News and Views

BoM moves the Goal Posts

63 Comments

The BoM original 14 November media release "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?" was explicit in that calendar 2005 is the subject.

See my critique using NASA GISS data in Coolwire 15 and on Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog 29 November.

This BoM drum beat lead to the 17 December article in The Australian, "Nation bakes in its hottest year", that I critiqued here on 18 Dec. as, "Dodgy BoM map.." etc. The BoM map in question was headlined, Above normal temperatures January 1-November 30, 2005.

So presumably the map could not have been produced until the afternoon of 30 November.

It is fascinating that on 2 December the BoM put out another media release headlined, "NT – Hottest 12-month period", informing us of Northern Territory warmth, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory but Warmest 12-Month Period Persists". Oddly enough, there were no other media releases for other States, for example Queensland, featuring "Highest on record" areas on the map in The Australian. Note that it only takes two weeks for their 14 November hype, "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?", to collapse in a heap under the influence of, shock horror, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory".

When the BoM says on 2 December, "..Warmest 12-Month Period Persists", they shift the start of the measuring period from 1 January 2005 back to 1 December 2004. This is "moving the goal posts."

Is there no shame dampening what the BoM will do under the imperative to put out warming propaganda ?

This farrago of contradictions might be amusing if it were not costing taxpayers and diverting effort from more beneficial output such as timely storm warnings.

We await the end of year round of BoM media releases.

63 thoughts on “BoM moves the Goal Posts”

  1. Warwick, you see conspiracy everywhere – I suspect this is usually the case when it is what one expects to see.

  3. Peter, Can you please provide some examples to illustrate how I, "..see conspiracy everywhere..". I thought I was commenting on science issues in the Government BoM Media Releases. My view Peter is that there is no need for any conspiracy because the IPCC paradigm has been so dominant in Govt. and University science for over a decade, through greenhouse funding largesse, that everyone simply knows what to do. Do you remember the 1990/91 UK TV documentary, "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" ? Still a very topical and entertaining read.

  5. From the real climate site that deals with the subject of skeptism: "Bertrand Russell, had to say on the subject. This is extracted from the Introduction to his ‘Sceptical Essays’ (1928): I wish to propose for the reader’s favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. First of all, I wish to guard myself against being thought to take up an extreme position. … [Pyrrho] maintained that we never know enough to be sure that one course of action is wiser than another. In his youth, … he saw his teacher with his head stuck in a ditch, unable to get out. After contemplating him for some time, he walked on, maintaining that there was no sufficient ground for thinking that he would do any good by pulling the old man out. … Now I do not advocate such heroic scepticism as that. I am prepared to admit the ordinary beliefs of common sense, in practice if not in theory. I am prepared to admit any well-established result of science, not as certainly true, but as sufficiently probable to afford a basis for rational action. …. There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. …. Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment." Bob – Is consensus on the Big Bang groupthink? It is just as unprovable as AGW. What about stellar evolution or even evolution itself. As Bertrand Russel says when experts agree it makes the contrary argument less tenable. I do not see many amateur scientists arguing on string theory.

  6. Ender, to answer your question I would not class consensus on the Big Bang as groupthink. Note, however, that there is healthy debate regarding particulars of the Big Bang interpretation, and there are even minority interpretations entertained that do not involve a Big Bang. There are also no policy ramifications being forced down people’s throats based on an alledged consensus.

    The analogy to AGW fails on several counts. It is certainly not the case that “the experts are agreed” regarding AGW. You persist in making this claim by dismissing any expert that disagrees. The observational evidence in fact argues strongly against the party line on AGW. Nonetheless, we are attempting to regulate individual farmers, homeowners, etc., around the globe–this for an interpretation that the pro-AGW lobby pushes despite their own admission that there are major gaps in their knowledge. One symptom of groupthink is when authors tip their hat to AGW in their abstracts even though their research doesn’t particularly support it.

