Jennifer Marohasy
Black is white, hot is cold. That is what we are continually being asked to believe, including by the counsel for Michael Mann in his defamation trial again Mark Steyn.
If you haven’t already started listening along, I suggest you begin with the re-enactments in the daily Ann and Phelim podcasts. I have just finished listening to Day 5, Mann in the Box. And I’m angry.
I am angry that information can be so misrepresented, and I am also angry that for so many years John Abbot and I have not been properly supported in our fight for the parallel data to enable some checking of the last thirty years of thermometer temperature data for Australia.
If you listen to Day 5, Mann in the Box, you will hear Ann McElinney incredulous that climate scientists could believe tree ring data from 1134 AD, but not 1980 (I might have got those years wrong). Thus, the need to ‘hide the decline’ and for ‘Mike’s trick’, which is swapping to thermometer data from proxy (tree ring) data as convenient, which is routinely done by climate scientists as detailed in the Climategate emails.
As Ann explains, from Michael Mann’s own words, the infamous hockey stick graph that created so much impetus for action on climate change, is reliant on tree ring data that are assumed to be reliable back some centuries but are known to not be reliable since the 1980s – it makes no sense.
Welcome to the world of climate science where hot is cold and black is white. And more specifically to my world where I have been trying to draw attention to the fact that the temperature data for Australia, and much of the rest of the world, is not reliable for at least the last thirty years. I have shown this through my blog series, Hyping Maximum Daily Temperatures (Parts 1- 7).
Specifically, that the switch over to automatic weather stations where temperature is increasingly measured as electrical resistance through platinum resistance probes that are susceptible to electrical interference particularly at airports, and that can be calibrated to measure how ever many degrees warmer (or cooler) that Andrew Johnston, the current head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, might deem appropriate.
I’ve been assured over the last few years, including by Andrew Johnson, that the change from mercury thermometer to platinum resistance probe is not the cause of, nor a contribution to, global warming as reported on the nightly television news. If it was, this would be evident as an increase in the number of hot days and their average temperature – just the same as what we are told has been caused by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
They treat us like mugs (by which I mean idiots or lazy ducks in a park), and for the most part my colleagues behave as such. Thank goodness for Mark Steyn. Finally, someone who calls black for black – except when he is joking.
The most straightforward way to know the effect of the change to temperature probes – and to distinguish this from the potential effects of warming from carbon dioxide – would be to compare the automatic readings from the probes with the manual readings from mercury thermometers at many weather stations over many years.
The bureau has been collecting this data as handwritten recordings on A8 forms. There is no official list but, piecing together information, I am confident that parallel data – measurements from probes versus mercury – exists for 38 weather stations and from many of these there should be more than 20 years of daily data available to enable comparisons. Access to all this information, and its analysis, would enable some assessment of the consequence of the equipment change. The issue is doubly complicated by the bureau using more than one type of probe, changing the type of probe used, and the type of data transmitted electronically – initially averaging values and then changing to the recording of instantaneous values.
It was back in 2015 that I first tried get the parallel data for Wilson’s Promontory Lighthouse. (You can read the letter I first sent to the Bureau by CLICKING HERE, and an overview of the saga by CLICKING HERE.)
Then in December 2017, after John Abbot told me that I had been going about it all wrong, I challenged him to get the data for me. Thus began his attempt to get this data through Freedom of Information (FOI).
After some years, and so much correspondence and denial, rather than hand over the temperature data to John Abbot, we ended up at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) with me as the expert witness and him representing himself. That was in February last year, nearly a year ago. Except that trial never proceeded, for reasons I still don’t understand except that Andrew Johnson does not want Boris Kelly-Gerreryn to have to give evidence under oath, for reasons that I do understand.
So, we were forced back into mediation. I was contacted sometime after this by a lawyer concerned that we were representing ourselves. I encouraged him to put the word out through his network that we should get some help, some assistance preferable from someone who understood how difficult it is to win at the AAT and a lawyer experienced in the same. Then I get a phone call from John Roskam asking about all of this because Stuart Woods had contacted him having seen the note from this lawyer to the network of Australian lawyers who ostensibly concern themselves with issues of public interest. Yes, I confirmed, it would be good to get some legal assistance, and that was the last I heard of it.
John Abbot has though received more correspondence from Boris Kelly-Gerreyn specifically a letter dated December 7, 2023. In this letter, the bureau is back to denying that any of this parallel data exists. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn is the General Manager, Data Program and Chief Data Officer, Bureau of Meteorology.
It is the case that in climate science: black is white, and hot is cold and the Conservative side of politics seems, for the most part, to just go along with all of this. The planet is boiling and all of that, let’s go nuclear, say the sitting ducks. Etcetera. Etcetera.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Being down under, this reminds me of the early blogs by John Daly.
It’s been the same old runaround for many years.
The late, great John Daly–he would have loved WUWT.
The CET started in 1659 but Mann, as Ann McElinney mentioned in the podcast, wouldn’t use the CET thermometer record starting then as it included the hottest month recorded (now cooled somewhat by the Hadley Centre) so used tree ring proxies as they were ‘more reliable’ than actual thermometers! That bit in the podcast was pretty shocking but is topped in the next episode by the reveal that Mann not only hasn’t paid a cent out of his own pocket for his legal team but won’t owe them anything, win or lose.
Simple observation. If there was nothing to hide, then they wouldn’t be hiding it.
You are right to be angrified (h/t Willis Eschenbach).
I gave numerous examples in essay ‘When data isn’t’ in ebook Blowing Smoke on how (and often why) the global surface temperature data is not fit for climate purpose. Switching from a high thermal mass to a low thermal mass temperature probe without a proper overlap period of calibration is but one example. Worse, the high thermal mass probe was read once a day for high and low—-not sampled once a minute or whatever for the low thermal mass probe. BOM has ample calibration data for at least 35 AUS surface stations. They actively hide it, which tells you all you need to know about the hidden data confirming the logical physical inference.
BTW, Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone says the same thing happened in Germany, probably for the same reason.
And, the WUWT Surface Stations Project #2 shows that most of the new probes have the same siting problems as the old probes surveyed in SSP#1.
So why would ‘they’ go to court and risk this big conspiracy being exposed?
You answered your own question in your question. ‘They
are hiding the calibration,overlaps.worth going to court to try to hide them. So, they did. Q—are you reading challenged, or just mentally challenged?.
“are you reading challenged, or just mentally challenged?.”
Both.. and severely !!
going to court ain’t voluntary in most of the world
This is where skeptics fail. Focusing on data and its quality.
The whole notion of a Global Average Surface Temperature is unscientific. Arguing over its accuracy is just piling on irrelevance.
The opening sentence above:
Is where the game is being played. It is a propaganda war where the globalists are winning by a long margin. They own education. They own much of the popular press. The control social media. They control the most popular search engine. Mann is not paying a cent of the millions in costs for his action against Steyn. The swamp is protecting their own.
The Mann v Steyn case is important because the only thing the climate bothers deserve is derision. They are not scientists. Their work deserves derision because they play the globalists game to ensure they get funding. No matter the outcome, it will not cost Mann a cent.
If Mann losses this case, there should be strong calls for him to be expelled from the National Academy of Scientists and any other institution that claims scientific integrity. Then call for other scammers to be expelled from their beloved institutions.
This is your ‘opinion’, Rick. That’s an important caveat.
The global scientific community disagrees with you, including the UAH team.
Now, you may be right and they might all be wrong.
But that’s a long shot, as I see it.
Time will prove me right because I understand thermodynamics.
That is because you do not understand thermodynamics. However I am in good company though. I put Milankovitch a long way ahead of the climate botherers playing with their useless computer models.
I also have history on my side. After 15,000 years or so of an interglacial, land north of 40N begins to return to glacial conditions.
There is abundant evidence for that process now moving into full swing.
Did you know that the Greenland Plateau is gaining elevation?
