theocb: I still don’t understand your point, the Australian records go back to 1910, and 2013 was the warmest year on those records. Ergo the Australian temperature record was broken.

Those records also show a slight but fairly consistent warming trend over that 100 year period:

(Source)

A couple of people on here are suggesting it has only been warmer millions of years ago which would seem to me that alarmist guff is fooling many.

No, a couple of people on here (including me) were querying what point you were making when you said “climate scientists know that temp records haven’t been broken Mike.” (despite the climate scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology stating exactly that).

We wondered if you were just making the technical point that yes, it was Australia’s hottest year since 1910 but obviously it has been hotter than that at various times before records began.

I’m still not sure if you were.

Climate change is not ‘bad’ it is perfectly natural (regardless of whether we are driving it.) The idea that climate change is a negative is ridiculous and unscientific.

The idea that something is “good” because it is “natural” is equally ridiculous and unscientific.

For example most people would consider a planet-wide extinction event to be a “bad thing”, even though they are perfectly “natural”.

careful Graham, that graph uses a 10year average, which is the kind of thing communists do when they want to hide a cooling trend.

Ok, now let’s see the same graph using the raw data 😉

(To be clear, adjusting data isn’t necessarily a bad thing, where properly justified on a case by case basis and recorded, adjusting data en masse on the basis of a statistical algorithm on the other hand is a very, very dangerous game to play)

But long term scientific data supersedes those short term studies. This data has been researched since those records began. You cannot continue to use the old data without including the new. If you show a 100year study to people with little interest you can easily generate an alarmist picture. If you include the peer reviewed data we ‘now’ have then the picture does not look the same at all. That is Science. You uncover new information and use it as your new base.
Why is it okay for alarmists but not okay for deniers to cherry pick starting points when we should all use the best scientific information available. What is the point of new research if alarmists and deniers are just going to carry on with their own models

Graham. Climate change isn’t ‘bad’ or ‘good’.. it just happens. Alarmists are constantly trying to use a negative spin without considering the consequences of all our actions (while mocking deniers which seems ironic.)

Most sensible people wouldn’t consider mass extinction events as ‘bad’. That would go against Science.

Northwind – Member

Meanwhile in Scotland, 40% of electricity used comes from renewables- it’ll overtake nuclear soon and has already outstripped coal (give it a couple of years and it’ll be more than all fossil fuel combined)

A one off month but mangaed 126% last month.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/05/scotlands-renewable-sector-saw-bumper-month-october/

What “raw data” do you want? 100 years worth of daily temperature records from the 112 ACORN-SAT weather stations?

That’d be a hell of a graph! 😀

Feel free to construct it though, the data is available online:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/

But long term scientific data supersedes those short term studies………….
That is Science. You uncover new information and use it as your new base.
………………………..What is the point of new research if alarmists and deniers are just going to carry on with their own models
…………………………
Most sensible people wouldn’t consider mass extinction events as ‘bad’. That would go against Science.

Global warming was dropped in favour of (anthropogenic) climate change, the extra energy in weather systems cannot be measured. Judging and predicting future patterns solely on temperature is a bit like saying we know what dinosaurs looked like because most extant lizards are green and scaly.

A lot of reasonably sensible people run their lives on what they feel is correct, science studies that, not dictates it. If a mass extinction event does arrive for us, as a species, I think most people will feel it’s below average, as events go.

So GrahamS, what happened at Rutherglen and Amberley?

Why is it okay for alarmists but not okay for deniers to cherry pick starting points

Eh? Who is cherry picking??

How is using “the point at which records began” as the starting point to validate the statement “2013 was the hottest since records began” in any way cherry-picking??

If you include the peer reviewed data we ‘now’ have then the picture does not look the same at all.

What peer-reviewed data has been added to this data set that those “alarmists” at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are ignoring in their report published in January this year?

And again, why don’t you consider the people doing climate science at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to be climate scientists?

Most sensible people wouldn’t consider mass extinction events as ‘bad’. That would go against Science.

Okay. Apply some Science (with a capital S) then.

Go and survey 1000 scientists, tell them that NASA has detected a supernova within 2000 light years of Earth and that the resulting gamma burst will be with us within a year and will eradicate all multi-cellular life from Earth.

Then ask them if this is good news.

So GrahamS, what happened at Rutherglen and Amberley?

