By David Mason-Jones,
Research by Dr. Lindsay Moore
The work of citizen scientist, Dr. Lindsay Moore, has failed to confirm an important IPCC prediction about what will happen to the spread between maximum and minimum temperatures due to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. The IPCC’s position is that this spread will narrow as a result of global warming.
Moore’s work focuses on the remote weather station at Giles in Western Australia and run by Australia’s peak weather monitoring body, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Why Giles?
Giles is the most remote weather station in mainland Australia and its isolation in a desert makes it an ideal place to study the issue of temperature spread. It is virtually in the middle of the Continent.It is far from influencing factors such as Urban Heat Island effect, land use changes, encroachment by shading vegetation, shading by buildings and so on, that can potentially corrupt the data. Humidity is usually low and stable and it is far from the sea. In addition, as a sign of its importance in the BoM network, Giles is permanently staffed.
As stated, the IPCC hypothesis is that the ‘gap’ will become steadily smaller as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect takes hold. As temperature rises the gap will narrow and this will result in an increase in average temperature, so says the IPCC.
Moore’s research indicates that this is just not happening at this showcase BoM site. It may be happening elsewhere, and this needs to be tested in each case against the range of all data-corrupting effects, but it is not happening at Giles.
Notes about the graphs.
The top plot line shows the average Tmax for each year – that is, the average maximum daytime temperature.
The middle plot shows the average Tmin for each year – that is, the average minimum night time temperature.
The lower plot shows the result of the calculation Tmax-Tmin. In laypersons’ terms it is the result you get when you subtract the average yearly minimum temperature from the average yearly maximum temperature.
.
If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years because, according to the IPCC, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make nights warmer. But the plot line does not show this.
******
The IPCC’s reasoning for its narrowing prediction is that global warming will be driven more by a general rise in minimum temps that it will be by a general rise in maximums. This is not my assertion, nor is it Dr. Moore’s, it is the assertion of the IPCC and can be found in the IPCC’s AR4 Report.
Dr. Moore states, “In the AR4 report the IPCC claims that elevated CO2 levels trap heat, specifically the long wave radiation escaping to space.
“As a result of this the IPCC states at page 750 that, ‘almost everywhere night time temperatures increase more than day time temperatures, that decrease in number of frost days are projected over time, and that temperatures over land will be approximately twice average Global temp rise,” he says citing page 749 of the AR4 report.
So where can we go to find evidence that the IPCC assertion of a narrowing spread of Tmax-Tmin is either happening or not happening? Giles is a great start point. Can we use the BoM’s own publicly available data to either confirm, or disprove, the narrowing prediction? The short answer is – Yes we can.
But, before we all get too excited about the result Dr. Moore has found, we need to recognise the limitation that this is just one site and, to the cautious scientific mind, may still be subject to some bizarre influence that somehow skews the result away from the IPCC prediction. If anyone can suggest what viable contenders for ‘bizarre influences’ might be at Giles we would welcome them in the comments section of this post.
The caution validly exercised by the rigorous scientific mind can be validly balanced by the fact that Giles is a premier, permanently staffed and credible site. The station was also set up with great care, and for very specific scientific purposes, in the days of the Cold War as part of the British nuclear test program in Australia in the 1950’s. It was also important in supplying timely and accurate meteorological data for rocket launches from the Woomera Rocket Range in South Australia in the development of the Bluestreak Rocket as part of the British/Australian space program. This range extended almost all the way across Australia from the launching site at Woomera to the arid North West of Western Australia.
In the early years there were several other weather monitoring stations along the track of the range. Such has been the care and precision of the operation of the station that Giles has the characteristics of a controlled experiment.
Dr. Moore states, “Giles is arguably the best site in the World because of its position and the accuracy and reliability of its records which is a constant recognised problem in many sites. Data is freely available on the BoM website for this site.”
With regard to the site validity having the nature of a controlled experiment, something about the method of analysis is also notable. The novel adoption of deriving the spread Tmax-Tmin by doing it on a daily basis neatly avoids meta data issues that have plagued the reliability of data from other stations and sometimes skewed results from other supposedly reliable observation sites.
“I would argue that the only change in environmental conditions over the life of this station is the increase in CO2 from 280 to 410 ppm,” he says.
“In effect this is, I suggest, a controlled experiment with the only identifiable variable input being CO2 concentration,” he says.
The conclusion reached by Dr. Moore is that an examination of the historical records for this site by accessing the same data through the BoM website unequivocally shows NO significant reduction in Tmax-Tmin. It also shows no rise in Tmin. Anyone can research this data on the Bureau of Meteorology website as it is not paywalled. It is truly sound data from a government authority for the unrestricted attention of citizens and other researchers.
Dr. Moore concludes, “The logical interpretation of this observation is that, notwithstanding any other unidentified temperature influencing factor, the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect due to elevated CO2 had no discernible effect on temperatures at this site. And, by inference, any other site.”
He further states, “On the basis of the observations I have made, there can be no climate emergency due to rising CO2 levels, whatever the cause of the rise. To claim so is just scaremongering.
“Any serious climate scientist must surely be aware of such basic facts yet, despite following the science for many years, I have never seen any discussion on this specific approach,” he says.
Finally, Dr. Moore poses a few questions and makes some pertinent points:
He asks, “Can anyone explain, given the current state of the science why there is no rise in minimum temperatures (raw) or, more importantly, no reduction in Tmax-Tmin spread, over the last 65 years of records despite a significant rise in CO2 levels at Giles (280-410ppm) as projected by the IPCC in their AR4 report?” He notes that other published research indicates similar temperature profiles in the whole of the central Australian region as well as similarly qualified North American and World sites.
