It must be remembered that the period of our instrumental weather data is short when compared to say the ~15,000 years since the last ice age.
We must also remember that cold records are set in the face of the ever expanding urban heat island (UHI). So cold records are more remarkable than warm records that are assisted higher by the ever increasing UHI.
I have been looking at the BoM’s new iteration of adjusted Australian temperature data – ACORN SAT. Taking a look at the pdf report 049 “Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset”
p 86 of 104 Table 8 – Urban classification of ACORN-SAT locations.
– we see
My eye is drawn to to Canberra Airport 070014 classified non-urban. It just seems delusional for the BoM to fail to recognize that UHI affected air from the steady growth of Canberra has been steadily impacting airport instruments at least since WWII. – Not to mention the booming Airport Brindabella and Majura Business Parks – the suburb of Fyshwick and town of Queanbeyan. Not to mention warm air wafting around from the tons of burnt jet fuel and avgas – all of the above effects increasing over the decades.
A photo series here shows the growing business parks development at the airport itself. image 6 of 16 shows the instruments in the top left – I have marked a copy looking east – business building to south – Fairbairn RAAF to the far left – BoM instruments new site is just above the red “BoM”. Frames 1, 2 & 4 have good views of the business park.
I am working on station by station comparisons of the various BoM adjusted versions over the last 2 decades. If anybody has ideas examples to use, please email them in or let me know.
A 2010 post on UHI at Canberra Airport.
the Google map images seem to have reverted to some odd old version ?
About a week ago Dr Tim Flannery, Professor Lesley Hughes and other Climate Commission luminaries went public with claims about hot days above 35C in Western Sydney including;
“…hot days had already increased 60 per cent in western Sydney since 1970…”
and – Federal Climate Commissioner Professor Lesley Hughes says western Sydney is getting disproportionally hotter and drier than the rest of Sydney.
“If we compare western Sydney with the rest of Sydney, the number of hot days in western Sydney used to be three times as many as eastern Sydney, and now it’s four times,” she said.
These claims are from the Climate Commission report – “The Critical Decade: New South Wales climate impacts and opportunities”. If you Google the report title you will find the ~5MB pdf download.
Here is the Climate Commission Figure 3 from page 4.
Which gives them the pictorial of increasing heat that they want you to believe.
Here is the entire Sydney record showing warm peaks in 1926 and the 1940’s – so deliberately censored out by the Climate Commission because those inconvenient data destroy their pro-IPCC storyline.
I have also shown the Richmond RAAF data which commenced in December 1939 (so missed out on Jan-March 39) and shows the all time peak of 36 days over 35 degrees in 1940 – despite 1940 data only including Jan to the first few days of May, no data for December. So the all time peak of 36 days over 35 degrees would probably have been higher if all the data had been preserved. Then there was no data for 1941-42 – 1943,44,45 were OK but 1946 only has Jan-May (with a few gaps) yet still made 21 days over 35C. The gap post May 1946 carries on through 1947-52. Then 1953 does not start until late April yet still made 15 days over 35C. So we are fortunate that enough data has been preserved from Dec 1939 to show up the Climate Commission distortions of our history.
To sum up how the Climate Commission has been misleading.
[1] Shortening the Sydney trend to censor out periods warmer than they want you to know about.
[2] Failing to find the well known Richmond RAAF data – which comprehensively ruins their storyline.
[3] Leaving a large gap in their Paramatta trend circa 1978 which they should have known was concealing a peak comparable to the last few years. Keeping their storyline intact again.
[4] Making all manner of scaremongering statements about heatwaves based on 1,2 & 3.
It is interesting to reflect that if Hitler had not invaded Poland in Sept 1939 – the RAAF would maybe not have been so active at their Richmond base and the BoM might not have commenced the temperature station there in Dec 1939.
And the Climate Commission would have been more likely to have succeeded with their misleading version of the history of hot days in Western Sydney.
Jennifer Marohasy and Basil Beamish have reported on these issues before me – thanks to them both. Climate Commission Fudges Hot Day Data
and Basil Beamish for Climate Commissioner – which shows how Bathurst data too ruins the Climate Commission fairystories.
CRUTem4 is just released and shows more warming than the UK Met Office dominated CRUTem3. Before I get on to CRUTem4 – a quick reprise of my Jan 2007 post commenting on CRUTem3 compared to our old friend of many years CRUTem2 (which ended in 2005). “Huge variations now between the 3 main global T datasets – January 31st, 2007″. I argued the view the that one reason for UKMO getting involved in CRUTem3 was they wanted to reduce excess warming in CRUTem2 northern high latitudes – more on that in another post where I will explore where CRUTem4 finds the extra warming.
I downloaded global and hemispheric trends from the official CRU website, CRUTem2 and CRUTem3 and 4.