The oceans in the NH have only been warming for a few hundred years. They have 9,000+ years to go. The surface area of the NH reaching the 30C limit is increasing at 2.5%/decade. Now at 10% but will be 50% within 200 years. The surface area reaching 30C in the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 was the same as 2003.
I guess that gives you a one-up on the global scientific community, none of whom have ever even heard of ‘thermodynamics’. Witchcraft, they call it.
You certainly are clueless of anything to do with thermodynamics.
And yes, most self-styled climate scientists are clueless of thermodynamics, too.
many have ecology backgrounds- and they would indeed have zero knowledge of thermodynamics- of course a PhD in physics would- but not all or many “climate scientists” have a PhD in physics
If they did a degree or PhD in physics, they wouldn’t do degrees in Climate Science, there wouldn’t be the need.
“. . . none of whom have ever even heard of ‘thermodynamics’.”
And they prove it with every statement and paper.
The evidence of their disregard for thermodynamics and control theory is listening to them telling us that 0.04 % drives the other 99.96 % of the atmosphere.
The global scientific community you keep referring to is as mythical as the global average temperature. Mathematically you can calculate an imaginary global average temperature but that doesn’t make it a real reflection of the biosphere we live in, just as people can Cook up a consensus of a “global scientific community” but that does not reflect the scientific process, nor the vast diversity of opinions about theories for which there is very little observational support such as the CAGW theme.
I’ll hold your coat as you collect your Nobel Prize, by way of atonement.
TFN,
Might I please ask you politely about the exact reason for posting this comment beginning “I’ll hold your coat…”?
How is it to advance knowledge and understanding?
RicWill is studying available numbers and as is usual with scientific research, he is extracting conclusions. What should dissuade him from doing this?
Personally, I find his work to be most interesting, little studied by others and deserving of amplification, not suppression (if suppression was part of your motivation).
Geoff S
sarcastic self righteousness is part and parcel for climate nut jobs
Come off it… nobody in their right mind would ever hire you as a valet or a cloakroom attendant.
Doubt they would even trust you as a lavatory cleaner.
It is noted you were totally incapable of arguing against any point that Rick made.
since you have to worship the green God, nobody here will get a NP in climate “science”
Didn’t you know, a lot of us already have Nobel prizes here – mine is equally as valid as Michael Mann’s even if I don’t have a fancy stiffycate from Kinko’s.
if it’s “scientific”- it needs to be carefully defined and it needs to be explained how it can be determined- and why that’s important- but even then, they’ll have no proof of what variables effect it and how much- much work to be done- so it ain’t settled
Temperature is an intensive property.
Intensive properties cannot be algebraically added or subtracted.
You aren’t a historian are you.
I could go on but you get the picture. Current scientific beliefs are not delivered by the Pope speaking ex cathedra.
Your argumentative fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam is not persuading.
It is quite difficult for me to understand, but there has been a resurgence of this nonsense in recent years.
Yeah it beggars belief, doesn’t it? As far as I can tell, going back to core woke belief, ‘woke’ is a conspiracy theory that everything – maths, science, history, geography, practically everything that we’re told is true is actually just a big conspiracy by governments to keep us all in our place. ‘Woke’ has fed widespread ignorance and a willingness to not believe things like the world is round – welcome back to the dark ages!
At some point they inevitably haul out a “NASA conspiracy”, as if NASA is the one and only organization responsible for claiming the earth is a sphere.
It’s the internet that allows the far-out crowd to organize much easier.
Good point.
” including the UAH team.”
–> global average surface temperature ??
UAH –> where ??
Yep, just noticed that.
Seems fungal doesn’t even know what UAH data is or where it is from. !
if he loses- he should get jail time- maybe put on a chain gang in Alabama, if they still have those down there
That’s a bit unkind – what have the people of Alabama ever done to you?
Fair enough- apologies to Alabama. It was a historical reference- to the well known chain gangs down in Dixie. At least one movie was about this. They may still have them- not sure about that.
I know but I simply couldn’t resist – a perfect opportunity.
“The whole notion of a Global Average Surface Temperature is unscientific. Arguing over its accuracy is just piling on irrelevance.”
The GAT, understood as a metric and not a real value, COULD have some relevance. But it must be accompanied by the other statistical descriptors such as variance, kurtosis, and skewness that allow it to be judged for accuracy.
And climate science adamantly refuses to provide *any* of those necessary other statistical descriptors, we are supposed to believe that all that matters is the average and that the average is 100% accurate.
Global Average Surface Temperature is like the average living creature temperature, meaningless.
Not quite. The ‘average’ living creature temperature isn’t really meaningless – it’s the temperature of your core, the internal temperature that it works best at; feet and hands can be up to 7°C cooler!
I think he meant averaging the temperature of multiple species of creatures, e.g. mice and humans and elephants would be meaningless. Climate is no different. And using anomalies doesn’t fix the problem. The “anomalies” you would find in mice would bear no relation to the anomalies in humans. Averaging the anomalies would still be meaningless.
The author states, ‘the bureau is back to denying that any of this parallel data exists”. It may or not have existed before, but he should be confident that the data truly does not exist, they have made sure of it.
Cannot speak for AUS. But in US, such behavior is criminal.
I observe that has not prevented the J6 committee from doing so.
The Climate Research Unit in East Anglia have been busy adjusting the record then destroying the original data so there is no record of what they’ve done.
It’s a shame because that means the last 200 years of data will be completely unuseable – a sheer waste of time and effort recording it. Now that is criminal.
Technically they do have an argument for discounting the modern tree ring data. They claim it does not match the instrumental warming because the rising CO2 level corrupts the natural growth. That the modern tree ring data nicely continues the hockey stick handle’s slight downward temperature trend is just a coincidence. I am not making this up. They really said this explains the decline in the tree ring data.
DW, nice try. Defies simple basic logic.
IF treemometers were accurate, then always accurate. No need for ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’. Oops.
i presume you forgot the /sarc.
Tree rings are affected by their main growth necessities. Warmth, sunlight, water and CO2
Up until the start of the industrial revolution and the use of coal, the main ingredient in short supply was CO2, hence, the warmer temperatures during the MWP didn’t have much growing effect.
Hence we get a handle of the hockey stick that goes gradually downward due to the cold of the LIA, and lack of a major necessity for growth, CO2..
… then an uptick once temperatures recovered a bit and man started helping the carbon cycle along.
The “hockey stick” is a great advertisement for the absolute necessity of CO2 for plant and tree growth.
“Warmth, sunlight, water and CO2”
And, many, many other things- which I know as a forester for 50 years. At least with ice cores they can claim chemical analysis of gas in the ice indicates something about the temperature, if you can assume that you’ve dated the ice correctly. I still doubt that’s a dependable measure.
“And, many, many other things“
Not disagreeing with that… but those 4 are certainly amongst the big influences.
The point is that if you accept that CO2 levels were low before the industrial era, then that is a big constraint on growth.
If you say CO2 was not a constraint, then there must have been more CO2 and the whole “AGW by CO2” nonsense collapses in a heap.
The fundamental problem with tree-ring proxy temperature studies is the ubiquitous screening fallacy that has been pointed out by Steve McIntyre and others.
This comment was made in Expert Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 by Marcel Crok (paraphrasing):
‘The big problem in this (and other) multi proxy studies is the so called screening fallacy or ex post proxy selection as is done by Gergis.
Gergis selected only those proxies that showed good correlation in the calibration period but as has been shown by Stockwell such a procedure generates hockey sticks even with red noise.
Co-author Karoly has admitted If the selection is done on the proxies without detrending ie the full proxy records over the 20th century, then records with strong trends will be selected and that will effectively force a hockey stick result’.
Chris,
I have a copy of the Stockwell paper if you need it.
Geoff S
WTF? If they’re using tree rings based on a supposed relationship to temperature- then they say then can’t use it now because it corrupts the natural growth? Makes less than zero sense. I didn’t realize they were THAT stupid.
They’re none too bright really but they make up for that with plenty of enthusiasm – enthusiastically lying their a$$e$ off!
“I didn’t realize they were THAT stupid.”
