Australia is not warming up: stats prove it

[JonathanLowe]

My website:

 

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

 

sets out to prove that in Australia, number and magnitude of cyclones are not related to global warming, Australia’s current drought has nothing to do with global warming, and shortly on my webpage I will prove that Australia’s temperatures have in fact not increased at all in the last 20-150 years.

 

This is by analyzing data as provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

 

Cheers

Jonathan Lowe

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you also trying to disprove global warming in general?

 

You may have forgotten that it is predicted that parts of the world (like Europe) will get colder as global warming takes effect.

[insane_alien]

just cos a part of the world isn't warming up doesn't mean that the world as a whole isn't. its a bit like looking at a rain drop suspended by an updraft and assuming that ALL raindrops are at that moment being suspended by updrafts.

[DaveC426913]

Stats don't "prove" anything.

 

 

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

- Mark Twain

[bascule]

This is by analyzing data as provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

 

Extrapolating present averages into future trends is a great example of the misapplication of static analysis.

 

If you're going to disagree with climate scientists, you should probably save yourself from looking sophomoric and find another climate scientist who also disagrees. His reasoning is going to be a hell of a lot better than yours.

[ecoli]

Interesting trend, I suppose Australia has more pirates than the rest of the world.

[Gilded]

ecoli might be on to something. As everyone knows, global warming is inversely proportional to the amount of pirates. Thus a high concentration of pirates in one place might actually overcome the warming in said area, while other areas suffer from a deprivation of these jolly swashbuckling and rum drinking chaps.

[JonathanLowe]

Hmm firstly, I have never extrapolated in my analysis at all.

Secondly, "stats" is the the basis of almost all scientific work, and prove, well, almost everything.

Thirdly, I'm not trying to disprove anything, just analysing Australias temperatures over past 150 years, only to conclude that Australia is not warming.

Fourthy, I didn't realise that global warming will produce cool temperatures (what the???)

Fifthly, I know that if Austrlaia isn't warming up than the rest of the world isn't. I'm not analysing global temperatures, just Australias

 

and lastly, there could well be lots of pirates down under. I'll have to check.

[bascule]

Hmm firstly, I have never extrapolated in my analysis at all.

 

Could you please link to the CV and papers of the scientists whose analysis you're quoting then? Because it seems to me you're doing your own analysis of the raw data. If that's the case, could you please link to your CV?

 

Secondly, "stats" is the the basis of almost all scientific work, and prove, well, almost everything.

 

Yes, amazing what kinds of projections static analysis of present trends will yield:

 

 

Behold, an infinite-bladed razor by 2015!

 

Thirdly, I'm not trying to disprove anything, just analysing Australias temperatures over past 150 years, only to conclude that Australia is not warming.

 

Your government disagrees:

 

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/

 

Australian average temperatures have risen by 0.7 ºC over the last century, and the warming trend appears to have emerged from the background of natural climate variability in the second half of the 20th century.

 

Do you care to explain the origin of this disparity between what you say and what your government says?

 

Fourthy, I didn't realise that global warming will produce cool temperatures (what the???)

 

This leads me to seriously question your background on this topic.

[JonathanLowe]

It seems to me you're doing your own analysis of the raw data. If that's the case, could you please link to your CV?

 

> I dont have my CV online. However my credentials are BSc (hons) MSc

 

 

Yes, amazing what kinds of projections static analysis of present trends will yield:

 

> I have not projected anything in my analysis. Have you not read my website?

 

 

 

Your government disagrees:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/

Do you care to explain the origin of this disparity between what you say and what your government says?

 

> I am meerly analysing the data. The data as provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 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. The analysis I give is unbiased in every degree. Can you prove that my analysis is misguided? If not, then perhaps the opinions of the government is wrong due to the fact that they are relying on unrelyable data.

 

 

This leads me to seriously question your background on this topic.

