"I am very wary of any people with strongly held beliefs they hope to foist on others..."


Sounds like he's approaching his work with a certain cool scientific dispassion.

Lynn says:
And the funding model here really does force researchers into certain areas
of research. If the government decides that climate change research is a top priority, then that's what you gotta study

Same story here in the UK. It's worse than climate change research in general being set as a funding priority though, it's particular aspects. In the UK, solar research has been cut back to the bone while atmospheric science is given priority. This unbalances the direction of research in my opinion. Instead of healthy competition between ideas, a single 'party line' on climate change is being pushed, so that the public get a 'clear message'. They are playing politics with science and I fear this will have a detrimental effect on the respect the public previously held for scienc in general.

And now the new govt here is hitting the higher education sector with huge cuts across the board. At my home university (in the top 24 in the country) our biological science faculty has just shed 10% of it's tenured staff and 20% of it's support staff.

Tony B says:
An non peer reviewed article by a retired school principal , is that the best you can do.

Still no comment on the C20th overall increase in Australian rainfall Tony?

Regarding the Australian temperature record and the citizen scientist who has devoted his spare time to studying them, he is one of several who have raised disquieting questions about the adjustments made to the raw data.

If you think he is wrong, why don't you pay a visit to his blog and challenge him instead of carping at me? Since there don't seem to be any 'oficial bodies' querying this stuff, it does seem that privateer efforts to ensure the valuable raw data isn't mangled by spurious 'adjustments' are the best we can do, yes.

Take a look at what happened to Darwin's temperature record:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Willis Eschenbach is a published climatologist by the way.

Now, ask yourself this: Since this station is at an airport, and airports have been getting busier for the last 60 years, with more passengers arriving in more cars, and jets getting bigger along with their engines, and there being more flights taxi-ing past the thermometers, why would the 'adjustments' be upwards instead of downwards?

Please do respond. So far, the global organisation which applied these 'adjustments', GHCN, hasn't, and their 'adjusted' data is used as the RAW input to the global temperature records produced by CRU and GISS. Who then add their own 'adjustments'.

These are facts Tony, not vague innuendos about someones ability to accurately and honestly reproduce data in graphs.

All attempts to force the CRU in the UK to release it's original data and processing code using the freedom of information act have been denied. The CRU's cheif 'scientist' Phil Jones said in one of the climategate emails that he would rather destroy the data than release it. Then, unbelievably, they said they didn't have the raw data anymore.

The dog ate the homework.

Science which cannot be replicated or reproduced through independent verification is not science. Full stop.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 01:38:04 MDT.

The BoM explain the procedure here in brief: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml

And here's a paper describing it in detail.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

This is old news; this and all of Eschenbach's other similar claims have been proven to be false. It's also been shown that these homogeneity adjustments have negligable impact on the global temperature anomalies. In other words, even if Eschenbach were right (and he's not), it doesn't change anything of significance. More noise and FUD from planet BS.

For the record, the CRU does not own, keep, or archive any raw data. That's why they don't have it and didn't release it under the FOI act - it's not theirs to distribute! They did tell the moron (McIntyre) harassing them with FOI requests this, but he kept harassing them anyway.

It's a funny old world when everything Rog T says can be proven wrong in a couple of minutes, but for some strange reason he just keeps going on and on and on...

An interesting graph of rainfall against solar cycle length from Rob Bateman.

.

This supports my earlier contention that there is a link between runs of high amplitude solar cycles(which tend to be shorter, with briefer minima between) and reduced cloud cover, causing more heat to enter the oceans and raise global temperature as well as lowering rainfall.

Having thought a bit more about the discussion with Nia earlier regarding evaporation, it seems likely that reduced cloud cover leads to reduced back radiation from the atmosphere. Which in turn means less evaporation caused by long wave radiation getting concentrated on the surface more than offsetting increased evaporation from raised sea surface temperature.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 02:16:32 MDT.

Please pay attention Stewart Collie, and actually read what I wrote. It is the GHCN adjustments used in the world temperature datasets which are under study, not BOM's.

For the record, the CRU does not own, keep, or archive any raw data. That's why they don't have it and didn't release it under the FOI act - it's not theirs to distribute!

They can't produce the alleged confidentiality agreements with the countries supplying the datasets either. They 'lost' those too.

I requested copies of the agreements for several countries under the FOIA, and got the brushoff. Then CRU passed my personal details to the police and I got investigated to see if they could pin the 'theft' of the CRU climategate emails on me.

The gloves are off, and to me, your petty and inaccurate comments are just the buzzing of mosquitos in the background. I have bigger flies to swat.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 02:19:13 MDT.

Rog T ranted: "I have bigger flies to swat."

Ah, I love the smell of delusions of grandeur from an internet troll.

Nose too close to your own armpit perhaps.

"Tony B says:
An non peer reviewed article by a retired school principal , is that the best you can do.

Still no comment on the C20th overall increase in Australian rainfall Tony?"