Seeking further input, he asks, “Can anyone provide specific data that demonstrates that elevated CO2 levels actually do increase Tmin as predicted by the IPCC?” And further, “Has there been a reduction in frost days in pristine sites as predicted by the IPCC?”
On a search for more information, he queries, “Can anyone explain why the CSIRO ‘State of the Climate’ statement (2020) says that Australian average temperatures have risen by more than 1 deg C since 1950 when, clearly, there has been no such rise at this pristine site?” With regard to this question, he notes that Giles should surely be the ‘go to’ reference site in the Australian Continent.
Again he tries to untangle the web of conflicting assertions by reputedly credible scientific organisations. He notes that, according to the IPCC rising average temperatures are attributable to rise in minimum temperatures. For the CSIRO State of the Climate statement to be consistent with this, it would necessitate a rise of around 2 deg C in Tmin. But, at Giles, there was zero rise. He also notes that, according to the IPCC, temperature rises over land should be double World average temperature rises. But he can see no data to support this.
Dr. Moore’s final conclusion: “Through examination of over 65 years of data at Giles it can be demonstrated that, in the absence of any other identifiable temperature forcing, the influence of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect at this site appears to be zero,” he says. “Not even a little bit!”
<text ends>
David Mason-Jones is a freelance journalist of many years’ experience. He publishes the website www.bomwatch.com.au
Dr. Lindsay Moore, BVSC. For approaching 50 years Lindsay Moore has operated a successful veterinary business in a rural setting in the Australian State of Victoria. His veterinary expertise is in the field of large animals and he is involved with sophisticated techniques such as embryo transfer. Over the years he has seen several major instances in veterinary science where something that was once accepted on apparently reasonable grounds, and adopted in the industry, has later been proven to be incorrect. He is aware that this phenomenon is not only confined to the field of Veterinary Science but is happens in other scientific fields as well. The lesson he has taken from this is that science needs to advance with caution and that knee-jerk assumptions about ‘the science is settled’ can lead to significant mistakes. Having become aware of this problem in science he has become concerned about how science is conducted and how it is used. He has been interested in the global warming issue for around 20 years.
General link to Bureau of Meteorology website is www.bom.gov.au
Extremely interesting. I’m looking forward to the comments on this one.
If Nick Stokes comments, it should be interesting.
I would like to see a comment by Jim Steele. He recently did three WUWT stories explaining, among other things, the physics behind the ITCZ.
Does Giles’ location, in a bloody huge desert, affect what you would expect to see with regard to Tmax vs Tmin over time? Is Giles within the ITCZ for part of the year?
For those who don’t have the time or inclination to look it up, ITCZ stands for Intertropical Convergence Zone
The effect of Tmin rising over time at the same rate as (or moreso than) Tmax would be indicative of warming caused by CO2. If CO2 was responsible then Tmin ought to rise roughly with CO2 concentration. There is no humidity in a desert station like Giles, and the only thing absent known physical influences like land use change that can raise Tmin otherwise (via humidity) would be CO2. Therefore if Tmin isn’t rising over time in a desert station then it proves rising CO2 isn’t the reason.
Commie-Bob, what is the effect of the evolution of the ITCZ on a mid-Australian site’s Tmin vs Tmax?
Further confirmation that the temp in 1958 and 2000 were the same and that no global warming occurred as shown on this global balloon chart.
Oops, forgot the picture…
Oh, there you go, trying to use hard data to disprove climate change models. When will you ever learn?
/Sarc
Good find!
If a mammologist can make generally accepted projections on no evidence, and which turn out to be false, I think that projections of a veterinarian making propositions based on evidence should be much more readily accepted.. And the former was given a position as Climate Commissar!
The vet is not making propositions, simply comparing the projections with actual data.
There must be other “Pristine” sites in the world, what do they say?
Who defined “pristine” sites? How & why?
Could there be one in northern Canada near the wilderness boundaries of NWT [Northwest Territory], SK [Saskatchewan], & MB [Manitoba] at latitude 60 N?
Ditto for a site in eastern Russia or Siberia.
Ditto for the Sahara or Sahel.
Ditto for the North American prairies.
Ditto for the headwaters of the Amazon River.
Why should the influence of the largest surface area of our planet -oceans- be excluded from climate calculations?
Beacuse infrared longwave radiation cannot penetrate water deeper than the first 2 or 3 molecules deep, and only aids evaporation which is a cooling process and not a warming process.
What i meant was nighttime min is during the hours of darkness so the only radiation effect at that time is a cooling effect.
As has been pointed out many times. Yes, longwave radiation does not warm water, and nobody has claimed that it does.
As always, shortwave radiation does the warming, then the temperature of the air above the water plays a role in how quickly that warmth escapes from the water. The warmer the air, the warmer the water has to be in order to shed that energy.
I believe the general idea is that single point ocean measurements are pretty useless because of mixing, currents, and water vapour changes. You want sites with little and mostly stable water vapour content to verify the CO2 impact. Moist air causes too much noize as water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2?
And thus arid desert stations offer the best locations for that purpose. How about Furnace Creek?
My understanding is, that the US Climate Reference Network of stations, set up in 2005 to the agreed gold standard to obtain most reliable data, has shown, if anything, a slight, but not statistically significant, reduction in temperature over the last 16 years. But Im just repeating what I have read – anybody with any direct knowledge?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
Thanks, Bob!
That is a link to a nice data plotting site that I had not seen before.
Last time I plotted it, a few months ago, there was no warming for 10 years and 4 months.
Amundsen-Scott?
Anyone in the BOM who has the courage to say, “On the basis of the observations I have made, there can be no climate emergency due to rising CO2 levels, whatever the cause of the rise. To claim so is just scaremongering. ” deserves a medal of some sort. The accompanying graphs seem to indicate that the Climate in Giles WA is going nowhere.