Then you haven’t been paying attention 😉
“rising CO2 level corrupts the natural growth”
The LACK of CO2 corrupted the tree ring data for any period before man started using coal in earnest. LACK of CO2 was a major constraint on the growth factor.
Nothing from tree rings before then, has any merit whatsoever.
It is argued by the BOM that the change of a measurement technique from Glaisher temperature screens to Stevenson screens around the beginning of the twentieth century was the valid reason why the current temperature dataset for Australia does not begin until 1910.
Why doesn’t the same logic apply to the change from Stevenson screens to electronic recording devices?
In other words if they are not going to maintain and publish parallel data sets, Stevenson screen and electronic, ditch the Stevenson screen dataset as they have with the pre-1910 records and start an entirely new separate data-set from the mid-1990s.
Oh I think I know why: they couldn’t then maintain the ongoing hysterical ‘hottest ever’ nonsense.
It is why homogenization and other adjustments are done in the name of “CREATING LONG RECORDS”
You are absolutely correct. Anything that changes the microclimate being measured such as screen type, aeration, location, sensor, etc., all have an effect on temperature measurements.
Mathematically, moving from LIG’s at integer resolution to electronic sensors with a resolution of one-tenth of a degree doesnt mean you can average them together and achieve a century’s worth of data at the increased resolution of one-tenth of a degree.
Statisticians can never explain how you can average integers and ene up with a resolution of one-thousandths other than claiming the standard error defines how many decimal digits you can have. They just can’t grasp the idea that the VALUE of the mean is different from the INTERVAL within which it may lay.
I’m glad the statistician folks don’t design things used everyday that can kill you. If the production went directly from statistician to product, without a layer of engineers, we would all be dead!
If you are angry after Day 5, I advise that you do not listen to Day 6. And stop reading now.
In day 6 we learn that the 12 year legal battle between Mann and Steyn has so far cost Mann NOTHING. The swamp runs deep and protects its own.
Through the long delay in getting the case into court, Steyn’s health has suffered. He is now wheelchair bound after suffering three heart attacks. He still has his gift for words and likeable humour but it is truly sad to see that he needs a wheelchair to Ove about.
No Fees – Win or Lose.
Yes. I’ve listened to Day 6. I outlined the situation to a friend, how long it has gone on for, how many legal counsel involved and asked him what he thought Mann’s legal bill might be. The guess was $20 million. But no. He has never had to pay anything. So, please RickWill, tell me. Who is paying Mann’s legals?
I do not know.
If anyone knows, can they please advise?
I’ll bet some leftwing billionaire is involved.
The Swamp *does* run deep, and they *do* protect their own, and their agenda.
Back at the start of this, I vaguely recall a group purporting to be fellow scientists were backing him. I do know that the Union of Concerned Scientists (who included our host’s dog as a member) were writing articles about the persecution of poor Mickey.
I think it might be the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund. Originally set up in 2011 by Scott Mandia to pay Michael Mann’s legal fees in a case – it’s still going and may still be paying his legal fees.
So we have various contraptions to measure temperature over the last several hundred years. Glass tubes with a liquid inside put in boxes with louvers perched some place then humans have to physically eye the thing and make a squinted judgement on what the exact reading . Then rounding error decisions. And then there is the changing of the structures vegetation and structures near and far ( and local and regional natural variation in weather patterns some maybe matching the time frame of switch to electronic temperature measurements) …. The list of issues is long and varied.
And now add the response time difference compared to older equipment. The entire recording system seems so prone to error basis and integration problems I don’t see how any honest scientists could relay in these records.
And of course the possibilities involving outright fraud may exist in some “ transcribed” records too.
Funny how the satellite instruments, which don’t require eyesight, show the same statistically significant warming trend as the ground-based instruments, within their respective confidence ranges.
I should add that, as far as I know, the vast majority of surface instruments advising the various climate data producers are automated. So eyesight not a requirement there either.
Not talking about modern electronic systems . I am referring to the entire integrated historical record up to now read my post not just the part you want to see. The problem is the entire system and calibrating matching and adjusting.
But the modern systems also show warming.
Surface and satellite.
Are you denying that too?
Are you DENYING that LIA was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years?
You do know the planet is actually in a COOLISH period compared to the last 10,000 years, don’t you .. or do you DENY that as well.?
You keep DENYING that the only warming in the satellite data comes from El Nino events.
Yet you are totally incapable of showing any human causation for that very slight warming.
So where is the problem ??
THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS, period !!
Just a whole lot of moronic panicky chicken-little idiots (like you)
If the solar scientists are correct , and we are headed for a cooling period.. THEN there will be a problem.
What’s the variance of the data used by both? You can’t judge the uncertainty of that warming without knowing the variance of the data!
Why won’t you answer that simple question?
Do they both include UHI? If so, then they are not indicative of purely natural causes.
They ALL include UHI – even the UAH lower troposphere dataset, measured at an average of 5000 metres has a clear UHI signal.
The Earth is still in a 2+ million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. It is in a warmer but still cold interglacial period, 20 percent of the land is frozen, which alternates with very cold glacial periods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Warming in an ice age is a good thing.
Outside of the tropics, it is so cold that almost everyone has to live and work in heated buildings and use heated transportation regularly.
Yep, rapid-acting thermal resistance gadgets read at second intervals…
….causing high readings.. we know that.. well documented.
Automation doesn’t fix systematic bias due to calibration drift and microclimate differences.
Satellite show what is really causing the warming… El Nino events
There is no warming in the satellite data between those El Nino events.
Absolutely ZERO evidence of any human causation.
You have proven that by never producing any.
There he is! Wee b-nasty. On an out-of-jail-free card, bud?
Here we go again with the magic ENSO system that only ever warms and never cools.
It’s actually a form of magic, for the gullible.
You again show you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSATION.
Thanks for proving me correct. 🙂
No need to show your ignorance of El Ninos and La Ninas.
It is already well documented.
Who mentioned ‘human causation’? Oh, it was you!
So show us the full UAH Australia data in chart form with trend.
Thank you.
Finally.
Fungal has just admitted that warming in the UAH data is from TOTALLY NATURAL El Nino events
And that there is NO HUMAN CAUSATION. !!
Well done fungal….. such a big step for a mental toddler.
Sherro has kindly provided the last 10 years.
Are you a natural born moron or did you have to study to become this moronic?
You admit earlier that you, and many others, have no idea about thermodynamics then you are suddenly an expert on ENSO conditions that are case studies in thermodynamics. Did it ever occur to you that the PDO has an impact? That warm or cold phases in the Pacific affect the development of El Nino’s and La Nina’s and that yes, it might be perfectly possible to have strong El Nino’s and weak La Nina’s in a warm phase that achieves an overall warming effect? Or that we still haven’t actually seen a full cold phase and the effect on La Nina’s yet as our discoveries of these phenomena are new and incomplete?
Bugger off, TFN, there’s a good little moron.
Yet you can’t counter his claim at all thus your reply is useless.
It’s all that TheFutileWail has; useless mutterings as a way to pound the table.
BNice, you make some really good points.
Yes he does. This isn’t his first rodeo.
What’s the variance of the data? You’ve never answered that simple question. Why?
Praytell, let us know the difference between UAH and RSS! Or, UAH and BEST.
LOL, no one here is denying a warming trend thus your argument is useless.
No honest, reputable scientist would accept what climate science has to offer.
If I were sitting on a PhD thesis committee for a student presentation and all the student had to offer was an average value of his data along with how precisely he could calculate the average I would tear the student a new defecation-hole. No measurement uncertainty calculations. No variance. No kurtosis. No skewness. No histogram that would show modalities. No quartile values.
Yet this is what we are supposed to accept from climate science. Because they say they use anomalies and that fixes EVERYTHING – even if winter and summer temps AND THEIR ANOMALIES have different variances they can be jammed together and an average calculated because ANOMALIES! Coupled with the valid assumption that all measurement uncertainty from all those instruments is random, Gaussian, and therefore cancels out, the GAT anomaly is 100% accurate!
