March 21, 2023 By jennifer
It is all over the news, another climate change report from the IPCC – the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course, it tells us that the end is nigh unless we do something to prevent temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, not one of the contributors has any proven capacity to accurately forecast the weather more than a few days in advance, nor much of an idea of the quality of the temperature data inputted into the simulation models claiming the Earth is burning up. Yet they claim to be able to forecast temperatures years in advance and repeat over and over the value of 1.5 C as representing a tipping point.
The reality is that annual maximum temperatures across Australia were mostly falling, and by much more than 1.5 C, from at least 1910 to 1960 and then increasing, and by more than 1.5 C, since 1960.
There are few locations across Australia where temperatures have been recorded at the one place and using standard equipment (including in a Stevenson screen with a mercury thermometer) much before 1908. Darwin in the Northern Territory and Richmond in Queensland are special because they have long and relatively reliable temperature records. Making a single adjustment to the Darwin temperature record to correct for the move from the post office to the airport (after the post office was bombed in WW II), it is evident from the chart that both temperature series show cooling and then warming over the last century and by much more than 1.5 C over periods of less than a decade.
This is the case across the Earth: that temperatures tend to cycle at a decadal scale and by much more than 1.5 C.
Back in 2014, John Abbot went through the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s data base of unhomogenised temperatures for New South Wales. He picked out those temperature series that were continuous from before 1900 to 1960 and post 1960 to 2013.
He choose 1960 as the point of division, because annual maximum temperatures from Australia tend to show cooling to about 1960 and then warming after that year and because if we divide in about 1960 it is easier to find more stations. (Coonabarabaran, Miller Street in Hay, Moruya Heads are about the only three. I can’t remember why he didn’t include Sydney Observatory Hill.)
It is evident from this table that over the sixty years to 1960 cooling is by much more than 1.5 C … denoted by the negative sign. At Deniliquin, cooling was by more than 4.5 as measured in degrees C per century.
Since 1960 warming at most locations had already exceeded a rate of 1.5 C per century by 2013. On average, the rate of cooling in the maximum temperature was minus 1.95 to 1960, and on average the rate of warming was plus 2.48 after 1960. These are maximum values, and they give some idea of the absurdity of worrying about a mean temperature increase of 1.5 C since pre Industrial times.
That journalists at the ABC, and scientists at the IPCC, keep harping on about 1.5 C suggests they are clueless of our climate history.
It is only the remodelled temperatures, and also minimum temperatures from cities because of the embedded urban heat island effect, that show continuous warming.
The extent of the remodelling was detailed in that presentation I did to the Sydney Institute back in 2014, that included the table of NSW locations put together by John Abbot. The notes from that presentation are still so relevant, you can download and read them here.
Meanwhile, since about 2012 the reliability of the unhomogenised temperature data from Australia has become even more questionable as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology transitioned to a different probe design that reliably records up to 0.4 C warmer for the same weather than a mercury thermometer. My recent eight part series, Hyping Maximum Daily Temperatures, details this issue of non equivalence between the probes in automatic weather stations and old style mercury thermometers.
****
The feature image at the top of this blog post is a scatter plot of the difference between daily maximum temperatures from the probe at Mildura versus the mercury thermometer in the same Stevenson screen for the period July 2012 to January 2015. All available parallel data has been plotted, minus a few outliers. This is the extent of the parallel data available for the second generation probes for the entire Australian continent, unless our Administrative Appeals Tribunal Hearing is successful. Fingers crossed.
Mediation has not yet terminated; I have nothing to report beyond what I wrote in part 4 of Hyping Maximum Daily Temperatures.
It was average temperature that the Paris idiocy referred to. High temperature readings, like abnormal weather claims, are hyperbole suitable for clickbait, political slogans, and other foolishness.
Thanks DK. When ever I start plotting averages the temperature pattern tends to loses much meaning. Minimum temperatures at individual locations often reflect very local conditions including Urban Heat Island. During periods of extended droughts, for example, minimum temperatures often trend cooler, while maximums trend higher. While, the mean temperature may appear unchanged. (The mean temperature is, of course, the sum of the daily maximum and minimum divided by two. In climatology it is not the average of temperatures recorded through the day. With the transition to probes in automatic weather stations the maximum and minimum are now instantaneous/spot readings from most Australian locations representing the very hottest and very coldest during the one 24-hour period.)
I have found that maximum temperatures give a much better idea of the pattern of temperature change over decades, being an afternoon reading when the atmosphere is better ‘mixed’ for that location.
They also give a magnitude of change, and should be of particular interest if the concern is with rising temperatures.
That for many locations in Australia mean, maximum and minimum temperatures vary by more than 1.5 degrees over just a few years should be of general interest, and reported by the news services. Of course, inland locations fluctuate much more than coastal locations.
“(The mean temperature is, of course, the sum of the daily maximum and minimum divided by two. In climatology it is not the average of temperatures recorded through the day.”
It is not the average – correct. It isn’t a mean temperature. It is a MEDIAN temperature. It may have been all that used to be available but it is a poor metric for the daily temperature profile – i.e. the daily “climate”.
Since the daytime temp is usually very close to a sine wave the average for it is not Tmax. Since the nighttime temp is an exponential decay (actually a 3rd order polynomial) it’s average is not Tmin. With 2min and 5min data being available today we should start integrating the entire daily temperature curve to get a metric that is far more descriptive of the actual daily “climate”.
If only that data could be made available it would be *very* interesting to see what it shows.
Average temperature of a day for climatological purposes is neither the mean nor the median of hourly readings or some other large number of readings during the day. It is the median of the highest reading and the lowest reading.
As long as the rules stay the same, this should not cause climatologically reported average temperature at a particular location to warm (or cool) more or less than the actual average temperature does, unless there is a weather change long enough to be considered to be a matter of climate, that changes the average shape of a graph of temperature throughout the day.
The point that Tim is making is that that shape of the curve for daytime increase is different from the nighttime decline. Because the energy available for doing work is the area under the 24-hour curve, the shapes make a difference. The mid-range value provides a poor approximation. Until the advent of automated weather stations, it wasn’t really possible to approximate the heat energy, let alone the enthalpy. Your last paragraph is wrong because the urban heat island effect perturbs the shapes of the curves, particularly the nighttime curve. Therefore, the true integrated temperature drifts with time. Your last paragraph would only be true if one were satisfied with an index that approximated the temperatures.
Thanks, Clyde. You say it so much better than I do.
The annual monthly temp avg for Miami and Las Vegas are pretty much the same, just about 80F. Yet the high temp avg in July for Las Vegas is about 104F while for Miami it is around 89F.
Big differences in climate yet you can’t tell from the median (mid-range) temperature.
Ag science and HVAC engineers have moved to integrating the temperature curve in order to understand the climate. It makes a big difference in estimating last-frost and growing season length as well as designing more efficient HVAC systems.
When is climate science going to do the same? You can run the traditional method alongside integrating the entire temp curve. Climate science doesn’t have to listen to Tevye and never change. I suspect part of the reason is that it is harder to “adjust” all data rather than just Tmax and Tmin.
And, as I know you know, Tim, (Tmax-Tmin)/2 is more properly called the “mid-range.”
It is not the average – correct. It isn’t a mean temperature. It is a MEDIAN temperature.
