Australia is not warming up: stats prove it

[JonathanLowe]

- 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)

[ecoli]

Perhaps you could explain how climate scientists in Australia could so inteprete their information so poorly so that they obtained results nearly opposite of what you seemed to have gotten. I don't understand (perhaps because I'm not a statitician) how something as simple as average temperature for a continent could have gotten so messed up.

[bascule]

- bascule, average monthly maximum's and minimums is exactly what the ABM use to prove that Australia is warming up.

 

They do? Where? Why does your analysis completely omit the annual mean temperature, particularly annual mean SSTs, both of which give clear indications of a warming trend and are by far the best metric you can use (in regard to temperature) to assess trends.

 

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.

 

I'm not saying max and min temperatures should be overlooked (and I don't know why you're using monthly as opposed to annual maximums) but it seems you completely ignore annual mean temperatures.

 

And, again, the trend is clear:

 

 

[JonathanLowe]

Perhaps you could explain how climate scientists in Australia could so inteprete their information so poorly so that they obtained results nearly opposite of what you seemed to have gotten. I don't understand (perhaps because I'm not a statitician) how something as simple as average temperature for a continent could have gotten so messed up.

 

honestly, either do I

[JonathanLowe]

They do? Where? Why does your analysis completely omit the annual mean temperature, particularly annual mean SSTs, both of which give clear indications of a warming trend and are by far the best metric you can use (in regard to temperature) to assess trends.

 

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.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

 

[bascule]

The ABM had this to say on the non-inclusion of pre-1910 temperature records in their graphs:

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/archive/media02.shtml

 

Note that good quality temperature records prior to 1910 are too sparse to calculate a reliable all-Australian average.

 

(Surprising you didn't note that in your analysis, and instead insisted they were trying to hide something. Perhaps it's an indicative of your overall absence of climate science knowledge)

 

Furthermore...

 

On speak to teh ABM

 

(English motherf*cker, do you speak it?)

 

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.

 

Well, since you're in contact with them, perhaps you should ask them for their specific methodology in estimating the nationwide annual mean surface temperature. This should be a composite of the data from all stations.

 

I think what you really need to do is get in touch with a climate science researcher and have them educate you on how the annual mean surface temperature is actually calculated. It really seems like you don't have a clear understanding, as you're evaluating metrics which are unrelated to the argument you wish to present.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's no need for expletives and insults.

 

 

Regarding the question of who would be best to analyze the data: Sure, a statistician would be great, but it's best if they understand what they're analyzing fully.

[bascule]

Regarding the question of who would be best to analyze the data: Sure, a statistician would be great, but it's best if they understand what they're analyzing fully.

 

That really seems to be the fundamental problem here: I don't think he understands what metrics he should be utilizing to corroborate his argument that "Australia is not warming up: stats prove it"

[JonathanLowe]

Well, since you're in contact with them, perhaps you should ask them for their specific methodology in estimating the nationwide annual mean surface temperature. This should be a composite of the data from all stations.

 

I think what you really need to do is get in touch with a climate science researcher and have them educate you on how the annual mean surface temperature is actually calculated. It really seems like you don't have a clear understanding, as you're evaluating metrics which are unrelated to the argument you wish to present.

 

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.

[JonathanLowe]

That really seems to be the fundamental problem here: I don't think he understands what metrics he should be utilizing to corroborate his argument that "Australia is not warming up: stats prove it"

 

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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

Note the site bascule quoted said "good quality temperature records", not just "temperature records."

[bascule]

Already done. As I said previously, it is the combination of residuals from minimum and maximum temperatures. That's it.

 

No, that's not it. There have been literally thousands of scientific papers written on this particular subject, and the issue has been highly contentious. The underlying problem is that temperature data is all that's available in estimating a net energy balance (or more specifically, a radiative imbalance). However, you're looking only at monthly maximum temperatures. There is no way to go from monthly maximum temperatures to a regional net energy balance. The proper metric for this sort of diagnosis is, of course, heat, not temperature, but since specific data regarding regional heating is not available temperature must be used in its stead.

 

Temperature data. That's it.

 

No, that's far from "it". Your analysis overlooks the overall warming or cooling trend, instead focusing on monthly extremes.

 

Can you tell me how my analysis of maximum and minimum temperature data is wrong?

