Australia is not warming up: stats prove it

[ecoli]

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..

 

Well, the research showing that increased air temperatures (which mean an increased surface water temperatures) lead to stronger storms. I can find the article if you don't believe me... it's actually based on analyzing statistical data. What isn't known, is if anthropogenic Greenhouse gases are contributing to Global warming.

 

I'm happy to say that my university is building a 100 terraflop supercomputer (with BNL) to study this/ (amoung other things) http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/artman/publish/article_1240.shtml

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[Edtharan]

Times are obviously adjusted for day light savings.

You should be taking to times from the Solar time, not daylightsaving times. This is because 9am the day before daylight savings starts is very different from 9an the day after daylight savings stars. And, scince ther is little regularity in the star and end of daylight savings times, this creates problems.

 

Or have I got it wrong, and you "adjusted" by ignoring the 1 hour jump backwards/forwards that daylight savings causes in the clock times (as different to the Solar Time)?

 

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.

This is the current view on the situation. The effects (drought, storms, etc) are just that, effects that could be caused by the increased energy in the atmospheric and oceanic system. Mostly what you hear about is the various attempts at modeling what this increased energy will do (the storms, droughts, etc).

 

The whole thing is rather simple: The sun gives us a failr steady amount of energy that enters Earth's atmosphere. This energy can leave the system by radiating it out into space. If something prevents this energy from leaving, then more energy is trapped in the system.

 

Greenhouse gasses are known to prevent this energy from being radiated out into space, so this means that more enrgy must be retained by the system (it can't just disappear).

 

Usually when sunlight strikes the ground or ocean, it warms it up. Part of it is reflected off coulds and doesn't make it down to the surface. Some of it is also reflected off the ground (this can then be re-reflected off clouds and back towards the ground too). A little bit of it is absorbed by the atmosphere.

 

Once the energy is in the system it can't just vanish. It must go somewhere. The most simple thing that can happen to it, is that it warms the place up. It is already doing this by warming the ground or ocean. However, part of the way the atmosphere works it that as it warms up, it moves higher up and so take that heat away with it. The more energy that reaches the ground, the faster this will occure. This could mean that it occures fast enough to keep the temperature relitavly constant, or even provide a light cooling effect in the short term.

 

The reason it will be short term cooling is that as the atmosphereic and ocianic systems retain this energy (heat), it begins to reach an equilibrium. once this equilibrium is reached, beteewn the atmosphere and the incoming energy, the execess energy can not be moved away by the atmospheric systems and you will start to see a rapid (relitivly speaking) rise in temperature.

 

The convection currents in the atmosphere, cause by the warming of the surface underneath it will change the currents of air that move around the Earth. We don't notice these so much on the surface of the Earth, but these atmospheric currents of air can be very powerful (ask any airline pilot). These powerful air currents are responsible for moving the air laiden with water vapor from the oceans, and moving it over land (where it usually cools and pricipitates out as rain). If these wind current change, then this will cause the rain to fall in differnet places, bringing drout to some places, and rain to others.

 

Land warms up mich faster than the oceans. When this occures, it will mean that the air does not cool enough to allow the rain to pricipitate out (or it doesn't occure as often). This means that less rain will fall, but as the oceans warm up too, this will eventually revert back to a more normal rain pattern. This may take hundreds of years to occure.

 

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, as there is not more energy incomeing, but just that the energy is not allowed to escape.

[JonathanLowe]

Or have I got it wrong, and you "adjusted" by ignoring the 1 hour jump backwards/forwards that daylight savings causes in the clock times (as different to the Solar Time)?

 

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?

[Edtharan]

So what you are saying is that as global warming starts there will be no warming for some time?

Yes, there would not be an imediate rise in surface temperature. Remember Global Warming was named before scientists really understood what would occure. Global Warming is about an increase in energy retained by the Earths atmosphere. At the time GW was named, the only result of this that was explored was that of temperature increase. We know now that this is just one of many differnet effects that this retention of energy will have on our climate.

 

"Global Warming" is realy a catchy name for lots of climate disturbances that will be caused by the excess retention of energy caused by the increase of greenhouse gasses caused by our industries and lifestyles. Not just in the western societies, but all across the globe (although the industrialised nations are the biggest contributers).