  8. Bob – There is healthy debate in the Big Bang as there is in AGW. As I have read more of the literature I can see this debate – the work of Jim Hansen in particular. However there is one huge difference – I am sure that most of the debate contrary to the Big Bang is happening in peer reviewed science where it belongs. My objections to AGW skeptics, at least the most prominant ones, is that they conduct their debates outside the scientific community without peer review. Scientists as you will know advise politicians and policy makers. The politicians have to use the best science that they can reasonably get at the time. The consensus view of most climate scientists is that AGW is consistant with what we know of the atmosphere at the moment and has the greatest chance of being correct. As Betrand Russel says "There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. …. Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion." Unfortuneatly in an uncertain world this is all politician can go on. I am sure that you cannot supply an equal consensus view of experts in the field that maintains that AGW is either not happening or will have no ill effects. Until you can, then polititians have to act on the best advice available. What is your advice to these politicians? Wait until climate change happens if indeed it is going to change?

  9. Ender – I’m with you : to a point. I’m definitely not an expert , so I have to rely on the integrity of those who are. The vast majority of relevant experts claim that human activity is the most likely explanation for the warming we are experiencing. I accept their judgement. However , the majority of relevant experts firmly believed that Iraq posessed WMD’s prior to the invasion – experts from right across the globe. Obviously expert consensus isn’t a guarantee of fact. My cynicism about the pro-AGW argument was sparked by 1. Kyoto seemed to create the most disadvantage/economic hardship for the US whilst other major polluters were unaffected. This seemed a suspiciously comfortable ideological solution for the pro-AGW side 2. some of those "offering up the scariest scenarios" to paraphrase one of the best known offenders, had been way wrong previously 3. some of the dissenters who were obviously reputable , weren’t treated as such. I thought science was characterised by dispassionate reason and acknowledgement of inconsistent data – there’s been an awful lot of accusation and criticism of motive of the dissidents ; that makes it appear religious rather than scientific. I haven’t seen any reports on the global average temperature for 2005 – just Australia. Was 2005 the hottest year on record for the world or just some parts of it?

  10. The official BoM statement on 2005; www.deh.gov.au/minister/ps/2006/psmr04jan06.html. Regarding Jim’s question above, there are three entities that keep track of global temps, two in the US and one in Britain. One of the US ones (NASA GISS) has already declared 2005 to be the warmest ever, albeit just slightly more than El Nino-enhanced 1998. I don’t think the final result is yet available from the other two, but since there are slight differences in how various adjustments are made and as noted the difference between 2005 and 1998 is so small they may or may not agree with GISS. The important thing to take away from this is that, technical record or not, 2005 continues the definite warming trend. Regarding warming vs. cooling, even for the warmest years there are regions that cooled instead.

  11. Jim – even though it is off topic the experts actually said that Iraq had NO WMDs but they were ignored. www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150 On topic – the actual science of greenhouse warming is not seriously disputed. After all it is the greenhouse effect that helps warm the planet so life can exist so this cannot be disputed. The enhanced greenhouse effect is what we are doing by emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases and causing extra warming over and above the normal balance of the carbon cycle. Kyoto is a treaty that tries to limit emissions. It did not unfairly target the USA as you have been led to believe. Most of the analysis of the economic cost of implementing Kyoto are inaccurate and do not reflect the true cost. The USA used to be a leader in renewable technology now it is a follower of Germany and Japan. There were huge exports to be gained for the USA with this lead – now you have lost it.

  12. Ender, The article you linked to doesn’t deal with the advice of the relevant experts on WMD – these surely are the intelligence services? The article ( hardly from an objective source) does however quote an expert referring to a concensus of opinion in the intelligence community on Iraq’s WMD. I used WMD as an illustration – sure there were WMD sceptics just as there are AGW sceptics. One of the arguments I’ve heard repeatedly however is that the "concensus" of experts in the AGW debate should sway the non-experts. My understanding is that Kyoto didn’t suggest any limitations on Russia , China and India some of the biggest current and future polluters and all major trading nations. It did however have direct ramifications for the US. Wouldn’t a treaty which placed some limitations on all polluters have been fairer and more suggestive of a serious attempt to tackle a serious problem?

  13. I wish to advise that I am back in WA, and critically studying the comments above. As it is the normal hiatus for mineral exploration in WA due to climatic conditions, I have more than the usual available time to deal with the deliberations of of partially excited brains that deliberate here.