 

You're not looking at the right data whatsoever. Please outline your specific methodology, the types of data you are analyzing, what analysis you're performing, and specifically how that can be used as an assement of a regional radiative imbalance.

 

I mean, I don't know how much simpler I can put this... your argument contains an enormous non-sequitur fallacy. Here's the way I see it:

 

There is no progressive trend in maximum monthly temperatures over the past 100 years -> ??? -> There is no progressive warming trend in Australia

 

Can you answer the question: how can trends in monthly extremes be used to make assessments of the regional radiative imbalance? That would correct the non-sequitur fallacy in your argument.

 

This belies your contradiction of the agency from whence you derive your data, an intergovernmetnal panel on climate change, and the efforts of the worldwide climate science community. Australian data is used in countless GCMs worldwide.

 

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.

 

Since you haven't even begun to calculate your own values for the annual mean surface temperature, or even provided a methodology for doing so (besides in terms which are thoroughly insufficient for the problem at hand), I don't think you really understand the problem well enough to give an opinion.

 

Futhermore, the cooling trend towards the end of the 19th century is well-established. Nobody is trying to cover it up:

 

 

If you wish to make your case, you should thoroughly outline the reasoning behind your methodology for analyzing a regional warming or cooling trend. That seems to be the basest of the problems with your arguments.

 

To summarize: You're using the wrong metrics. This appears to be because you don't understand radiative imbalance is the cause regional heating/cooling. When others pointed out this basic flaw in your argumentation you were thoroughly confused.

 

The best suggeston I can give is to find a climate scientist to corroborate your claims, then post what they have to offer so that we can discuss it. You are making some rather elementary errors in your analysis by looking at the wrong metrics in order to establish the trends you claim to be arguing exist. When we look at graphs of those trends, they are clear and corroborate the scientific consensus. So far you have given no argument as to why these graphs to not represent the reality of the situation:

 

 

 

Perhaps the best starting point I can think of is: You are claiming these graphs are wrong. What is your reasoning?

[JonathanLowe]

Note the site bascule quoted said "good quality temperature records", not just "temperature records."

 

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

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Comparing them against what? Another potentially inaccurate record?

[JonathanLowe]

Perhaps the best starting point I can think of is: You are claiming these graphs are wrong. What is your reasoning?

 

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.

[Edtharan]

I'm no statistician, but even I can see that just looking at Maximums and Minimums can not reveal certain trends.

 

Take these (made up) temperatures as an example:

12, 20, 22, 25, 26

 

Now the Maximum is 26 and the minimum is 12. The average however is 21.

 

Now take these temperatures

12, 21, 23, 25, 26

 

The Maxium and Minumum is the same, but the average is different (being 21.4).

 

Now if all you looked at were the maximum and minimum, then you would not see any change in the average temperature. If these were temperatures from one year to the next, then you would not see any "Global Warming"

 

Energy Seriously??? Maybe we can harvest it.

Yes heat/temerature is caused by an increase in energy. And we can harvest it. We can use wind turbine generators to harvest the extra energy from the wind speed (increased wind is also an effect of increased energy in the atmospheric system), we can use oceanic curents to drive turbines, we can use waves to generate electricity. So yes we can havest it, but the amount of energy we can pull out of the system is so small compared to the extra energy being put into the system, we can not make a significant difference to it (and not all the effects of the extra energy can be harvested).

 

mm nope. No extra storms:

Storms are a very complex atmospheric effect. You would not expect that just increasing the energy levels will always lead to an increase in storm numbers. It can also be an increase in storm serverity, position, direction, wind speed, wind direction, or many other factors involved in storms (it could even show up as increased sizes of raindrops - higher wind speeds keep the drops from falling for longer and so have more time to get bigger). you seen to have an extremely simlistic view on what goes on in the atmosphere.

 

The atmosphere is a chaotic system (not random, but chaotic). If you don't understand chaos theory and how it relates to weather and the atmosphere then you should read up on it as it is an extremely important aspect of weather prediciton.

 

El Nino right?

Well GW could increase the severity of them, the length of them, the frequency that they occure, or it could even reduce all of these.

 

drier weather

Hmm....nope: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/200...in-in-dry.html

It might not be on average, bu some areas might get increased rain fall and other will get lower rain fall as oceanic and atmospheric curents shift, or pick up moisture, etc. Remember if the amount of moisture in the atmosphere remained constant, then for someplaces to dry out other would likely have increased rainfall so the average would remain the same.