Not the median
Not a temperature
Jus a statistic of not much use
The maximum and minimum temperature is somewhat useful
They are actual measurements
If you trust the BOM
But modern instruments could capture one second peaks and troughs versus some thermal inertia of mercury thermometers,
That could be a big distortion with airport weather stations near runways
We actually have the capability today of integrating the entire temperature profile. Ag science does it. HVAC engineers do it.
Why doesn’t climate science? Why are they stuck on using 1800’s level of science? If they ever want to progress they need to join the 21st century! Long records you say? Well – DO BOTH!
One of the reasons is data continuity.
If they started integrating the entire day’s data, then you could no longer compare modern readings against older ones.
In their minds, it’s better to continue the mistakes of the past, than it is to admit to the mistakes of the past.
If you do both and the each give different conclusions then all the better for everyone. Figure out which one is correct. Your last statement is on target.
Have you tried testing it for yourself? Seeing how much of a difference it make to any trend using daily average rather than the mean of max and min?
I’m just going to ask ChatGBT what the climate is going to do long term in my area. I might also check on the temperature rise by say 2100 while at it.
Dear Jennifer,
You and I both know that none of the datasets listed in the Table were homogeneous (i.e. free of site change effects). All the sites moved or changed during the periods you have nominated, and without taking that into account naive trends are simply invalid. For example, most long-term datasets were affected to varying extents by the introduction of Stevenson screens, which for some stations were not installed until after 1910. You don’t even study the various metadata notes provided by Simon Torok in his PhD thesis, which I sent to you at least twice.
I did a post on Bourke for example at Jo Nova (https://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/bourke-how-1km-of-land-clearing-can-warm-a-million-square-miles/) complete with a report (https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/johnston-bill/2018/bourke/back-of-bourke-v1.3_10.pdf) that demolishes you claim about “cooling” to 1960.
Taking data and tossing it against the wall using Excel does not help understanding of any datasets
and you persist in not checking for spurious signals in data. Think Rutherglen for example (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/bureau-of-meteorology/rutherglen-victoria/).
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
(www.bomwatch.com.au)
Hi Bill,
John Abbot assumed that if a weather station did not change name or number that any move was considered insignificant by the Bureau. This would seem to be a reasonable assumption. To be clear, he was working from the official unhomogenised data and official metadata in compiling that table.
Despite its possible limitations (there are always limitations with weather data) it does make the point that during the first half of the last century there was generally cooling, and during the second half significant warming. Of course, the last few years have seen temperatures plummet at many of those same locations.
On the issue of believing the Bureau/accepting the official meta data: at various other threads at WUWT you have chastised me for not believing the bureau, for not accepting the official meta data. You can be inconsistent.
Indeed, it is the case that the Bureau often provide misleading information, as was sort of the case to you with the Canberra parallel data. Perhaps they provided you with the correct information but then you made extrapolations that were unjustified? Whichever, you then went on to mislead Jo Nova. https://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/another-bom-scandal-australian-climate-data-is-being-destroyed-as-routine-practice/
Of course, we know from my work getting the parallel data for Mildura that there is parallel data, you just need to be a bit more persistent and less believing of the bureau. I suspect there is more than 20 years of parallel data for about 34 locations.
Cheers,
Dear Jennifer,
(Had to knock-off to go fishing!)
There are many more parallel datasets that are available which you have not investigated. You made the spurious claim that the 0.22 degC difference between thermometer and PRT-probe data at Mildura was significant when, because you used paired t-tests, it could not have been (an issue we have discuss repeatedly before).
Now you dig up a Table compiled by John Abbot in 2013 – clearly a decade ago, where data for 14 sites out of the scores that were available in NSW, have been chosen to show cooling; and compared their ‘average’ with that for another 10 sites chosen to show warming, just to prove your imaginary theory.
So you come back with something half-baked about Canberra, for which I also reported on (https://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/canberras-hottest-ever-september-record-due-to-thermometer-changes-and-a-wind-profiler/) and I bet you don’t even know what a wind-profiler is. There is one at Mildura too – in one my replies posted a picture.
So here is a test – aside from moving the site at Canberra Airport three or four times, replacing the 230-litre Stevenson screen with a 90-litre one and installing the wind-profiler array, why did Abbott note a warming trend, and why did you think the trend was due to the climate? Time starts now ….
Why also don’t you and Abbott read the disclaimers in relation to site-summary metadata provided by the BoM? Just as people should check the claims you make about the significance of small differences, and those related to ‘trend’ in cherry-picked datasets, people using Bureau data should also check the veracity of data they use (cherry-picked or not). You could start with notes from Simon Torok’s Thesis; here a couple of excerpts that might help.
There is no evidence that supports your assertion that “Despite its possible limitations (there are always limitations with weather data) it does make the point that during the first half of the last century there was generally cooling, and during the second half significant warming.” You simply used Excel to go data-shopping and that is what you found.
I mentioned what happened at Bourke, but you carefully ignored that. I’ve discussed at length what happened at Mildura, Rutherglen, Cape Otway …ditto. Now Canberra (I expect ditto) and now you disingenuously flick-pass the problem onto John Abbott.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Focusing on Halls Creek in Western Australia, today I published a report on http://www.bomwatch.com.au, the fifth in a series examining homogenisation of maximum temperature data.
The frontstory is here: https://www.bomwatch.com.au/bureau-of-meterology/part-6-halls-creek-western-australia/, the report behind the Frontstory is here: https://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/HallsCreekbackstory_FINAL-18-Mar-2023.pdf.
Jennifer does not get that there is NO valid climate-related trend in Halls Creek or any other Australian dataset.
NO trend is different to using cherry-picked data to counter bogus trends created by Australia’s Bureau of meteorology under the guise of data homogenisation. No matter who the promoters, whether Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) or the Bureau, bogus cannot counter bogus. Unless they can substantiate their cases, both are wrong in principle and in fact. I note also that Jennifer’s spurious claims about cooling to 1960 and warming thereafter, has featured in Chetna Mahadik’s weekly IPA This Week report. Not only is her data-table a decade out of date, but ignoring the obvious problem of site relocations and instrument changes shows Jennifer’s ‘work’ for the IPA is based on no research at all. Otherwise, she would not publish such misleading stuff.
I have shown over and over on http://www.bomwatch.com.au that starting with Neville Nicholls in around 1990, Bureau scientists, most recently Blair Trewin, use complex methods to homogenise trends into homogenised datasets as demanded by their political overlords. This is the very definition of policy-driven science. I touched-on this in the Halls Creek Report and I will develop the theme further subsequently.
While as a former CSIRO scientist Nick Stokes supports the Bureau, Jennifer’s counter argument of cooling/warming breaks-down because when site and instrument changes are accounted for, there is actually no trend at all. Stuck in the CSIRO groove, and with Jennifer’s data-picking and naïve trend analysis methods, neither of them get the reality of no-trend. She and Stokes refuse point-blank to accept that relocating a site, or changing from a 230-litre to a 90-litre Stevenson screen, or a more sensitive PRT-probe affects trends in observed data.
By definition, the uncertainty bandwidth for a thermometer is ½ the interval range. As indexes on Celsius meteorological thermometers are 0.5 degrees apart, differences between thermometer-observed and PRT-probe values within the bandwidth of +/- 0.25 degC cannot be statistically different. As most of her purported differences in the graphic at the top of the post fall within that bandwidth and only seven of how ever-many there were, are outliers, Marohasy fails to grasp that the difference between thermometer and probe readings is too small to be statistically significant. Based on bending fundamental rules of statistics, her claim that differences are significant is fictional, outrageous and brings the IPA (of which I am a supporter and member) into disrepute.