Using the last 30 years as the base temperature means that the base temperatures and the anomalies move all of the time, ridiculous.
The UAH data, which is a satellite-derive product measuring the average temperature of the air column in the lower troposphere above Australia, reports statistically significant warming over its period of record (1979-2023).
Obviously any supposed surface-based instrumental changes can’t be responsible for these satellite-derived observations.
No airports in space.
No screams either.
Lol! Screams in space wouldn’t cause the observed warming either.
Neither does CO2, in the atmosphere.
What human cause could lead to absolutely no warming since 2012 over Australia ??
Up until this years El Nino, UAH Australia was cooling since the last El Nino.
Did Human CO2 cause that ??
Can you post a chart of the UAH Australia data over the whole period of record, please? With trend line. Thank you.
What’s that you say?
“NO!”
Oh…..
Aren’t you interested in the FACT that for most of the satellite era..
the satellite data is either ZERO TREND or COOLING.
Facts don’t matter to you, do they..
So… the whole UAH data for Australia with trend, please.
Once you’ve finished arm-waving.
And spluttering.
Prove me wrong.
TFN,
I could show the full UAH graph for Australian lower trop, but I am not going to. One reason only, if you had the skill to construct a graph yourself, you should. Others are not here to do your homework.
Geoff S
The FACT that you want to include the El Nino events in the calculation of a trend that is anything but linear…
.. shows that you are well aware that the warming is coming ONLY from EL Nino events.
Don’t see any charts….?
Plenty of charts.. just open your eyes.
They all show zero trend between El Ninos.
Sorry you don’t like that FACT and that your empty little mind cannot accept that fact.
Your choice to remain ignorant.
At least now you know that there is NO human causation for the step changes at El Ninos.
That is a big start to your education and to regaining your sanity
With time, maybe you will recover from your chicken-little syndrome/fetish.
“Don’t see any charts”
No surprise… You haven’t posted any. !
You have been shown the charts many times already, but your Swiss cheese brain forgot while I can actually visualize the two charts BN2000 has posted at least 30 times now.
I have posted a few times showing that El-Nino phases generates the step up warming events which you always forget.
Fact: NO hot spot exists.
Fact NO Positive Feedback Loop exist.
You are really bad at this teenager.
Another fact for fungal to digest..
BoM also shows cooling from 2016 to start of the 2023 El Nino.
Was that caused by human CO2 ?
Incapable , you are…!!
Freeloader, do your own damned spadework.
and the sputnik is calibrated – how?
Ask Roy and the team.
Or ask NOAA how the data is treated before being handed to Dr Spencer – those aren’t his satellites and he doesn’t program or calibrate them. His teams work only starts AFTER NOAA hands them the latest data.
0.14℃ warming per decade during a cyclical warming period can in no way be characterized as concerning.
Who said ‘concerning’? Oh, it was you.
I’m just pointing out that the UAH data support the surface data; so it’s got nothing to do with airports.
In fact, warming over Australia in the UAH data is actually +0.18C per decade; faster than the global average, if UAH is to be believed.
IIRC, the surface “measured” warming rate is significantly greater than the atmospheric satellite measurements, whereas the UN IPCC CO2 science indicates the opposite: The atmosphere warms faster than the surface.
UAH6 global includes measurements over the oceans (70%) whereas its Australian measurements are for continental land area only. IIRC (again), UAH6 has significance differences between the land warming (about 0.18℃/decade) vs the oceanic warming (about 0.12℃/decade).
I believe UAH6 but I don’t believe you and your contrived propaganda.
Just not so. In fact, RSS (satellite, lower troposphere) is faster than the warmest surface data sets since it began in 1979.
Even UAH is within the error margins of the warmest surface data sets. Still believe UAH?
UAH show the reality that warming is only from El Nino events
You have yet to show any HUMAN CAUSATION at all.
Who mentioned “human causation”? Oh, it was you!
Just one question re your magical ‘warming only’ ENSO: if ENSO only warms oceans and never cools them again, then why haven’t the oceans boiled off the face of the earth, this last 4.5 billion years?
So you are now ADMITTING THERE IS NO HUMAN CAUSATION.
Thanks for finally agreeing.
But then you go on and show your abject ignorance of El Nino and La Nina.
So sad and so dumb !!
He is that stupid and doesn’t have an argument to sell I think is a teenager posting because he is woefully lacking in adult thinking patters because it is always juvenile.
“why haven’t the oceans boiled”
You been talking to your comrade Teddy from the UN again, have you..
…the oceans are boiling .. the oceans are boiling .. PANIC !!
RSS is specifically “adjusted” using climate models.. a ridiculous situation, wouldn’t you agree. !
“Error margins”????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah, I still believe UAH6 over the contrived RSS and surface data sets. In fact, even NOAA’s STAR satellite data set agrees with UAH6.
As the several graphs shown below show, there is actually NO WARMING in the Australian satellite data except around EL Nino events.
Long periods of NO WARMING , COOLING since the 2016 El Nino.
The trend fungal wants is cause TOTALLY by those El Nino events, and the comments he is making show that he knows that to be the case.
The magic ENSO that only ever warms and never cools…
Heat, produced by magic.
Oscillations ain’t what they used to be.
Again, you have shown you are totally clueless about El Nino and La Nina.
It is hilarious watching you flap about in gormless ignorance.
Yeah he is an empty vessel.
“Heat, produced by magic.”
Probably the most moronically ignorant comment you have ever made !!
We expect nothing else.
““Heat, produced by magic.””
Now there is a major AGW meme, if ever I saw one.
The whole AGW facade/fallacy is based on magical heat from unicorn farts.
So let me get this straight – CO2 level 1978 – 335.41, 2023 – 421.65, A difference of 86.24. About 35 ppm per decade, and this alone caused 0.18C/ decade increase in temperature. A doubling, 10 decades would equal 1.8C would be equal to 2078. Colour me unimpressed. Of course it would be less than that due to decreasing effect of CO2. 😉
Except that there is no evidence that CO2 caused any of this fraction of a degree of warming.
When the oceans warm they can’t hold as much CO2 and release it into the atmosphere, like a warmed soda pop. When they cool they absorb CO2.
“Who said ‘concerning’?”
Certainly got you flapping your arms and gob all over the place in total panic. !
“I’m just pointing out that the UAH data support the surface data; so it’s got nothing to do with airports.”
Not quite.
NASA Climate and NOAA proclaimed year after year in the 21st century as being the “hottest year evah!”, with each year being hotter than the last year. They did this about 10 times from the period 2000 to 2015.
If you go by the UAH satellite chart, none of those years could be proclaimed to be the “hottest year evah!” because none of them were warmer than 1998.
So the surface temperature data was mannipulated to feed the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative, while the UAH data was not.
Here’s the UAH satellite chart. See if you can find any year between 1999 and 2015 that is warmer than 1998. NASA Climate and NOAA found 10 years in their surface record. So you can see there is a great deal of difference between the UAH chart and the surface temperature “data”.
The Surface Temperature Record is a Climate Alarmist Propaganda tool.
It’s proof that something other than CO2 is controlling the temperature. It oscillates between stagnation and warming.
What is it? CO2 doesn’t stagnant so it can’t be it!
UHI is not limited to the surface. Convection insures that. UAH will see UHI just like the surface stations do.
Have you studied thermodynamics of fluids at all?
So true , Tim.
The heat produced in urban areas must “vent” by convection into the lower troposphere, but will disperse and spread out on the way.
This partially explains why UAH over land often has a steeper trend than globally which is 70% ocean.
Urban areas (despite making up much of the surface temperature data), are actually only a small part of the surface, so the urban warming effect in LTL over land is going to be quite strongly diluted, but may still have some effect.
Roy Spencer has compared the surface and satellite trends for Australia:
“the “satellite-based” trend is lowered to +0.15 C/decade, compared to the observed Tsfc trend of +0.21 C/decade”.
He leaves it to readers to come to their own conclusions.
