I have suggested this on the blog four times since February –
A double dissolution election in Australia has just become more likely as Western Australia has to repeat a Senate election – then in July after the budget shambles –
Prime Minister Abbott should accumulate Senate triggers for a double dissolution election and then “go the double” – again in September –
Blowout in Australian budget deficit quickly forgotten in the media – should steel the Govt to plan a double dissolution election – then last month –
Australian Commonwealth Government has lost their way – lost the plot –
Now I see The Australian newspaper has seen the light – Coalition must call Labor’s bluff and push for a double dissolution – even the ABC and other left media mentioned the subject last week.
This looks like a hapless lame duck of a Govt being blown this way and that. They do some good things but can not follow through. Calling the Unions Royal Commission was a good step and has produced some great evidence – but few know about it. A selection of evidence – some of which is very entertaining – should have been put on a DVD with explanatory editorials and delivered to every mail box. Make many of these union identities comedy heroes.
I was away all yesterday in the boondocks and heard on the car radio news of the Brisbane storms with hail and damage. Brisbane smashed by storm super cell: Premier calls in Army to help with clean-up –
I just post this map of rain up to 9am on the 28th (recorded up to 4am) to float the idea again that the urban heat island can attract rain. The mechanism could be due to the man made increased albedo contrasts accentuating the formation of convective storm cells. I am interested to see what readers think. I realize there is a greater concentration of rain gauges in SE Queensland.
I have had previous posts on this subject but not on Brisbane. In February I posted – Did the Adelaide urban heat island (UHI) increase rain there last night? and there is a link there to an example from Melbourne. I am sure I have read of examples from books and published papers.
The Australian newspaper reported that Tony really did say this at Beaufort, Victoria, in December 2009 – Town of Beaufort changed Tony Abbott’s view on climate change
But my posts on BoM adjustments to ACORN-SAT Cobar Meteorological Office temperatures 1963-2013 Episode 1 and Episode 2 – raise a new question.
Follow the logic here. The adjustments the BoM makes in its flagship ACORN-SAT data show that they do not even trust the readings made at Cobar – a state of the art, purpose-built meteorological station, staffed by their own professionals. What they are saying is that for practical purposes it is impossible even for our modern scientific society to measure temperature consistently at a professionally managed site over multi-decades.
Yet temperature data from thousands of stations of vastly lower quality around the world – used without adjustment to prove “global warming” – are bound to carry far more errors that we know little or nothing about. And the adjustments at Cobar alone are as large as the claimed rate of “global warming” over decades.
So whatever the truth of Tony’s assessment of the whole issue, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that “climate change as measured – could well be crap”.
This is the second episode in the Cobar ACORN-SAT series examining BoM adjustments to the CDO temperature data – here I start to look at adjustments to minimum temperatures. The 1st episode looked at maximum temperatures. A list of ACORN adjustments to Cobar data is here and you can see the first min adjustment listed is 1st Jan 1972 meaning the adjustment factor applies to all data earlier than that. You will see it is labelled as “Statistical” meaning there is no evidence for it in station diaries or admin records but it derives from computer driven comparisons sifting data differences from multiple stations as far away as Parkes and Hillston – see map. In this case of the 4th adjustment the following stations data was used.
Making the chart of Cobar annual minimum temperatures compared to ACORN-SAT my eye was caught by the adjustment starting in 2006 and affecting all earlier years which I have marked with a blue 6. That is unlisted in the ACORN-SAT documentation and is substantial at about -0.4 degrees C. The slight mismatch between Cobar Met Office and ACORN from 2007-2013 is due to rounding differences because I have made my ACORN annuals by averaging a year of daily data which I leave as produced by Excel with multiple decimal places.
The next adjustment to look for is at 1971 where I have the blue 4, which is the 4th adjustment in the ACORN list and is listed at -0.49 degrees C. The increased departure of ACORN cooler than Met Office to about -0.9 is obvious on the chart.
Examining this adjustment in greater detail I have made a chart comparing Cobar MO and ACORN version with nearest neighbours Bourke, Wilcannia and Nyngan. The average difference between the 1971 & 1972 readings for these 3 stations is +0.2 at Cobar MO, +0.4 at Bourke PO, +0.4 at Nyngan, and -0.4 at Wilcannia, an average for the 3 Cobar neighbours of +0.13, not very different from the +0.2 that we know happened at Cobar Met Office. But instead of leaving the higher quality Cobar Met Office readings well alone – what does the BoM decide to do with their adjustment #4? They take off 0.49° making the 1971-1972 difference now 0.7 – greater by 0.3 than any of the neighbours. Presumably the BoM justify this by their computer driven comparisons with sites as distant as Parkes.
If the reasons for an adjustment can not be seen in nearest neighbours then it must be an exercise in fantasy to search for a reason in a cherry picked array of more distant stations which are all of poorer quality than Cobar Met Office.
It is interesting to check the differences in annual minimums between Cobar Met Office and Cobar Airport which are only about 7 or 8 km apart. You might expect them to be very similar and in lockstep – not so from the chart.
Note the BoM never refer to Cobar Airport data in ACORN-SAT – but we are free to check it out.
First there is no evidence here of a step or jump around 2006 – 2007.
While there are such wildly varying and apparently random differences between these two very adjacent sites – what on earth can the BoM learn by comparing Cobar with Parkes – or indeed any other station in their adjustments list.