  14. Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 – I wonder why it is not experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect.

  17. Ender,

    If CO2 traps heat then the surface of Mars, or at least its lower atmosphere should be hot. It isn’t because all gases lose their heat into space. The greenhouse effect is a physical one in which a physical barrier, water vapour, stops heat from being radiated out into space. Take away the water vapour and the atmospheric gases comprising the atmosphere dissipate into space rather rapidly. Hence the coldness of Mars and cloudless desert areas on earth.

  19. I don’t know how one can claim that the U.S. wasn’t treated differently than other nations by Kyoto. Western Europe has much lower population growth than the U.S., and had various specific country-to-country advantages in meeting goals (e.g. Germany was fixing inefficient E. German plants, UK was relying on North Sea natural gas, etc.) versus the U.S., but there was no corresponding adjustment in the limits for the U.S. versus W. Europe. Plus, as Jim said, it did nothing about countries like the PRC which are headed towards being the biggest emitters. Economics is so closely tied to energy consumption and hence to emissions, it’s absurd to expect one country to rush to a treaty which grants all its global competitors an advantage. Of course, Kyoto was well crafted in this regard: if the U.S. signs, Europe and PRC have an economic edge; if the U.S. doesn’t, we can carry on hating the U.S. as usual.

  20. Louis – "The greenhouse effect is a physical one in which a physical barrier, water vapour, stops heat from being radiated out into space. Take away the water vapour and the atmospheric gases comprising the atmosphere dissipate into space rather rapidly" Well this is a change , here you actually admitting the greenhouse effect is real. Now just think about how much thin the Martian atmosphere is and how far it is from the sun and this should give the answer. For a clue contrast this with Venus.

  22. A quick scan of the memory.
    Cape Naturaliste and Leeuwin would I think.
    Not sure about Kimberley stations and other northern WA.
    Southern Cross, Kalgoorlie, Wiluna do not warm overall as I recall, ( I mean comparable with GW)
    Darwin, Alice Springs, Adelaide and other stations near Adelaide show little century long trend.
    Other than the capitals I can not recall a station from the many century plus records in Vic, NSW that shows a clear long term upward trend.
    Launceston did not when I last looked. There are few century long stations in Qld. I have not seen Cloncurry for a while, it might comply. Brisbane despite obvious UHI does not show much trend.
    In 8 Jan Perth “Sunday Times” page 63, This week in history, Bourke in NSW in 1896 a heatwave killed 47. Lasted 13 days with av daily max of 47 C. I think that despite imperfect data the late 19C heat was real. It is also seen in Fiji, some NZ stations and Punta Arenas in Southern S America.

  23. Thank you sir,

    There doesnt appear to be any station graphs available on the net showing any clear upward trend over the long term.

    I need this as I am battling a global warming skeptic who has challenged me to produce such a graph.

    Ender can you help?

  25. Ender

    I have never ever said the Greenhouse effect was not real. I know precisely what a greenhouse effect is.

    So what Mars is further away than earth, and has a thin atmosphere that fact does not alter one whit the fact that CO2 does not trap heat. As I linked on my blog, Nasa thinks Mars has no CO2 in its atmosphere and thinking of melting the Martian Ice caps to generate CO2. But Mars already has a 95% CO2 atmosphere. So why pray tell is CO2 unable to trap the heat it gets from the sun, minimal as that is at that distance?

  26. Louis – perhaps you should remember what you write: from www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3580
    “So is there such a thing as a Greenhouse gas? No. The reason a greenhouse works is because two phases of matter are in physical contact – a solid shell of solid SiO2 encapsulating a gas, thus quarantining that gas from the rest of the gases of the atmosphere. However no gas is capable of physically stopping energy from escaping to space as a greenhouse effect – hence there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. An obscure concept but clearly one invented by the scientific illierati in the Gang_Green camp.

    To assert so is also to advertise an appalling ignorance of geophysics. You see, while CO2 might absorb a small part of the thermal spectrum, being a gas it will re-equilibrate with the other gases and transfer that energy to space. CO2 cannot retain its temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. It might in a bottle of soda-water, and then we have the SiO2 as glass, encapsulating the water and dissolved CO2, acting in the traditional greenhouse fashion.