According to BoM the stations were moved and they homogenised the data to compensate for that:

Amberley: the major adjustment is to minimum temperatures in 1980. There is very little available documentation for Amberley before the 1990s (possibly, as an RAAF base, earlier documentation may be contained in classified material) and this adjustment was identified through neighbour comparisons. The level of confidence in this adjustment is very high because of the size of the inhomogeneity and the large number of other stations in the region (high network density), which can be used as a reference. The most likely cause is a site move within the RAAF base.

Rutherglen: the major adjustments in minimum temperature data are in 1966 and 1974. Both were detected through comparisons with neighbours. The nature of the change is consistent with the site moving from a location near the main experimental farm buildings (which are on a small hill) to its current location on low-lying flat ground (minimum temperatures are normally higher on slopes than on flat ground or in valley bottoms).

More here: http://joannenova.com.au/sources/bom/australian-bom-responds-to-graham-lloyd-the-australian/

I don’t know any more than that, but it sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to do to me.

Comparing the non-homogenised dataset to the homogenised one doesn’t show a massive difference:

(The Blue line is the unadjusted (AWAP) Australian average temperature. The red line is the homogenised (ACORN-SAT) temperature for Australia)

1000 scientists will ask how NASA can possibly know the gamma burst is coming.

Currently the only way to stop machines in water from fouling up is to cover them in highly toxic coatings that then poison the environment.

🙄 I really wanted to stay out of this thread but this is balls, go read an EIA for a tidal development.

In addition to this, the UK has one of the largest tidal ranges in the World, this is completely predictable, unlike wind, wave and solar. Why are we not using this?

We are, I’ve worked on two commercial developments in the UK and there are many more in development. Why there aren’t lots in existence and more in development comes down to money at the end of the day – carbon economy is established and makes powerful people rich and keeps political parties funded.

this adjustment was identified through neighbour comparisons.

Note that explanation with both, a statistical algorithm analysed the raw data records and altered them because it identified the possibility that the site had been moved.

although site records and witnesses have both contradicted this, purely statistical, justification

Rutherglen

I’ll just leave this here

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

But while I’m at it, there are 112 sites in acorn-sat apparently, so people’s obsession with Rutherglen seems a bit silly.

I really wanted to stay out of this thread…………….go read an EIA for a tidal development.

So did I but nevermind.

On the projects you have been involved in, what are the effective life span and maintenance schedules for lifting and cleaning, compared to solar, for example?

I’m not sure there is any unanimity on the extent of the change, how the driving mechanisms work, what we should do about it, or whether we should just do what we can to cope with the changes. Sure there’s a debate.

This. Of course there is a debate. The scientists are only guessing what the climate will do in the future. Sometimes badly. Like the Met Office scientist who in 2007 predicted a 0.3C temp from 2004 to 2014. For some perspective the rise over the last 150 years is 0.7C. Actual rise by 2014 …. 0.04.

A schoolchild with a ruler drawing a line along the average slope of the temp record of the last 150 years would have been more accurate than the IPCC forecasts.

Two Minutes to Midnight

ninfan: And BoM have countered this saying they DO have records.

This from the Guardian article Mike originally linked to:

Marohasy wants heads to roll [rolls eyes] because she claims that the Rutherglen site was never moved and so there was no need to homogenise the data.

However, the bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

The bureau had initially spotted a break or jump in the data that pointed to a likely move at Rutherglen.
….

Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University, worked at BoM for more than 30 years and from 1990 until he left in 2005 had led efforts to analyse rainfall and temperature readings from across the country. He told me:

The original raw data is all still there – it has not been corrupted. Anyone can go and get that original data.

Pre-1910 there was not much of a spread but also there was more uncertainty about how the temperatures were being measured. By 1910, most temperatures were being measured in a Stevenson Screen. A lot of measurements were taken at Post Offices but in many cases these were moved out to airports around the middle of the 20th century. That produces artificial cooling in the data.

Towns for example in coastal New South Wales originally had temperatures taken near the ocean because that’s where the town was. But as the town grew the observations would move inland and that is enough to affect temperature and rainfall.

Are we supposed to just ignore that? A scientist can’t ignore those effects. It’s not science to just go ahead and plot that raw data.

Which again seems reasonable.

It could, of course, be an elaborate conspiracy to shift certain subsets of the data by a small amount that doesn’t alter the overall trend, whilst leaving the raw data available online for everyone to see and submitting the whole lot for peer-review.