To put the matter to rest, Jennifer should simply put the data in the public domain, like I do on http://www.bomwatch.com.au.
By the way, here at BomWatch I welcome a debate with factcheckers.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
“By definition, the uncertainty bandwidth for a thermometer is ½ the interval range.”
Nitpick. By definiton, the uncertainty bandwidth for a thermometer is 1/2 the interval range + SYSTEMATIC BIAS.
1/2 the interval is the minimum bandwidth for a perfectly calibrated measurement device. How many field measurement devices are perfectly calibrated?
Agreed Tim. But as far as the instrument is concerned, while PRT probe may be more ‘accurate’, uncertainty of comparing two observations is set by which ever uncertainty band is the widest. For a meteorological thermometer it is ½ the interval range, or 0.25 degC, usually rounded-up to 0.3 degC. Systematic bias is additive to that.
For example, while a mercury break in a Tamx thermometer by add say 0.6 degC bias, the uncertainty of an observation remains the same.
(With colleagues, I undertook daily weather observations turn-about from 1971 to about 1979. Then in the mid-1980s I ran side-by-side comparisons between observed data and PRT-probes for a company developing automatic weather stations.)
All the best,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
“Systematic bias is additive to that.”
Why is it never added? Why is always assumed that the measurement uncertainty is random with no systematic bias in field measurement systems?
Thanks Tim,
Uncertainty of any instrument is fixed and measurable. A well calibrated car speedometer for instance, will record within a error-band of the true speed. However, as tyres wear, the diameter of wheel on the road becomes smaller, which introduces bias to the speedo measurement – the speed of the car is less than as indicated by the speedo, which remains as accurate as it always was.
A thermometer with 1/2 degree indices may be calibrated using a much more expensive and precise instrument, say a laboratory thermometer with 5 divisions per degreeC. It could also be calibrated using a ice-bath or oil bath.
Of 10 trained people independently reading the same instrument held at the same temperature most are likely to report within 0.3 Deg of the calibrated value. The chart at the top of Jennifer’s post shows a distribution of values around the mean-difference which is zero, with most differences being +/- 0.2 degC.
In all our field work, we periodically undertook training and cross-calibration exercises so that technicians understood the difference between precision and bias. Take for example, a rapid assessment scheme for estimating ground-cover – the percentage of the ground within a small 1/2m quadrat covered by living grass, dead grass, and by the base of grass plants.
For the same of say 50 randomly placed quadrats, one team measures “cover”, the other measures “bare ground” and by comparing results (which should be inverse) we can refine our definitions, hone the skill, and ‘cross-calibrate’. This reduces bias, but does not change the instrument, which is the eyeball viewing a 50 by 50 cm quadrat. We can also work out how many samples were requited to obtain data with an acceptable level of precision – which is a tradeoff – the cost/benefit ratio if you like of running a rangeland experiment.
Error associated with the instrument, the thermometer, speedo and quadrat is fixed, whereas, how it is ‘read’ and factors affecting it are variable and (sign preserved) additive to the number produced by the instrument.
Understanding the nature of bias is important, including bias associated with reading a thermometer (e.g., parallax error, and reading the wetted perimeter of the glass rather than the meniscus being the most prevalent.)
All the best,
Bill Johnston
“Uncertainty of any instrument is fixed and measurable.”
So someone goes out and calibrates field temperature measurement devices every morning?
Precision vs accuracy? Red herring.
If someone goes out and calibrates a field measuring device once per year then how do you determine what adjustment should be made over the past year to its readings to account for systematic bias?
Do *you* own a time machine?
Or do you just apply a guesstimate as to what the calibration drift was over the entire year? What does that “guesstimate” adjustment do to the uncertainty of those adjusted readings?
When speaking of field thermometers any “guesstimate” adjustments will probably preclude finding “averages” out to the hundredth of a degree C. The uncertainty added by the adjustment will have a wider interval than the difference you are trying to find.
“Error associated with the instrument, the thermometer, speedo and quadrat is fixed”
No, it isn’t. Calibration drift is *NOT* fixed. In essence you are saying that once calibrated the device remains calibrated forever.
What if a mud dauber wasp builds a nest in the air intake? What if ants leave detritus in the air intake, on the sensor, or on one of the calibration resistors?
You are basically trying to defend the common climate science assumption that measurement uncertainty is random only and cancels and that there is no systematic bias that is not adjusted for.
You should know better. You basically said it when you stated:
“However, as tyres wear, the diameter of wheel on the road becomes smaller, which introduces bias to the speedo measurement – the speed of the car is less than as indicated by the speedo, which remains as accurate as it always was.”
Here you are conflating precision and accuracy even when you go on to say they aren’t the same thing. The speedometer keeps its precision but its accuracy changes as the externals change – tire size, tire inflation, electronics, etc. Precision is *NOT* accuracy. Not in speedometers and not in temperature measuring stations.
“Take for example, a rapid assessment scheme for estimating ground-cover – the percentage of the ground within a small 1/2m quadrat covered by living grass, dead grass, and by the base of grass plants.”
Grass dies in the winter around here. Snow piles up under things. How do you account for the calibration drift caused by a changing microclimate? In the hundredths digit no less!
Thanks Tim,
But this discussion is becoming ridiculous. A worn tyre does not and cannot alter the precision or uncertainty with which a speedo works and I’m sure you understand that.
Put a great big fat tyre on your truck and your speedo will still indicatet 100 km/hr, wheres a cop may book you for speeding, because he is using a radar instrument to measure the speed of the truck (which is not necessarily the same as what the speedo indicates).
Likewise I’m sure you get that a thermometer with a 1/2 degC index cannot be read accurately to two or three decimal places when the distance along the glass between indices is only about 1 mm (perhaps 1.2 mm). You want to measure more accurately, you need a different instrument.
Likewise, you could not read a tape measure to two or three decimals of a mm index, or a milk bottle to the nearest ml. Again, if that was your goal, you would need a micrometer or an accurate measuring cylinder.
Neither could you read it in the dark, which is the equivalent of trying to estimate ground-cover beneath snow. You would know that I’m sure.
The purpose of undertaking serial measurements is to estimate drift in the microclimate, not drift in the instrument.
I’ll end this discussion there.
All the best,
Bill Johnston
“But this discussion is becoming ridiculous. A worn tyre does not and cannot alter the precision or uncertainty with which a speedo works and I’m sure you understand that.”
It would seem the ridiculousness is based in your reading comprehension.
Did you not read the part where I said “precision is no accuracy”?
“The purpose of undertaking serial measurements is to estimate drift in the microclimate, not drift in the instrument.”
In other words the calibration of the instrument never drifts? Do you *really* expect anyone to believe this?
Of course you are being ridiculous.
When you fill your tank, do ask for a current certificate that the pump delivery rate has not “drifted”, since the last time?
Has the size of your house measured by your favorite tape-measure “drifted”, are you eyes still the same distance from your shoes as they were yesterday or has your sense of height “drifted” relative to the nearest door-frame. When you cook a turkey for thanksgiving do you calibrate the oven for “drift” or do you weigh the turkey and multiply by the number of minutes/kg assuming the thermostat has not “drifted”? Do you calibrate your watch for “drift” and bias every morning.