I wonder how long it will take the Aussie government to replace the on-site scientists with some who are ‘better qualified.’
Say what?!! The IPCC position all along has been that it would be less cold daily minimum temperatures and so a resulting narrower max.-min. daily temperature spread instead of inexorably elevating daily high temperatures that evidence the CO2 effect upon average global temperature over the years? Then pray tell what has all the alarmist fuss been about over up-trending high temperatures that must surely roast the continents if we don’t expend ourselves silly on remedies, rather than just some innocuous shift the middling average for the day!
On the other hand observations from any Australian weather station will no doubt be readily dismissed as showing the inverse of the actual situation, since everyone knows that all those folks on that side of the world walk about upside down.
When the observations don’t match the Science TM, change the data.
An obvious bias exists that needs to be eliminated by homogenization with nearby (up to 1000 km) stations.
Actually that’s been demonstrated to be the case. The desert parts of antarctica have no humidity. and like Giles. Tmin is stable over time showing no temp increase which would prove the case that it’s CO2. However because there are few stations there, there are studies/papers like Steig (2005?) where they engage in data grid infill which intermixes the desert data with the hot peninsiula and paints antarctica as overall “warming.” So yeah this is how they do that.
Yep, Institutional Scientific Fraud(TM).
…. what a fabulous career choice, YAY.
For more analysis of diurnal temperature range, please see –
Diurnal Temperature Range and the Australian Temperature Record: More Evidence | kenskingdom (wordpress.com)
Short summary – DTR interacts with local rainfall Geoff S
Yes, WV, as a GH Gas will affect it, as should CO2…
My reading of the following quote is that the IPCC is full of shyte – they really haven’t Got A Clue
Quote:”The IPCC’s reasoning for its narrowing prediction is that global warming will be driven more by a general rise in minimum temps that it will be by a general rise in maximums.
As I recall, the IPCC and everyone else’s explanation of the GHGE is that the effect of CO2 is puny. As CO2 has zero emissivity within Earth’s atmosphere, even ‘puny’ is a flat out lie.
But then, the GHGE asserts that the small temp rise caused by CO2 will result in more atmospheric water vapour which will enhance the miniscule effect of CO2.
Their ‘positive feedback’
= yet more garbage as positive feedback systems always destroy themselves unless they are part of much larger negatively fedback system.
Yet IPCC nor anyone never ever tells what or where this large negative system is.
iow: Lying by omission
Do they even know what feedback systems actually are or involve?
Back to the quote..
Surely Shirley, because the GHGE causes warming (from water vapour) which in turn is caused by warming (modestly caused by CO2) they are saying that daytime temps should be on the rise relative to night-time.
iow: Why is the warming caused by El Sol any different from the warming caused by CO2. Both will cause an increase in water vapour and thus an increase in the observed daytime temp relative to night when the sun ain’t shining.
But their ‘reasoning’ says quite the opposite. Their garbage reasoning says that cooling (as you get at night-time) causes warming.
Totally ignoring the fact that ‘dry places’ get much much hotter during daytime than ‘wet places’
The very simple fact that (hot) deserts exist completely debunks the entire theory of the GHGE as explained by IPCC and everywhere I’ve ever seen.
It’s Political Correctness gone completely mad that we, or anyone, endures this junk
Why does nobody say anything?
edit to PS
has anyone worked it out – where the large negative feedback is?
It is within the extra water vapour.
Water has very high emissivity – any extra energy it traps is very effectively radiated away and the 2nd law says that that energy can *only* go upwards and outwards
The high emissivity of water, the 2nd Law and Stefan’s 4th power law is that negative feedback.
Hence why I always assert that deserts are cold places. They effectively have very high Albedo. The high temps they reach combined with pretty high emissivity entered into Stefan’s Law says that incoming solar is instantly radiated away – just as effectively as if the sun had been shining down on snow or ice.
Hence why folks who live and work in hot deserts wear black robes.
The Simple People of this world are NOT stupid – so what causes ‘educated’ people to be?
You’d better go look at that law again. There is no directionality to radiation All radiative gases work the same way – if a photon is absorbed, a photon is emitted within nanoseconds. There is no ‘trapping’ of energy.
And, while Bedouins wear black, most desert dwellers wear white, which REFLECTS rather than black, which ABSORBS heat.
Ummm….most greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere that receive a photon just rattle a little harder and transfer the energy (heat) to neighboring molecules well before they would ever have time for the orbitals to resonate enough to emit a photon.
Not so. Yes, collisions can transfer energy to neighboring molecules, but the time between absorption and emissions is extremely short – nanoseconds. When a radiative gas absorbs a photon, it almost immediately emits one.
Does not the absorbed photon have to cause the absorbing molecule to have an electron move to a higher energy state?
IR radiation only excites vibrational and rotational energy levels in gas molecules. To cause electronic excitation requires more energetic UV light.
The time between collisions in the lower atmosphere is even shorter.
Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts? | Nature
In other words, it’s about more than just color. Texture, the particular material, etc., etc., all come into play.
In the Notes about the graphs, shouldn’t the last para read:
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid then the lower plot line should be falling steadily …………”
I agree; I was going to say the same thing as that line surprised me. Also, if anything, it looks to me like that line is rising slightly.
Correct
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235227477_Maximum_and_Minimum_Temperature_Trends_for_the_Globe
but it is not happening at Giles, so – puh – the IPCC was wrong.
You could have noted that was Jones et al at East Anglia in 1997 to save us the trouble.
Hi Katio1505. Thanks for your comment but, if the line in the lower plot was falling slightly, then the IPCC prediction would be shown to be correct.