 

> Perhaps you can elighten me? The idea of man made global warming is exactly that. Global warming and increasing temperatures. Some people proclaim that this will make increased variability of temperature, from massive highs to freezing lows. The variability of temperature claim has no scientific evidence of occuring.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps you can elighten me? The idea of man made global warming is exactly that. Global warming and increasing temperatures. Some people proclaim that this will make increased variability of temperature, from massive highs to freezing lows. The variability of temperature claim has no scientific evidence of occuring.

Really? It is predicted that the North Atlantic "conveyor belt" current (the one that brings warm water to Europe, and thus keeps it warmer than it would otherwise be) would shut down as a result of global warming and glacial runoff, therefore stopping the supply of warm water to Europe and making it much colder.

 

I'd also like to note that your website there seems to be rather silly:

Wikipedia, the source of 100% factual scientific theory...hmmm....says that a possible cause for the increased mist surrounding the Niagra Falls is global warming. What the?

If you read, they gave a perfect explanation for that in the article.

God Holy Moses! So does this mean that the temperature is going to increase so much that the temperature will decrease? I don’t want to be snap frozen either! Someone save me from this intense freezing cold heat wave.

Please do your research before making these claims.

 

I'm not sure I trust your analysis if you don't fully understand global warming or what it entails, and if you can't do some basic research.

[JonathanLowe]

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

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[bascule]

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.

 

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, therefore you have the burden of proof in convincing us.

 

I am meerly analysing the data.

 

Are you remotely qualified to do that?

 

However my credentials are BSc (hons) MSc

 

In what? I certainly hope atmospheric/climate science is your answer.

 

The data as provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

 

And yet the Australian government's conclusions contradict your own.

 

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?

 

The analysis I give is unbiased in every degree.

 

Unfortunately, as you are using your own government's data yet contradicting your conclusions, I get the feeling this isn't the case.

 

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.

 

Here's a timeseries graph of mean temperatures in Australia, straight from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

 

 

An overall warming trend is quite obvious. Even more so in the SST graph:

 

 

I'm afraid I have to conclude you're full of shit.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[bascule]

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

 

Yet you have absolutely no background in atmospheric or climate science whatsoever

 

If you read my website...

 

Your primary concern seems to be drawing traffic to your web site

 

ABM's graphs go from 1910 when temperature readings were taken 50 years before this. Why are these not on the graph?

 

Clearly the ABM is engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public by delibrately withholding this information.

 

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?

 

Since you've provided no source for this information whatsoever I have no desire to pursue this line of reasoning. Can you base your arguments on publically available information, as opposed to basing them on information no one can verify?

 

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.

 

The warming trend in the first half of the 20th century was brought on by a decrease in volcanic activity which brought about a decrease in reflective sulfate aerosols, lowering earth's albedo and changing its radiative imbalance. The leveling off period you describe follows a transitional period where these trends reversed and anthropogenic forcings took over as the primary drivers of climate change.

 

Perhaps you should undergo some basic climate science education before you attempt to analyze climactic data.

 

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.

 

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

 

Listen, there's nothing I hate more than people throwing up a smokescreen of open-ended questions. That's not reasoning, that's merely deception. You're using the same approaches any conspiracy theorist would use to try to lead people to particular conclusions, that is, not giving reasons, merely speculating in the form of questions.

 

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.

 

How convenient, your argument is once again based on data we can't verify.

 

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.

 

And again, your motive seems to be: READ MY BLOG! This is a discussion forum. If you're going to show up here just to advertise your blog, the least you could do is actually discuss your claims. Otherwise you're just spamming.

 

So just because I and the ABM have different conclusions about the data you choose to completly ignore my agruement?

 

Yes, you're:

 

1) contradicting the entire scientific establishment

2) won't provide the data you're using to reach your conclusions, or come to the same conclusions based off publically available data

3) refuse to argue any points, instead deferring to your blog any time I raise any sort of concerns.

 

Prove me wrong, otherwise I shall assume to be correct.

