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.
But those multiple points are all failing to record the rates and duration of daytime warming and nighttime cooling. And this, in the grand scheme of things, remains a significant omission that, in most cases will bias the results towards warming outcomes.
And as for your supposedly killer argument about all the "multitude of diverse evidence', dream on little broomstick cowboy. How, exactly, would a set of ice cores, tree rings or coral cores confirm or deny the existence of a change in the duration of night time temperature falls?
They are all generalised indicators that are likely to replicate their own inadequacies.
You may also be surprised to learn that some of us have a life other than this blog, Luke. But your last two posts do emphasise the importance you place on achieving your propaganda outcomes.
And as we sink below the post line - note they didn't come back to defend their scurrilous positions.
And still looking for your proof of systematic bias !
That was for the next question which I felt coming. But you got you answer above that. Your question is really a non-question.
Think about what you're saying - a swag of thermometers across the country do not produce a long term statistical view of the nation's temperature. Major urban centre's are avoided. The temperature integrates a multitude of effects - how could it not? What else could you do?
And are you going to tell all those farmers that have experienced a long term decline in frost frequency that they can't actually know that? It's called experiental evidence of Australia warming!
The simulation talent is to be able to explain and hindcast these temperature patterns. (including albedo). The models are built ground up from physics not temperature patterns.
I see you have ducked the argument about a multitude of diverse evidence also.
Sense your resolve is whithering (again).
Obviously Malcolm has decamped after trying pass off that shonky blog as a breakthrough.
Where's Sid??
What a fallacious argument, Luke. What is being measured as the annual average global temperature may have a standard arror of 0.025C, but that is a totally irrelevant consideration in the context of factors that have not been included in the measurement in the first place.
Stats 101 stuff.
Hmmm - no Motty, no Malcolm and no Sid - time to attend a beach a la the web host.
Who was it said some truths are self-evident.
J-boy says "based on purely maximum and minimum temperatures .. .. .. .. still seems crazy to me, that the entire global warming science is based on analysis on simple statistics " - well hucky do - that's one validation data set - there's satellite obs of radiation, temperature, cloud, land surface, rainfall, sea ice, ocean temps, ice melt rates, glaciers, ecological effects, paleo evidence, empirical verification of the greenhouse flux by Philipona et al using radiometers, Harries work showing closing of spectral windows as per what you'd expect. Need I go on ! It's what is called "a body of evidence" or "multiple points of truth".
Is that courteous enough.
One cannot distinguish when measuring with a thermometer what the actual attribution of the measurememnt is (save being a greenie induced national park bushfire).
This is why we have hundreds of lines of algorithms with all the physics of radiation balance, circulation systems, ocean temperatures and land surface schemes to drive what is called "A CLIMATE MODEL" of these many and complex interactions. Strangely this is bigger than an envelope.
The question is an inverse one - how well does the model reproduce the temperature pattern observed including any major changes in land condition affecting the site. You need to simply see the measured data as a set of validation observations not primary drivers.
Why worry about land use changes - you could also worry about cloudiness changes, aerosols and volcanic dust too. It's all in there.
Yes if a met station that used to be in the middle of a forest ended up in massive grassland as some "softly spoken" Qld or NSW grazier got to it before New Year 2006 well maybe it should not be excluded or noted. You can get the location of all the Bureau reference station network here and see what's changed. Then ring up David Jones and tell him.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
In fact Ian you're a genius - the modelling is all about resolving uncertainties in positive and negtive forcings and looking for better and better validation.
On estimate error David Jones has previously reminded us of the central limit theorem. "Annual average global temperatures have a standard error of estimation of about 0.025C. This has been covered in dozens of papers in Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, and International Journal of Climatology (just to name a few) and is a well established fact. Suggest you (and other interested parties) use Google Scholar for further information. Some of the concerned papers are rather elegant in design, and could teach a few on this blog a thing or two about good scientific practice."
David Grinch sends hugs. Actually I don't think DGs know about such things as blogs. They may be aghast to find out that such feral opinions exist in the real world. There's also a big difference between the science and how policy chooses to use such science. Is it the fault of the gun manufacturer or shooter type argument.
Now that I've invested more time - it's your turn to show how any of these "temperature quibbles" have introduced sufficient systematic bias that would cause a reinterpretation of the results. And how alternative lines of evidence are also invalidated.
You see - I think peers tell you you're doing "a Galileo" - you don't decide yourself like J-boy has.
Sidestep again, Luke. You ask "Who says it's based on max & min temps alone??" but don't take it any further.
So lets pin this down. My understanding is that daily means for any site are derived from maxima and minima. These daily means are collated to form monthly means which are then used to determine the annual mean for a site. Numerous other sites are used to form a hemispheric mean and a global mean.
If you are suggesting there is any significant departure from this, as you have implied above, then please do us the courtesy of explaining rather than simply sowing doubt.
And you still have not responded to my question on how we should distinguish between temperature increases from activities that actually contribute to global cooling and those activities that contribute to global warming.
Obviously, the cooling part of an activity like land clearing that increases albedo and therefore cools the planet, must be present in the evening when the increased absorbed heat of the day is released. In this circumstance either the minimum temp must go lower or the duration of low night time temperatures must be extended to produce a net cooling effect.
But if only the two extremes are measured then the cooling effect, or a warming effect from revegetation, cannot be detected.
And if these effects cannot be detected then there is not only uncertainty in the modelling but also a bias towards warming outcomes.
Oh Luuuke? Do you need to run this one past the DG before comment?
I note he has discovered that minimum temperatures are increasing - quick ring the IPCC !
And he is using back to 1868 as a normalising baseline - the temp drop to 1900 is known to be spurious - now wonder the results are totally imponderable !
And you guys have seen all this haven't you?
Re Day night temperatures, we really need to continiously monitor is in comming and outgoing short and long wave radiation after all this is the direct effect of greenhouse. In reality the instruments are expensive and need maintainence and calibration but we should have say 100 across Australia rather than a just a few.