The vertical axis is temp from lower to higher. In the lower plot it is the measure of Tmax minus Tmin.
If the plot was falling to a lower temp GAP then it would show that the temp spread was narrowing and IPCC would be correct.
But the line in the lower plot is marginally rising into a higher temp GAP on the left hand axis. A higher GAP means that the IPCC claim of a narrowing gap cannot be substantiated in this case.
I don’t get this – what you seem to have written is (quote):
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years because, according to the IPCC, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make nights warmer. But the plot line does not show this.
…where ‘the lower plot line’ seems to be Tmax-Tmin. Which was exactly the point that was raised.
Or did you in that sentence use ‘lower plot line’ to refer to the middle plot line?
So what is the difference between
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid then the lower plot line should be falling steadily …………”
and
A higher GAP means that the IPCC claim of a narrowing gap cannot be substantiated in this case.
You write in the article:
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years because…”
This is different from your immediate above.
if the line in the lower plot was falling slightly, then the IPCC prediction would be shown to be correct.
If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily
Which is it?
It is rising. And the gap is widening. Or uncertain. As no average trend is shown.
Hi Ragnaar and particularly to Katio1505.
I need to take responsibility for the mistake in expression I have made in the notes supporting the graphs. It is my mistake and not Dr. Moore’s. The references to the narrowing gap in the text of the article are correct and correctly state that the gap will ‘narrow’ or become ‘steadily smaller’.
I had added the words in italics under the graph just prior to publishing and after Dr. Moore had given his agreement to the words of the main text of the article. In this process I inadvertently placed the word ‘rising’ instead of ‘falling’ I was wrong. My fault for which I take responsibility.
I throw myself on the mercy of the court!
Don’t I remember a website which shows that Met stations within a thousand km of Alice have no warming for 100 years?
Talk about day-time night time temperatures – methinks someone somewhere is trying to tell us something.
Get yer eyeballs onto the attached screenshot from a Wunderground personal weather station not far from me, and then explain what happened.
And it happened to all the little weather stations (that I checked) within a 40mile radius.
It’d be worth visiting the ‘surface pressure chart‘ at the Met Office right now – climate warmist heads may explode at the realisation of a 1043 millibar cyclonic system sitting on the UK at this time of year.
So will the heads of folks doing ‘grid balancing’ = no wind and high demand because of freezing temps.
Even before 30 million Heat Pumps suddenly start drawing 10kW each because they all frozen solid
But wind is producing 16% of UK demand (38Gw) at this moment (1101GMT) so there’s no cause for alarm yet. On the 1036 line in eastern France, wind speed is Force 3 and temperature +3°.
No exploding heads this morning!
force three , so about 10 mph . marginal at best . likely if they’re big turbines they need power input to start ( keep ) spinning . they reach full output at around 30mph wind . wind power rises with the cube of wind speed
Yet another inconvenient set of results
Has Moore been attacked for ‘funding’ or the fact that he isn’t a member of the modelling club?
The state of play is if you don’t visit sites like this you would never know about this.
Well, here goes. Giles is too dry! Given that global warming is supposed to be mainly due to water vapour feedback, then if there’s no chance for higher water vapour, there won’t be any warming.
If there is no increase in temperature due to CO2, then there is no water vapour feedback (due to CO2).
You nailed it! Under a forced warming the Land-Temperatures increase faster than the SST due to the lack of evaporation over land. This is also the reason why in an arid environment ( as the described station) the Tmax increase much faster then the Tmin. We know this since the 1990s.
That’s the point. If the AGW warming is as small as they say, it may not show up in a difference between Min-Max daily temperatures.
AGW is meant to be newsworthy because of the amplification from the main Greenhouse Gas – water vapour.
In the desert there is no amplification. So, no AGW fingerprint.
Of course, the missing Tropical Hotspot shows that there is no water vapour amplification over the Oceans either so the hypothesis is on somewhat shaky ground.
But if that didn’t disprove newsworthy AGW to the media, this won’t.
M Courtney, a gentle partial correction. The hotspot is in the models, but not in the troposphere. That does not mean there is no water vapor feedback in the tropics. It means the models have too much. And with ARGO salinity measurements, we know know why. ARGO measures about twice as much tropical ocean rainfall as in the models.
And as posted before, using Lindzen’s Bode no feedback 1.2C for doubled CO2, and IPCC’s ECS ~3 meaning Bode 0.65, 0.5 WVF (per IPCC WVF alone doubles no feedback, so 1.2==>2.4C, so 0.5 Bode) so remainder is Bode 0.15 clouds (IPCC says all other feedbacks about cancel to zero). Using Dessler’s 2010 actual result (not what he claimed) for cloud feedback about 0, and halving the WVF to about 0.25, results in ‘observational’ ECS of about 1.7. Same as Lewis and Curry energy budget methods.
My apologies. You are correct.
Not “no water vapour amplification over the Oceans” but rather “no worrying water vapour amplification over the Oceans”.
I make the distinction between AGW and Newsworthy AGW.
That the mechanism of AGW exists is quite probable and of great academic interest. But academic interest is not the same as being newsworthy. Or of being a basis for policy.
At Australia’s 58 long-term ACORN stations that were all observing in 1910, the averaged DTR was 11.54C in the 55 years of 1910-1964, and 11.51C in the 55 years of 1965-2019.
It’s not entirely accurate to say the only change in environmental conditions over the life of Giles or any other station is the increase in CO2. Rainfall also changes and is a key driver of DTR.
At the 58 long-term stations referenced above, the average annual number of rainfall days was 96.30 in 1910-1964, and 100.78 in 1965-2019.
Giles had an average annual 43.90 rainfall days in 1957-1987, and 50.53 in 1988-2019.