 

Okay, you've made the claim: "Australia is not warming up: stats prove it"

 

Will you actually defend that claim, or are you just here to get people to read your blog?

 

I've linked data which directly contradicts your claim. Your answer: read my blog.

 

Sorry, I'm not going to go through your blog trying to extract a relevant counterclaim. You wrote your blog... how about you do that for me?

 

You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. Trying to shift the burden or proof onto me is a logical fallacy, and if you fail to substantiate your claims you've already lost the argument.

[JonathanLowe]

Yet you have absolutely no background in atmospheric or climate science whatsoever

 

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.

 

Your primary concern seems to be drawing traffic to your web site

 

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?

 

Clearly the ABM is engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public by delibrately withholding this information.

 

Well I am amazed at how my results are different from them. I shall be contacting them in person soon.

 

Since you've provided no source for this information whatsoever I have no desire to pursue this line of reasoning. Can you base your arguments on publically available information, as opposed to basing them on information no one can verify?

 

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/

 

Listen, there's nothing I hate more than people throwing up a smokescreen of open-ended questions. That's not reasoning, that's merely deception. You're using the same approaches any conspiracy theorist would use to try to lead people to particular conclusions, that is, not giving reasons, merely speculating in the form of questions.

 

Conspiracy theorist dont do scientific analysis, which I have done.

 

How convenient, your argument is once again based on data we can't verify.

 

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.

 

Yes, you're:

 

1) contradicting the entire scientific establishment

2) won't provide the data you're using to reach your conclusions, or come to the same conclusions based off publically available data

3) refuse to argue any points, instead deferring to your blog any time I raise any sort of concerns.

 

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:

 

 

Okay, you've made the claim: "Australia is not warming up: stats prove it"

 

Will you actually defend that claim, or are you just here to get people to read your blog?

 

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.

[JonathanLowe]

[Edtharan]

The term "Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. Global warming does not mean higher temperatures. What it means is that due to the warmth from the sun being trapped within the atmosphere and oceans, there will be more energy in the system, which will increase temperatures in some locations.

 

This extra energy can show up in various way: Increase in storms, changes in ocean curents, drier weather, wetter weather, and yes higher temperatures.

 

Just because ther has not been an increased temperature, does not mean that there is not any effect from this increased eneergy in the system. The Ocean is an integral part of our atmosphere (and it helps to think of it as a very dense layer of the atmosphere) and it can store a lot of energy in it.

 

The ocean also has a "conveyer" system that transports water from one part of an ocean to another. These coveyer curents can move warmer water from near the tropics to nearer the north pole, passed europe and england. It is this particular curent that give England its slighty warmer weather (and also its rain and fogs).

 

This conveyer curent occures because cooler water in the north atlantic sinks (because it is more dense) and the water else where (near the tropics) is pulled in to replace it (it is really much more complex than this but it is a simplified description of it). If for some reason this cooler water did not sink, for example it was more fresh from the melt water from the Arctic, then it would shut down this conveyer curent. Scince no warm water from the equator would be then moved along the coast of europe, thes would cause a drop in temperature in europe.

 

Now to really complicate things:

 

There is an effect called global cooling. This is caused by an increase in atmospheric polutents scattering sunlight out of the atmosphere. This has been preventing sunlight reaching the surface and therefore it has not been trapped by the atmosphere. Recently we have been cutting back on atmospheric polutents that would scatter this sunlight away from the surface of the earth. Now that this is occureing, the sunlight is reaching the surface and therfore being trapped by the atmosphere.

 

So in the past ther has been a close balance between the sunlight being trapped by greenhouse gasses and the effects of Global Cooling. But now we have stopped the production of the atmospheric polutents that are causeing Global Cooling, so we should see, in recent times, an increse in global warming (global atmospheric and ocianic energy levels).

[JonathanLowe]

The term "Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. Global warming does not mean higher temperatures. What it means is that due to the warmth from the sun being trapped within the atmosphere and oceans, there will be more energy in the system, which will increase temperatures in some locations.

