Friday, September 28, 2007

Australia: Only hot during the day

We showed earlier that Australian temperatures at Midnight, 3am and 6am have not significantly increased, however as soon as the sun rose, temperatures at 9am and Noon showed significant increases. Whats more, surprisingly maximum and minimum temperatures have increased since the second world war.

So what happens at 3pm, 6pm and 9pm? The results below show is.

Temperature at 3pm showed a significant increase. (t = 3.8, p < 0.01)at a rate of 0.85 degrees Celsius per 100 years. The graph shown below of this, despite a bit of variability is strong, significant and obvious.

However temperatures at 6pm proved not to show a significant increase (t = 0.37, p = 0.7) as shown on the graph below.

The last 5 years have shown above normal temperatures at 6pm, but the overall trend is not significant and not clearly obvious to the eye.

Simiralily at 9pm there as been no significant increase in temperature (t = 1.4, p = 0.15). Although it has to be noted on the graph below, that like 6pm, the last 5 years have all seen greater than normal temperatures at this time.

So we've shown that Australia is only heating up at times when the sun is making an impact, that is from 9am till 3pm. Both 6pm and 9pm temperatures have seen increases, but they are not significant. Overnight temperatures are not moving either way.

So how come therefore we see increases in minimum temperature when overnight temperatures are not increasing? Isn't the minimum temperature meant to be an accurate measure of overnight temperature? We'll show you in the next article, that not only is the minimum a poor measure of overnight temperatures, that there could possibly be some big irregularities with the minimum temperature before the mid 70s and after.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Near Record Ice levels in Southern Hemisphere

Whilst there has been a lot of talk about record lows for the northren hemisphere ice levels, does the fact that the southern hemisphere is on track to record new record highs reach the media outlets?

How to save 1/10th of a polar bear

Bjorn Lomborg is not skeptical about human-caused global warming. But he’s checked the maths behind many of the warming scares:

Consider a tale that has made the covers of some of the world’s biggest magazines and newspapers: the plight of the polar bear. We are told that global warming will wipe out this majestic creature. We are not told, however, that over the past 40 years - while temperatures have risen - the global polar bear population has increased from 5000 to 25,000.

Campaigners and the media claim that we should cut our carbon dioxide emissions to save the polar bear. Well, then, let’s do the math. Let’s imagine that every country - including the United States and Australia - were to sign the Kyoto Protocol and cut its carbon dioxide emissions for the rest of this century. Looking at the best-studied polar bear population of 1000 bears, in the West Hudson Bay, how many polar bears would we save in a year? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Actually, we would save less than one-tenth of a polar bear.

If we really do care about saving polar bears, we could do something much simpler and more effective: ban hunting them. Each year, 49 bears are shot in the West Hudson Bay alone. So why don’t we stop killing 49 bears a year before we commit trillions of dollars to do hundreds of times less good?

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

As soon as the sun rises, so does the temperature

We previously found that overnight temperatures have not increased, with all of Midnight, 3am and 6am not having any significant increase in temperature, hence providing strong evidence that Australian temperature have not increased overnight. This despite increases in the daily minimum.

But what happens when the sun makes its appearance? How will the temperature record respond then? Using our designated Australian weather stations, we found that at 9am, since 1943, we have had a very significant increase in temperature as shown on the graph below:

The increase is highly significant (t = 5.5, p < 0.01) and is increasing at a rate of 1.1 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This is, as one would expect, very strange. In that how can we have such a huge and significant increase at 9am and yet 3 hour previous have no swings in temperature at all? What is causing this massive sudden increase at 9am? Could it possibly be the sun?

Well lets have a look at Noon and see if the same issue is occurring.

And yes, as shown on the graph above, one again a big and significant (t = 4.3, p < 0.01) increase in temperature is occurring. The increase is at 0.99 degrees Celsius per 100 years.

So here we have a situation that at Midnight, 3am and 6am we detect no significant increases or decreases in temperature since the second world war. The suddenly at 9am and Noon, the temperature increases suddenly and dramatically.

