JonathanLowe

For information on this you should read these articles (in order) that prove that recent global warming is due not to co2 levels, but solar radiation: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/maximums-and-minimums.html http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/statistical-proof-of-sun-caused-global.html http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/statistical-proof-of-sun-caused-global_04.html

the norm, or average, is the average temperature recorded (either the max/min or certain time temperature) for that particular weather station over the period that data is collected. I don't look at the overall Australia norm, because obviously different places have different climates. This might interest you to: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/12/humans-responsible-for-150th-of-recent.html

Well it's a bit hard to calculate the average temperature at a certain time in Austalia, because obviously the country varies from place to place. It's better to calculate the deviance from the norm in each place. And this doesn't make any difference to the calculations. To show that the so called, average of averages makes no difference in the statistical tests, I made up some data that in 1900 started with an average of 23 degrees, and finished in 2000 with an average of 23.5 degress, with of course an about 0.4 random standard deviations each year. The results are the graph here: It shows little difference, maybe a slight increase. When looking at the deviations from the norm, the graph here: better shows a slight increase. In fact the statistical test of both data prove a significant increase (F = 8.09, p = 0.005) despite there only being a slight, almost non-observable increase). The test result for both concluded the same result, indicating that there is no difference when taking the average of the average as you say. Essentially all it's doing is moving the x axis up a bit, so one is analysing the same data. It also, obviously suggests that the test will pick up even a slight increase in temperatures, however my tests of Australia and 2 stations in Antartica have proven no significant increase at any time of the day.

Hi Edtharan, I presume you read my posts about keeping the time constant and the temperature decreases. I repeat the only reason I analysed maximum and minimum temperatures was to do the same stufy as the ABM and expected to get the same results which I did not. Hence, I looked at average times at certain times of the day, midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm. And in every single one, no significant increase in temperature was found. Ok, if you are saying that we might not experience walming up now, because we are at a tipping point, then we have no experience at all on how much we will warm then we do tip. It could be 0.1 degrees, or 10 degrees. In that, it might be completly insignificant. Also your argurement, about elephants is counter-productive. If I was looking around and could not see an elephant, I would say that there are no elephants here. My knowledge obviously tells me that they exist because I've seen movies and pictures of them, but my observations say that there are none here. And that is the principle of science. Observatory fact. And at the moment we have observed no signiifcant increase or decrease in Australian (and parts of Antarctican) temperatures.

so under global warming, there will be no warming, at least for a little bit of time. Hence in Australia, where there is no warming, we might be still under global warming then yes? But we also might not be of course. Given that we have no idea if we are under global warming until we start warming - which we aren't - it makes no sence whatsoever to spend godzillions on global warming which might not even be effecting us. Why don't we just wait until we start heating up, if we do, at all.

The adjuement due to daylight savings is actually done by the Bureau or Meteorology themselves, and the adjustment is so that it is the equivalent solar time for each measurement. So from this, we would expect a fall in the number of storms and cyclones early on in Global Warming. Also, depending on weather or not the transfer of energy occures faster the higher the ground temperature is, then we probably would not see a rise in the average maximum temperatures for some time So what you are saying is that as global warming starts there will be no warming for some time?

thanks ecoli, I will look that up. FOr those that don't want to press a button to view my latest analysis on my blog here is it here: Well the last few days we’ve concluded that Australia’s mean monthly maximum temperatures are increasing of late, but nothing significantly different from the norm. The mean monthly temperatures more than 100 years ago were greater than now. On the counter side we also showed that mean monthly minimum temperatures have increased of late. We have seen an increase of 0.27 degrees C in the last 30 years. However it looks as though this increase has not continued to increase in the last 30 years and has remained relatively constant. The reason for this increase in 0.27 degrees at around the mid 1970s mark, is undetermined. However it makes a lot of sense to take measurements at a certain time and compare them. By keeping the time constant we can see if 6pm 50 years ago was colder than 6pm now, or whether 9am 100 years ago was hotter or colder than it is today. If global warming is happening in Australia, and the place is hotting up, then we would expect, especially in the last 20-50 years a significant increase in this variable. So shall we test it out? The next 8 days, yep the next 8, will be an article each day looking at the variation in temperatures at certain times of the day. These times are: Midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm. A fairly broad range obviously. ABMs data has taken measurements at these times from ages back. 9am and 3pm temperatures were recorded from when temperature recordings first started (mid 1800s), 9pm recordings started from about 1890 and all other temperatures were unfortunately only recorded from as late as 1940. Nevertheless, we shall analyse them all. And what better way to start, than the times with the most data: 9am and 3pm. Lets check the earlier time to start off with. On the left is a graph of Australia’s deviation from the average of temperatures recorded from all over Australia at 9am in the morning. Times are obviously adjusted for day light savings. And what can we conclude from this? It seems that the times between 1860 all the way up to 1940 recorded on average greater than normal temperatures. Then we had 25 years of really cold start work times, followed by a period of 25 years of slightly warmer wake up calls, another 25 years of chilling turn the electric blanket on temperatures, and apart from last year, we had 4 years in a row of temperatures about 0.2 degrees greater than norm at 9am in the morning. Now I’m pretty sure that I don’t have to do a statistical test of this analysis to prove scientifically if there has been a statistically significant increase or decrease in temperature. I won’t bother. We all know the result from looking at the graph. We’ve had a bit of cold, a bit of warmth, a bit of cold, a bit of warmth. The pattern seems even cyclic if anything. But either way, what we are witnessing here, is proof that Australia’s temperatures, at least at 9am in the morning, have not increased at all. Global warming, and human induced CO2 levels, have no influence whatsoever on the temperature at this stage of the morning. Which to be honest, is a little upsetting. I hate cold mornings.