These are the sort of unsafe foundations that pro-IPCC climate science is based on.
A reader has asked me to look at how ACORN-SAT has adjusted Cobar temperature data. Cobar is an old site with Post Office data from 1881 – then in 1963 the BoM opened the Cobar Met Office on the north side of town. Map from Google Earth with MO marked by “green X”. Detail of Met Office – note housing adjacent. A Met Office is of course purpose built and staffed by BoM professionals. Then in 1994 an Airport station commenced with an AWS.
ACORN-SAT starts with a positive adjustment to the max of 0.41 prior to 1 Jan 1995. Table of ACORN-SAT adjustments for Cobar. I will start by examining the evidence for that first adjustment 1 Jan 1995. This chart shows Cobar district annual max t data from 1963 – the 3 Cobar station plus Bourke PO and Airport – then Wilcannia and Nyngan. All data from the BoM CDO www site. I have marked the year 1995 with a “green 1” – and the first adjustment to Cobar Met Office is indicated by the “green 2”.
Here is a map of NSW showing all stations used in the various ACORN-SAT adjustments of Cobar. Here is a list of stations used in the first adjustment (1 Jan 1995) – the only one we will discuss at this time.
An important note – BoM ACORN-SAT does NOT use Cobar Airport data, despite the two stations only being about 7km apart and as the chart shows the Airport and MO annual max data are in near lockstep as you would expect.
I am saying this first adjustment is invalid for the following reasons.
 The Airport data for 1994 & 1995 closely agrees with Met Office so this fact must override whatever signals the BoM computes from “data mining” at diverse stations up to a few hundred kms away some in very different climate zones.
 The Cobar Met Office is a purpose built facility staffed by professionals so that data must be considered a more reliable baseline compared to amateur run sites not owned by the BoM.
 If there was a valid reason to adjust Cobar MO data prior to 1 Jan 1995 it is ludicrous to think there would not be a reason revealed in the Met Office admin records.
That is my case that the ACORN-SAT version of Cobar fails at the first hurdle.
There has been much valid criticism of ACORN-SAT in recent months and the entire project must be scrapped.
The ABC reports – Foreign Minister Julie Bishop chides Barack Obama over Great Barrier Reef climate change remarks – Has an Australian FM ever criticized a US President before ? about anything ? – in the history of history ? The G20 – what a colossal waste of money.
The BoM was asked to calculate the climate of the Canberra district in the process of deciding on a location for the Australian Federal Capital Territory – Chris Gillham alerted me to this report and he has his own comments on the data in a 1Mb pdf report.
Looking at the temperature data in the Table on page 7 & 8 of the pdf report I decided to check on Goulburn, Cooma and Yass getting data from BoM CDO.
In the case of Goulburn the annual mean temperature was 56.1°F for the 46 years prior to 1910 – this equates to 13.4°C and the station was at an altitude of 702m. Now Goulburn Airport is at an altitude of 640m so the 13.4 in town would equate to 14 at the Airport assuming a standard lapse rate. The Airport in the ten years 2004-2013 averaged 13.1 – so even if we take of 0.2 from the Goulburn Town temperature for possible non-Stevenson screen exposure – we still have Goulburn 105 years ago 0.7 degrees warmer than the last ten years.
In the case of Cooma the annual mean temperature was 54°F for the 44 years prior to 1910 – this equates to 12.2°C and the station at Lambie Street was at an altitude of 812m. Now Cooma Airport is at an altitude of 930m so the 12.2 in town would equate to 11.04 at the Airport. The Airport in the ten years 2004-2013 averaged 11.15 – If we take of 0.2 from the historic Cooma temperature for possible non-Stevenson screen exposure – Cooma 105 years ago might have averaged 10.85 or 0.3 degrees cooler than the last ten years.
Yass is complicated by stations closing in the last ten years with only one month overlap. I have done the calculations and allowing for the site change and altitude differences there is near zero difference between the Yass district pre 1910 and in the last ten years.
Upshot is there seems to be no global warming or significant climate change around Canberra since the 19th Century.
Look at the pathetic contribution of wind and solar recently – Agora Energiewende
In July solar was better of course but wind was a lot worse – you can check any period.
No wonder many western economies are near moribund after wasting squillions on dud technologies thinking they would produce “low carbon” electricity in a way acceptable to the population. Amazing that people still vote Green or Left. Deluded. I read where members of Merkel’s cabinet have the common sense to see the train-wreck coming. Germany abandons their climate target, as their Chancellor sings to the crowd
Saturday morning after 9am the ABC news 24 TV presenters crossed to a BoM staffer from Melbourne and they all talked about a possible record breaking day for Brisbane which had a forecast of 40. Oddly none of them including the BoM guy could quote what the record was (takes 20 secs online to find out). Brisbane Regional Office hit 41.2 in November 1913 – that is the record – nineteen thirteen!!! They are forecasting 40 again for Sunday – might be luckier. On Saturday Brisbane topped at 32 near 1pm but NE breezes moderated the afternoon. Amberley and Gatton further west did hit 40 and Amberley got a record 43. It was also interesting to hear TV news people Saturday evening all faithfully mentioning the “hot day” in G20 reports.
The world oil price has plunged 16% since the start of October – which must be a boost to many near moribund G20 economies. Yet the media mostly ignores this.
Facts are that cheaper oil plus recent changes in the makeup of the US Congress makes it less likely that any hand wringing hopes for deep emissions reductions will be honoured.