    Did you write this????? Clearly you say that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas yet just before you said:
    “The greenhouse effect is a physical one in which a physical barrier, water vapour, stops heat from being radiated out into space. Take away the water vapour and the atmospheric gases comprising the atmosphere dissipate into space rather rapidly”

    So now there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps you have listened after all.

    So NASA thinks Mars has no CO2 – well lets check this fact. From this NASA fact sheet that they must have just posted after reading your expose: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

    “Surface pressure: 6.36 mb at mean radius (variable from 4.0 to 8.7 mb depending on season)
    [6.9 mb to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)]
    Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3
    Scale height: 11.1 km
    Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 1016 kg
    Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)
    Diurnal temperature range: 184 K to 242 K (-89 to -31 C) (Viking 1 Lander site)
    Wind speeds: 2-7 m/s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites)
    Mean molecular weight: 43.34 g/mole
    Atmospheric composition (by volume):
    Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.7%
    Argon (Ar) – 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.08%
    Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
    Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
    Xenon (Xe) – 0.08”

    Amazing isnt how they can put this up in time for me to find it in the first google hit. Note very carefully the pressure of 6.36 millibars and note that this is simply not enough CO2 to trap sufficient heat. Even on Earth water vapour does the lions share of the normal greenhouse warming something that Mars lacks at the moment. Venus on the other hand has 96.5% CO2, 90 times the pressure of Earth. This coupled with its closer proximity to the sun leads it temperature to be 474 degrees average.

  28. Louis, it may be, but the simple reason for less effect is the overall atmospheric density is so low. You do not understand the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and continue to woefully misrepresent it on your own web site. I hope you make a retraction and remove the errant articles. Your arguments are totally specious. They would not pass the most basic examination by a qualified physicist. The molecular structure of CO2 molecules (and other GHGs) allow them to be excited by infra-red photons. These photons are outgoing long-wave radiation from the warmed surface of the Earth. The molecules can then re-radiate back to the surface and warm the surface more than if the radiation was simply lost to space. Also the molecules’ greater energy allow it to affect their non-GHG neighbours i.e. N2 and O2. The transfer to and from CO2 + H20 molecules to N2 and O2 is practically instantaneous, and so the radiation temperature is very close to the temperature of the ambient air. The other issue is convection. This is one of the ways that the surface loses energy to the atmosphere and maintains the moist adiabatic lapse rate (the rate of decrease of temperature with height). The lapse rate is one of the fundamental controls on the strength of the greenhouse effect. The other usual argument is the saturation argument – some bands are saturated, but some aren’t. The net effect needs to be calculated by integrating across the whole spectrum. Also your oft made comments about it being cooler in the desert are also specious. Yes it is obviously cooler as some radiation is lost to space. But it isn’t the temperature of the moon’s surface either. i.e. some greenhouse effect is still occurring from the day’s warmed atmosphere. If you were right and all warmth was lost the temperatures would plummet way below what they do to lunar levels. And water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas is also well handled by RC. www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 The overall greenhouse analogy is not a good one. You can cool a horticultural glasshouse by opening the roof. This is not how the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” works. So please desist using that as an argument. I recommend this elementary textbook for a good description and your ongoing education: geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/index.html P.S. The Franz Josef glacier is a cherry pick – take a bigger worldwide sample of glaciers. P.P.S. Your Christy article is well answered by this most comprehensive and timely post: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234

  29. Phil, Your little explanatory sequence above just short circuits the process a little. Geenhouse has to warm the lower troposphere. Only then does that air warm the surface.

    Ender and others, It is great to hear you now so wise about how water vapour is the dominant GH gas.
    Many of us could be spending more time fishing if the propagandist IPCC had accepted that in the 1990’s.

  31. That’s another short-circuit, Warwick. CO2 is a forcing and water vapor is a feedback. In other words, the relatively small warming from the CO2 allows for more water vapor on the atmosphere, and the water vapor in turn does the lion’s share of the warming. But since my understanding of this relationship is that it’s basic physics that has been known for many years, I’m extremely surprised to hear you say that the IPCC was claiming something else in the ’90s. Do you have a cite for that?

