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.

Whilst there is insufficient evidence to prove that we are warming up during the day, there is good evidence to prove that our nights are getting warmer. Given on the left is the average monthly Minimum temperature deviations from the norm. We had some pretty freezing nights from 1870 to 1910 and some pretty average nights up until the mid 1970s. After that the minimum time shot up about 0.27 degrees until now. Global Warming advocates will prove this as evidence for global warming, and indeed it does look as though Australia’s minimum temperatures are in fact warming up. What is interesting (despite the moving average), of the sudden increase in temperature at the mid 1970s. From 1970 to current, there has been no statistically significant increase in temperature (F = 0.87, p = 0.357). This might well be because the data set of 30 years is pretty small, but it also might be because the average monthly minimum temperature in Australia is not increasing from when it shot up in the mid 1970s. Whether or not increased night temperatures will have any influence on crops and all the problems that global warming alarmists say, I’m not sure. But personally I welcome a warmer night, well as long as I don’t live near the equator! We will go more in depth, looking at states, and individual stations with regards to the mean monthly maximum and minimum graphs given here. But firstly I want to ask you, despite these two graphs, and the fact that these are the same and only types of graphs that the ABM use to prove an increase in temperature, are these the correct way to see if Australia is warming up? Most people would say yes, what are the other options? Well let me give you an example. Suppose we wanted to compare two days and see which one was hotter. We take temperature readings every hour. We could compare the two smallest minimum temperatures readings and the two maximum temperature readings to see which is hotter. Or we could compare what the temperature was at the same time of the day between the two. Eg, which day was hotter at 3pm, and at 9am, and at 1pm? If we keep the variable constant as to the time that we take the measurements, then we will get a lot better understanding as to which day was actually hotter. Can we do this with Australian temperature data? You bet.

The ABM give a graph outlining the annual mean temperature. On speak to teh ABM, this graph is a composition of the minimum and maximum temperatures found from their stations and the deviations from the mean of 1961 to 1990 of it. Hence, their average mean temperature graph is just using the mean and maximum temperatures. I am sure despite me proving no gain in mean maximum temperatures in Australia, you will be pleased with my analysis on mean minimum temperatures which shows an increase of late.

honestly, either do I

- ecoli I agree with you, and it is my intension to write a journal paper about this. - I know and understand Australia is not the only place on the planet. My data only looks at australian warming and have never said that it is not warming elsewhere. - I have never said that my analytical statistics relate to the rest of the world - Nothing proven? did you not see the graph of the mean monthly maximum temperatures in Australia? - One more time to be clear mike90, my analysis is involved with Australia only. That is the study that I am doing. - bascule, average monthly maximum's and minimums is exactly what the ABM use to prove that Australia is warming up. I have studied these two variables as well as many more that the ABM don't use. This is jus the first results of that analysis. - insane_alien, have you looked at the occurences of storms (yes - http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/false-optimism.html, no significant increase), rainfall (yes - http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-it-worst-drought-on-record.html, no significant decrease or increase), changes in ocean currents (no), changes of salinity in the oceans? (no, that information is not given by the ABM and hence the data cannot be analysed) - how about humidity, evapouration rates, cloud formation, wind speeds? (have not analysed these yet, but have the data for them and will be analysing them)

Energy Seriously??? Maybe we can harvest it. mm nope. No extra storms: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/false-optimism.html El Nino right? Hmm....nope: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-rain-in-wet-less-rain-in-dry.html Damn it. No again. That's not happening in Australia: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-rain-in-wet-less-rain-in-dry.html Well no. (see previous post). Any other side effects that global warming casuses?