 

wetter weather

Damn it. No again. That's not happening in Australia: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/200...in-in-dry.html

Again the average might not change, but that does not mean that it is not happeneing.

 

Any other side effects that global warming casuses?

Changes in wind speed, weather patterns, rise in sea levels, changes in ocean curents, coral bleaching, and more.

 

Essentially Global Warming is not about increased temperatures, but it does mean an increased in atmospheric phenomina, whatever they are. Increased energy into a chaotic (and I mean this in the mathematical sense) system will lead to an increase in that chaos (undpredicatbility, turbulance, etc).

 

You can quote world wide statistics if you wish, but I am only looking at Australian data.

Unfortunately Golabal warming is just that: Global. What occurs in Australia can influence and be influenced by elsewhere in the world.

 

It is the global effect of the increased energy in the atmosphere that is important. It is not much use to point to one location and say: "See, this is not experiencing an increase in temperature, so global warming is therfore not happening."

 

Sure, Australia my not be seeing an increase in maximum or minimum temperatures, but that does not mean that GW is not occureing and these effects are not occureing elsewhere in the world and that they won't have an effect on Australia eventually (or already are).

 

Currently the area in which I live in Australia is experienceing a prolonged drought (it is around 5 years now). Does this mean that it is an effect of global warming?

 

No nessesarily, but it could be. The only solution is to examine it and trace its cause. The fact is that it is an extreme phenomina, but, by its self does not prove or disprove global warming. Only when viewe3d as part of the global situation can it even be put into the correct context for thie nessesary examination.

 

By just looking at Australia proves or disproves nothing. So you needed to re-examine your data in the context of the global system.

[bascule]

Because they differ significantly from my analysis.

 

Okay, there's two possibilities here:

 

1) The climate science community is wrong

2) You are wrong

 

Which is more likely?

 

You haven't calculated an average mean surface temperature. Why don't you try doing that?

 

You haven't outlined what methodology you are using, or intend to use, for calculating average mean surface temperature. I think this is because you don't know how, which is fine, because it's a difficult problem. But the values you are calculating aren't relevant to an annual mean surface temperature, or calculating the regional radiative imbalance.

 

In short, none of the values you've calculated address the topic at hand, which is "Australia is not warming up"

 

You can quote world wide statistics if you wish, but I am only looking at Australian data.

 

Australian data, as well as data all over the world is used for various GCMs and reconstructions. Worldwide statistics are calculated from regional data, because obviously an aggregate of worldwide data is how you calculate global trends. So it's not like the only people analyzing Australian data are Australians. Australia is relevant to the global climate, and Australian data is used by climate science researchers worldwide.

 

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're certainly doing it differently than you. They're calculating the annual mean surface temperature. Why aren't you, especually when you agree that your metrics are insufficient and inappropriate?

 

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.

 

Why don't you ask them for their specific methodology? Or look up a specific methodology for analyzing regional annual means? Your argument is filled with generalities from which you draw conclusions when you lack sufficient information to reach them.

 

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.

 

Why? You seem to think monthly maximum temperatures are an appropriate metric. By that methodology you'd assess a warming trend if 29 days were -30C and one day was 120C, when the monthly mean would be higher if every day were 60C. You claim to be a MSc statistician, yet your statistical methodology is horribly flawed.

 

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.

 

Why aren't you using all the stations? Do you realistically believe you have sufficient coverage to calculate regional averages?

 

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

 

So your solution to the urban heat island problem is to remove the stations?

 

It sounds like you're omitting a substantial amount of data from your analysis. Have you calculated the resulting error margin in your results, and if so, what is it?

 

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.).

 

Why aren't you calculating the annual mean from all available stations?

 

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.

 

It sounds to me like your analysis is plagued by arbitrary decisions which skewed your results. No climate scientist would solve the urban heat island problem by omitting the stations entirely!

 

Your insistance that you don't need a climate science background to analyze climate data is simply incorrect. You really need to read what climate researchers have to say on things like the urban heat island problem and computation of regional mean surface temperatures. Given your completely arbitrary methodology, it's no wonder your answers are different from that of climate science researchers.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[bascule]

And what I should really say is:

 

JonathanLowe, if you're going to claim the entire climate science community is wrong, your best bet is going to be to download a paper in which they assess the annual mean surface temperature and specifically criticize their methodology.