I guess it comes down to, do you believe the climate scientists with independently peer-reviewed open data and methodologies?

Or do you believe the professional skeptic who presents at the Heartland Institute, a place where this is the level of scientific debate they use:

wheres jivehoneyjive when you need him? surely global warming is central to his theories?

Not unless global warming is caused by the Illuminati using the Vatican to abuse children!

The scientists are only guessing what the climate will do in the future. Sometimes badly

That is a little simplistic

If i taken 1 billion 16 years olds throughout the world and made them all smoke 40 tabs a day for the rest of their life, Any scientist would struggle to give a graph/data that said who caught cancer when and where what ages , country buy country person by person etc.
This means one of two things
1. Smoking does not cause cancer as shown by the fact we cannot map/predict it perfectly
2.its hard to predict the future even when the science is not disputed.

My opinion remains that the difficulty to predict is not related to whether the science is true.
Its easier to attack the models than the science

I really wanted to stay out of this thread

Me too. Arguing with the wilfully ignorant (often in both senses of the word) about a ‘debate’ which isn’t a debate at all is just a little too tedious.

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinions, even when they’re as factually flawed as zulu/ninfan’s and theocb’s

What they’re not entitled to, however, is their own facts, as I keep saying.

And misrepresenting opinions as facts as these two posters are doing leaves you no better than the nutter I had the displeasure of sitting next to on a shuttle bus in Colorado recently. She was whittering on to anyone who listened about god, and in one of her moronic statements to her disinterested victim opposite, she came out with this gem:

“…and there are some people who don’t think the world was created by God in seven days. I mean, can you believe that there are people who think that?”

Graham you are trying to argue against science. Ask those people if they knew an event like the one you mention was potentially going to happen one day.. If they choose to say silly words about good or bad then that is up to them but scientific facts are exactly that. Sensible people understand that regardless of the words they might use.

Mike was using temp records to create an alarmist view point. We have new climate temp records that supersede that study so anybody trying to make any sort of climate point by using that data needs to add the new data. If you just want to cherry pick a short term temp. recording from somewhere and say it has been smashed then feel free, it is alarmist and untrue in my view just the same as starting from 1997 and saying look it is cooling is denial. Our records now go back thousands of years and it is accepted and agreed data, they haven’t been smashed at all.
We are just going round in a circle. Long term scientific peer reviewed climate temp records are there for all to see.

Ethical and sustainable choices shouldn’t be based on fear or denial. I thought that was the whole point of Science.

All my points are scientific fact. Crying about having to join a thread in a cycle forum makes you look a little mental in my view.

Trying to break circular arguments and correct flawed logic makes me feel more than a little bit mental.

All my points are scientific fact

Anyone who knew about science would realise it dies not have Facts …that one is an actual fact as well

Crying about having to join a thread in a cycle forum makes you look a little mental in my view.

I think they were lamenting the fact they had been dragged into do a discussion about science with someone who knew next to nothing about it and was a little rude
I share their pain

All my points are scientific fact.

If so, let’s see this data then.

Looks like this might be useful to some on here

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/climate-change-challenges-and-solutions

Then take yourself out of that pain Captain ironic. Waves! and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.

I think they were lamenting the fact they had been dragged into do a discussion about science with someone who knew next to nothing

Correct. Though adding the “about it [science]” was a little redundant in theocb’s case

OCB: This ‘data’?

Read the IPCC reports.

Read the IPCC reports.

A curious request, given your stance, but given the lateness of the hour here in our non-record-breaking-climate-stricken nation of Australia, I did get as far as the SPM, which seems to be quite clear, even to the apparently undereducated:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased

Read the IPCC reports.

Or just get a suitable quote:

This round has also faced challenges such as the recent decade-long “pause” in global warming, which initially confounded predictions.

The synthesis report acknowledges “the rate of warming over the past 15 years … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951”.

However, it puts this down to “natural variability” and the problem with cherry-picking the start and end dates of short-term trends.

Recent research suggests that much of the extra heat generated over that time has been absorbed by the world’s oceans.

Where have I argued against that point? I will accept your unspoken apology and we don’t need to discuss it further.

Weren’t you in Colorado recently? Is your flying around the world really justified if you are so passionate about this subject.. Haven’t you heard of the damage pollution causes?

Which point? Best to use “quotes” like them Scientists do.

Where have I argued against that point?