His conclusion seems to be that they are roughly comparable.
The trends in the charts look very similar.
My conclusion is that they are very similar and within the mutual ranges of uncertainty.
(Data in your link stop in early 2019, btw.)
Your conclusion is meaningless because it always based on DENIAL and IGNORANCE.
“Data in your link stop in early 2019″
Ahh so you want the 2023 El Nino included, so it shows a steeper trend.
Admitting yet again that you know the El Ninos cause the trend.
So funny !!
Have you checked the data from the source?
Have you checked the error margins?
You haven’t, have you?
For this is the site where ‘skeptics’ never check anything, so long as it confirms their opinions.
Bless them.
Still no human causation
So sad.
Admitting that ALL WARMING in the UAH data is totally natural
Why are you so intent on HIDING FROM THE FACTS.
Show us what the variance and standard deviations of the temperatures are. Use the procedure from NIST TN 1900 Example 2 to calculate them and tell us what you get.
If you really understood measurement uncertainty, you would know that your assertion is entirely without merit.
Read and learn!
Inside the uncertainty interval, you can make no conclusions of what a value truly is. The true value is not known and can never be known using a given set of measurements with an uncertainty interval!
Mutual means “the same” or that they at least share a portion of the same interval. Within a shared uncertainty interval, you can make no conclusion.
Do us a favor and load the graphs into a drawing program. Fill the area inside the uncertainty interval with black. That is what you actually know about the values. Can you draw a trend from this? Show us how you determine the trend!
I disagree that 0.15 is “very similar” to 0.21. The 0.06 difference is 40% of 0.15 and 28.5% of 0.21.
You just can’t understand the bigger issue can you? Or perhaps it is just your selective focus- or you just skim things because you can’t wait to say something.
The bigger issue being…?
“The bigger issue being…?”
Mainly your abject ignorance and your monkey-like trendology stupidity.
Come on, b-nasty! A simple chart of the full UAH data with trend please.
You keep using sub-sets. Cherry-picks.
Show the whole series with the linear trend.
I know you have it in you.
I have shown all the ZERO TREND periods.
They cover basically the whole period. !
Do
you
under-
stand !!
Satellite show what is really causing the warming… El Nino events.
There is no warming in the satellite data between those El Nino events.
Absolutely ZERO evidence of any human causation.
You have proven that by never producing any.
UAH Australia shows no warming since 2012, even with the El Nino effect of this year.
Since you have the UAH Australia data and can apparently create a chart to depict it, can you post a chart of the whole series, with trendline. Thankyou.
(P.S. He won’t.)
Why would anyone want to include El Nino events in a linear trend.
That would be really stupid if you actually wanted to know what was really happening.
But at least you are now admitting that you know those El Ninos are what creates the trend.
Well done, albeit totally accidentally.
….
Now where is that evidence of human causation of these El Nino event you say are causing the warming…
You are still FAILING to produce any.
Still no chart does there come….
Still no human causation.
I have shown data covering basically ALL the satellite period.
You have produced NOTHING !!
still no chart..
True…. you haven’t posted one..
BNice2000, Thanks for sharing this chart. :-).
Show us where BoM data shows NO WARMING over Australia from 1980-1998…
I state the fact that UAH shows +0.18C per decade warming in Australia over its period of record and wee b-nasty comes up with yet another subset of UAH Australia dates. I think this is the third different one he has posted in this thread.
Come on b-nasty. You’re better than this. Just post the whole UAH Australia data with trend and prove me wrong. Simples.
(He won’t.)
Sorry you are incapable of looking at data and seeing what is actually happening.
That is what monkeys do. !!
The fact that you keep insisting on using the El Nino events in your puerile linear trend calculation, shows that you KNOW that those El Ninos are what is causing the trend
And you STILL haven’t shown any human causation
Why do you keep running away from doing that ???
You have proven that you KNOW you have to include the El Nino events to get a trend.
Why are you continuing to argue with something we both agree with.??
“yet another subset of UAH Australia dates”
Are you being incredibly DUMB on purpose… or are you just being you.???
I am showing just how much of the UAH Aust data has ZERO or cooling trends.
Open your eyes, you might also see that FACT.
Are you saying that you are incapable of showing BoM data with zero trend between 1980 and 1998 ??
Why is that.. I though you said they matched.. 😉
Lol! Four replies and not a single chart showing UAH Australia.
What’s the problem b-nasty?
Just post the full UAH Australia chart with the linear trend and prove me wrong.
(He won’t – because he can’t.)
You have produce NOTHING
No human causation.. just empty yapping.
I’m not interest in drawing monkey-type lines on stepped data.
That is for monkeys.
I want to know what is actually happening,..
You obviously want to remain totally clueless.
Where is your data showing that BoM data matches the ZERO trend from 1980-1998?
We can wait… once you stop yapping.
You are the one wants a DUMB monkey-like chart
Why don’t you provide it.
Are you afraid it would highlight your ignorance. !
“Simples.”
Yet you still haven’t. !
He has now shown YOU 42 years of charts while you produce ZERO evidence to counter them.
You are batting zero.
And NO WARMING from the 1998 El Nino until 2018…..
Fourth.
You are still batting ZERO, fungal
What is the human causation for this ZERO TREND for 20 years ??
Try not to run away without answering… again and again, !.
Got any more start and end dates for UAH Australia that exclude the long-term warming trend, b-nasty?
Just post the full set and b-honest. First time for everything.
You have produce NOTHING
No human causation.. just empty yapping.
I’m not interest in drawing monkey-type lines on stepped data.
That is for monkeys.
I want to know what is actually happening,..
You obviously are choosing to remain totally clueless.
“Got any more start and end dates for UAH Australia that exclude the long-term warming trend,”
Do you mean the El Nino step changes ???
Those El Nino you know HAVE to be used to get a warming trend..
The ones you absolutely rely on. !
Are you saying that you are incapable of showing BoM data with zero trend between 1998 and 2018 ??
Why is that.. I though you said they matched.. 😉
All this shows is that something OTHER than CO2 is causing the warming. If the upward trend is caused by CO2 then you would see warming as it increases – even between El Nino’s.
To any objective viewer this would be a big clue that something else is controlling what UAH is seeing. Something the climate models are not considering since they project warming increases even between El Nino’s.
The models don’t have the cyclic variability of the Sun, the effect of the clouds, or the effect of ocean currents, all of which affect temperature.
Again, why the difference between STARS/UAH and RSS?
No, it does NOT do this.
The lower troposphere temperature (singular) does not exist.
I think a top notch team of forensic investigators combined with experts in the fields of instrumentation and calibration could easily destroy the credibility and accuracy of the entire record from now on back several hundred years. Conclusion: System not fit for purpose to required degree of accuracy,
Does that mean that you don’t believe in the little ice age?
How would you get that out of what I said? Precision is the issue. And more specifically precision as it relates to (relatively )short periods of time. For example: differentiating between some of the record measured in the late 19th and early to mid 20 th century ( how accurate in terms of precision )and then transitioning into later 20 th and 21 first century measurement systems. And I noted many problems including possible decadal natural trends that need to some how be factored in. Am I that bad at expressing my self or are people just not reading others entire comment.
If you don’t believe in the entire record and think it is not fit for purpose then clearly you don’t believe that it is possible to say whether or not the past was warmer or cooler than then present.
Or alternatively I would like to know why you think that records are reliable if they show a little ice age but not if they don’t? Otherwise you seem to be selectively choosing which records to believe based on your prior beliefs.
I think because the article touches on a lot of different areas of climate science we are talking about two different areas of investigation. You seem to think because I question the accuracy of much of the record ( in terms of proof if AGW) that you some how think I won’t accept any climate proxy at all? I think in some areas of paleoclimatalogy I will accept evidence with out a state of the art thermometer wired to the past. I think your just trying to be a little irritating.