Do you “drift” or are you stationary and everything “drifts” around you. Is a mm not a mm, is a gallon not a gallon, a foot not a foot and a degreeC not a degreeC?
Are you the reference-frame for the universe or what? Perhaps a philosopher without a philosophy – making up all sorts of straw-man arguments as you go along just for fun.
Because I thought you were sincere you sucked me in.
All the best,
Dr Bill
“When you fill your tank, do ask for a current certificate that the pump delivery rate has not “drifted”, since the last time?”
Strawman. No one is accumulating an average gal/time for a global average of gas pumps.
“Has the size of your house measured by your favorite tape-measure “drifted”,”
Same thing. Strawman after strawman.
Is that the *best* you got?
The calibration of my micrometer *does* drift. If I didn’t recalibrate it against a gauge block on a regular basis I could wind up ruining someone’s engine block by ordering the wrong size bearings for the crankshaft and/or camshaft. A regular basis is at least once per week if not daily.
How often are field temperature measuring stations calibrated against a standard?
“Are you the reference-frame for the universe or what? Perhaps a philosopher without a philosophy – making up all sorts of straw-man arguments as you go along just for fun.”
The only one making up strawmen seems to be you. Is that the best you got?
Exactly. And no, we haven”t reached 1.5 °C above “pre-industrial” temperatures. More like around 1 °C or slightly more, but you wouldn’t know that from the media.
https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/land-and-ocean-data/#section-0-7
Jennifer Marohasy’s essay does invite us to reflect on the validity of so-called “tipping points” though her case isn’t strong. An unassailable case can be made from paleoclimate data. We know for a fact that global CO2 levels were several times higher and temperatures much warmer in the past—many times more than the the current 419 ppm CO2 and far higher than 1 °C above pre-industrial temperatures—yet the Earth’s climate didn’t enter a death spiral into a suffocating hothouse from accelerating positive feedbacks. It’s clear from the evidence that the climate system’s feedbacks are negative and tend to moderate warming not accelerate it.
It’s also infinitely apparent that the notion of an average temperature 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the misery of The Little Ice Age, the coldest period during modern human civilization is somehow ‘undesirable’ or even ‘dangerous’ is utter nonsense pulled out of their nether regions.
WARM climate periods are called a “CLIMATE OPTIMUM” for a reason. Warmer is BETTER.
Some interesting background to the fictitious 1.5C tipping point climate disaster threshold that Jen notes we have already exceeded several times. Originally it was 2C, a number Schellnhuber later admitted he just made up. Seemed a ‘safe’ alarm value, because climate model ECS was running 3C or higher. But then the observational energy budget ECS papers came out 2013-2018 at about 1.7C, so 2C was no longer good enough. So it got changed by ‘acclaim’ to 1.5C.
The fun thing is that there are NO credible ‘tipping points’ at any reasonable delta C. OLeary’s WAIS paper to the contrary concerning sudden Eemian sea level rise is proven academic misconduct. Ocean pH is buffered so ‘acidification’ via doubling CO2 is at most about 0.15 pH, not >0.4 as IPCC AR4 erroneously claimed, which Fabricius then ‘proved’ would be disastrous via her Milne Bay coral reef paper, again via proven academic misconduct. I researched and debunked several other claimed ‘tipping points’ in various other essays in ebook Blowing Smoke. Insect infestations, disease spread, ocean algae, mountain plants, species extinctions,… all sham pseudoscience.
I find it absolutely fascinating that we NEVER see climate alarmists looking at the correlation between CO2 and global grain harvests.
Here you go.
Based on data from
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data
Statistically significant correlation, but as always correlation doesn’t imply causation.
Since it is well known that higher CO2 levels mean grain grows better, correlation is counts as confirmation.
There is every reason to believe that nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, the development of new hybrid cultivars, and machine planting and harvesting that allows more dense planting, impacts that curve. But, that is not evidence that allows one to reject the working hypothesis that increased CO2 also contributes to the increase. Greenhouse experiments clearly show that CO2 fertilization is a real effect.
I’m not saying there isn’t a causal relationship. Just that you can’t assume it based on the correlation. I just have to put in this disclaimer as every time I show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature I’m accused of making some such claim.
As to how much the increase in production has been directly caused by rising CO2 levels, I’ll remain open to pursuasion. I suspect the relationship is less direct.
Wheat didn’t just grow where it can. Any change is likely to depend on factors such as demand and other economic factors. Global population might well be a confounding factor both for production and CO2.
Wheat yields are tyoically limited by available nutrients and moisture. Denser plantings provide more competition for those resources, so tend to be counterproductive.
The big advances in planting rates and fertiliser application rates have been in profiling paddocks through soil tests and yield recording, allied with computer-controlled air seeders. The combination leads to optimised application rates, avoiding waste and overplanting.
A lot of farm equipment is quite elderly and has a very long working life, so it takes time for these technology advances to work into the system.
Modern broadacre farming is vastly different to what we were doing in the 1970s.
Has increased CO2 been PROVEN to increase crop production? In other words, is there evidence of causation?
Yes, there has been quite a bit of research on the effect of CO2 levels on wheat yields, as well as various greenhouse-grown crops where higher CO2 levels are used commercially.
Not sure about in the open air. In greenhouses increased CO2 can certainly increase growth, but I’m not sure how relevant that is wheat farming.
We are only talking about roughly 30% increase in CO2 other this period, yet something like a 2 – 3 fold increase in Wheat production.
In greenhouses the practice is more like doubling the CO2, and this is accompanied by having to control lighting and temperature. Besides, as I understand it, in a greenhouse increased CO2 is used to supplement the CO2 removed by the plants in a confined area. I’m not sure how applicable this is to the great outdoors.
Higher CO2 reduces evapotranspiration which helps maintain soil hydration which, in turn, makes the plant more productive because of less water stress.
Perhaps Google could help you. Use “CO2 evapotranspiration”
But what is the increase above the “no-growth” CO2 level of around 200ppm
It is the massive increase in AVAILABLE CO2 that causes the massive increase in plant growth.
Amazing how you can see correlation as insufficient to show causation, ex etc when it comes to your CO2 fetish.
“Some interesting background to the fictitious 1.5C tipping point climate disaster threshold”
The fiction is here. 1.5C is not a tipping point climate disaster threshold anywhere except WUWT (and similar). It is a target – if we are going to get temperature under control, we had better aim to stay under 1.5, else it will be harder later. Which is probably how it will turn out.
And once again, Nick wants us to ignore the evidence of our ears and eyes and just believe what he tells us to believe.
Who cares about all the activists, all the politicians, all the “scientists” who have spent years declaring that 1.5 is a tipping point that will lead to death and destruction if it is passed.
And once again, MarkW has no quotes.
Examples of which are too numerous to count, Nick, and you know it. What (intentionally) gets to the media is the assertion that 1.5 ℃ is a hard limit beyond which the Earth suffers (usually) irreversible, catastrophic weather and biological responses to global warming.
“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ”
Guess who said it.
We have psychologists talking about widespread depression in kids because of their fears over the coming climate crisis. Yet Nick wants us to believe that absolutely nobody is saying that there is a coming crisis if we don’t get CO2 under control.
This is how the Guardian positions it:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c
.
Read the whole piece and the link and the other coverage in the Guardian. 1.5C certainly is being portrayed in the committed media as a tipping point.