Australia is definitely heating up. But maybe its only when the sun is out? We'll look at 3pm, 6pm and 9pm next.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Somebody needs to build an ark

Mick Keelty warns at climate change could cause refugees to flee countires due to sea level rises. He warns that China's available land could dramatically shrink and millions could be on the move.

All this from an at most 59cm increase in sea level in the next 100 years. Amazing.

The ABC take it one more step further suggesting that:

Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting. In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Its amazing what 59cm can do.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Australia not increasing in temperature overnight

Previously we showed that Australian temperatures since world war II have increased dramatically. Maximum's and minimum temperatures have both increased at a significant rate.

However what is happening to overnight temperatures? We have also previously discussed the terrible statistical technique of somehow defining the average temperature as being the average of the minimum and maximum and have long suggested that time based temperatures, where the time is kept constant (unlike max/min temps), is a far better way to analyse temperature and will also provide a lot more meaningful information.

So lets have a look at what is happening for Australian temperatures overnight. In particularly Midnight, 3am and 6am.

As shown below temperatures at midnight show no obvious trend, and statistically there is no significant increase or decrease in temperature (t = 1.6, p = 0.1)

Similary, at 3am as shown below we have also found no significant increase or decrease in temperature (t = 1.27, p = 0.2).

And not surprisingly, also at 6am as shown on the graph below, we have found that Australia has not recorded any significant increase or decrease in temperature (t = 1.3,p = 0.17)

So if Australia is not warming up at night, then how come we have seen a s significant increase in minimum temperatures? We will answer that question shortly, but in our next article we will look at what happens to Australia's temperatures during the day, starting off in the morning at 9am.

Do as I say, not as I sting

As written by Andrew Bolt:


Sting biographer Christopher Sandford explores the rock star’s green beliefs, which turn out to be as deep as any other global warming preacher’s:

“We can’t live here and be happy with less/With so many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess”, Sting sang, in one emotive passage.

It was a theme to which he returned at this summer’s Live Earth climate change concert… At one point in the performance, Sting pledged to the audience that he would “work to reduce” his carbon footprint in the future.

A commendable objective - but what Sting didn’t mention was how much larger his carbon footprint is than just about anyone else’s…

Earlier this year, a glimpse into Sting’s daily routine at (his Wiltshire) mansion was provided by Jane Martin, 42, a cook who took the rock star and his wife Trudie Styler to an employment tribunal which awarded her £24,944 following her “shameful” dismissal from her job…

The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises…

This same paragon of self-denying minimalism who reminds us all not to squander our resources also owns a three-storey mansion in Highgate, North London, a townhouse in Westminster and what’s described as a workman’s cottage in the Lake District. He also maintains a beach house in Malibu, California, and a 600-acre estate in Tuscany…

Early in his career, he expressed the opinion that “I just don’t agree with (procreation) any more… We have too many people - we’re not the most important thing on the planet, and until we realise that, we’re in deep s***.”

How ironic then that Sting has six children, from two wives, ranging in age from 30 to 11.

There’s nothing wrong with that - he’s long since earned the right to live just as he likes - but, taken as a whole, it would seem to suggest that Sting’s campaign against Western excess might not always be a priority in his own day-to-day life.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Our stats vs the Australian Bureau's

Previously, we had a look at Australia's maximum and minimum temperatures and concluded and found that why there were some irregularities before the second world war, both maximum and minimum temperatures in Australia had increased since.

We expected this similar pattern to go with what the Australian Bureau of Meteorology report. Keeping in mind, that we have not chosen the exact same weather stations as the Bureau in our analysis, so our results will not be exactly the same, we do however expect that similar trends will be shown.

Australia's maximum and minimum temperature anomalies over time according to the ABOM are shown here and here, and bot display similar increases in temperature.