 

Energy Seriously??? Maybe we can harvest it.

 

This extra energy can show up in various way: Increase in storms

 

mm nope. No extra storms: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/false-optimism.html

 

changes in ocean curents

 

El Nino right?

 

drier weather

 

Hmm....nope: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-rain-in-wet-less-rain-in-dry.html

 

wetter weather

 

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

 

 

and yes higher temperatures.

 

Well no. (see previous post).

 

Any other side effects that global warming casuses?

[ecoli]

The above post is a perfect example why studying global warming should be left to the climotologists.

 

JonathanLowe: what's the point in analyzing statistics when you can't even explain your statistics on real phenomenon. You seem suprized to learn about relatively simple climitological effects that any Environmental science person learns in an undergraduate course.

 

I also find it amusing that you seem to think that Australia is isolated from the rest of the world. You are commiting the composition fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

 

Just because you don't see an effect in Australia (ie. wetter weather, increased storms) doesn't mean that it isn't happening elsewhere or that it won't indirectly effect Australia.

 

So just because I and the ABM have different conclusions about the data you choose to completly ignore my agruement?

You have yet to make an argument that displays knowledge of how global warming actually works.

 

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.

There was no ad hom commited. He wasn't attacking you, just your arguments and your credentials for making these arguments.

 

Prove me wrong, otherwise I shall assume to be correct.

Unfortunately for for (and fortunately for science) this isn't how things are done, in any peer-reviewed journal and this science forum. If you are so sure that your arguments are valid, why don't you submit them a decent journal and see what happens?

 

Using this logic, I can make all matter of claims pretending that I have science to back them up. I can say that I'm actually a half-chicken half-human hybrid with super-human intelligence. How do I know? It's just a matter of intepreting the data. After all, both chickens and humans are alive, I am alive, therefore I am both a chicken and a human. I have super-human intellegence because I am smarter than my three year old sister who happens to be a human.

See? That's proof right there. I'll give you all the details of my detailed statistical proofs about my real identity if you go to my webstie and buy my book.

What? You don't want to buy my book? Oh well, if you don't buy my book, you can't prove me wrong. Therefore, I am right.

[mike90]

1) Australia is not the only place on the planet. Just because not every possible effect of global warming is happening theredoes not mean it is not happening on the planet period.

 

2) Yes you are good with numbers, thus making you good with statistics we get it. That in no way means you know how to interpret those statistics correctly. The very fact that you relate every claim to australia as if its indicative of the entire rest of the world alone shows you do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to do so.

 

3) Bascule is entirely correct in saying that you have in no way proven anything so far, and you dodge every question with either " go read my blog" or just your own opinion, which doesn't seem based on anything factual or any knowledge of the subject on an even basic level.

 

4) One more time just to be clear, its Global Warming, not Australia Warming and as Edtharan mentioned, its more to do with weather abnormalities in general then just the temperature.

[bascule]

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.

 

And you're using average monthly maximum temperatures as a metric for what? Assessing a warming trend?

 

Why is this a more effective metric than an annual mean? How is it even remotely relevant to the question?

[bascule]

Unfortunately for for (and fortunately for science) this isn't how things are done, in any peer-reviewed journal and this science forum. If you are so sure that your arguments are valid, why don't you submit them a decent journal and see what happens?

 

He'd probably argue that journals are deliberately withholding data to argue for a warming trend

[insane_alien]

link to some independant and scientific sources or forever be dismissed as a crock. you only link to your blog. we have no assurances of its scientific accuracy and you seemed surprised when edtharan said global warming increased the energy in a system. i conclude from that last that you have no idea what effects global warming can have and therefore no way in which to accurately interpret the data. besides your only looking at one tiny tiny variable amongst a whole mishmash of variables.

 

have you looked at the occurences of storms, rainfall, changes in ocean currents, changes of salinity in the oceans?

how about humidity, evapouration rates, cloud formation, wind speeds?

these are all affected by increased energy in the system.