Australian Temperature Records in Question

Ken Stewart is engaged in the first ever independent study of the complete High Quality Australian Site Network. Ken has a series of posts, the first including a lot of background information and explanation. Subsequent posts are not be as long and part 6, the data from the Victorian sites has just been done.

Like many people, he thought that the analysis of climate change in Australia, and information given to the public and the government, was based on the raw temperature data. He was wrong. He averaged maxima and minima for all stations at each site, then compared the result with the High Quality means. By these calculations (averaging the trend at each site in Victoria) the raw trend is 0.35 degrees C per 100 years, and the High Quality state trend is 0.83C. That’s a warming bias of 133%!


Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Australian Temperature Records in Question

  1. The difference between adjusted and raw data is even more striking given the fact that many particular sites show cooling or flat trends.

  2. Hi David, may I ask, do you think there is any chance of any of the analysis of Australian temperature trends ever ending up in the peer reviewed literature (or is it already)? I recall an article from the Age that was noted by Anthony Watts (I think) where an Australian meteorologist simply asserted in passing an apparently known fact that some of the hot temperatures in Melbourne that global warming advocates get so excited about are caused by that city’s huge heat island effect. I don’t recall ever seeing anything published on this though.

  3. The difference between adjusted and raw data is even more striking given the fact that many particular sites show cooling or flat trends.

  4. Hi David, may I ask, do you think there is any chance of any of the analysis of Australian temperature trends ever ending up in the peer reviewed literature (or is it already)? I recall an article from the Age that was noted by Anthony Watts (I think) where an Australian meteorologist simply asserted in passing an apparently known fact that some of the hot temperatures in Melbourne that global warming advocates get so excited about are caused by that city's huge heat island effect. I don't recall ever seeing anything published on this though.

  5. There are a couple of papers in the following set. I do not know if they are robust, but I see UHI where it is officially denied.

    http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html

    BTW, it was found by Googling “University of Melbourne UHI”.

    Ken’s work is more detailed than it looks at first blush. The main drawback is, as we have mutually discussed, that the most original data he uses has already been adjusted at least once. What we need it is strong push to get the really raw data, at least for the 103 or so Reference Climate Sites of the BoM.

    Of course, other organizations elewhere can and do add further adjustments. We have seen this for single stations like Darwin.

    A newcomer wanting to do science like examining a new proxy will find a bewildering array of temperature series against which to make a calibration in the instrumented period. Not all of them can be correct. As always, the question is, which one is corect. It is plausible that some people in the BoM know this but are not saying nuffin’. If only they knew the harm they are doing to the conduct of proper science, which generally improves after close audit.

    A guideline I use for a rule of thumb is how much the 1945-60 decline, quite sharp in the early graphs, has been brought closer and closer to level, here and abroad.

    • Like you my first impulse is to go right back to the beginning, and for that reason its been too big a job and haven’t started, except for looking at Toorok etc. But Ken has just averaged the maxima and minima as provided and found a big bias against the mean, it seems. You dont need to find all the biases, just one big bias like that is enough to justify a major reanalysis, I feel.

  6. There are a couple of papers in the following set. I do not know if they are robust, but I see UHI where it is officially denied.http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi…BTW, it was found by Googling “University of Melbourne UHI”.Ken's work is more detailed than it looks at first blush. The main drawback is, as we have mutually discussed, that the most original data he uses has already been adjusted at least once. What we need it is strong push to get the really raw data, at least for the 103 or so Reference Climate Sites of the BoM.Of course, other organizations elewhere can and do add further adjustments. We have seen this for single stations like Darwin.A newcomer wanting to do science like examining a new proxy will find a bewildering array of temperature series against which to make a calibration in the instrumented period. Not all of them can be correct. As always, the question is, which one is corect. It is plausible that some people in the BoM know this but are not saying nuffin'. If only they knew the harm they are doing to the conduct of proper science, which generally improves after close audit.A guideline I use for a rule of thumb is how much the 1945-60 decline, quite sharp in the early graphs, has been brought closer and closer to level, here and abroad.

  7. Like you my first impulse is to go right back to the beginning, and for that reason its been too big a job and haven't started, except for looking at Toorok etc. But Ken has just averaged the maxima and minima as provided and found a big bias against the mean, it seems. You dont need to find all the biases, just one big bias like that is enough to justify a major reanalysis, I feel.

  8. Like you my first impulse is to go right back to the beginning, and for that reason its been too big a job and haven't started, except for looking at Toorok etc. But Ken has just averaged the maxima and minima as provided and found a big bias against the mean, it seems. You dont need to find all the biases, just one big bias like that is enough to justify a major reanalysis, I feel.

  9. “Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
    write’s unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can air jordan 20 go those
    sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

  10. “Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the write's unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can air jordan 20 go those sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

  11. Pingback: opieka nad osoba starsza

  12. Pingback: sell your bitcoin

  13. Pingback: oszczednosc.blog.student.pl

  14. Pingback: strona firmy

  15. Pingback: kliknij

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s