 

Even though the name global warming is kind of obsolete, as the results of greenhouse gass emissions on the climate does not solely increase temperature, nor does it mean that temperature increase will occure every where on Earth. The correct term should be "Global climate changes due to the retention of energy in the atmospheric and oceanic systems", but Global Warming is easier to say, and is generally know by most people.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[Edtharan]

Why don't we just wait until we start heating up, if we do, at all.

Well by then it could be too late and we could be in for catastrophic climate changes.

 

If the oceans heat up a bit, it could melt frozen methane deposits. These would then bubble to the surface. As methane is a green house gas (and far more potent than CO2), then this will massively enhance the greenhouse effect already in progress. Also as the permafrost melts this creates an area of land that reflect less sunlight (so more energy gets retained in the system) and also released frozen organic material (plants and such) that begin to break down and release CO2 and more Methane increasing the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As the ice caps melt this will also reflect less sunlight increasing the amount of energy retained.

 

All these will occur if the temperature increases above a critical amount (which we are getting close to). If we are the cause of this increase, then we should take responsibility for the ecological damage and the damage to our own support systems (farming and that) that this will cause. This is reason enough to even attempt to reduce natural warming if we can, let alone preventing it being caused by our own actions.

 

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.

As I said above, we are close to a "Tipping" point in the temperature of the Earth where certain key event can lead to a runaway warming effect. Already there is detectable melting of the polar ice caps (the Arctic ice cap has shrunk so much that shipping lanes that would have once been locked in ice are now becoming available for actual oceanic travel) and the permafrosts in Siberia have shown noticeable reduction and increased CO2 emission).

 

We have already had many years without much warming (this is going back to the beginnings of the industrial revolution and to the massive scale of atmospheric greenhouse gas emission from people). Also during this time there were other pollutions that would have kept "warming" in check. These, in much more recent times, have been reduced (as they also cause other problems and cause smog and respiratory diseases, etc).

 

Also, even though we might not be experiencing "Warming", this does not mean that the energy is not being retained in the system and showing up as other climate changes (changed rain/precipitation patterns, changed storm/cyclone patterns, etc). Temperature increase is just 1 of many ways that global warming can effect the climate.

 

You are looking for just 1 effect in what could dozens of different types of effect that can be either directly or indirectly caused by human induced global warming (through greenhouse gas emissions).

 

In effect you are looking at you immediate surroundings and not seeing elephants and declaring that elephants don't exist. Just because you don't see any elephants in your immediate vicinity, does not mean that elephants don't exist.

 

You are also failing to see the trees for the forest. You are taking a broad sample (not to mention data that can not be used to prove or disprove the average temperature is not rising - just the maximum and minimum temperatures) where as in fact this could be occurring in smaller areas and in other areas it could be decreasing (due to changes weather patterns blowing colder air into that region).

 

So between irrelevant data and a lack understanding of what Global Warming really means, you analysis does not bear any relevance to the reality of weather Australia's average temperature is increasing or that Global Warming exists or not. The claims you are making can not be substantiated by you analysis as they have no bearing on it.

 

As someone who works with statistic you should know that the average does not have a strong relation to the Maximum and Minimum values. You can even have a decrease in Max and Min values and still have an increase in the average as with these numbers:

 

10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20 (average: 13.42857142)

 

8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19 (average: 16)

 

So your statistic can not be used to back up your claims. If you want to keep making the claims that Australia is not warming up (which would be the average temperature), then you should use the correct data and statistic. Otherwise you should abandon your claims.

[JonathanLowe]

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.

[Edtharan]

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.

Atmospheric warming is not a good indicator of temperature increase due to global warming. This is because atmospheric warming is mainly caused by energy input to the system, rather then its retention.

 

However, the temperature of the oceans are a much better indicator. This is not just surface temperature (again much more dependant in the incoming energy than the retained energy), but the temperature of deeper water.

 

This is also the reason we don't see a direct increase in atmospheric temperature as soon as greenhouse gasses rise. Water has a very high heat capacity. It can hold a lot of energy before it rises much in temperature.

 

In fact, increasing the temperature of water, increases the rate of evaporation, which reduces the energy (and temperature) of the water. Also, water takes a long time to cool down too.

 

This acts as a kind of buffer for fast thermal changes. The data that you should be using should be the average temperature of the oceans.

 

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.

I may be missing something here, but you seem to be comparing the average temperature to the average temperature. How then can there be a difference?