We decided to look at the difference in these anomalies since 1942. We specifically chose 1942 because our weather station data is more complete since then and temperature records before this time are more variable and haphazard and might not be good for strong statistical analysis.

Differences between Gust of Hot Air maximum temperatures over time and the ABOM maximum temperatures over time produced no trend as shown below. In other words, our records for maximum temperature are backed up by the ABOM.

However when looking at the differences in minimum temperature for ABOM and GOHA, a surprising and strongly significant upward trend occurs:

So strong is the trend, that the difference between ABOM and GOHA is recorded at 0.0106 degrees per year or 0.7 degrees greater since 1942. This surprising result is shown on the graph below which shows the actual minimum anomalies that the ABOM and GOHA record:

Clearly both show an increasing trend, but note that in years prior to 1970 ABOM's minimum anomalies are less than our recorded minimums whilst after 1970 ABOM's minimum anomalies are greater than ours.

Once again I must stress, that both results have used different weather stations and we do not expect to get the same results. That being said it is strange to see such a strong and obvious contradictory trend between the two minimum temperature anomalies. Hence it is hard for one to say that the difference occurs just purely due to different weather stations. Keep in mind that our (GOHA) has only used non urban stations that have accurate time based temperature readings going back to at least 1970, and hence one could argue that these are more reliable stations.

I will shortly attempt to replicate ABOM's findings using the exact staions that they use. But next up we will look at some time based results.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Australian Maximum and Minimum Temperatures

Using Australia's most reliable long term non urban weather stations that have time bed temperatures that go back to at least 1970, we can get a good grasp on Australia's changing temperatures. The stations, as mention previously, are shown below.

The reason why such stations have been chosen is because this sit wants to analyze time based temperature trends instead of the normal maximum and minimums. There is no scientific literature released that does so and I believe the analysis of such information is crucial to determine how and why global warming is occurring.

To start off with, we will look at maximum and minimum temperatures. Temperature anomalies are taken from the average of 1961 to 1990 which is the norm for such analysis.

Shown below is Australia's maximum temperature anomalies:

As one can see, aside from some haphazard temperature swings prior to 1940 we can witness an increasing maximum temperature trend that is strong and significant (t = 5.9 , p < 0.01). It can be said, that without doubt that records of Australia's maximum temperatures have significantly increased since the 1940s. In fact maximum temperatures in Australia have been increasing at a rate of 0.0132 degrees Celsius per year since 1942, or 0.85 degrees in that span of 64 years.

Shown below is the temperature anomalies of minimum temperatures from the selected stations across Australia:

The graph above shows significant decrease in temperature since 1911 (t = -2.1, p < 0.05). However this has generally occurred due to larger than normal positive anomalies from 1911 to about 1940. Should we investigate the temperature swings in minimum temperature from 1940 onwards only we find the opposite has occurred. Minimum temperature has significantly increased from 1942 (amount of data increased substantially from 1942) onwards (t = 4.2, p < 0.01). The rate of increase from 1942 is at 0.0082 degrees Celsius per year or at 0.525 degrees over the last 64 years.

This increase, whilst still as large as maximum temperature increases is still large and significant.

So how does this compare to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's graphs? We'll look into that next.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Evil Co2 and the terrible Australian drought

As reader George commented:

I am wondering if you are still sticking to your belief that the drought is over and we have returned to normal rainfall patterns.
Because it seems that what the BOM said, of a bleak picture, has actually come to fruition.

I replied:

as shown here rainfall in australia over the last 6 months have been low i the south west - north of perth. High in the north and especailly north west Australia.

No sign of drought there.

The last 12 months has seen low rainfall in the far seaboard west and low in the mid south, and south east. Higher has been recorded in central north and north west.

No sign of a drought there either, with some up some down.

Seems to me that Australia's rainfall is not decreasing in total (as is shown here), (which also shows if anything increasing Australian rainfall), but rather the places that are getting less rainfall are in the south east highly farmed land, and the places are are not are in the northern non farmed land.

Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2

Oh, and by the way, I never said that the current or previous rainfall patterns were not normal.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Beating around the Bush

I've decided not to beat around the bush, and analyse individual stations, but rather combine them all to come up with the results for all of Australia as my original intention was. On Monday, I will show the first part of the analysis of Australian temperature from the corresponding reliable non urban weather stations. Stay tuned.

Greens: We're all doomed, for us

The green party of Australia have released a flyer that is sent to households. In it it describes the consequences if you vote liberal or labor at the forthcoming election.

It describes that, given a liberal vote, world wide temperature will rise by at least 3 degrees and a labor vote by at least 2 degrees. This will result in:

- "seas up to 25m higher", yep that's right, we are all going to be under water. 25 meters! wow

- "No snow on the Europe's Alps." Well if there is no snow there, we can assume that there will be no snow anywhere. Say good bye to skiing and the winter olympics

- "30-95% species extinction". Yep you heard correctly, up to 19 in 20 species will become extinct. Maybe humans will be one of them

- "No ice on the poles". Yep the north and south pole will, according to the greens be iceless. So the only place one will be able to view ice is at the local petrol station. No ice, amazing.

- "97% loss of the great barrier reef" Lucky 3% will remain, but I guess it will be 25 meters under water. Which begs the question, how can coral survive being 25 meters under water? I'd like to see how they got the 97% statistic.

- "Greenland melts" And it becomes green again.

- "'Super droughts' across the world" - i guess just like the recent worst drought in 1000 years.

- "Oceans become acidic, destroying sea life" - yep, no more fish. Sea life will die. No more dolphins, whales, fish and those cute octopussies. Get your ocean basket at your local restaurant while you can.

Of course the greens are they key, and a vote for them and none of the above will happen. We'll just be in economical ruin, and therefore will have no money to spend stopping the above.

Interestingly, they say on their leaflet that "That last time the planet was 3 degrees hotter, forests grew in the Antarctic". Hmm, wonder what caused that increase in temperature? Maybe not enough wind farms.

They also say that "the planet has already warmed by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius"
- So is it 0.7 degrees or more? Why not state the actual temperature increase?

Such propaganda. It's almost laughable if the voting public were not so gullible.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Station #2: Broome (3003)

Broome, located in north west western Australia again has some good time related data.

Firstly, maximum and minimum temperatures recorded no significant increase or decrease. Likewise temperatures at Midnight, 3am, 6am, Noon, 3pm, and 9pm remained constant. 9am temperatures, again, significantly increased whilst 6pm temperatures significantly decreased.

When looking at 3 and 6am vs minimum anomalies, we find that minimum temperature anomalies are significantly increasing with respect to 3 and 6am, indicating again the poor assumption that minimum temperatures reflect overnight temperatures.

And like previously we found that 9am temperatures were significantly increasing at a greater rate than 6am temperatures (the graph shows a strong and evident trend), whilst Noon temperatures decreased significantly compared to 9am and 3pm temperatures decreased significantly compared to Noon.

Thus indicating that the only major time when Broome is heating up more so than others is at 9am, everything else seems pretty consistent or even decreasing.

Friday, September 07, 2007

Station #1: Halls Creek (2012)

Halls Creek Airport, located in north west Western Australia is our first non urban weather station that has good data for all times but one going back past 1960. Weather times at 9pm are unfortunately non existent for this area.

Maximum temperatures for Halls Creek show no significant increase or decrease, however minimum temperatures show a significant increase (t=3.24,p<0.01).

Temperatures at Midnight, 3am and 6am show no significant increase in temperature, which once again suggests that the minimum temperature is no good as measuring overnight temperatures. 9am shows no significant increase either, however since 1974, temperatures have been on the rise. Noon, 3pm, and the very data sparse 6pm each show no significant increase in temperature.

When looking at differences in yearly anomalies between 3am,6am and Min we find that 3am temperatures are everywhere, but when just looking at differences between 6am and Min we see that the minimum temperature has increased at a greater and significant rate than at 6am (t=4.9,p<0.01).