yes that is correct. I am a statistician. A statistician would analyze data better and more accurately than any climate scientist. That’s what statisticians do, they analyze data and are experts at doing so. When I was working at university, we received lots of data from all sorts of fields for us to analyze. People send us the data for us to analyze because we are the best at doing it. You don’t need a professional background in the area of study when you have the data. In fact, any times it can be a hinder ant. Statisticians, not climate scientists are the best at analyzing the data. Full stop. Well no, my primary concern is to do the analysis, and after that to tell people about what I have found. Would you want to? Well I am amazed at how my results are different from them. I shall be contacting them in person soon. How many times do I have to tell you. The data is from the ABM. That is my source. They do not have their data for free use on their website. Feel free to go here and purchase them yourself: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/how/ Conspiracy theorist dont do scientific analysis, which I have done. Buy the data and prove me wrong. Hell I'll even ask the ABM if I can pass the data onto other people, but the fact is you don't want to know what the data says, you want to believe what you believe. 1) Point me, apart from the ABM to anyone else who has studied long term Australian Temperature Data? Anyone? 2) I'd love to provide it, but not sure if I can. In fact, I'm happy to email them to you, give me your email address 3) as below: Analysis: Given on the left (graph to come, can't get it to post) is Australia’s Deviation form the mean of Average Monthly Maximum Temperatures. The pattern in it is startling and obvious. Since 1868 we have had a decreasing maximum temperature in Australia. This trend continued to decrease until about 1960, and from then until about the year 2000 the temperature remained relatively constant. It is quite clear from this graph why scientists in the 60s and 70s were warning of the earth possibly going into another ice age. If temperatures kept decreasing then who knows what might happen. Fortunately it didn’t, and the next 30 years so an evening out process where maximum temperatures were scattered around the mean. What is certain, is that the past 5 years have seen a higher maximum temperature than normal, around 0.7 degrees higher. But this is of course only 5 years. The heatwaves of 1875 to 1886 recorded 0.9 degrees above normal over 12 years. 8 years of heat from 1895 to 1907 produced 0.6 degrees above normal on average. Just after the second world war we had 12 years in a row of lower than average maximum temperatures. Such departures from the mean are in fact normal and occur largely due to random variation. If the increase in temperatures in the past 5 years is due to human CO2 activity, then how were the temperatures pre 1900 just as hot if not hotter? The cyclic nature of this graph seems to be obvious, although it must be noted that there is not enough data to prove that statistically. It is quite true, that from around 1950 temperatures have been increasing. So much so, that if one only had the data in the last 60 years there would be ample evidence that we are in a hotting up Australia. But with more data, comes more evidence. What is interesting is the graphs that the ABM give. They for starters don’t show a decreasing temperature trend from 1910 to 1960. There is a lot of scientific evidence out there that the decrease in temperature was pretty global and there were a lot of fears that we were entering a stage of global cooling. Why doesn’t the ABM graph show this? Mine does! There are two reasons why I can guess that the ABM have only data from 1910, when their records go as far back as the mid 1800s. The first is obvious. I’ve proven that the mean maximum temperatures at this time were even hotter than today. Why would the ABM want to show this? This would prove that humans are not the cause of global warming and it is just a normal natural variation. The other reason might be that they conclude that the earlier data was not very reliable. My analysis suggest that as well, that the years from 1858 to 1868 is very unreliable data, but from then on, it is very comparable with today’s (more on that later). So given it’s reliability I have to go back to my original claim that the ABM don’t want to show the world that Australia was once hotter than it is today. My opinions and analysis is totally unbiased. So much so that I will in fact give evidence for a warming up Australia tomorrow when we look at average minimum temperatures. But one thing is for sure form this analysis, that humans are not the cause of increased average maximum temperatures in Australia. Period.

bascule, it's people like you that unfortunetly I have to mess with in proving myself. Let me answer your questions. Quote: I am meerly analysing the data. > Are you remotely qualified to do that? Yes see the next question Quote: However my credentials are BSc (hons) MSc >In what? I certainly hope atmospheric/climate science is your answer. Bsc with double major is Psychology and Mathematical Statistics. Hons in Mathematical Statistics. Masters in Mathematical Statistcs. My first 2 years of my Phd were in Mathematical Statistics. So as you can see, I am very qualified for analysing data. In fact, if anyone was to analyse simple rain/temperature data it should be a qualified statistician - which surprisingly is what I am Quote: The data as provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. > And yet the Australian government's conclusions contradict your own. The goverment's conclusions are based on the ABM's and other scientists analysis of the temperature data. Whislt my conclusions condradict the governments, this is only because my analysis contradicts the ABM's. If you read my website you would see (and the graphs that you posted that are also on my website) that the ABM's graphs go from 1910 when temperature readings were taken 50 years before this. Why are these not on the graph? This is because the temperature at these times were actually hotter than now. Don't you think it's strange that the ABM left these out in their graphs? I also find it strange that, on those graphs that you post (also on my website), that the increase is so constantly increasing, when, in the mid60s/70s there was a global cooling scare and news that the global temperature was decreasing. This I have also proven was the case in Australia, and has since increased in temperature. But the ABM's graphs show none of this. Could it be that it is important for the ABM to show graphs that prove that we are warming up? That would make their case very important. Quote: This data is what all scientists as well as governments alike are basing their information, like that webpage on. If they get their information from bad analysis of data, then their opinion on it will also be bad. > Have you ever considered that perhaps the scientists your government has hired to analyze that data could be right, and you could be wrong? Of course. We are all after finding the truth, and until someone can prove to me that my analysis is wrong, then I think otherwise. Fact is, simple analysis of temperature data is not very hard at all. I see no problems with my analysis. Quote: Can you prove that my analysis is misguided? > Well, to start with, you don't cite the sources of any of your data. For example, you claim the graph you use to make your claims about an overall cooling trend in Australia comes from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, but are actually linked off http://www.sportpunter.com which is anything but a credible source of climactic data. The sportpunter website is actually mine, that I run and is my full time job. Hence I meerly just uploaded the graphs there. The data as I have said, and continue to say many times was given to me from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology. I would give the data for you to have a look at, so that you check my analysis, but it cost me $34 and I'm not sure that the ABM would like it if I were to disperse of it. I've seen those graphs and even put them on my blog. You must have missed them. I don't think you have even read it. My whole point is saying that my analysis of the data comes to different conclusions than the ABM. >I'm afraid I have to conclude you're full of shit. So just because I and the ABM have different conclusions about the data you choose to completly ignore my agruement? Geez, what kind of one-eyed scientist are you. Give me a break! I'm surprised that I even bothered to reply to your character assasination arguements. Prove me wrong, otherwise I shall assume to be correct.

But after all, I am just analysing Australian Data, and unless you can prove my analysis to be unreliable - which I'm sure you can't, as the data comes straight from the ABM, then you will ahve to agree with me that global warming has not had any impact in Australia. There is not a case for warming in Australia.

There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localised cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Ireland, Scandinavia, and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. The chances of this occurring are unclear; there is some evidence for the stability of the Gulf Stream and possible weakening of the North Atlantic drift. There is, however, no evidence for cooling in northern Europe or nearby seas; quite the reverse. so in other words, who knows