 

I mean if you are comparing the average temperature (of say 9 o'clock), to the average temperature of 9'oclock, of course there won't be a difference.

 

Or are you comparing the current temperature at 9 o'clock as compared to the average of all years at 9 o'clock?

 

Even that would not show a significant increase in temperature as the current temperature would be factored in too.

 

What it should be is the average temperature of to day as compared to the average temperature in the past (or say in 10 year chunks). Also this should be a yearly average, not seasonal average as seasonal average can be highly variable.

 

You see, taking a bunch of statistic, calculating an average (and not really describing what averages you are using) can lead to incorrect results. Generally in statistics, this does not make too much of a problem, but with GW, the source of the data (not the place you got the data from, but what it actually is that the data is about) makes a big difference.

 

As you have said, you have purchased the data from that ABM, and so I understand that you might not be able to give out the raw data (copy right or whatever), could you do this analysis on it:

 

Calculate the average temperature across an entire year at the specific times of the day (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm). So you would have something like (1960:Midnight:Average temperature 16.000 degrees, 1961:Midnight:Average Temperature: 17 degrees, etc) for each time period (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm).

[JonathanLowe]

Calculate the average temperature across an entire year at the specific times of the day (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm). So you would have something like (1960:Midnight:Average temperature 16.000 degrees, 1961:Midnight:Average Temperature: 17 degrees, etc) for each time period (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm).

 

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.

[Edtharan]

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.

What I meant was not for each place in Australia, but all over Australia. That give you the average temperature of Australia at a certain time. So you are looking at the average temperature of Australia at specific times for every recording station at once.

 

When looking at the deviations from the norm,

But what determines the "Norm"?

 

I am sorry, I am not a statistician and I am just trying to understand your graphs.

 

The other reason is that you have said that you used the same data and the ABM and the same analysis, but ended up with different results. I am trying to find out why this occurred, weather it is to do with the methods you or they used, or was a deliberate act.

 

From what I understand of GW, it is occurring, it is only a question as to how much influence that Humans are having on it. The ocean temperature has risen, there are climactic disturbances, changes in weather patterns, glacial melting, etc. This kind of thing has occurred in the past, but the question is: Is this climate change (GW) driven by Human activity (and the answer so far seem to be: Yes).

 

The main problem I am having with the graphs is that you are showing the deviations from some value and I don't understand what that value is representing or how you arrived at it.

[JonathanLowe]

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

[bascule]

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.

 

So, what you're saying is that you didn't calculate the regional mean surface temperature because... it varies throughout the region.

 

Aren't you a statistics major? You are familiar with using the amazing power of an "average" to summarize variadic data, are you not?

 

I think it'd really help you out quite a bit if you were to take some introductory college level classes in atmospheric science. From reading your posts all I gather is that you're completely unfamiliar with the reasoning behing using periodic mean regional surface temperatures as the most practical metric for assessing radiative imbalance. Instead you're introducing metrics which are, frankly, irrelevant to the point.

 

If you want a thorough assessment of the flaws in your analysis, I suggest you compile it in the form of a scientific paper and attempt to submit it to a regional atmospheric or climate science journal. That would be the quickest way to receive a thorough deconstruction of why the metrics you are choosing to assess are both inappropriate and fail to address the problem at hand, namely that of a radiative imbalance within a regional atmospheric system.

[Edtharan]

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.

Yes the climates are different, but we are not looking at the specific climates. We are looking at changes to the entire system. That in its self is why you need to look at the whole system as one.

 

Your initial post stated (and the title of the thread) states Australia is not warming up. You are making a statements about all the different climates as a single entity, therefore you need to look at them that way as that is what you are making a statement about.

[bascule]

Your initial post stated (and the title of the thread) states Australia is not warming up. You are making a statements about all the different climates as a single entity, therefore you need to look at them that way as that is what you are making a statement about.

 

There's nothing wrong with performing an assessment of regional climate change, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has done just that, and concluded that Australia is warming up (see figures from earlier in thread). For some reason JonathanLowe rejects mean surface surface temperature as a metric by which to assess regional warming. He's given no justification for doing so, and based his arguments on metrics I consider completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

I have no doubt the figures he's computing are valid but he's trying to use those numbers to make arguments that aren't justified by the metrics being assessed.