I’ve previously described 2006 as the year of climate change hysteria , but interestingly at least in Australia it wasn’t that warm.
While 2005 was the hottest on record, according to ABC Online quoting from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology last year, 2006, was the 9th warmest on record.
I've just received the report by email from the Bureau (7.30am, 3rd January) and they are now claiming last year was only the 11th warmest on record.
Here is the graph:
The report says:
"Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2006 was 0.47°C above the standard 1961-1990 average, making it the eleventh warmest year since comparable temperature observations became available in 1910.
"Despite record warm daytime temperatures in the drought-affected southeast, 2006 was cooler than the previous year when averaged across the whole country. This was largely due to a very active tropical wet season early in the year resulting in cooler temperatures through the north, and clear skies and low soil moisture associated with the drought resulting in cold overnight temperatures from April to July. The annual mean maximum temperature was 0.60°C above average (ninth highest), while the mean minimum temperature was 0.34°C above average (seventeenth highest). Temperature anomalies varied throughout the year but spring 2006 was particularly warm (+1.42°C), being Australia’s warmest spring season on record."
And the 9 warmest years span an appromiate 26 year period.
That would mean last year was about the coolest year that we have had in Australia for about 26 years.
The full report is apparently due out tomorrow. I will update this post once it is available online at the Bureau.
Good one, Luke. So now this humble blog is supposed to come up with hard proof on an issue that I have merely pointed out is an area of significant uncertainty.
Isn't that just a squalid little case of raising the bar? And without reciprocal obligations for you to do the same?
The fact that the 3.00pm data may actually be the 3.30pm data is, again, off the point. The issue is that the true mean temperature for a day is determined by the sum of the hourly, or even half hourly temperatures.
The current reliance on a mean derived from a maximum and minimum reading assumes that the changes from hot to cold and back are symetrical and consistent when they clearly are not.
I have identified an assumption that is of questionable validity. There is a huge publicly funded industry that holds itself out as the experts in climate and it is the obligation of that industry to validate all assumptions to the satisfaction of "everyman".
Failing that, hand over a big enough portion of your own budget and I will gladly do the work required. The days when I hand out freebies to the punters are gone.
Luke; you said to motty - Deflate the ego as few “psi” hey I’ve been thinking all the while I’m the only old timer left on this blog.
I reckon that 5 year annual mean temperature is going to take a nose dive over the next couple of years. I wonder what kind of panic the impending doomsdayers will get in then? Whip up some other spin on it all i suppose. The fact is - the hotter the planet the wetter it is. Why it isnt bucketing down then, since it is so much hotter, who knows. Dynamic planet earth - always changing.
They (doomsayers) cant have it both ways - if it gets hotter, global warming, bad humans - if it gets cooler, climate change, bad humans - if it rains more or less?? Dunno.
And on Flannery, he is the worst. Should know better.
I reckon that 5 year annual mean temperature is going to take a nose dive over the next couple of years. I wonder what kind of panic the impending doomsdayers will get in then? Whip up some other spin on it all i suppose. The fact is - the hotter the planet the wetter it is. Why it isnt bucketing down then, since it is so much hotter, who knows. Dynamic planet earth - always changing.
They (doomsayers) cant have it both ways - if it gets hotter, global warming, bad humans - if it gets cooler, climate change, bad humans - if it rains more or less?? Dunno.
And on Flannery, he is the worst. Should know better.
Also make sure all those data are absolutely correct in time for daylight saving !
Well Ian it depends on how the 92% goes backwards in time. If you have a look at the records you'll find max/min much more reliable than 9am and 3pm.
Gee 3pm can easily be 3:30 you know. In any case the aforementioned blog is wrong on a number of counts. I have shown above why his diurnal analysis stuff is flawed without any assumptions about the data quality and if it's available.
You have failed miserably against a major literature which you have not read any of, to show any systematic bias that would effect the interpretation of the results of the Australian and international temperature analyses. i.e that max and min temps are rising and the diurnal range is shrinking. Furthermore you have not said why multiple strains of alternative evidence which says the same thing are also all wrong.
J-boy will have major trouble getting his work published at all. You've just jumped at some unpeer reviewed blogosphere stuff because if suits you mindset and the flaw you desperately believe is there in the science. I love the way he says "we have proved" in his blog. Jeez !
I am giving you thoughtful replies as always but you are not reading what I'm saying. Deflate the ego as few psi and put the brain into gear.
(Time for a diversionary insult on how much money scientists have, policy use of science being crook, or having too much time to spend on blogging!)
In terms of information vs propaganda - Ian I know who wins the tally - YOU !
That is a very interesting exit strategy of yours, Luke. You claim that I have decamped when I clearly have not done so. And you claim that I have dodged the issue when I clearly have not done so.
So it would seem that your primary purpose here is not to inform or enlighten but, rather, to propagandise and mislead.
Which part do you not understand?
The measured stats do not record the duration of temperature changes within each day which make up 92% of the hourly records which should rightfully be used to derive a daily mean temperature.
And this means that 92% of the inputs to monthly and annual means are also excluded. The variations in temperature around the means are of such significance as to put the existing records of mean temperatures into doubt.
I am one of those people who would like to see better data before we sign up for measures that could exceed 5% of Global GDP.
Ian you're a dodger par excellence. We're arguing (stupidly) about whether it's warming or not. I have not brought up proxies. You have the multitude-of-evidence list above and have ducked the lot.
Now faced with your arguments as ash in your mouth, not one of them defended, you decamp - none at all answered.
Quack quack - ducked.