John, your words were “destroy the credibility and accuracy of the entire record”. Now if the entire record is not credible then clearly you can’t have any reason to believe in the little ice age. You now seem to be claiming something different i.e. “question the accuracy of much of the record” which is a much weaker claim. And again the question is how do you decide which records to believe and which ones you think aren’t credible. You still seem to only want to believe in proxies that agree with your prior beliefs about the past.
Izzy is totally confused about the use of proxy data, that shows quite a few degrees warmer through most of the Holocene….
vs data manipulations of raw data to make changes to fit an agenda.
Time to WAKE UP, Izzy !
No. It is John Oliver who doesn’t believe that the proxy data is “not fit for purpose”. My only comment is that if you don’t believe the proxy data then you have no reason to believe any statement about past temperatures and that would include the little ice age etc.
You are talking NONSENSE and showing a total lack of comprehension…. as usual
The instrumental data has not much warming if any since 1930s.40s, but has been adjusted to show warming to suit the AGE agenda.
Only part of a degree or so even after their manic adjustments.
Longer term proxy data shows A MUCH WARMER Holocene by a few to several degrees.
I know you find mathematical comprehension really difficult, but at least try !!
Which proxies? Have a look at the Temperature 12k data from
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
which shows that most (>80%) of proxy reconstructions show less warming in the Holocene than in the last decade and only one shows more warming over a 200 year period and that one is highly suspect.
Fabricated averaged proxies , in “Nature” mag.
Oh yeah.. that’s convincing… NOT !!
There is absolutely NO WAY a proxy can show decadal warming
You have ben GULLIBLED again, izzy !!
And if you want more examples look at this reconstruction using over 500 proxies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
they find that at no point in the Holocene was it warmer than during the last decade.
So again which long term proxy data are you referring too and why do you think somebody should believe it over other reconstructions?
Then please explain how trees grew where now there are glaciers?
And how peat bogs grew where now there is permafrost?
Nature articles not even good as toilet paper.
DENIAL of the Holocene OPTIMUM is for AGW cultists only !
Hundreds of individual Holocene proxies have been posted many times.
Not my problem if you never saw them, or have the attention span of a stunned goldfish.
I think goldfish can’t remember from one minute to the next. If they were stunned, they’d be like Biden.
“Then please explain how trees grew where now there are glaciers?”
And explain how tree lines were higher in the past, all over the world, if it wasn’t warmer during that time, as compared to today.
No proxies have a measurement uncertainty less than the units digit. Some have measurement uncertainty in the tens digit.
It doesn’t matter how many proxies you reconstruct if their measurement uncertainty is so wide that it masks the differences you are trying to identify.
As with so much in climate science, measurements are never “stated value +/- measurement uncertainty”. Measurement uncertainty in climate science is always just “stated value”, it is assumed to be 100% accurate.
It was certainly warmer when Hannibal marched his elephants through the Alps. It is much too cold to do that today.
Now you are just lying since even now you can’t grow the grapes in areas today that were possible during the RWP
Proxy data is *NOT* fit for the purpose of establishing temperature differences in the units digit let alone the hundredths digit.
This leaves the “trend” of the the temperature as part of the GREAT UNKNOWN.
Proxy data only uses ΔT temps, i.e., anomalies. There is no guarantee that the absolute values of temperature are identical. You can have one proxy at an absolute temperature of 50°F and another at 80°F. Do you think the anomalies, especially with growing things like plants and trees are comparable? Why?
Do what I told TFN to do.
Let’s take data prior to 1900 and say the uncertainty is ±2°F. For 1900 to present, let’s assume an uncertainty of ±1.8°F.
Put your graph into a drawing program and fill the uncertainty intervals with black. Now take a white line and draw what you think the trend is within that black interval. Are you 100% confident that you have drawn the correct trend? Why? (Don’t use a line in the middle because you don’t know that is the correct value!
You don’t understand measurement uncertainty any better than your compatriots of bellman, bdgwx, AlanJ, Nick Stokes, etc.
You *can* say if it was warmer or cooler if the difference is outside the measurement uncertainty interval. What you *can’t* do is identify differences within the measurement uncertainty interval. Those differences are part of the GREAT UNKNOWN.
And if you can’t know the differences then it is also impossible to identify a trend within the measurement uncertainty boundaries. There are an infinite number of possible trends – including one with a slope of 0 (zero).
Pat Frank has already done this. He published a paper showing that the in-built physical limitations of LIG thermometers introduces a systematic bias in readings that legislates against knowing the average temperature accuracy past the unit digit at least. Thus the ability to identify temperature anomalies in the hundredths digit is impossible.
Thank you Jennifer.
I was making this point to any media outlets who took comments from the get-go of the hokey schtik, –
“if it’s wrong now, how can you be sure it wasn’t also wrong back then?”
Of course, the Mann-stream media studiously ignored my input.
As it does with all comments from people who point out such irrationality.
Story tip – New ‘study’ extolling greenie redistribution unwittingly exposes toxic climate cult: – American Thinker
What gives me a splitting headache from this thing is 2-fold:
Overlap.
Here are some 580 consecutive days of Tmax and Tmin for the official Australian weather stations Melbourne Regional #86071 (now closed) and its continue-on station Olympic Park #86338, some 2.6 km away.
I’m interested in how the station data can be merged in a scientifically acceptable manner.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/melbversusop.xlsx
Apologies. Link problem again.
Please copy he link into your search bar if it does not open from here.
Optional to add an “s” so https:
This is actual data on which you can base actual comments.
Geoff S
The Melbourne site at Olympic Park has real issues of its own.
On those hot days with a northerly wind, the heat of the railway station and yards is channelled down between the buildings directly onto the site.
My guess is that it will measure slightly lower than the old site on normal days…
… but when there is a hot northerly (coming from central Vic and NSW outback)….
… it may have an even worse urban warming effect than the horrific old site.
Oh dearie me, another red-thumber who can’t accept FACTS.
If you have the brains, look at the site yourself.
It can’t be combined in a scientifically acceptable manner if the microclimates are different. This is where the suggestion to run both in parallel to get an “adjustment factor” falls apart. You can’t even take the old station into a calibration lab to identify calibration drift because if there is a systematic calibration bias due to drift at that point in time it is impossible to tell what it should be for the past! Meaning you can’t adjust past measurements properly.
This is why when stations are changed the old record should end and a new one started.
It’s just one more idiocy from climate science that a “long” record is needed. It isn’t.
Each of the measurements from the old/new station represents just one more sample to be used in calculating the GAT. Gaining or losing the data from one station in a sample as large as the global data sample is meaningless. It won’t change the precision of the calculation of the GAT one iota.
That means that if you need to let the new station run for a year or two in order to get a baseline average for it, no big deal! You’ll just have 9,999 stations instead of 1000 stations in your sample. The square root of 9999 is 99.995 instead of 100 – BIG DEAL!
It appears to me that the new station is reading warmer than the old station, i.e., the differences are predominately negative for both Tmax and Tmin.
I am not an advocate of changing data by a set amount in order to connect the two sets. You can see the problem in that there is a large day to day difference so a constant amount is not an accurate modification. I am sure the advocates for averaging here would see no problem with doing this.
Ultimately I would recommend keeping the records separate and live with short records.
The only reasons climate scientists don’t like this is because the baseline for the new station starts as the same value as the absolute temperature. IOW, the first year anomalies will be zero. Tuff luck.
That is one reason I advocate that climate science should be able to decide upon a best value for the globe and all anomalies will be calculated against this single value.
Thanks such much to Charles and Anthony and WUWT for republishing my scribbles.
I was not sure where to jump in with some reply about the UAH temperature record showing the same as other records. So, I’ve started a new comment thread.
Unfortunately the UAH record only starts in 1997. It does show warming since then punctuated with El Niño spikes. And so do many surface air temperature records. Considering the longer of these records and there overall trends, they show that summer’s are now about as warm as they were back in 1939, before all the cooling. increasingly there is problem with the surface temperature records being from probes in automatic weather stations and we are not sure how they are calibrated.
This issue of calibration could also be a problem with the UAH record. I’ve confidence that Roy and Christy do there best with the analysis, but how exactly are the platinum resistance probes that John Christy has confirmed with me are aboard the satellites … how exactly are they calibrated.