Its absurd, of course, though not as absurd as the even more absurd idea that effective action to prevent this 1.5C being exceeded would be for the US, Australia, NZ, the UK and Canada to all convert their grids to wind and solar, while converting their transport to EVs and their home heating to heat pumps. While at the same time the rest of the world just grows as fast as it can and increases emissions as required for this.
It is obvious to any objective observer that the people who need to reduce in order for global emissions to fall over the next 20 years have no intention of making any reductions. In fact they are accepting that they will increase. So if this is going to lead to increased temperatures, they are going to happen.
And no amount of UK, US or Australian wind turbines will make the slightest difference to this.
“Breaching 1.5C could signal extinctions on land and in the oceans, crop failures and an increasing possibility of reaching so-called “tipping points” in the climate system, including the death of biodiversity-rich coral reefs and faster melting of the polar ice sheets feeding sea level rise.”
https://phys.org/news/2023-03-survival-stark-climate.html
Phys.org anyone? 😉
They also said
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s key message is that while humanity has driven the planet to the precipice of climate catastrophe, there is still time to steer global temperatures to within relatively safe limits.”
I agree that some people like overly dramatic language. But there is no physics saying that 1.5C is a tipping point. It is a matter of our will. We set a collective goal. If we achieve it, good. If not, we’ll set another one, but it is a setback. However, one day we’ll just have to do something.
And there’s no physics saying that we should “set a collective goal” of 1.5℃. It is a wholly politically contrived number to keep the scam going and scare the sheep. It is only when the climate profiteers realized that the world, beginning about 2000 was not warming as predicted that they moved off 2℃ to the more useful (to them) 1.5℃.
needed for their social revolution
A VISION FOR AN EQUITABLE AND JUST CLIMATE FUTURE
https://ajustclimate.org/
Nick, what’s interesting is that you are progressively moving away from alarmism. Or maybe never were among the very alarmed? Not sure. But either way, your recent positions are a long way from the current activist positions.
The cry right now among activists is that 1.5 is essential, that this is the last chance to get actions which will deliver it, that the future of humanity, or at least human civilization, is at stake.
You rightly say that there is nothing special about 1.5, its just a target, if its missed its not a big deal. But in many places this will get you labelled a denialist jesting with our childrens’ future. You will never find an opinion piece in the Guardian or Washington Post arguing this.
You do make the caveat that sooner or later we are going to have to reduce CO2 emissions, and that the later we leave it the more expensive it will get, but the sense of disaster averting urgency has rather been diluted.
Then, on energy, you have argued that the objective of getting to real net-zero in power generation relying mainly on batteries is a straw man, that no-one is seriously advocating. They are, but never mind that for now. Where this has taken you is to proposing to install wind and solar as supplements to an essentially conventional grid. The tacit admission is that net zero as advocated by the activists is impossible and not going to happen, but at least some installations of wind and solar still make sense for financial reasons.
And this is no longer being justified by appeals to climate disaster and reductions in global CO2 emissions. Its being justified on the grounds of cost savings by consuming less fuel in the conventional network. I expect this to fall too, in the face of any rigorous scrutiny and in the face of experience.
One looks forward to seeing you reach the next stage on the retreat, which will be to accept that the climate hysteria of the last 30+ years has been totally unfounded. There is a modest rise in temperature, some of it has probably been caused by emissions, but there is nothing to worry about, and actually a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the crops and vegetation generally. Nothing attributable to global warming is happening, and nothing is likely to happen, to sea level rise or extreme weather events or the polar bears or any of rest of it.
In short, the world will wake up and stop inventing imaginary dangers and proposing equally imaginary solutions to them.
Some of us will be waiting for you at the finish line with a glass of something bubbly, when you finally get there! Its coming into view. its the last few miles that are the hardest. There is great joy in Heaven over a sinner who repents, no matter how reluctant his repentance.
As we get closer to +1.5 and nothing bad happens, the +2.0 tipping point has to get much more attention.
Remember: The climate crisis is always coming
Just an always wrong prediction, not climate reality
The climate scaremongers have to make new predictions when it becomes obvious the old predictions were wrong, or will soon be proven wrong.
That has been the strategy for the past 50 years.
Most of the warming since 1975 has been in colder nations, during the colder months of the year and at night.
That means actual global warming was beneficial for some people from 1975 to 2015, and harmless to others.
More CO2 improves C3 plant growth per over 3,000 CO2 enrichment — plant growth scientific studies.
So when you blabber about keeping temperatures “to within relatively safe limits” it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You are a gullible fool.
There has already been an alleged + 1degree of global warming. Please explain in detail who was harmed by that warming? I can not identify anyone.
If the first +1 degree of warming harmed no one and made the overall climate better (i.e.; warmer winter nights in Siberia) then there is no justification for claiming the NEXT +1 degree C. of global warming would do just the opposite of the first +1 degree C. of global warming
This is your completely foolish claim in plain English;
The +1 degree global warming since 1850 harmed no one, but the next +1 degree of global warming will harm everyone.
Beliefs like those are why you get so many thumbs down for your comments, Nick the Stroker. You are a clueless climate scaremonger implying that future global warming will be completely different than past global warming.
And you are making that false claim even as the eight-year period with the largest amont of CO2 emissions over eight years in history, from 2015 to 2023, caused so little warming that other climate change causes completely offset any warming effect from CO2
Largest eight year CO2 increase ever from 2015 to 2023 = no global warming at all. that mean s 2015 to 2023 climate reality makes you CO2 scaremongers look like the fools you are.
Got yer battery car yet, Stokes?
And who are “we”?
So the IPCC is declaring that going beyond 1.5C is not safe.
On the other hand Nick wants us to believe that nobody is saying that 1.5C is a limit we can’t pass.
I agree that there is no physics which indicates that 1.5C is a problem. Heck there is no physics that indicates that CO2 is a problem in the first place.
The PRECIPICE OF CLIMATE CATASTROPHE?!
There is no human induced climate anything. Zero empirical evidence says “Atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature.” NONE.
A good deal says it does nothing. Your “physics” ASSUME “all other things held equal.” Which they have never been, are not, and will never be.
There is no science behind the nether region value of 1.5C AT ALL. !
The planet has been warmer than that for most of the last 10,000 years.
It is a mantra/religious superstition based goal..
It is devoid of all rational thought or science..
So of course Nick uses it, and pretends it means something…
While I personally dislike the idea of using the concept of a tipping point when it is not unrecoverable (like the Leaning Tower of Pisa finally falling over), you yourself basically define 1.5 deg C as a tipping point. You state that if 1.5 deg is exceeded it will be more difficult to prevent more warming, and you are of the opinion that is how things will “turn out.” Thus, it is a critical threshold beyond which the ability to recover is, in your own opinion, likely. That is pretty much how “tipping point” is commonly used.
1.5C is an organisational tipping point, not a physical one.
😆 distinction without a difference.
Gee, the government certainty made that clear to the population with what it has fed to the media. I, for one, understood all along that the information contained in the press releases and politicians’ press conferences was never meant to imply that there would be physical climate consequences by exceeding 1.5℃. It was clear to any observant person that they meant it was a temperature limit that could not be surpassed because the governments couldn’t organize a bureaucratic response beyond that point.
Nick,
Which Party in this short interview do you relate to as the person whose views you most admire for being correct? Geoff S
https://twitter.com/i/status/1632720289720066051
A physical tippling point is when Nick the Stroker drinks too much and falls off his “office” bar stool
Because there is no ‘physical’ tipping point. If there were, it would have been reached over the last 4.5 billion years and Earth would have been stuck in a permanent ‘hot house’ like Venus. Earth would have never recovered from the PETM event. The corollary to James Hutton’s observation that “The present is the key to the past,” is that the past is the key to the future.