Hi Edtharan, and thanks again for your response. For one, I am not trying to prove that Australia is not being subject to global warming. My initial stage of my research was to test the urban warming theory. One which I don’t think really exists, and could well be a theory developed by anti-global warming theorists. I haven’t studied the data in full, but initial studies might prove this correct. Not 100% sure tho. With regards to maximum and minimum graphs not being representative of increasing/decreasing temperatures, I solely agree. However the only reason why I analysed this data, was purely to replicate the ABM’s research. The ABM solely use maximum and minimum temperatures to come to their graphs and their conclusions. With limited other research about Australian temperatures, I intended to replicate their data to show that they are right or wrong, only to find vast differences between my and their cinclusions. I agree with you entirely. If we were sure about how storms start etc. we might be able to stop them or at leas predict them with more accuracy. So what we are saying is that even if global warming exists or not, we still don’t really know if we’ll see an increase or decrease in cyclones/storms. So when the alarmists say hurricane Katrina and others are global warming and the amount of damage such storms create, and how we should sto CO2 levels to stop the storms, this is ludicrous, considering our knowledge of this area is extremely limited. Understand completely, kinda like the butterfly effect. Could well be. Something of which I tend to analyse. Eg. Despite Australia’s storm rate decreasing over recent years, and temperatures, I shall argue, as being constant, I have yet to analyse wind factors and other related energy factors which I will do. Once again, this says nothing about the world status, but only Australia. This is completely different from what the public view as the norm yes? Increased temperatures, increased droughts, more cyclones and storms – that’s generally what is reported not just by the media but also by the scientists. But increased energy? Not the case. Even if you are right, and I am not one to prove that you are not, doesn’t this mean that because we have extremely limited data on the area, that we should not rush to go and spend billions apon billions of dollars on something that we are only relying on a very very very small piece of data? I agree completely. Anyone can lie through interpretation and analysis of data. That is for sure. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. It happens regularly. But if you set out exactly the methods of your analysis, the data of the source, and open the floor for replication work and discussion, then it is far from producing evidence out of nowhere. Well see my point above about questionable analysis. My next few stages of analysis are definitely not questionable where I look at the average temperature at certain times of the day throughout Australia over 150 years. Thanks again for your in depth constructive criticism and informative debate/discussion.

insane_alien, seriously, that's such a shame. I would suggest that you read this thread in full. In it you will find my link to the data that I use (at the ABM - Austrlia's government run metoerology company), you will also find the reason for me analysing only Australian data, you will also find there why my analysis is of the temperature data is better than an average climate scientist and once you've read that entire thread, then please don't ask questions that ave already been asked and answered. I however will ask you this question: "you claim to be a statisticiam but your skewing the data." Can you tell me how I am skewing the data? Much appreciated.