That is, a change only in the last significant figure. Is the change statistically significant?
Time to start adjusting the data again? What does the satellite record show?
“It is truly sound data from a government authority for the unrestricted attention of citizens and other researchers.”
That must be a first!
They will just alter the data now to show a T-min rise in an upwards curve that matches the co2 curve,
CO2 does not affect temperatures above -66°C and below 89°C. At 5cm temperature above the ground is much higher than at 2m above the ground. This isn’t the case over oceans. The night time minimum should match temperature over oceans which it does. Example 5cm 38°C , 30°C 2m max is 23°C night time minimum(Equal to day/night ocean air temperature). This is because the ground absorbs more heat which heats the air. Carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat for just any wavelength. Infrared radiation wavelengths are directly proportional to temperature. (wavelength=2898/kelvin). Carbon dioxide has 2 peaks(trapped heat maximums). Lowest is at 0.04 bar pressure -80°C. Highest has low intensity of heat to trap but is at peak 400°C. And traps no heat below 89°C. Any %(right of decimal point) of 400°C absorption occurs higher up in the atmosphere. Human carbon dioxide weight means most remains at bottom of atmosphere (many lab test have shown this) and not high enough to absorb the higher peak heat trapped.
This makes no sense at all, maybe the intention is good but the actual tekst is just incomprehensible. Planck function. Directly proportional if radiation is a T to the 4 th power function? Clear sky temperature above the ground is typically lower than 2m temperature. CO2 as most atmospheric gasses mixes well, whereas precipitation may favour lower atmosphere concentrations. How can lab tests show human CO2 does not mix in all atmospheric layers? Ozone is heavier than CO2 and stays mostly in the stratosphere so weight cannot be the cause.
We are just talking about data from one location?
Let’s do one at a time. And remember Dr. Hi Tom. 1. Moore is not funded for this, does not have a staff or research assistants, no paid holidays, no generous pension plan and so on. He selected a prime site on which to focus first and it was prime because it was free from potential corrupting influences such as urban heat Island effect. Maybe Tom.1 you could help by suggesting some other equally prime sites?
I don’t think anyone posting here is getting paid for it. Do you agree that data from one site is meaningless? There is probably more data somewhere, but I don’t know where it is. If the warming is due to more CO2, then we should see more warming at night than during the day, so it is certainly worth looking at.
If data from one site is meaningless, then data from any site is meaningless. Which means all the data is meaningless. This site was selected as a control on purpose, because it is in an extremely dry location, has been manned continuously and is away from any other possible influences, by a scientist who for once was just looking for were the data leads not trying to prove a theory he is emotionally and financially invested in.
It is meaningless in context of trying to evaluate what is happening for all sites everywhere. I should think that would be obvious.
Tom .1. You generalize everything and to you it’s “obvious”, to me that fact that this site is free of UHI, in a dry climate and continuously operated makes it an ideal location to test the physical effect. If that effect doesn’t show under these conditions over a long time scale than what makes you think it will any where else under less ideal conditions?
You dismiss the other studies showing the same thing with a wave of the hand and ignore the authors own request for challenge.
You are a poser, I have read many of your recent comments and you clearly misrepresent what you believe, this leaves me with little respect for your comments.
Tom1 dismisses the data from Giles as “meaningless” either because it contradicts his CAGW narrative, or because he doesn’t understand the concept of the data point.
I do not agree that the data from one site is meaningless.
If the theory is correct, the effect should be showing up everywhere.
Completely correct and this is just more proof that if co2 is doing anything, we can’t see it. Anyone who claims they can is talking bullshit.
Tom, to paraphrase Einstein –
why do we need data from thousands of stations when just one will prove us wrong?
You completely misunderstand what Einstein meant. Global warming is not a law of physics that states warming must occur equally everywhere at all times. Nobody is saying that and nobody believes that.
Why call it GLOBAL warming then?
(science being about precision & accuracy)
Correct it’s a religion and political tool. And that is exactly what the believers say.
Your GW hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
If the theory is correct, the affect should show up everywhere.
Of course, that is no surprise. Back radiation cannot even melt frost. Frost remains until either the temperature rises above 0C or the sun hits it. I’ve had frost on my north-facing street in front of my house for a solid week. And I didn’t even get a research grant. And, even though it remained below freezing for that week, all the frost subject to sunshine disappeared. Back radiation is a nothing.
Are you saying there is no such thing as back radiation? No greenhouse effect?
Well, even if he isn’t saying that, I will. There is no greenhouse effect.
The question is, if John Tyndall could figure it out in 1859, why can’t you figure it out now? Who discovered the greenhouse effect? | The Royal Institution: Science Lives Here (rigb.org)
The sky has a temp of say 255 K and the surface 288 K. In the Stefan Boltzmann equation Q= K (Tsurf^4 – Tsky^4) ….. the minus Tsky^4 part is the “back radiation”. If it wasn’t for clouds, water vapor, CO2 , and other greenhouse gases, Tsky would be the temperature of outer space, 3 K, because N2 and O2 are mostly transparent to IR. The difference in Q is basically the “greenhouse effect”.
Your saying it doesn’t exist is akin to a belief that the Earth is flat. I have greatly simplified this explanation specially for you, Intelligent Dasein.
There is a far easier reason why earth is warmer than the black body would suggest. (Earth isn’t a black body anyway.)
The earth spins like a rotisserie, and the sun is always warming about half of the earth. The sun heats earth quickly, but earth cools slowly when the sun isn’t present. The residual heat from the previous days, weeks and months is all it takes to understand that earth will never get to the black body temperature.
No one has ever claimed that it would.
The moon cools a lot more quickly than does the earth.