The organization is telling us that we have to keep the temperature increase less than 1.5C from the bottom of the Little Ice Age if we want to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Who is pulling your strings to make you dance around the point?
Is 1.5° a physical tipping point from which there is no return?
If not 1.5°, what is the physical tipping point from which there is no return?
Don’t waffle, don’t dance, just answer the questions.
Correct.. It is “cult-based superstition”
It has ZERO scientific or physical meaning.
“If we are going to get temperature under control”
You think you can control the temperature? Really? Bwahahaha.
Keep on stroking that fluffy white cat, old chap, keep taking the pills and listen to some whale ‘music’.
One of the marks of a charlatan is that they always rant on about what nasty thing “could” happen and ignore nice things (like crop yields) that are smack there in front of their nose.
and… people who live in crappy, cold, damp climates like New England LIKE it warmer
Tipping point: the point at which a series of small changes or incidents becomes significant enough to cause a larger, more important change (Oxford).
Sure looks like their supposed ‘tipping point’ to me: “In addition to the overall increase in GMST, it is important to consider the size and duration of potential overshoots in temperature … Overshooting poses large risks for natural and human systems” (IPCC Special Report warming of 1.5C).
And this supposed ‘tipping point’ of 1.5C is above the pre-industrial surface temperature, it its already ~1C above that according to the IPCC.
It is a mystery why the supposed GAT in say 1850 is considered perfect.
So you’re saying there is no evidence that 1.5C is a tipping point, just a target.
Is there any evidence (computer models are not data) to suggest 2C is a tipping point? Or 2.5C or 6C for that matter?
No, we don’t know much about tipping points. If there is one, it will probably take us by surprise.
then alarmists should stop using that term
Nick keeps saying that he disapproves of the language that the alarmists use.
Yet he never confronts the alarmists for using such language, but he frequently confronts us for quoting the alarmists.
Typical hypocrite, he enjoys the benefits that is brought on by the actions of the alarmists, while pretending that he deeply disapproves of said activities.
It’s much easier to confront those who don’t like a new religion than the fanatics of the new religion.
So in reality there could be NO tipping point at all. The whole thing is made up.
In other words, Stokes et al. are speculating that a tipping point exists; however, they don’t know what it would be, so out of an abundance of caution, they picked a number slightly higher than today’s GMAT to provide a sense of urgency. In reality, we can be reasonably certain that if it exists (unlikely), it is much higher than the PETM anomaly because it was a transient spike that came down quickly.
So the whole 1.5C tipping point as stated by this paper “Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points” is just a political construct with no basis in science.
Thank you for confirming there is no climate crisis.
I do hope you spread this message of joy far and wide.
“it will probably take us by surprise.”
So might the existence of the Easter Bunny.. coming soon !
Exactly where on Earth is this “1.5C” tipping point is it going to become inhabitable? If you can’t tell us that then of what use are your predictions? There is no “global climate”, only regional and local climates. Which of those regional and local climates is going to become inhabitable? Kansas? Kenya? Taiwan? Brazil?
Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia, will become much nicer! New England too- though here we now here the alarmists blame the arrival of invasive species as due to climate change- which is bonkers- most of the worst invasive species are from other continents and have arrived thanks to all the “free trade” with species getting on ships and in containers- and some from landscapers thinking a nice plant from Asia would be nice here- until they “escape”. How about the invasive species in Australia- like rabbits- they didn’t get there because of climate change.
Or Burmese Pythons. Did they swim here?
Death Valley 🙂
You know that the 1.5 C is a NETHER REGION value.
It has absolutely no scientific validity.
It is totally meaningless, and the planet has been far warmer than that for most of the last 10,000 years.
I can’t believe you put that in writing.
Thanks, Rud!
I remember when they changed the settled science from 2 Deg. C to 1.5 Deg C in order to elevate the urgency of needed actions.
It’s clear why they did this. All the dire predictions were failing to verify. Polar bears were NOT dying off. Arctic ice was not completely melting in the Summer. Predictions about the oceans, related to a +1 inch/decade real increase were not causing major issues. The earth was greening up, booming biosphere, crops increasing and so on.
So they had to get especially creative in order to invent an emergency that could finally happen.
+2 Deg. C was many decades away and people were not threatened enough to support spending many trillions today, which is what this is all about.
So instead of letting the actual measured average global temperature anomaly reach the temperature of doom, they adjusted the temperature of doom down close enough to the current average global temperature anomaly so that it meant this line in the sand was about to happen.
With that adjustment from 2.0 to 1.5 Deg. C, they basically just shifted all the dire predictions to the NEW settled science critical temperature to save the planet.
While people with any skepticism can see a greening planet, NOT very fast rising sea levels, NOT melting Arctic sea ice, NOT dying polar bears, NOT shrinking food production, they CAN see the current temperature rising very slowly and getting very close to 1.5 Deg C.
So the new marketing strategy was to attach the new 1.5 Deg threshold as the do or die average global temperature anomaly and tell people that all the things they have been completely wrong about for 30 years WILL happen at exactly 1.5 Deg. C.
Then repeat that over and over and over so that people forget all the prior predictions that were wrong.
The media, which is fighting to survive because the new technologies are providing massive competition which is draining their ratings and circulation at a rate that is killing them off has resorted to alarmism and sensationalizing, along with save the planet messages to try to save their industry.
In yesterdays world, “if it bleeds it leads”
In todays world, “to get ratings as a weathercaster, Show a disaster”
Weather is the perfect realm to generate ratings.
Almost limitless opportunities for video of whatever it is you want to show. Unlimited spin to say what you want because people don’t have records in front of them to fact check you.
Everybody is effected by weather and can relate to it.
People want to do what’s best for our world and will believe sources that claim to be driven only by altruistic motives to save the planet.
Don’t the US data sets show no increase in TMAX at all for at least the last 30 years?
Ironically, they may just create the “insect infestations” thing, by killing off the bats that eat them with wind mills.
I have a memory that some of the early economic analyses showed warming as net beneficial up to 2 degrees C, with a maximum around 1.5 degrees.
These may have since been superseded by analyses of varying degrees of validity.
It is all over the news, another climate change report from the IPCC – the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course, it tells us that the end is nigh unless we do something to prevent temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius.
jenniffer,
your whole essay rests on the truth of this claim. consequently, this claim requires
A. pristine citation.
B. a good quote
C. a recognition of counter arguments.
until you remedy this fundamental flaw in your argument your grade will be a D
having a strawman as your first sentence is not a good look
again CITATION, quote, counterexample
Hey Steve,
You can be so tedious. It is not necessary. It doesn’t change the key facts.
The IPCC just make stuff up, and get stuff mostly wrong.
The idea that temperatures change by 1.5 C is very real, and has happened at the global and local scale during modern times. That the IPCC use remodelled data at the local, regional and global scale to hide this reality is deceitful.
Also, my name has just one ‘f’.
Cheers,
After years of trying, Steve has discovered that he doesn’t have the facts or logic to actually refute the things he disagrees with, so being smug is the only tool he’s got left.
Steve is campaigning for a return to the Little Ice Age temperatures as are the other alarmists.
Ever notice how Steve never actually refutes the statements he’s disagreeing with.