Certainly the current spike in UAH temperatures is huge. And I understand much of it is coming from the Pacific Ocean. And from specific Pacific Ocean locations from where it is heating the immediate atmosphere about it and, as the atmospheric circulation does, it is being transported to the poles.
Interestingly when I consider individual locations in the ocean, from the places that are measuring ocean temperatures along the east coast of Australia, and just beyond the Great Barrier Reef, as per the attached chart, I can’t see global boiling, or even a spike in temperatures.
If nothing else, this Steyn V Mann trial should be a warning that we need our own network for measuring temperatures.
Unless my eyes deceive me, the UAH record for Australia starts in December 1978, Jennifer.
So you’re only ~ 20 years off.
They show a warming trend of +0.18C per decade between then and now.
That’s quite a bit faster than the global trend in UAH (+0.14c per decade).
I suspect that was a typo, fungal.
As Jen says.. and as you have now admitted..
Basically ALL the warming i UAH Australia comes at El Nino events..
… and there is no evidence of any human causation.
Still waiting for any human causation..
In the absence of any evidence, we can all reach the same conclusion you have..
… that the warming in UAH Australia is all totally natural.
As usual you only report the bit that supports your position, the trend map from the UAH website shows that a goodly portion of the Australian continent has a trend less than +0.15C per decade, it is therefore highly improbable that there is a warming trend of +0.18C per decade for the entirety of Australia. Some locations may have such a trend but Australia as a whole does not.
BoM data is actually near zero trend from 1980-1997
from 2000 onwards, however, BoM’s trend is TWICE as fast as UAH Australia.
“bit faster than the global trend in UAH”
Which mean some other area must be naturally warming at a slower pace.
UAH Australia is over land, UAH globe is mostly over ocean.
Your comparison is meaningless.. as usual..
Southern oceans are warming MUCH slower.
Hi Bnice2000. You make a good point about it being difficult to ascribe the warming to anything anthropogenic. And which do you consider to be the best Southern Ocean data sets? The Australian data from the Great Barrier Reef shows no warming at all, for the oceans. Albeit, scrappy and only beginning in the 1980s.
Hi Jen, (may I shorten the name?)
“UAH SH Oceans” is a truly huge area, so you can’t really make any comparison with the just the GBR.
Thing is, UAH is probably the only data before ARGO that covers “Southern Oceans” trend to any accuracy at all.
Phil Jones said most of the HAD data was “just made up”
UAH shows no warming of the oceans around the South Pole area at all.
iirc, Bob Tisdale had data showing cooling in the Southern Pacific but I can’t find it.
Yes , I can find it. Only goes to 2014 though.
Has Al Gore seen this chart?!
Except for that 1871 scientific expedition along the GBR, with many temperatures taken,that are not significantly different to those measured in recent years. Geoff S
Apologies, I meant to write 1979 (first full year of data). And I agree that since then, the warming has been significant.
What FinalNail fails to acknowledge, is that before then there was significant cooling of a similar magnitude.
During the satellite data era , that have been several El Ninos.
The two major ones in 1998 and 2015/16 are linked to the basically all the warming in the satellite era (until the current one, which hasn’t dissipated yet)
We can put approximate values on the step changes
1987 caused a step change of about 0.1C
1998 caused a step change of about 0.2C
2015/16 El Nino caused a step change of about 0.22C
(note, these are slightly different than what Bob Tisdale estimates)
Bob identifies other El Ninos, but they don’t show a step change.
2023, we don’t know yet if it will give a step change or not..
If we alter the UAH data to dismiss those step changes (in the graph below I have used the 1987-1997 period as a reference) any semblance of warming disappears.
There is no evidence of any human causation at all.
This chart correcting for El Niño steps is gold. Thank you for sharing, BeNice.
If we accepted all the warming is from the oceans, that would be progress. Huge progress.
BTW Jen,.
Totally admire how you expose the lies and corruption of the GBR coral-hating lobby… Hughes and his cronies.
Thanks Bnice. And in exposing the GBR corruption I get to Scuba dive, and in the process see and feel how the sun warms the oceans. The sun does not warm the atmosphere, it warms the oceans. :-).
I love Scuba diving in tropical waters. But it’s not so much fun in Puget Sound. I did notice lots of crabs the day before crab season started. The next day, all the crabs disappeared. Like Daffy Duck, they know when hunting season starts.
“And I agree that since then, the warming has been significant.”
The current 0.14C warming is less significant than the warmings in the past.
You have hit on the problem with measurement uncertainty. There are doubts and uncertainty. For climate science to deal with these and obtain certainty to 3 decimal digits is just not good physical science.
I can’t understand how these people get away with flat out lying and cheating, especially government departments. They should be held to a higher standard considering they work for us, we are paying their salary. It makes me sick, it is past time to rattle some cages and fire a whole bunch of people.
This is what the available pubic data resemble for the northern city of Darwin, Australia.
The overlap of about a year between 2 stations shows a temperature difference of about 0.8 deg C over that year.
Having obtained such data, what can be done with it?
Geoff S
Nothing! It can’t be applied to past data because the time trend of the calibration drift is unknown.
In addition, who is to say it isn’t the *new* station that is wrong?
As on your other post, there is no constant value. You can’t do an accurate constant adjustment. Make up a constant absolute value and see if the size of the anomalies track.
Interesting to note,
From 1980-1997, BoM data is like UAH and shows basically no warming.
But since 2000, BoM shows twice the warming trend of UAH Australia.
Remind me when all this AGW nonsense started in earnest… 😉
Here is another dollop of info.
This uses the Tav calculation, the averafe of Tmax and Tmin each data point.
It shows the record for eacy of 25 stations subtracted from the melbourne central record (being Regional 86071 to 2014, the Olympic Park 86336 after then).
These are not proper overlap comparisons, becase the 25 surrounding stations vary from a couple of km to 80 km distant from the centre of Melbourne.
But, they do indivate that there are substantial differences.
In this case, the oldest station of Melbourne Regional seems rather out of whack from the others by up to a couple of degrees C.
The question of interest is, which is these stations is least full of error?
The answer is, although the differences are large, it is not possible to estimate the size of the errors at any one station. Largely, this is because of a lack of customary metrology devices like running several devices in parallel close to each other (overlap), frequent calibration, sensitivity analysis as various parameters are made to vary, etc etc.
Geoff S
“The question of interest is, which is these stations is least full of error?”
You nailed it. How can you assume that measurement error is random and cancels in the face of this demonstration?
The answer is that YOU DON’T KNOW. It’s all part of the GREAT UNKNOWN. You simply cannot just assume the GREAT UNKNOWN away like climate science does.
“frequent calibration”
Who is going to do it and who is going to pay for it? And if the differences are due to microclimate then the calibration lab is going to have to be on-site, and I mean EXACTLY on site. How many stations will be able to meet that requirement?
“running several devices in parallel close to each other”
How do you tell which one is correct? How do you know if *both* are off?
“sensitivity analysis as various parameters are made to vary,”
This would have to be done at the station and done to the station, not just the sensor.
Bottom line? You are getting into what measurement uncertainty is all about. No matter what you do there will always be some level of measurement uncertainty (e.g. did someone cut the grass at the station last week?). You simply can’t assume that it all cancels out like climate science does.
Geoff,
NOAA Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) have an uncertainty of ±1.8°F. Is it any wonder these are all over the place. Different microclimates can have this effect.
Look at the variance that never is addressed. Is it any wonder climate science refuses to even mention it?
What the hell changed in 2000?
The bad science surrounding forecasts of warming is a problem, but its not either the most tractable problem or the most serious one. Far more serious is the inability of policy makers to do even the most basic sums on wind and solar intermittency.
Its one thing if some scientists argue on shaky grounds that the temperature will warm by ridiculous amounts a century from now, or fake the historical record.