Temperature anomalies between 9am and 6am suggest that 9am once once heating up quicker than 6am around the middle of last century and then from then till 1970 anomalies were around equal (which is what we would expect if Co2 was the major driving force of global warming;is it a surprise that this is the time when global temperatures decreased slightly?). But in the last few years temperature change at 9am has grown significantly quicker than at 6am.

So much quicker is the rise in temperature at 9am compared to 6am of late, that temperature anomalies at Noon compared to 9am have significantly decreased (p<0.01).

Halls creek indicates a few things for us.

1. Temperatures overnight are not increasing
2. Temperatures at 9am have and are significantly increasing over time in relation to 6am, which is probably the reason why we have a significant increase in the minimum temperature.

Whilst the data at Halls Creek isn't very conclusive, we might well just find similar and more precise trends in the stations to come.

Mount Shasta's glaciers not heeding climate change

Mount Shasta, at 14,162 feet seems to have a mind of its own these days. Shasta has seven glaciers. The biggest is the one on the middle, Whitney Glacier. What has surprised scientists about the glacier is that if the theories about global warming are true, the glacier ought to be shrinking, but it's not.

“Unlike most areas around the world, these glaciers are advancing, they are growing. Thirty percent in the last fifty years,” says scientist Erik White.

Full details here, and this is similar to the New Zealand glaciers that we talked about previously as well.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

I'm back

Well it's been a while in between drinks, and i've been very busy in other areas, but here's the current news on the gust of hot air front.

I've noticed a slight irregularity in my calculations for several stations. The problem occurs when some stations have data at certain times going back decades and only several years at other times.

The ABM as well as other meteorological societies general take the average temperature as the time period between 1961 and 1990 as for example shown here.

Hence my analysis will focus on non-urban Australian weather stations that have time based temperature readings in all but one time going back till at least 1961. There are only a handful of stations that have data for all of Midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, Noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm going back to 1960, however we have a total of 23 stations that have all times but one. The one time that stations generally don't have going back to the 1960s is either midnight or 9pm, so the core temperatures that gain most statistical interest is there.

Hence my analysis will begin again, with hopefully a station a day followed by the overall result, which will confirm my previous analysis.

The picture below shows the stations that are being used. Understandably there is a bit of a lapse in reliable stations in central Australia (as there are non-reliable stations) and northern new south wales is a bit sparse (mainly due to the stations in that area being non-urban). However the spread of stations across Australia is quite...well...well spread.

Keeping in mind that the analysis provided here is more in depth than any other statistical analysis on temperature, as all previous analysis in journals has simply been an addition of the max and min anomalies to come to an overall temperature - something which we have shown as to be completely unreliable.

Stay tuned for some in depth, surprising and startling results.....

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Wind farm cash-in for renewable energy companies

Energy companies are cashing in on Government subsidies by building wind farms that will never make any money because they are being constructed on sites with not enough wind, it has been claimed.

Experts said claims of wind farm potential were being overestimated - Wind farm cash-in for renewable energy companies
Experts said claims of wind farm potential were being overestimated

Despite Britain being the windiest nation in Europe, some farms are proposed for sites where companies have exaggerated their potential, a BBC investigation alleged.

To meet EU targets for renewable energy, the Government has subsidised the wind turbine industry by half a billion pounds. Yet companies have not managed to deliver even 0.5 per cent of Britain's electricity needs.

Britain must produce 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, a target that the Government admits it is struggling to meet.

Britain is not consistently windy enough to generate a regular energy supply and there is no way of storing wind energy, a drawback in a country that sometimes experiences strong winds, but often no wind at all.

"It's the power swings that worry us. Over a 20-hour period you can go from almost 100 per cent wind output to 20 per cent."

An over reliance on wind power could result in power failures and higher electricity bills, he said, adding that the network needed to be redesigned.