Yes, a classic example of the “pot calling the kettle black.”
Your petty and thoroughly ridiculous comment deserves an F.
These quotes from AR6 are for readers genuinely interested in the truth.
Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence).
There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).
Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence).
Climatic and non-climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks that are more complex and difficult to manage (high confidence).
The likelihood of abrupt and/or irreversible changes increases with higher global warming levels.
If all that isn’t supposed to paint a “the end is nigh” picture, I don’t know what is.
In the minds of the select few alarmists asked to give their opinion.
The version of the SPM for the AR6 “Synthesis Report” released on Monday was an “Approved” … or what I would call a “Final Draft” … version.
Attached is a screenshot comparing the AR6 cycle’s “SYR SPM” file to its final “WG-I SPM” file.
First note that the WG-I SPM file overall has “prettified” formatting.
Now note the line numbers on the left-hand side of the page for the SYR (which occur on all pages of that file).
Note also that in the top left-hand corner of each page in the SYR file is the word :
“Approved”
Note especially that in the bottom left-hand corner of every page in the SYR is the phrase (bold in the original) :
“Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”
Remember that the exhortation is to “Follow The Science”, or “Trust the [IPCC] scientists”, or “Do absolutely everything that ‘the experts’ are telling you to do … as interpreted by us, the completely trustworthy and unbiased mainstream media journalists and editors … immediately and without question“.
When it comes to the version of the Synthesis Report’s SPM released on Monday your demand for both “a pristine citation” and “a good quote” comes under the heading of “impossible / unreasonable expectations”.
Go to the IPCC’s “AR6 Synthesis Report” webpage.
URL : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
Scroll down a bit and you should find something approximating the attached screenshot on your computer (/ mobile device) screen.
With the IPCC it is always instructive … or “entertaining”, depending on how cynical you’re feeling that particular day … to check which sections of the full report did not make it into the SPM.
Check the screenshot again … well waddya noe … the “Longer Report” and “SYR (Full volume” links aren’t active yet, they’re “Coming soon” …
In addition to the IPCC apparently giving special dispensation to their own press office to ignore the “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” injunction printed in the bottom-left corner of every single page of the (4 MB) PDF linked to in the “Summary for Policymakers” box, their IT team managed to knock together “Headline Statement” and “Press Release” (translated into 6 languages) webpages, as well as a (34 MB, Powerpoint-to-PDF conversion ?) “Presentation” file.
– – – – –
It is very difficult to extract “counterexamples” when the “Longer report / Full volume” hasn’t actually been released yet.
You really have fallen for this cult-like superstition, haven’t you Mosh.
You do know the value comes from someone’s nether regions.. with zero scientific or rational validity..
… yet you still want to use it. !
It looks like Darwin was warmer in the Early Twentieth Century than it is today, according to that chart.
The highest high (90F) for March in Boulder, Colorado was reached in 1910. Today the high was 53F.
The highest daily record low for March in Boulder of 62F was set in 1907.
Ironically, a NOAA employee just yesterday complained to me about the cold weather this year, we’re about 10F below average. I agreed that it should be warmer.
What’s up with comparing specific times as opposed to long term trends against averages? Especially for a city in the Great Plains, where weather normally often gets wacky including extreme temperature swings, and various durations (including steadily as long as a few months and intermittently for several years for example the Dust Bowl) of heatwaves, spells of severe winter weather, drought, or excessive rainfall.
I am most concerned about the environment where I live and that actual observations do not agree with theory. Further, natural variability is quite large, much more so than trend rates.
Nevertheless, the measured temperature trend here is flat to down from its modern high in the mid 1950’s.
“Since 1960 warming at most locations had already exceeded a rate of 1.5 C per century”
per century (avg over 60 years) must exceed > 2.5 to equal 1.5 C during the period, which it sometimes does, but not every time.
Hi Kevin,
I’m not sure what you mean by must exceed 2.5C?
The values in Table 1 are rates, not absolutes. Quoting from the actual report/presentation that I gave to the Sydney Institute (link in the blog post):
“If we arbitrarily designate 1960 as a turning point and consider most of the locations in New South Wales for which there are continuous maximum temperature series from before 1900 to 1960, and after 1960 to 2013, we find on average there was a cooling of -1.95 degree C per century until 1960, and a warming of 2.48 degree per century after 1960, Table 1.
Taking these values and thinking about them in terms of a rate of cooling for approximately 70 years (1890 to 1960) and then a rate of warming for 54 year (1960 to 2013), we can estimate how much New South Wales cooled and then warmed.
The sum of these values gives us the net change, a value that if we then multiple by a total period of 124 years, gives an indication of the rate of cooling per century.
This trend of -0.021 degree C per century suggests that the earlier cooling was almost, but not completely, negated by the later warming. To be clear, the overall temperature trend for New South Wales, calculated from the unhomogenized maximum temperatures as recorded at locations with long series, is one of cooling… ”
Notes from the presentation are here:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf
I believe we’re saying the same thing. 2.5 C/100y is the rate required to reach 1.5C in 60y.I must consume reading differently than you produce writing – the chart seemed unclear about rate vs sum when I first read it in context.
Very good.
“It is all over the news, another climate change report from the IPCC – the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course, it tells us that the end is nigh unless we do something to prevent temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, not one of the contributors has any proven capacity to accurately forecast the weather more than a few days in advance, …”
That’s because they are not forecasting the weather, (which is done by weather forecasters) they are forecasting climate(which is done by climate scientists). They are very different things, but I am guessing you knew that which makes your statement a little dishonest.
Genius! If climate is the data of weather how is forecasting climate so different from weather?
I thought climate was the average of weather over 30 years.
So predicting climate in 30 years time is forecasting the weather effects for those future time. s
Speaking of being tendentious!
No, “climate scientist” is a made up name for the era of climate misinformation.
The correct term for the profession is “meteorologist”, and unsurprisingly enough they do both weather and climate.
The entire heat engine known as Earth is a dynamic, chaotic thing. Even the IPCC admits that. The weather, and the inability to predict it more than a few days ahead, is proof of that.
To be even more specific, there is NO such thing as a “global climate”. There are regional climates and local climates but not a global climate. If there is no global climate then there can be no global climate “average”.
I would believe in the climate models much more if they could tell us in 100 years what the average climate in Kansas is going to be or in Kenya or in Taiwan or in anywhere. It would be even better if they could predict the monthly maximum and monthly minimum temperatures in 100 years for Kansas, Kenya, Taiwan, or anywhere.
Without this the “elites” wind up trying to force the same policies on everyone everywhere. It’s the old government meme “one size fits all” idiocy.
It would be perfect if the climate models could predict exactly where on the Earth it was going to become inhabitable. We could then focus on policies that provide adaptation for some instead of agony and pain for everyone.
But that’s never going to happen. Climate alarmism is all about power and money, not about science. Pete forbid if those in power would have to be accountable for their predictions.
Never forget that Simon is a denizen of the modern Marxist state of New Zealand, and delights in lecturing Americans about how they should be living.
They are not ‘forecasting” anything…
They are making mantra/superstition-backed nonsense predictions .. which only the most scientifically illiterate (or heavily paid) would take any credence of whatsoever.
Do you know what worries me more? There was no countenance to the IPCC drivel in the Australian media. Nothing ! So people have only one view and go with what the IPCC dishes up via the biased MSM.
I heard one of my local tv stations reporting the UN/IPCC ” we’re all going to die!” hyperbole as established facts.