Its quite another if politicians act as amateur grid designers and assume that the wind works uniformly year after year in the way that it did in an arbitrarily chosen sample year, and thus size their estimate storage needs too low, and get the expense of moving to alternative energy, and its feasibility, horribly wrong. Or if they radically underestimate the rise in demand which a wholesale move to EVs and heat pumps will lead to.
This is going to lead to bankruptcies, fuel poverty, economic crisis. Its going to destroy reliable electricity supplies, which are the foundation of our current societies. Its going to do this at the same time as making us more dependent on reliable electricity by the move to EVs and heat pumps.
This is the thing to focus on. Mann and Steyn is a distraction. Steyn looks a tragic figure, and Mann too is a figure right out of classical tragedy (though one that doesn’t command any sympathy). But its all a sideshow compared to the catastrophic effects that are drawing into view from the energy policies which the English speaking world is embarking on.
Michael,
I completely disagree with you.
Mark Steyn is a tragic figure because those in power across the Western world, including Republicans, have done nothing to stop the corruption, nothing to support those of us providing loads of evidence that human-caused/anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.
It doesn’t really matter any more that our energy systems fall apart, until we address the corruption within our key institutions we deserve to be freezing in the dark. We deserve to lose the next war.
The west is corrupt to the core, and AGW is a big part of it.
We wouldn’t have an energy crisis, if those in positions of power put Michael Mann in jail all those years ago, as Tim Ball suggested.
The thing is, logically they are two quite independent propositions. One is that there is a climate crisis. The other is that you can run industrialized countries off wind and solar.
I would argue that in previous decades the activists have been given a free ride on the second, and that has let them divert huge amounts of money to this hopeless cause.
Meanwhile, furious debates about how much warming and by when and what evidence have been going on. But the wind turbines and the subsidies have been carrying on relatively unnoticed in the background.
That is starting to change now. People are finding out just how expensive it is, just how unreliable, just how unfit for purpose EVs are, in the generalized proposed applications that are being attempted.
What needs doing, the urgent thing, is not to argue about warming. Its to point out at every opportunity that even if there is, wind and solar are not going to work. If persisted in regardless they are going to produce blackouts and economic crisis and lots of real suffering.
They are of course not even going to reduce CO2 emissions, but my feeling is that is an argument not worth having either. The primary point is, they are not now, and are not going to in the future, work at generating electricity. This is becoming visible, with arguments and observations that should have been clear from the start. But this central fact was obscured by all the noisy debates on climate itself. The skeptics had the debate about the wrong thing.
My analogy would be Tuvalu. Suppose you are Tuvalu, and the activists are proposing you move to wind power because global warming. What are you going to argue about? You could argue there is no global warming. Or you could argue Tuvalu is too small to make a difference. But the really decisive argument must be that you cannot move to wind because it won’t work. So all the other stuff is irrelevant. It will be no more effective than standing on our heads every morning to generate electricity. You have more chance of making that argument in engineering terms so all the silliness about denialism doesn’t even get started.
You see that this has started now, for instance with the Royal Society report and reactions to it. The tragedy is that we did not have this debate starting 20 years ago, before, at vast expense, covering the North Sea with what will in a little while be nothing better than scrap metal.
No michel, these are not separate issues; they are all symptoms of the slow spread of corrupt practices throughout society. Somebody gets away with 1 thing, word spreads and others are trying different things in different areas. Where we should have cracked down we haven’t, we’ve indulged the silliness until we realised it wasn’t silliness at all and it may almost be too late to stop it.
John Abbot has though received more correspondence from Boris Kelly-Gerreyn specifically a letter dated December 7, 2023. In this letter, the bureau is back to denying that any of this parallel data exists. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn is the General Manager, Data Program and Chief Data Officer, Bureau of Meteorology.
This fellow presumably-
Dr Boris Kelly-Gerreyn – Bureau of Meteorology | LinkedIn
This link caught my eye where you simply take out the GHG from the models and bingo temp is flat-
Thomas Mortlock on LinkedIn: #climatechange #science | 111 comments
Well that’s it proof positive but if you really need the Gold Standard then Jack Dale provides the link-
It’s Official: There’s Only 1-In-A-Million Chance Climate Change Is Not Caused By Humans | IFLScience
“denying that any of this parallel data exists.”
Great that they are admitting to gross scientific legligence. ! 🙂
“tree ring data that are assumed to be reliable back some centuries but are known to not be reliable since the 1980s”
because tree rings are never thermometers- never- they’re pretty good for dating- you can compare tree rings from trees of different ages and go back for centuries- there might be a few trees in rare circumstances which might weakly correlate with temperature but that won’t help for global temperatures
Yes. The only things one can surmise from tree rings are age, relative moisture and sunlight.
There seems to be somewhat of a kerfuffle over displaying the full period of UAH LT for Oz.
Very entertaining, but I thought I’d break the stalemate. It’s an easy Google search after all (1979 up to 1019).
This is what Roy Spencer said about the BOM Sfc temp obs vs UAH LT…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/australia-surface-temperatures-compared-to-uah-satellite-data-over-the-last-40-years/
“Summary: The monthly anomalies in Australia-average surface versus satellite deep-layer lower-tropospheric temperatures correlate at 0.70 (with a 0.57 deg. C standard deviation of their difference), increasing to 0.80 correlation (with a 0.48 deg. C standard deviation of their difference) after accounting for precipitation effects on the relationship. The 40-year trends (1979-2019) are similar for the raw anomalies (+0.21 C/decade for Tsfc, +0.18 deg. C for satellite), but if the satellite and rainfall data are used to estimate Tsfc through a regression relationship, the adjusted satellite data then has a reduced trend of +0.15 C/decade. Thus, those who compare the UAH monthly anomalies to the BOM surface temperature anomalies should expect routine disagreements of 0.5 deg. C or more, due to the inherently different nature of surface versus tropospheric temperature measurements.”
Both Bom and UAH Aus are basically zero trend from 1980-1997.
After 2000, BoM has TWICE the warming trend of UAH. Why ???
This continued pretence that you can put a meaningful linear trend through data that obviously has step changes, is mathematically and scientifically ludicrous.
You are deliberately HIDING everything that is really happening in the data.
“You are deliberately HIDING everything that is really happening in the data.”
No. That would be Roy Spencer. Not me.
Oh dear, blaming someone else for not doing your own thinking.
So sad.. you must be a leftist.
“ ….. Oh dear, blaming someone else for not doing your own thinking.”
No, re my OP opening comment ….
“There seems to be somewhat of a kerfuffle over displaying the full period of UAH LT for Oz.
Very entertaining, but I thought I’d break the stalemate.”
That graph is from Roy Spencer – and as such is his thinking. Not mine.
My thinking was to do as I stated above and post the full data (up to ‘19)
Do you not agree with his thinking?
Sounds like you don’t.
Why is that?
YAWN !!
So you admit you are an empty-minded sock.
Ok we knew that.
It is also noted you avoided the question completely.
Both Bom and UAH Aus are basically zero trend from 1980-1997.
After 2000, BoM has TWICE the warming trend of UAH. Why ???
Remember, Mickey’s Hockeypuke was published in 1999.
Start thinking… see the scam you are supporting.
bnice2000, could you please quantify those assertions? I’d like to see the different trends.
Sure can. Here’s the one show BoM twice UAH since 2000
Note, as Roy suggests, UAH data has been moved up by 0.6C..
… but that doesn’t affect the trends.
And the BoM zero trend from 1980-1997
bnice2000, thanks for both graphs. What changed in the year 2000 lasting for 23 years?
Christ! People are arguing about temperature trends that are both less than 0.19℃/decade during a periodic cyclic warming. Either trend shows no possible problem with a warming world causing catastrophic climatic changes.
Well done for the amount of effort you have undertaken to try and get to the truth.
l think we should remain focused on this topic as l think this story could be really big and can blow a hole in the whole climate warming narrative post 1980.
lts certainly going to be where my focus is for the rest of the year so l can build up the evidence to call it out.
Wrong place
I agree with you completely. The door is behind you, don’t let it hit you on the way out.