  32. Thanks Ender

    The thing is the guy is insisting on a single weather station that shows a clear upward trend over the 20th century from a single weather station in Australia.

    I cannot find one.

    Thanks for the help anyway.

  33. Warwick – it is well accepted that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse forcing but it’s not quite that simple as that. Please read the RC url I have provided – it is well written and non-emotive – you won’t find words like propagandist included.

  34. Supertzar – I don’t know of one myself from top of my head, but to produce the observed global temeprature trend graph I understand that modellers had to include solar, volcanic aerosol, and greenhouse forcings. In other words in the first half of the last century (1900-2000) Solar forcing was more important in the first half of the century but hasn’t been since 1950s. Climate isn’t necessarily that simple or linear. You shouldn’t expect a nice straight line year after year as CO2 increases.

  35. Thanks Phil

    But it is difficult to make a convincing case with data that has been doctored or can easily be claimed to have been doctored.

    I have been challenged to find a specific set of data.

    I cant find it.

    ?But I appreciate your reply.

  36. Phil Done,

    Observed global temperature graphs cannot be produced by modelling.

    Observed temperature graphs are obervations.

    Modelling is a projection of the future based on historical data.

  38. One of the mysteries in physics is water – in the atmosphere it is a gas, and at the same time a liquid (clouds, rain, hailstones). No one understands this. But Steve Bloom, Done and Ender, do. Powerful be the Force (misattributed to Yoda, Jedi Master).

  40. Louis – observed temperature graphs can and have been reproduced by modelling. Modelling is not limited to the future. Your statement is simply outrageous. And Louis you’ve never been to Mars either but you’re opining heaps about it. We have reasonable science of both lunar and Martian surface and atmospheric conditions having data from various unmanned probes and by astronauts in the case of the Moon. Your failure to address my substantive points above and your ongoing utterly preposterous comments about climate on your closed blog puts you in the class of charlatans and sophists.

  41. Hi Guys Sorry to be a pain. The idiot that I am debating claims there was a long cooling trend post WW2 when co2 levels were booming. Is this true? He also claims that there was a warm period at the tail end of the dark ages that has plenty of scientific evidence that it was at least as warm as today. How would I debunk such claims?

  42. Well it is a good debate.

    And it is complicated – the best evidence is that combining major forcings – solar, volcanic and greenhouse that GCM modellers can simulate quite well the global temperature of the last century.
    www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm

    Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
    www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180#more-180

    Ask your debating friend for the evidence that we had a worldwide phenomenon with the dark ages and for the basis of his temperature proxies. Southern hemisphere information is quite sketchy. A primer on the debate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

    The current warming is occuring at a rate about 50 times faster than occured at the end of the last ice age some ~20K years ago

    The Earth responds to external and internal forcings that can change climate – orbital position (ice ages), solar output, volcanic aerosols, and greenhouses gases (CO2, CH4, and NOx). These interplay at various periods of history. It makes for complex debate if you cherry-pick and don’t look at what’s happening where and when.

  43. Er Phil Observed temperature graphs have been reproduced by modelling? You can Model the past. You do actually undestand what you are writing about here, do you?

  45. OK Phil, now summarise in your own words what the authors said. I have read your link, by the way, so know what they are on about.

  46. Although solar and volcanic influences can impact the earth’s climate they do not explain the increase in temperatures in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Combining all forcings in a 4 member ensemble AOGCM experiment reproduces the last century’s temperature record reasonably well. Greenhouse forcing explains much of the temperature rise since the mid 20th century. Now you read above how greenhouse actually works in detail and think about some retractions.

  48. Phil Don’t need to – Douglas Hoyt elsewhere here offers a simpler explanation for the ‘observed’ warming.

  50. Well, Phil, Louis also asserted above that hailstones are a liquid form of water, so I wouldn’t worry too much about him. Louis, the solar stuff is wrong, wrong, wrong. As the modern period of direct accurate observations of insolation (since 1978) shows, something else is causing the current warming. Yeah, yeah, I know, "natural cycles."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.