 

You're simply claiming "I'm getting different numbers, therefore they're wrong"

 

The obvious fallacy there is: what if you're wrong?

[JonathanLowe]

And what I should really say is:

 

JonathanLowe, if you're going to claim the entire climate science community is wrong, your best bet is going to be to download a paper in which they assess the annual mean surface temperature and specifically criticize their methodology.

 

You're simply claiming "I'm getting different numbers, therefore they're wrong"

 

The obvious fallacy there is: what if you're wrong?

 

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.

[insane_alien]

Now, this is only coming from an engineer in training but... why are you only analysing australia? it is FAR from a closed system. even the Earth as a whole isn't a closed system but we can measure the inputs and outputs to some accuracy so we can factor them in. but to do it for a small(relatively) area of earth is just insane. there is no way you can keep track of all the factors to deduce if there is an energy imbalance.

 

you have not got sufficient background in climate science and therefore cannot comment on anything. the effect does not need to manifest as temperature increases and you have discarded pretty much every data point that you think disagrees (urban heat islands ARE part of the energy increase you don't have a couple of terawatts of heat given off without some effect on the climate.

 

you have also not linked to the origional source data. only to your blog which frankly i will not visit due to the innacuracies you present here. post a DIRECT link to your sources or none at all. if you presented links to a blog in a scientific journal application then you would be laughed at so don't do it here because we're not so nice when we lose patience.

 

you claim to be a statisticiam but your skewing the data. remind me never to get you to work for me when im an engineer. i'll handle it myself, i know whats relevant and important.

[Edtharan]

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 am not sure what you mean by "Harvesting". Energy is not something you can just grab and stick in a bottle (if we could that would be the solution to most of the worlds energy problems). You have to convert it from one thing to another. To "Harvest the energy that is incomeing from the sun directly, we are talking about solar cells. But it is not the incoming energy that is increasing. The greenhouse gasses are preventing energy from escaping. The extra energy is already here and "sloshing" about in the various atmospheric and oceanic systems. To harvest this energy it must come from these systems. This means wind, wave, tide, etc powerstations.

 

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.

then if you were trying to prove that Australia is not being subject to global warming, you should not have then relied on these statistics that, by your admition above, don't have any relevence to the situation.

 

I think that this is the reason nobody is taking you seriously. You are using stats that, even you admit, are not representitive of Australia's temperature increase or not.

 

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.

Yes, Global warming shows up as changes in weather patterns. Due to the nature of the atmosphere, we do expect variations to occure. These variations are "relitivly" unpredictable because of the chaotic nature of the atmosphereic systems. We can, usually in hind sight, determine what causes these variations in atmospheric phenomina, but it is not 100% accurate either.

 

This causes major problems, as it makes it hard to seperate normal climactic variations from the exceptional variations caused by global warming. One expects that the yearly cycle of cyclones and hurricanes will show increases and decreases. This is normal. Even if global warming is occuring, we might still see a drop in the number of cyclones as this could be part of a long term cycle/variation in their number. but even if they are decreaseing, we might has a slow decrease due to global warming than what might have occured without GW.

 

We are still in the early times of thesese kinds of analysis and theory. But even so, we are finding certain annomolies in the data that is being gathered and analised by the models. We still don't fully understand how storms form. We are fairly sure of the basics, but all the minor factors that are involved are still giving us trouble.

 

Now you might not think that a minor factor is significant. But due to the chaotic nature of the climate system, small changes can lead to big differences in results. Which further compplicates the matter of trying to make accurate predictions.

 

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?

I don't have any data on it, but it is a resonable conclusion of increased energy in the atmospheric system.

 

Wind patterns and strengths are determined by High and Low pressures (high pressures move towards low pressures). High and low Pressure cells are cause by the temperature of the atmosphere. As temperature rises due to GW, this increase will not be even, some areas will increase and other will decrease. So this creates greater differences in pressure between those areas, thus the winds will be stronger (but other effect might occure too, like shifting wind patterns, different rain fall as warmer air holds more emoisture than cold air, etc).

 

I fully understand that storms are complex. But as a statistician, I cannot say how or why they occur.

