Italy, emergency services struggled with rare cold and ice. Motorways in the northeast were closed and military helicopters were sent to Sicily with medical aid.
In the United States, heavy snow fell again on the northeast.
In Burlington, Vermont, a record 33in of snow fell in a weekend storm. The previous record in a three-day period was set in 1969. Residents of the Northern Plains were warned to expect lethally cold temperatures of about minus 30C.
The icy conditions of Western Europe, which broke records in half a dozen countries in December, are expected to last for at least another week.
Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
Full story
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece
– Allan MacRae
So is the decadal trend up or down Allan?
zazove asked:
“So is the decadal trend up or down Allan? ”
Which trend please zazove? Let me assume the Global Temperature trend:
One hypothesis (below) says that the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND IS ESSENTIALLY FLAT SINCE 1982, with Nino34 SST’s averaging flat and warming of the atmosphere caused by the recovery from two century-scale volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+.
Nino34 SST is an excellent predictor of global atmospheric temperature 4 months later, except when the atmosphere is cooled by major volcanoes.
Excerpt from the posts below:
“… look at the blue line (a function of Nino3.4 SST), which shows NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM 1982 TO 2016.”
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/climate-scientist-air-pollution-cleanup-may-be-major-driver-of-global-warming/#comment-2363299
[excerpt]
SUMMARY:
Industrial pollution does not have much impact on global temperature. Major (century-scale) volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo definitely do cool the planet – by up to about 0.5C, fully dissipating after about 5 years.
The details are all here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/#comment-2157696
Formula:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
Sato Global Mean Aerosol Optical Depth at 550 nm https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/climate-scientist-air-pollution-cleanup-may-be-major-driver-of-global-warming/#comment-2363266
Richard Keen wrote:
“Compared to the murky decades of the el Chichon and Pinatubo, the clear stratosphere since 1995 has allowed the intensity of sunlight reaching the ground to increase by about 0.6 Watts per square meter,” says Keen. “That’s equivalent to a warming of 1 or 2 tenths of a degree C (0.1 C to 0.2 C).”
…
“In other words,” he adds, “over the past 40 years, the decrease of volcanic aerosols and the increase of greenhouse gases have contributed equally to the total warming (~0.3 C) observed in global satellite temperature records.”
I wrote a similar conclusion in 2016 – see my post below. From my graph, it is clear that the peak cooling effect of volcanic aerosols from El Chichon and Pinatubo was 0.4C to 0.5C, not 0.1C to 0.2C as Keen stated, and each volcanic aerosol event took about 5 years to fully dissipate.
There is NO need to attribute any of the observed warming to increasing atmospheric CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/spectacular-drop-in-global-average-satellite-temperatures/#comment-1813307
I plotted the same formula back to 1982, which is where I [edit: 1982 is when the NOAA Nino3.4 data starts] started my first analysis. Satellite temperature data began in 1979.
That formula is: UAHLT Calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15
It is apparent that UAHLT Calc. is substantially higher than UAH Actual for two periods, each of ~5 years, BUT that difference could be largely or entirely due to the two major volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line (a function of Nino3.4 SST), which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed in the atmosphere after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global atmospheric temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.
Comments?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1618235531587336&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Silly me expecting a one word answer.
Here, let me help you – up.
Used to be down
Since when? It’s been up each decade of your life.
Nonsense zazove – you are apparently uneducated and boorish.
No net warming since 1982 is the short answer, based on Nino34 SST’s, a much more reliable indicator that atmospheric temperatures.
Why are you exclusively looking at Nino34 SST? Please, no more links to yourself. That is not a citation.
More nonsense from you zazove and alley.
You do not understand the scientific method, are severely math-challenged, and are simply repeating warmist propaganda.
The reason I quote my own work is because I am supplying the evidence that my statements are supported by the evidence.
If you could learn to read graphs and understand math and data, then perhaps you would understand what is being written. As it is, you are merely wagging your foolish tongues.
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say [that means YOU, ultra-minor minions].
Yes, all scientists and people with the most basic background in science could have answered that.
What if you asked that question in the sixties?
It seems that cold core lows are getting stronger and this results in very cold winter outbreaks in those storm tracks.
Am I missing something here? Graphs are displayed. Statements about trends are made.
But I’ll be damned if I can see any effort to actually calculate trends. Shouldn’t that be the first thing you do if you are going to talk about trends?
The only figures actually mentioned are in this statement:
“The first record in May 1914 was a mean level of 1.111 metres. The last record, for February 2018, is 1.018 metres – 93 mm lower.”
Is this how we calculate trends now?
Just think about it Phil. Here is a government record of sea level that is over 100 years long and the first record, which you can access by following the link, is higher than the last record. Just keep repeating that to yourself, and anyone who will listen, until the feeling that the seas are rising goes away.
What does that have to do with anything I’ve said?
If you have some wisdom about what a trend is, how to calculate a trend, what the results mean, and why you didn’t bother to do or explain any of that, I’m all ears.
Have at it.
We get it, Philip. Two endpoints aren’t a trend. But it’s not like David cherry-picked annual rainfall or a parameter that is essentially random each year. Sea level has supposedly been rising in a consequential amount decade after decade, and yet over 100 yrs apart, you have the same level. It just puts things into perspective. It doesn’t mean the trend is zero or negative.