You have been calling a certified dataset from when records began at a national meteorological body ‘cherry picked’ – the implication that it is incorrect. You have been asked many times to provide the data that backs up this assertion. The best you managed was to point me (surprisingly) in the direction of the IPCC report.

Given that said report is over 370 MB in size, and that it’s nearly midnight here, I read the start of the SPM, which appeared to elucidate the overall essence of my argument: that climate change is very real, and can be attributed primarily to anthropogenic activity. If you wish to trawl the 370 MB for find a graph to discredit Mike’s figure, then be my guest, but the burden of proof is upon you, not Mike or I.

Weren’t you in Colorado recently?

Yes

Is your flying around the world really justified if you are so passionate about this subject.

Perhaps, perhaps not (and I personally err towards the ‘not’ side of that). However, far from being a jolly, the main aim of the trip was to work towards improving our understanding of how soil fertility will be affected by changes in temperature and rainfall, with a view to more sustainable and resilient agriculture producing greater quantities of food with fewer inputs and greater sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Does the end justify the means? Possibly not, I’m not particularly comfortable with the large amount of travel my job entails, and certainly see the grim irony in it.

Mike was using temp records to create an alarmist view point.

Not really, just the fact that things are actually changing it’s not just all made up to make people feel bad about dicking round in inefficient cars.

The UK has a nice little moderate climate where people think 30c is a heatwave and a bit of wind is a natural disaster.

I’m in a place where a couple of degrees increase could be devastating, I see much more of the massive weather events hitting SE asia and the changing climate. I also think that a dependance on fossil fuels is one of the most idiotic ideas on the planet when there are viable alternatives, before everyone could afford 2 cars, the car was seen as an expensive and inefficient luxury much as solar etc. is seen now. Given the political issues associated with oil an the places where the last of it is, the mass destruction that coal causes (I’ve been to one of the biggest open cut coal mines in the world) and the pollution caused by burning the damm stuff – I’m in Jakarta at the moment, the air is unpleasant, the smog is hanging at times, the particulate in the air is for all to see. It’s not a healthy place for people to live.

Graham you are trying to argue against science.

No I’m not – I’m arguing against the notion that science somehow prevents people from considering things in anything other than emotionless empirical terms.

By your argument scientists should never warn us about anything at all. They should just sit back and quietly measure it as it happens.

Our records now go back thousands of years and it is accepted and agreed data, they haven’t been smashed at all.

Okay, it seems the heart of the confusion here is that you have a different definition of “records” than I do.

To me (and BoM) the phrase “since records began” means the “since the beginning of accurate temperature records from weather stations”.

If I understand you correctly, you want to define “records” to include data from tree rings, ice cores, sediment layers and all that other good stuff?

That’s fine. So I think we’re back to what I said earlier then: “you were just making the technical point that yes, it was Australia’s hottest year since 1910 but obviously it has been hotter than that at various times before records began.”?

If so then why couldn’t you just say “Yes that was the point I was making”?? 😕

I’m in a place where a couple of degrees increase could be devastating,

Unless someone other than theocb who eloquently conflates fantasy with fact turns out to be correct 😉

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/15/fact-check-how-maurice-newman-misrepresents-science-to-claim-future-global-cooling

Berkley (led by a bloke called Mueller) did a “show your workings thing” (lets use the technical term and call it a reanalysis) a few years ago….and went back and had a look at the raw datasets.

here’s their analysis compared with UK MetOffice (Hadley) Noaa and NASA analysis

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

I think any reasonable person can conclude from that that the current temperature increase is a real phenomena…although in itself it says nothing of the mechanism causing the current increase.

However since we’ve known from victorian times that bunging CO2 into the atmosphere will have a warming effect (Arrhenius)…someone who doesn’t believe the current warming is caused by Co2 has 2 problems.

1 – they have to explain what other process is causing current recorded temperature increase (a bland “natural fluctuations” is dodging it – What natural fluctuations – and how does that fluctuation operate – remember we know loads about how solar fluxes/ocean currents/biosphere/volcanoes/rock weathering etc etc etc all affect planetary climate – so what is it that all the geologists, biologists, vulcanologists, oceanographers etc etc have missed?)

2 – Added to 1 – They also need to explain why the simplest “Occams Razor” explanation of co2 temperature forcing either isn’t working – or alternatively what previously unknown negative forcing mechanism is exactly balancing it out.

noone is even close to having any sort of explanation to address either of these 2 points.