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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…