Just a note the overall sea surface temperature are now under +.10c deviation from 1981-2010 means down from +.35c last summer that is a drop of .25c or .45f !!
This is equal to 1/2 of all the global warming going back to the Little Ice Age and has taken place in less then a year.
My earlier post on this thread mentions what is happening to the climate and why.
For sure…I am not a fan of global temperature claims. Regional at best. After all, we all experience day max and night mins that simultaneously range from -50C to +50C. Somewhere in this an average (?) of about 15C is calculated.. Just maths and meaningless in relation to living comfortable, safe, healthy lives. maybe take a look at locations people live and take holidays too. Lower or upper troposphere is still not surface. Temperature without wind chill is also a big difference in comfort zone.
Waaayyy too many decimals in use and without them we wouldn’t even know there has been any change this century. one is probably more likely to die of the stress worrying about something a century away that may never eventuate.
“The Conservatives in Ontario promised to spend C$100 million on autism.”
the alarmists won’t go so cheaply.
The question for all Canadian politicians who want to tax carbon:
“Given that CO2 is supposed to warm the planet and your carbon tax is supposed to reduce CO2, therefore cooling the planet, how much colder do you want to make Canada? ‘
Oh, Canada! While confirming the rumor that snowfall is predicted for northern Quebec on June 21, I also discovered Labrador fishing lodges can’t open because they’re still under 6 ft of snow. Clearly, the folks at weathernetwork.com think these “extreme weather events” are CO2-caused, as the website features stories like this one:
How can kids handle climate change? By throwing a tantrum!
Buy the book “The TANTRUM that SAVED the WORLD” and let Michael Mann and Megan Herbert indoctrinate your child into bad behavior!
Also, don’t miss:
CANADA IN 2030: Future of our water and changing coastlines
Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in blink of an eye
Covering Greenland in a blanket is one way to fight climate
Racism and climate change denial: Study delves into the link
Links to those articles and other balderdash are at:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/kids-picture-book-tantrum-that-saved-the-world-delivers-empowering-message-about-climate-change-action/104689/
But but it’s hotter snow
David Archibald makes this claim:-
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. ”
__________________________
He also supplies a link to the data: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Without even having to do the calculation themselves, every so-called ‘sceptic’ (or ‘skeptic’) on this site should have been able to see that the claim is nonsense. UAH publishes the decadal trend at the foot of each column, showing that Australia is estimated to have warmed faster than the rest of the globe during the UAH period of measurement (0.18 C/dec for AUST vrs 0.13 for Globe).
The only person who seems to have spotted this is Nick Stokes. For his trouble he was accused of ‘cherry-picking’. Not one ‘sceptic’ here checked Archibald’s claims for themselves, or if they did, they chose to ignore the fact that his claims were flat wrong. Blatantly false. Perhaps ee need to reflect a little on what the term scepticism/skepticism actually means.
No, Matt spotted it 2 hours after Nick.
What has amazed me is the LACK of scepticism of these self-proclaimed skeptics. Its a joke.
zazove,
I stand corrected. Well done Matt.
It’s the sheer scale of David Archibald’s incorrect claims that astonish me, not the fact that they go unquestioned by most ‘skeptics’ here. He uses noisy monthly data for his chart and, a tell-tale sign, omits to add the linear trend line (as Roy Spencer does too).
But even eyeballing the UAH AUST chart without a trend line it’s clear there’s an upward trend. This stands out more clearly in the smoother annual data (and when a trend line is added, of course).
You poor babies. How you have suffered!
Very classy Mr Archibald.
Make a claim that there is no positive trend. Don’t calculate or cite any trend figures. Refuse to acknowledge the calculated trend for the data you rely on when it is directly presented to you. And then call the people pointing this out babies.
I know it’s not nice to mock someone’s religion. But why should I deny myself such a simple pleasure?
David,
We’re not the ones misrepresenting the data. You are.
You’re not even attempting to justify your statements or deal with criticisms. If you actually really care about any of this, then why aren’t you even attempting to deal with the issues raised? Are you just another troll?
It seems like you’re more interested in taking pleasure in the frustrations of others when you refuse to engage in good faith over the issues raised than you are in the actual issues.
Thos interested in the question of how much Australian temperatures have changed will have incomplete understanding until they read and absorb this analysis:
http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html
Briefly, the best climate/weather people in Australia at the time published some official records in the 1940-50 era. Their summaries are NOT consistent with the BOM studies that have been made since, using much the same input data.
Any understanding of Australian historic temperatures needs to reconcile this difference.
Geoff,
It is a dumb article. The data that they dig out from CSIR etc is just the same as the unadjusted data you can find on GHCN unadjusted, for example. They make a big thing about differences from ACORN, but it is well known that ACORN is homogenised. That is the point of it. But there is nothing special about those old print data sources.
What is dumb is the method of averaging. They just take a bunch of stations that they find in a year book and average the absolute temperatures, without regard to either area weighting or forming anomalies. The result is that the average varies not with the climate in any year, but the kinds of stations that happen to be in the mix for that year.