So you are saying the atmosphere would not warm vie convection? That’s a bold statement since it does so today, so GHGs are responsible for that as well?
That is no where close to what he is saying.
Yes it is
DMacKenzie,
So you’re saying that if the atmosphere contained no “greenhouse gases,” then it would have thermal properties no different than a vacuum? That is ridiculous.
What you’re describing as “back radiation” is simply the ordinary thermal mass of the atmosphere. You’re free to express it radiatively if you want, but you must remember that the atmosphere is only radiating because it is warm to begin with. The back radiation is an effect of the temperature, the temperature is not an effect of the back radiation.
That is exactly what I am saying. It is a hypothesis, not a law. It is a wrong hypothesis. My example of frost demonstrates that back radiation cannot melt frost, so it can’t ‘heat’ anything either. Frost is quite stable, in the absence of wind, sunshine, or other weather anomalies. In other words, it is stable for many days at a time under a clear sky at 0C or less. If back radiation could do ANYTHING, it could melt frost at 0C. After all, it is supposed to be RADIATION, which has to be absorbed in order to ‘warm’ anything. That don’t happen.
Then you are saying this chart is wrong?
Disproving something that nobody has ever claimed is not as big an accomplishment as you believe.
I read what he said to be back radiation does not have enough power to melt frost. Further, because of that there is no GHE caused by CO2.
What you got?
I got that frost can form on the ground at night even though the temperature never drops below freezing. This is due to radiative cooling, which he is essentially claiming does not exist. If there is radiative cooling, then there is also radiative warming. He said the frost did not melt because the temperature did not rise above 0 deg C, which does not disprove back radiation. No one has ever claimed that the greenhouse effect can overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
Here is what John said: “And, even though it remained below freezing for that week, all the frost subject to sunshine disappeared.”
You did not read what he said. He never said what you claim.
He gave you an example (experiment) of the power of sunshine versus “back radiation”. So I think what his underlying question is “if back radiation can’t melt frost how can it warm the earth?”
Since the first part is incorrect in how the mechanism works, the second part is meaningless.
Nobody ever claimed that back radiation could melt frost.
Back radiation results in the atmosphere being warmer, and it is those more energetic molecules that melt the frost.
Sorry, that’s not how radiation works. It doesn’t heat the air, it heats whatever it strikes. Although the sun does minimally warm the air, most of the daily warmth comes from the sun striking the surface, warming it, and the surface warms the surrounding air. If back radiation was a ‘thing’, it WOULD melt frost at 0C. The fact that it doesn’t is the proof that it is not present.
Interesting, but using the annual mean does not seem at all optimal. Could they not have used daily figures?
Another Australian site to examine is Rutherglen Research, 082039. It is pristine, but a very different agricultural environment. Shows no warming since inception in 1913 except via homogenization pulling in UHI. Wrote it up in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. See especially the related footnote details.
The Rutherglen area had land use changes in that period, which may have had an effect.
Giles does seem to be a good choice as a control, but it is always difficult working with a sample size of 1.
“In the AR4 report the IPCC claims that elevated CO2 levels trap heat,”
It’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science that this is their position.
CO2 does not ‘trap’ heat, but temporarily captures heat only to re-emit it back to the surface or into space in roughly equal amounts. The delay being on the order of milliseconds.
Clouds do the same thing only with a longer delay. More than half of the surface energy absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere is done so by clouds. Less than 1/3 of the remaining absorption is by CO2 and most of the rest is by water vapor.
Furthermore, CO2 between clouds and the surface does not significantly increase incremental absorption since the clouds would be absorbing that surface energy anyway.
It’s also crucial to understand that only the initial absorption of surface energy by clouds or GHG’s matters and in the steady state the energy leaving the atmosphere is equal to the new surface energy being absorbed,
It amounts to the same thing. Without the greenhouse effect, the surface of the earth would be much, much colder.
Tom.1
Exactly how would the atmosphere cool with out radiative gasses? It would warm through convection from the surface? Not sure you are all that in touch with the “science”.
You would need to eliminate clouds as well since they have the same surface warming effect as GHG’s. The difference is that clouds have a much larger overall effect since they are broad band absorbers and emitters of energy and cover 2/3 of the planet, while GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters and are mostly important only in cloud free skies.
Good article, but there’s an important error. In describing the plots, it says “If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years because, according to the IPCC, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make nights warmer. But the plot line does not show this.”
Rather than “rising”, it should say “…the lower plot line should be falling steadily…”
A greenhouse effect that does nothing is no different from a greenhouse effect that does not exist.
What CO2 does, how and how much is whose fault is like bickering over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There is no greenhouse effect!
The Earth is cooler with the atmosphere not warmer. Stand in front of a blazing campfire. Hold up a large mylar space blanket. Are you warmer now or colder? The fire (sun) warms you & you (surface) warms the surrounding air. That’s what the atmosphere does and a greenhouse that’s not.
Per the K-T atmospheric energy balance graphic as well as numerous clones the GHGs must do their thang with “extra” energy upwelling from a terrestrial surface radiating LWIR as a black body. These graphical representations contain egregious math and physics errors. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U
As demonstrated by experiment the terrestrial surface cannot independently upwell LWIR as a black body. For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no greenhouse effect.
The so-called GHGs do not actually do anything.
Mankind’s CO2 does not drive global warming or climate change.
How/why am I wrong?
Stay on topic and bring science!
You could not be more wrong if you had used an electric wronging machine.
Earth’s energy balance
480 watts per square meter at equator 240+ (960-720) (138-60=78) at top of atmosphere. Away from equator 240 watts + 78 atmosphere 320 watts.
Per second
80 + 80 + 26 = 106 watts per square meter. Earth’s effective temperature (or black body temperature 240 watts). Total mean temperature 346 watts per square ,meter.