The lies and distortions coming out of the UN/IPCC are criminal. People in authority lying to us every day.
There is a big difference between making a weather forecast for a matter of days and a climate forecast for a matter of decades. A climate forecast is analogous to predicting the duty cycle of the output transistors of a Class D amplifier as a function of component values, supply voltage and instantaneous (or slowly varying) input voltage. A weather forecast is analogous to coming up with a microsecond-by-microsecond schedule of the states of the amp’s output transistors, especially in the subset of Class D amplifiers where the oscillation frequency is not fixed and varies with smoothed output voltage, mismatch due to lag of output voltage from input voltage * gain, and with supply voltage and with temperature of various components.
How can one expect to get the macroscopic behavior of an amplifier correct if the data on the details of the components and state parameters are of low accuracy?
negative feedback?
I did give him negative feedback. 🙂
A decadal comparison of Australian averages in RAW and ACORN since 1910 …
Max at 58 ACORN stations open in 1910
1910-1919 : RAW – 24.97C / ACORN – 24.76C
1920-1929 : RAW – 24.99C / ACORN – 24.75C
1930-1939 : RAW – 24.95C / ACORN – 24.69C
1940-1949 : RAW – 24.91C / ACORN – 24.69C
1950-1959 : RAW – 24.87C / ACORN – 24.73C
1960-1969 : RAW – 24.84C / ACORN – 24.72C
1970-1979 : RAW – 24.86C / ACORN – 24.82C
(1972 metrication and 1970s rainiest and cloudiest decade on record)
1980-1989 : RAW – 25.17C / ACORN – 25.12C
1990-1999 : RAW – 25.20C / ACORN – 25.21C
(AWS primary instrument 1996 with a few dozen more installed since)
2000-2009 : RAW – 25.62C / ACORN – 25.61C
2010-2019 : RAW – 25.88C / ACORN – 25.84C
2020/2021 : RAW – 25.59C / ACORN – 25.59C
Min at 58 ACORN stations open in 1910
1910-1919 : RAW – 13.47C / ACORN – 12.82C
1920-1929 : RAW – 13.30C / ACORN – 12.70C
1930-1939 : RAW – 13.50C / ACORN – 12.96C
1940-1949 : RAW – 13.28C / ACORN – 12.67C
1950-1959 : RAW – 13.34C / ACORN – 12.81C
1960-1969 : RAW – 13.40C / ACORN – 12.92C
1970-1979 : RAW – 13.51C / ACORN – 13.20C
1980-1989 : RAW – 13.81C / ACORN – 13.52C
1990-1999 : RAW – 13.94C / ACORN – 13.72C
2000-2009 : RAW – 13.82C / ACORN – 13.76C
2010-2019 : RAW – 14.08C / ACORN – 14.04C
2020/2021 : RAW – 14.08C / ACORN – 14.09C
Mean at 58 ACORN stations open in 1910
1910-1919 : RAW – 19.22C / ACORN – 18.79C
2010-2019 : RAW – 19.98C / ACORN – 19.94C
2020/2021 : RAW – 19.84C / ACORN – 19.84C
ACORN absolutes are calculated from homogenised ACORN 2.3 dailies averaged to months with at least 15 days of observation to calculate annual averages (i.e BoM protocols and consistently matching BoM absolute estimates).
The BoM continues to claim that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 1.47C since 1910.
Their anomalies suggest 1.18C warming from 1910-1919 to 2020-2022, while ACORN absolutes at the 58 long-term stations suggest 1.05C from 1910-1919 to 2020/21.
RAW suggests 0.62C warming from 1910-1919 to 2020/21 (or 0.76C to 2010-2019 if you want to exclude La Nina years and include 2019, Australia’s driest and hottest year on record).
Jennifer’s statement that Australian temperatures were cooling prior to 1960 are essentially correct in RAW (from 1910-1919 to 1970-1979 in max and from 1910-1919 to 1960-1969 in min), albeit slight cooling.
Even ACORN homogenised temps with abundant early cooling adjustments show max cooling from 1910-1919 to 1960-1969 and min cooling from 1910-1919 to 1950-1959.
The official ACORN mean temperature anomalies average -0.45C in 1910-1919 and -0.44C in 1940-1949 (-0.31C in 1950-1959, suggesting 0.14C warming after the BoM has adjusted 1910-1919 in its deep freeze).
The artificial influences affecting but unadjusted in both RAW and ACORN are UHI, the immediate significant decrease in Fahrenheit rounding as of 1972 and the sudden increase in frequency/average temperature of extreme maxima caused by AWS one second observations as of 1996 and in following years with either AWS installation or platinum resistance probe replacements.
The pre-1972 rounding influence explains why max at the 58 long-term stations warmed slightly from 1960-1969 to 1970-1979 despite record rainfall and cloud cover, while 1996 AWS temps explain why max increased 0.42C from 1990-1999 to 2000-2009.
The 58 stations above include most capital cities and urban hotspots, so the influence of UHI is unknown but present.
If one does not trust adjusted BOM numbers, then there is no logical reason to trust BOM raw numbers
A significant amount of that tiny warming in raw data, will be because of urban effects,.
So very difficult to say if there has been any Australia-wide warming at all !
“claiming the Earth is burning up”
but, but…. it must be, after all, Al Gore said the oceans are boiling!
Solar cycles. Professor Valentina Zharkova.
Rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree C., the global average temperature reached +1.5 degrees C. in April 1998 and February 2016, during the hottest month of two large El Nino Pacific Ocean heat releases.
Millions of people died
It was in all the newspapers.
Can you imagine if the planet stayed
at +1.5 degrees C, for more than a few weeks?
We would have been doomed.
Note: The +1.5 is malarkey — a number pulled out of a hat, or from two feet below the back of the hat.
Since the average temperature in 1850 is a wild guess,
that could have a +/- 1 degree C. margin of error,
the starting point for +1.5 is just a wild guess.
+1.5 degrees C. is claptrap.
Based on my research, since 1997,
the real tipping point is +1.624 degrees C., not +1.5.
Note that +1.624 has THREE decimal places
That’s real science
+1.5 has only one decimal place
That’s malarkey
This comment is serious,
not sarcasm
I thought the whole point of tipping points, is that once you reach one, you can’t go back.
Are you telling me that twice in the last 25 years the planet reached the magical tipping point and
1) We came back
2) Nothing bad happened
There are probably many local areas that have reached +1.5 degrees C. too.
No one living nearby noticed.
Thanks for the outstanding article, Jim!
This makes for an interesting dilemma for the climate catastrophe industry. What will they do when the 1.5C “limit” is exceeded and none of their doomsday predictions come true? Will they claim that 1.5C is yet to happen, based on their proprietary models? Will they say disaster is right around the corner so even tighter restrictions are required?
What do they do every time a short-term prediction is made that doesn’t happen? They either ignore it (instead of admitting to mea culpa) and soldier on, or just push the date out in time. Even today, there was a new news article about the “urgent ‘final warning'” resulting from the hiatus in statistically significant warming for the last 8+ years.
This is bad science. When the first Darwin station was destroyed, that record should have ended and the Darwin 2 record begun. The kind of people who would do such a thing to have an unbroken temperature record would sell tickets to their grandmother’s funeral.
How far does a move have to be for a new record to start? Is it codified somewhere? Is it a “best guess” as to how much the new record will differ from the old?