Rog

It is an established fact that rainfall has radically DECREASED in the South-West of Australia (bottom corner of WA) (Catalyst had a programme on this last week) and in the South-East (which includes Melbourne and its catchment area). The percentage variation charts you posted illustrate this. If there is any increase at all in total rainfall - and I will need to check the veracity of that claim because it's obviously a fact that every loony, retired school principal climate changer denier is hanging their hat on - it can also be explained by your chart which shows an increase in rainfall in the North-West: that's pretty significant because the charts are percentages on average, not against a common base. But frankly, so effing what? Do you understand that that rain is falling some 5000 ks from here? And that a nominal increase over the world's 6th largest land mass doesn't mean much in relation to drought here in Melbourne?

And since the climate deniers are so smart - much smarter than those corrupt CSIRO and BOM scientists - how do they explain that claimed increase in rainfall? If the climate isn't changing but is completely static? An increase in rainfall sounds like a change in climate to me.

What I also don't get is why climate change deniers keep arguing reductio ad absurbum - we had a cold morning yesterday so that's global warming debunked according to you and your mates - rather than understanding that (1) climate change scientists have ALWAYS said that some places will get warmer and some will get colder as a result of climate change and (2) a cold day is weather, not a trend. And for the record, because Melbourne is drier now in Winter you will get cold nights caused by lower humidity and heat radiating away due to clear skies - it's the process you get in Australia's deserts at this time of year. Hint hint. We used to get cold weather coming up from the south in winter (as did WA) and that weather brought the winter rain and cold temperatures. Ten years ago, sitting in my current 28th floor office I saw snow drifting past my window. Now I don't even bother carrying a waterproof jacket in my panniers. And the only real rain we get now comes from the North, not the south, and it comes in Spring and Summer, not winter. If you cared to check, the CSIRO has published studies on this phenomenon.

And, for the record, my understanding is that a couple of the Australians you are being rude to are scientists - and not retired school-teachers.

Arapiles says:
If there is any increase at all in total rainfall - and I will need to check the veracity of that claim because it's obviously a fact that every loony, retired school principal climate changer denier is hanging their hat on

Why can't you guys read what I wrote? The retired school principle was looking at temperature records not rainfall records. And you call him a loony, obviously without looking at his work. It's that kind of attitude which gets you a bad name.

And feel free to check the 'veracity of the claim' but don't make out it's my claim or the temperature studying school principle's claim, because it's the BOM's data, direct off the BOM's website.

And since the climate deniers are so smart - much smarter than those corrupt CSIRO and BOM scientists - how do they explain that claimed increase in rainfall? If the climate isn't changing but is completely static? An increase in rainfall sounds like a change in climate to me.

The skeptics have always maintained that the climate changes, all the time, quite naturally. We all know the climate has warmed since the end of the little ice age, around 1700AD (long before co2 started rising much). A lot of us are quite happy to accept that humans alter their environment too. The point at issue is, how much, and does it present such a serious problem that we should throw economies into reverse to try to mitigate it? You know all this, and I'm heartily sick of the way you try to paint us as fools and malign operators. We are intelligent researchers and well informed people who care about environment as much as anyone else here.

We used to get cold weather coming up from the south in winter (as did WA) and that weather brought the winter rain and cold temperatures. Ten years ago, sitting in my current 28th floor office I saw snow drifting past my window. Now I don't even bother carrying a waterproof jacket in my panniers. And the only real rain we get now comes from the North, not the south, and it comes in Spring and Summer, not winter.

Ten years ago, the planet started cooling down again.

I'll sit and chat about the weather for as long as you like Arapiles me old wombat, but don't forget it is the alarmist climatologists who keep telling us anything less than 30 years is weather, not climate. So the ten year cooling is out of court along with your anecdotes. Can't have your cake and eat it, sorry. On a cheerier note, don't forget Antarctica has had it's winter sea ice extent increasing for 30 years. This means colder and drier air over the southern ocean, and so, less rain from the south. I suspect this trend will soon reverse, because it tends to run opposite to the Arctic, which started recovering 2 years ago after the 2007 minimum. It'll be low again this summer, but that's due to winds compacting the ice. It's thicker this year again.

And, for the record, my understanding is that a couple of the Australians you are being rude to are scientists - and not retired school-teachers.

The retired school teacher is a retired school principle, and not as you call him, a loony. You may see that for this reason, I'm not inclined to take lectures from you on this. As for being rude to Stupid Collie, well, he started it, and continues to make false accusations without showing any sign of backing any of it up with any facts, so he gets the rough edge of my tongue. Diddums. Sue me. Who else? Tony Beasley? I don't thnk I'v been rude to him, I'm just challenging him to talk about the data.

As you said, Australia is a big continent. It's also sitting in a big ocean which is the only one on Earth which has an uninterrupted circulation right round the globe. As such, it can continue it's business uninterrupted for longish time spans without undergoing the same oscillations other oceans do when the speed the Earth rotates at fluctates on decadal timescales. For this reason, long droughts on one side of the continent are neither unusual, or unprecedented. As I understand it, the folklore of the indigenous people had a handle on this a long time ago.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 15:39:31 MDT.