He is not wrong. Earths core is 5200°C and surface 5.33°C (not 16°C which is 3 x 5.33). The sun heats earth above what earth emits. Water before being boiled possessed energy prior to the heat being applied. Say 16°C(396) and heated to 93°C(1021). Emissivity would be 0.38.
30°C 303 477.91
-78.00 / 477.91 = 0.16 emissivity
16.8°C 289.9 399.91
-63.00/ 399.91 = 0.16 emissivity
4.6°C 277.6 336.92
-53/336.92 = 0.16 emissivity
-7.0°C 266.0 283.71
-46.00/283.71 = 0.16 emissivity
-18.5 254.5 237.85
(78+63+53+46=240)
Atmosphere absorbs sunlight at an average 100 watts.
240+100 = 340 watts 5.3°C
You’re fullashit, Nick. Sane people don’t wrestle with pigs; all efforts to point out your errors have fallen on deaf ears.
Point out his errors then so ears might hear something..
”A greenhouse effect that does nothing is no different from a greenhouse effect that does not exist.
What CO2 does, how and how much is whose fault is like bickering over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
Yep.
I can think of a lot of reasons to not be impressed by picking a single station in the middle of nowhere.
Averaging out such variables is one reason for using many stations.
I am no expert, but I sure can get cynical.
Cynicism is great, as long as you apply it evenly & consistently to ALL records from ALL weather stations around the world.
If that’s your approach, I get it.
That’s a point. The site itself may not have changed, but the equipment changed from mercury-in-glass minimax thermometers to thermocouple in different enclosures.
Without long-term parallel running of the instruments, the readings may not be identical. If nothing else, resolution will have improved.
I’ll revise that. The thermometers may have been alcohol-based. It’s been a very long time since high school, where we had an agriculture weather station. I remember it had a Stevenson screen with a minimax thermometer, a rain gauge, anemometer, wind direction, and an evaporation tank. The rainfall and evaporation rates were the main focus, iirc.
As the article pointed out, the station is continuously manned.
Do you have any evidence that basic maintenance is not being performed?
The Tmax looks somewhat BOMed for the recent couple of decades. Check older reports for the same data to see if there are the gradual increments made by the T fiddlers. I can’t believe BOM has kept any data set pristine.
Moreover, watch for BOM to start raising Tmin at Giles after they get wind of your work. They would likely even put out a paper showing Giles as an ‘ideal’ site for showing rise in Tmin.
I wonder how fast Aussie government is going to destroy this man’s business? What does he think he is, a free citizen? 😉
Of all geographic regions the deserts are ideal places to observe supposed IR radiation effects on temperature. These are the areas where the temperature lapse rate most closely resembles the dry adiabatic one. IR radiation theorists seem to envision a flat stagnant atmosphere when in fact the atmosphere always tends to instability, constantly buoyant and bubbling around; not unlike a pot of boiling water. She is always up on her toes ready to take-off with any perturbation, not flat on her heels like radiation physicists suppose. As soon as the temperature lapse rate becomes greater than the adiabatic expansion of dry air the atmosphere becomes instable. Large amounts of heat are advected several kilometers high or poleward where the radiation away into space is much easier. And, we live in an atmosphere where the temperature lapse rate is always steeper, and so the there is always instability. In considering the total Earth system, it has unlimited water available to drive this instability. So, for experimental purposes, it is in the deserts where the real temperature lapse rate will most closely resemble the dry adiabatic one, and it is there where the enhanced greenhouse effect should be most easily observed.
It is for these reasons that, while the experiments of Tyndall and company are likely valid under the conditions they were observed, IR radiation transmittance perturbations appear to be overwhelmed in the real dynamic atmosphere (even in the deserts).
Agree. And I like deserts.
Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that the climate crisis is a scam but plotting one data point for Tmax and one for Tmin per year for one station is a recipe for achieving the maximum uncertainty possible. Write back when you have plotted high and low temps for each day for the same 60 years at a large number of pristine stations.
Wait, this has already been done with USHCN data and Tmin IS rising faster than Tmax. That’s actually a good thing, much better than Tmax rising fast and is another reason that there’s no crisis.
The main factor Tmin/max spread is clouds. With a tendency of decreasing cloud cover an increase in the spread is no suprise. Though things may be way more complicated, as with contrails there may be a factor reducing the spread.
Anyhow, the claim CO2 would mainly increase Tmin is non sense. CO2 forcing works indiscriminately day and night. Rather what happened is, that indeed a reduction in the temperature spread was observed and without understanding the cause, the blamed it on CO2, as they always do.
In fact we have a similar issue with desert climates. The myth goes that it gets “very cold” at night because of a lack of vapor in the atmosphere. Notably Giles itself has a pretty dry climate. There and everywhere else, like in the Sahara, such an extreme temperature spread is just not real. It is up to 20K between Tmin/max, but not more.
https://greenhousedefect.com/2/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-2
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years because, according to the IPCC, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make nights warmer. But the plot line does not show this.”
To be consistent with name labels, should say the “middle” plot line here.
If the IPCC hypothesis is true, then the lower plot would show a downward trend line.
As a side note to this article, if anyone wants to read an informative and entertaining true account of what outback desert conditions were / are like when the Giles weather station was being set up in the 1950s, follow the travails of desert roads pioneer Len Beadell in his army issue, no frills Landrover.
https://www.lenbeadell.com.au/
ps – don’t try these journeys in your Tesla 🥵
I wonder if this guy knows another Aussie named David Evans? He couldn’t find the tropospheric hot spot that drive climate change.
So lets see now, there is no observable trend detected in min/max differences at Giles and there is no observed tropical tropospheric hotspot detected.