CRUTem2 is from 1856-2005 while CRUTem3 and 4 run 1850-2010.
So I ran the MS Excel linest function for the 1856-2005 period for all 3 series, global, northern & southern hemispheres.
And for 1850-2010 for CRUTem3 and 4. Results summarized in this matrix – all trends are degrees C per decade.
The global differences chart shows the effect of the warming adjustments in CRUTem4 in the last 20 years – and cooling adjustments in CRUTem4 from ~mid 1850’s to 1890. (obviously cooling those years warms the overall trend). Note that from 1895 to the mid 1980’s the CRUTem4 minus CRUTem3 differences are small. The warmth in 1852 will be discussed later but stems from Rio de Janeiro data.
The northern hemisphere differences chart shows the effect of the warming adjustments in CRUTem4 in the last 20 years – and cooling adjustments in CRUTem4 from 1850’s to mid 1870’s. Note again that from the mid 1870’s to the ~1990 the CRUTem4 minus CRUTem3 differences are small. Everyone is aware of the effect of the medicine buy generic viagra that is used for treating the condition. The manufacturing of VigRX plus generic viagra without visa wouroud.com is in a way not favorable for their looks. All these herbs are blended in cheap viagra levitra right combination and processed in the decoction of Musli Semal, Musli Sya and Gokhru to increase semen release naturally. These online drugstores sold counterfeit medicines or drugs after their expiry dates.
The southern hemisphere differences chart shows the effect of the warming adjustments in CRUTem4 in the last 5 years – and cooling adjustments in CRUTem4 from the late 1850’s to ~1885 – much of which comes from adjustments to Australian grid boxes. (obviously cooling those years warms the overall trend). Note that from ~1895 to 2005 the CRUTem4 minus CRUTem3 differences are small. The outlier warmth in 1851-1852 stems from Rio de Janeiro data and we will investigate this in later articles.
Note that the Jones team already have some extra warmth built in for the CRUTem5 version – whenever that appears. They only have to adjust out the warm early years from Rio – and presto – there is a little more warming in the trend.
Added after comment #1.
Using the “Land” data from this University of Alabama at Huntsville site.
CRUTem3 warms much faster than the satellites and CRUTem4 faster still.
The period is to 2010 because CRUTem4 is not yet updated through 2011.
IMHO the CRU team consider themselves beyond effective scrutiny.
While working on my benchmarking study on April 5th, 2012 – I noticed a clearcut step change in 1997 between CRUT3 and CRUT4 over much of north America.
I have portrayed this in map form to understand better what the CRU team has done in the various grid boxes.
It seems that for most of the USA grid boxes CRUT4 is warmer by one division on the temperature anomaly scale (0.3 degrees C). But note the grid box for Los Angeles has warmed by 3 divisions or ~1 degree C.
I am intrigued that the CRUT team makes such large adjustments over the USA – home to so many climate researchers. In 2006 I found amazing agreement over the USA between HadCRUT2 and satellite lower troposphere temperature data. I assumed that was one area of the globe where the CRUT team had little “wriggle-room” to adjust data. Not so it seems.
Anyway, I will do more on the subject later but wanted to get this surprising result out there. Who was it said something like – “…the future is known – it is the past that changes…”
This global study at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) – How Natural is the Recent Centennial Warming? – is the first that jumps to mind in over two decades by a group sceptical of AGW – that applies statistical analysis to thousands of temperature station data and concludes there is a standout UHI signal.
Andrew Bolt has an article on this – “Climate study: er, what man-made warming?”
I just hope this is the start of a determined research effort that might in the years ahead blunt the harm done to science by over two decades of the UHI infested various CRUTem versions.
After comparing land only CRUT3 vs the shiny new CRUT4 for some Australian grid boxes I examined again grid box areas in East China, Russia, Africa and also North America which I have checked in past years for trend differences between CRUT data and AMSU satellite data from UAH. For map of grid box areas. Data from KNMI Climate Explorer
For East China the differences are large and have increased in CRUT4.
Over Russia differences are less and have increased in CRUT4.
In the case of the grid box over Africa the trend per decade differences between CRUT3 and AMSU are huge and have eased slightly in CRUT4. These results imply large errors in surface data – unless some other reason can be found.
In 2006 I found close agreement between satellites and CRUT2 over the USA. Now we find that CRUT4 finds more warming trend in the USA than did CRUT3 – this chart shows evidence of huge adjustments in 1850’s data – and also CRUT4 has been tweaked warmer in recent years. The North American grid box area still shows the closest agreement with satellites – but CRUT4 finds increasing warmth by a variety of adjustments. An example is this 0.25 degree jump in the CRUT4 minus AMSU trace at 1997. I wonder if this tweak was “peer reviewed” ?
Perhaps the CRUT team thinks USA climate scientists are not watching – we are told the science is settled – not where I am looking.
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