The basics of a storm are quite simple to understand. First you have the energy from the sun heating the surface layers of the ocean. This in turn heats the atmosphere above it and also causes water to be evaporated.

 

Scince warm air can hold more water than cold air, this warm air cell can hold quite a lot of water. As this air cools down at higher altitudes, it can no longer hold all the water. Some of it precipitates out as tiny water droplets, we call these clouds.

 

Now for these water droplets to condense out of the air, they must release the energy that was used to evaportate them. This is usually as a light increase in air temperature, bu can also be as air movemnt (wind).

 

As all this is occureing, the higher pressure of this warm air, start to move towards the cooler lower pressure air. As the warmer air encouters the cooler air, it releases more and more water as condensation, which in turn releases more and more energy to the air around it.

 

The water droplets in the air begin to hit eachother and stick together forming larger and larger droplets. These larger droplets are held up by the riseing, warm air (warmed up by the release of energy as the water droplets condense out). Eventually the size of the droplets overcomes the ability of the riseing air to suport them and they fall as rain.

 

If enough energy has been released, quickly enough, this is called a storm. In a storm situation the riseing air can push the waterdroplets so far up that they freeze. As these collide, the build up static charges which is discharged as lightning.

 

This is a very simple explaination of what occurs in a storm, and as you might see from this, ther eis a lot of places where exccess energy could be "dumped", instead of just causeing a rise in surface temperatures. Infact, because of the fact that the higher the temperature, the faster it is transfered into water vapor by evaporation, the surface temperatures might even remain constant.

 

The only direct way to prove or disprove that GW is occureing is to measure the amount of energy entering the system (Earth) and to measure the enrgy leaving the system and to do this over many years (decades). As this kind of data does not exist yet, we need to find round-about ways of attempting to deterimine weaterh GW is occureing or not. This currently entails looking for anomilies in the predictions of atmospheric and oceanic systems. But this is hampered by the fact that these system are chaotic and demonstrate a natural varience in these systems anyway.

 

It is not just like looking for a needle in a haystack, but looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. This also means that it is easy to produce "evidence" against GW, simple by being selective (ie: ignoring the needles already found) in your data sources and your interperetations of that data.

 

Science works on disproof. And your attempts at this should be encouraged, but, the method that you have shown here is questionable (ie: basing you arguments off data that you admit has no relevence to the argument, and so forth). This causes people to regard you claims as unreliable. And it cause people to regard your future endevors as questionable (it shouldn't, but it does, beacuse that is people).

 

I woudl go back and reexamine your data, and use the data that is relevent to this problem. Using data that is not relevent to suport one's claims, does make one appear less than credible.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[JonathanLowe]

Hi Edtharan, and thanks again for your response.

 

if you were trying to prove that Australia is not being subject to global warming.I think that this is the reason nobody is taking you seriously. You are using stats that, even you admit, are not representitive of Australia's temperature increase or not.

 

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.

 

 

Even if global warming is occuring, we might still see a drop in the number of cyclones as this could be part of a long term cycle/variation in their number

We are still in the early times of thesese kinds of analysis and theory. But even so, we are finding certain annomolies in the data that is being gathered and analised by the models. We still don't fully understand how storms form. We are fairly sure of the basics, but all the minor factors that are involved are still giving us trouble.

 

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.

 

Now you might not think that a minor factor is significant. But due to the chaotic nature of the climate system, small changes can lead to big differences in results. Which further compplicates the matter of trying to make accurate predictions.

 

Understand completely, kinda like the butterfly effect.

 

 

I don't have any data on it, but it is a resonable conclusion of increased energy in the atmospheric system.

 

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.

 

The only direct way to prove or disprove that GW is occureing is to measure the amount of energy entering the system (Earth) and to measure the enrgy leaving the system and to do this over many years (decades).

 

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?

 

It is not just like looking for a needle in a haystack, but looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. This also means that it is easy to produce "evidence" against GW, simple by being selective (ie: ignoring the needles already found) in your data sources and your interperetations of that 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.

 

Science works on disproof. And your attempts at this should be encouraged, but, the method that you have shown here is questionable (ie: basing you arguments off data that you admit has no relevence to the argument, and so forth). This causes people to regard you claims as unreliable. And it cause people to regard your future endevors as questionable (it shouldn't, but it does, beacuse that is people).

 

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.