It was a beautiful hypothesis for a number of decades, wasn’t it?
I now await everyone who claims to want to “follow the science” to start following the science.
If not, then wear your religion proudly.
The spread is not constant.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/
Tmin historically may be a lot of guess work. Until mechanical recording who was up to actually check the Tmin at night?
Weather observations were taken using minimax thermometers, which marked the minimum and maximum for the observation period.
With all due respect to the authors, their underlying claim is correct but their writing is not. They say:
But if the nights are getting warmer at a faster rate than the days as the CO2 theory posits, the day-night difference (daily temperature range, or “DTR”) would be growing smaller, and thus the lower plot should be dropping steadily, not rising steadily.
Their second claim is that the lower plotline is not rising steadily. To my untutored eye, it looked like it was in fact rising. So I went to KNMI and got the Giles daily data. Here’s that result:
So … their underlying claim is true. The nights are NOT warming faster than the days, as the CO2 theory says should be happening. Instead, the DTR is increasing.
But the way that the result is written up is totally backward.
w.
Willis, that was my point way up in the thread, but I guess I was too cryptic.
Sorry, amigo, I didn’t get around to reading all of the comments … and in any case, I always like to run the numbers myself.
w.
And not much of a trend given the spread. It is more erratic than trending.
Willis here’s a link to a thorough study by Ken Stewart of Aussie Diurnal temp range.
And Ken found that the DT Range interacts with local rainfall. Thanks to Geoff Sherrington for providing the link. Any comments Willis?
Geoff Sherrington
January 21, 2022 11:10 pm
For more analysis of diurnal temperature range, please see –
Diurnal Temperature Range and the Australian Temperature Record: More Evidence | kenskingdom (wordpress.com)
Short summary – DTR interacts with local rainfall Geoff S
To Willis, Katio1505 and others who have commented on the notes supporting the graphs. I have also posted this comment earlier in the comments section.
I need to take responsibility for the mistake in expression I have made in the notes supporting the graphs. It is my mistake and not Dr. Moore’s. The references to the narrowing gap in the text of the article are correct and correctly state that the gap will ‘narrow’ or become ‘steadily smaller’.
I had added the words in italics under the graph just prior to publishing and after Dr. Moore had given his agreement to the words of the main text of the article. In this process I inadvertently placed the word ‘rising’ instead of ‘falling’ I was wrong. My fault for which I take responsibility.
I throw myself on the mercy of the court!
I believe that the prediction as to higher temperatures over land and relatively higher temperatures at night in winter hold pretty well on average? Still the graphs are intriguing and rolling it out over other dry air regions would be commendable.
It’s wonderful what you “believe”
There are many things that can cause warmer temperatures at night.
In agricultural regions, increased irrigation can cause increased humidity which will cause increased nighttime temperatures.
In areas that are developing, increased concrete and asphalt can cause increased nighttime temperatures.
Somebody should check the Giles station diary for site changes and instrument changes. Over this timespan the BoM has often changed from a large stevenson screen to a smaller version and also at many sites liquid in glass thermometers have been replaced by electric probes.
The fact that Giles is in a desert should eliminate it as an example of the world. Most of the globe has higher humidities at night which might contribute to higher temperatures. The theory needs to be tested in a more humid atmosphere.
But it is a good proof of theory location.
I haven’t had a chance to get back to this since posting this first article, my day job has been day and night for the last two months, but i’ve found exactly the opposite in upstate NY.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/19/heat-waves-vs-observed-data/
At the handful of rural locations I’ve reviewed the max temp has been flat or decreasing for most days of the year while the minimum has been trending upwards as can be seen here on July 4 in Geneva, NY
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/d58657c0-fcb1-4813-b0ec-6804984a3006
“If the IPCC hypothesis is valid, then the lower plot line should be rising steadily through the years…”
It does show a rise. A rise means the difference is growing. Reread it yourself. Tmax minus Tmin. IPCC says shrinking gap. Warmer nights.
I just analyzed the daily Min/Max/Spread data from Giles from 1956 to 2021. The difference between the Max and Min temp has been INCREASING in the monthly average data as shown here attached. The graph shows the gradient of the temperature difference by month over the period 1957 to 2021. Positive numbers indicate the difference is increasing year on year. e.g. for Feb, the difference between the Max and Min temperature has been increasing about 0.7% year on year from 13.0 deg in 1957 to 13.4 deg in 2021 (this is the linear regression through the ’57-’21 data, actual variation year on year is larger). Nowhere does the data indicate a decrease in the Max/Min range except December which I would argue is statistically insignificant.
Happy to share my spreadsheet to anyone who is interested.
Isn’t it clearly understood that the increase in average temp is all in the overnight and winter temps getting warmer?
I did the same style analysis a couple of years ago and came to the same conclusion with a number of long term remote Australian datasets. I then looked at the CET as it has min/max records since 1878 and it shows the same thing (in spite of the UHI masking effect. It shows trend of increasing diurnal range of 0.28C/century
Shouldn’t the BOM do something to correct this inconvenient data?
(And what do you have to do wrong to become part of the permanent staff at Giles?)
Never fret they will
The global reduction in DTR to about 1975, and increase since, is well known isnt it?
To me this looks like instrument changes
Hey all
Still confused here, no one responded to my comment.
From my reading here and elsewhere it seems clear that max temps aren’t increasing (decreasing in continental USA) and it’s warmer nights and winters in higher latitudes which is all that is driving increased calculated “average”, but that would also mean the difference is shrinking as per the above article.
The difference may be growing in some places but isn’t the overall trend showing this shrinking ?
Looks like the Adjustocene folks missed this problem. If you’re going to cool the past, you can hardly only cool the upper bit…