I agree with you bascule, however I'm not stating that the entire climate science community is wrong at all. I am not analysing the global temperatures, just Australias where limited research has been made in temperature trends in comparison with the rest of the world. It could well be that the world is heating up, but Australia isn't. I haven't done the analysis on this. But my analysis suggests that Australia isn't heating up. So it's either the ABM or me wrong. And either the ABM or me right. I could possibly be wrong, and I'm more than happy if someone proves to me that is the case.

great response Edtharan, at last someone who is willing to discuss the issues with an open mind, no character assassination, and logic reasoning. Hallelujah. I agree with you on the maximum and minimums not being representative of whether Australia is warming up or not. I agree 100%. But the only reason I did those graphs was because this is what the ABM produce to say that Australia is warming up. My analysis to come looks at standard temperatures around Australia at a fixed time, eg 3pm or 9am etc. We shall see the results of that shortly. As for harvesting, yes I of course am well aware of that, but I was actually referring to harvesting temperature increases, not the side effects of it, never mind. I fully understand that storms are complex. But as a statistician, I cannot say how or why they occur. I can only analyse the frequency and intensity of them. Research suggests, and even the ABM suggest as well, that in terms of cyclones in Australia, these have been decreasing in the last 50 years: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/false-optimism.html With regards to drier weather, hotter weather and doughts, obviously places will increase in rainfall, and decrease in rainfall due to random variation. That is precisely what my study looks to investigate. As far as droughts go, it is true that some of Australia is suffering a drought, that like you said, has lasted around 5 years. However I have proven that Australia’s rainfall has not decreased over the past 100 years, and areas that are dryer than normal have not decreased, as have areas that are wetter. One drought area that I looked at (Finley) http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/big-finley-dry.html, where rainfall has been 10mm less than normal per month over the past 5 years, I argue is no different to records of the past, but is simply a case of random variation. There is no significant decreasing trend of rainfall in that period. Whilst I have/getting data on wind rates due to global warming. I was unaware that wind rates would increase (apart from when people say that storms/cyclones etc. will increase, which has been disproved). Can you point me to some data or research on this? Also as far as Australia goes. As a statistician, I can only work with the data that I have. Naturally I cannot extrapolate to say that what happens in Australia will occur around the world. But I can give analysis and conclusions based on Australia’s weather records in relation to temperature/wind/rainfall etc. Give me the world’s data, and I’ll analyze that too. Whether or not the same conclusions will be drawn, who knows. Thanks again Edtharan for your response.

Because they differ significantly from my analysis. You can quote world wide statistics if you wish, but I am only looking at Australian data. You can say, and I agree, that looking at maximum and minimum values within a certian time frame is not an ideal mechanism to look at how Australia is heating or cooling and I agree. But the fact is, is that this is what the ABM do on their graphs on their website. They even told me that their "overall" temperature graph is a combination of the maximum and minimum monthly temperatures for the stations. Something I don't find as a reasonable assessment. I would believe that analysing temperatures at certain times of the day, eg. 3pm, or 9am, or other times and testing the differences between them would be more accurate to see if Australia or even certain parts of it are warming up. This I have done and will produce the results in due time. As for how my analysis was done here it is: Data is taken from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM). The ABM divide Australia into a number of rainfall districts as shown here For our analysis we took one weather station from each district. The chosen weather station was one that had weather predictions up to the current date and also had results that went back the furthest in time. This resulted in 102 weather stations in total. On occasions, where a certain long lasting weather stations stopped and another one took its place on the previous stations ending, both stations were taken in the sample. The analysis however in this instance still treats these two stations as two independent weather stations, and analysis is done separately on both. Following this, weather stations on islands and the 2 stations on Antarctica were removed from the sample as it was estimated that they might not represent Australia as accurately as possible. Due to information regarding urban heating, stations that had approx. 100,000 people or more were removed from the sample as well, and we were left with 82 weather stations around Australia to use. From each these stations the average monthly temperature (or rainfall etc.) was calculated from the time the measurements started until current. Hence we have different average temperatures per month per station (eg. The average temperature in KALUMBURU in January, the average temperature in KALUMBURU in February etc.). From these averages we calculated the deviations from the mean for every month of every year for each station. These were then summed to get the average deviation from the mean for every station for every year. The average deviation for all stations was then recorded and this is shown in the graphs and analysis. Variables at this stage included in the analysis are Average Maximum and Minimum Temperature, Aver Temperature at 9am and 3pm, and Average Rainfall per month.

point noted of course. But I can test statistically for quality of temperature records...

Temperature data. That's it. Can you tell me how my analysis of maximum and minimum temperature data is wrong? Otherwise please stop with the character assassination and accept the analysis.

Already done. As I said previously, it is the combination of residuals from minimum and maximum temperatures. That's it. And pre 1910 data being sparse? The number of stations was less that's for sure, but the number of recordings per station was as good as now. Only good statisticians would be able to utilise this data.