Here's a thought provoking graph. The north magnetic poles and the geomagnetic field intensity since 1850 graphed against Arctic temperature. I love new science.

.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 15:35:22 MDT.

> The north magnetic poles and the geomagnetic field intensity since 1850 graphed against Arctic temperature.

Source?

Cheers

Please explain for those of us who might be geomagnetically challenged.

I guess it is suggesting that the magnetic north pole might be moving in the direction away from Hudson Bay and toward Siberia, ever so slightly. I see some faint correlation to Arctic temperature trend, but that is not very clear to me.

I there were another similar chart for the South Pole, maybe it would be clearer.

All I know is that my own personal internal magnetic compass was temporarily turned around when I first traveled from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

--B.G.--

Roger, my friend Vukcevic isn't all that tidy but you can find links to a lot of his stuff here:

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

Bob, the rate of change in the declination of the north magnetic pole correlates with unexpected things apart from temperature. I won't go into it here and now, but there is an interesting line of research opening up here.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/02/2010 16:38:17 MDT.

"The retired school teacher is a retired school principle, and not as you call him, a loony."

I think you mean principal - my mother is also a retired school teacher with an interest in climate change (due to her farm turning to dust) and she says it does exist. So that completely nullifies your retired school teacher.

Hi Rog

Yes, I am sure he can be found. What I was hinting is that you should always state the source clearly. Basic science acknowledgement method.

Cheers

Hi Roger,
His name was already on the graph, but thanks for the tip.
For the record Milajoie Vukcevic (Sc. Postgraduate (M.Sc) - London University Eng. Graduate (Dipl.Ing) - Belgrade University) and I correspond regularly. And while we're waving bit's of paper around, I am a registered engineer and a graduate of the history and philosophy of science (BA Hons). I have a degree in how to evaluate scientific theories.

Also, while we're on the subject of peoples qualifications and the provenance of data:

"emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric research, visiting ANU research fellow, and fellow of the Australian Academy of Science...

This week I phoned Paltridge to hear what he had to say about the CSIRO’s new six-page publication, ‘The State of the Climate’, produced with the Bureau of Meteorology... To Paltridge, it’s just another sad indication of the decline in scientific objectivity. ‘This is a slipshod, slippery little document,’ he tells me. ‘It looks as if it’s been hastily thrown together by some committee. They don’t even tell you from what data they’ve drawn their conclusions.’

He points to the assertion that Australian average temperatures ‘are projected’ to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 degrees by 2030. ‘Projected from what?’ he asks. ‘From their own past observations? Or from climate models? They don’t say.’"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/page_2/5864012/dark-thoughts-on-earth-hour.thtml

Arapiles, we all know global warming existed, and that the climate continues to change as it always has, that's not what is in dispute. The question is, what caused global warming 1978-2003 (apart from 'adjustments' to the data) and will it restart anytime soon? The warmists would have us believe it was the sun driving climate until 1980, then co2 since, and that temp will climb again if we continue to emit. I don't believe it, and have a mass of evidence to show they are wrong.

You can torture the data until it confesses.
Even to crimes it did not commit.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/03/2010 03:48:32 MDT.

Another interesting graph, from David Archibald's forthcoming book shows solar cycle length against the mean temperature at Armagh, Ireland.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

.

Short solar cycles have higher amplitudes in general.
Solar cycle 23 is the one just ended. Cycle 24 isn't getting going as it should. This may be an indication that the sun is going into it's once every roughly two hundred years funk.

If so, it's going to get cooler for some time to come (20-60 years). However, the amount of excess energy built up in the oceans over the long run of high amplitude solar cycles in the second half of the C20th should provide a bit of a cushion for the next couple of years and another el nino as the ocean burps out it's excess energy might make for some temporary temperature increase.

In weather news, there was fresh snow on Mt Washington this morning. In July. Not "unprecedented", but not a frequent occurence either.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/03/2010 03:29:25 MDT.

I, for one, object to the presumption that just because someone's primary (past) occupation was not a climatologist that they are de facto uninformed and incorrect. There is more to knowledge than a diploma, and many people holding quite high diplomas who are blind and therefore ignorant even within their own fields of "expertise".

"I, for one, object to the presumption that just because someone's primary (past) occupation was not a climatologist that they are de facto uninformed and incorrect. There is more to knowledge than a diploma, and many people holding quite high diplomas who are blind and therefore ignorant even within their own fields of "expertise"."

There were/are certainly plenty of amateur scientists - Alfred Russel Wallace for one - who did and do excellent work. But wouldn't the starting proposition be that someone who has studied and published in a field for decades is more likely than not to have a higher level of expertise than someone who has no background in the subject?

Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a self-taught surgeon? Would you take bet-the-firm legal advice from a friend of a friend who's not a lawyer or barrister but reckons it's not rocket science? (That's actually been said to me). And it's worth pointing out that the successful amateur scientists like Wallace worked in their chosen fields for most of their lives - they weren't retirement interests, and they weren't ideologically motivated.