# David Bidstrup: Not much change in 130 years.

A few days ago I had a post that discussed a couple of papers that questioned the relevance or otherwise of a “global average temperature” and whether this measure actually had any scientific basis. In that post I analysed Adelaide’s January temperatures for the period 1888 to 2018 in 10 year intervals.

In order to be complete I have analysed temperatures for the same period in blocks of 5 years. The purpose was to see whether maximum and minimum temperatures have changed very much and to look at whether we are having more “hot” days than in the past.

The data is from the Bureau of Meteorology and has been partitioned into 5 year intervals. For each interval I found the maximum and minimum temperatures, the “range” of temperature and the number of days above 38 degrees C. This analysis covers the full years in the 5 year blocks of time, not just the summer months. The results are summarised in the table below and under that is a graph showing the changes with time. Once again my Excel skills result in red for minimums and blue for maximums however that is where I am with technology.

The greatest temperature range is 45.5 degrees in the period 1978 to 1982 and the highest temperature recorded, (46.1), is in the period 1938 to 1942 – it was actually in 1939. The graph below shows the changes with time. In order to keep the X axis within bounds the time periods are numbered from 1 to 26 and can be referenced in the table and the Y axis is temperature in degrees C.

The reason for looking at temperature range is because that is what we all live within. If I “averaged” the highest and lowest temperatures I get 24.4 degrees which is meaningless as a comparison when the maximum range over the 130 years is 48.7 degrees, (from +46.1 to -2.6).

When looking at the frequency of “hot” days I chose 38 degrees as the measure and counted the days that were equal or greater. Out of a record of 47,400 odd points there were 745 days that met this criterion. In the total record this amounts to about 1.6%, say 1.6 days in every hundred is 38 degrees or above, remembering the absolute maximum was 46 degrees and that there were only 2 days in the record above 45 degrees.

It is interesting that in the 1898 to 1902 period we had the greatest number of days above 38, (62) and recent times show about half that number. The 25 year period 1898 to 1922 averages around 43 days above 38 C and the same number of years from 1993 to 2017 averages around 27.

So, far from warming, the climate in Adelaide looks remarkably consistent over the past 130 years and I suspect other places are just the same. There are some ups and downs but climate/weather is chaotic and not amenable to forecasting very far into the future.

There is no “global climate” as the earth has a temperature range from +60 to -80 degrees, (140 degrees), so to talk of representing “climate change” by some dubious, statistically constructed, heavily manipulated and scientifically wrong “global average temperature” is simply wrong and probably fraudulent.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

### 45 Responses to David Bidstrup: Not much change in 130 years.

1. stackja

Fraud! I am shocked!

2. MPH

I’m wondering if anyone has ever done a mass and energy balance on the model outputs to confirm conservation of each between time steps? Or do the models not consider such fundamentals to be relevant?

3. Ubique

I would have expected to see a slight increase in the minimum temperature over time owing to the city’s growth causing an increased Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

4. Mullumhillbilly

That -2.6 seems to be an outlier. BOM has missed an opportunity for an adjustment step change there.

5. struth

Thank you for your work, David.

6. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

Global warming has always been nothing more than an anti-capitalist scheme to transfer trillions of dollars from rich countries to poor whilst smashing our cheap electrical production.

Marxism through stealth.

7. David Brewer

David – You need to look into the history of the site. The fact that your annual minima are never below 0.6 degrees C before 1978 and never above it after 1978 is a pretty sure sign that some measurement change occurred at that point. It could be new equipment but from a quick look at the availabilities of the BoM records for Adelaide I would suspect the measurement site changed from West Terrace to Kent Town around that time.

8. RobK

Quick, blowup another power station. Here is your nearly free solar panel. Idiots.

9. Egor

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was morphed into Climate Change then Climate Disruption by the cultural marxists when the former descriptions lost all credibility.
How do the Greens with 8% of the vote control Liberal “environmental” policy? Closet Greens galore everywhere in Libi land, I fear.
The world’s most abundant energy sources and Australia has double Japan’s electricity prices.
Turnbull should be turfed out on Green kowtowing grounds alone.

10. David Brewer

More on the change of site in the late 70s here.

The “Adelaide” site moved back to West Terrace in 2017. It’s a few tenths of a degree warmer on average than Kent Town. So more BoM-generated global warming on the way!

11. Herodotus

Thanks David, very good work.
We know that the arty community are the useful idiots of the left, and that there’s a lot of cross-pollination between the arty mob and the news media.
Journalists like to see themselves as keeping the bastards honest, but instead a huge number of them have proven to be either duped (useful idiots) or complicit comrades of the nouvelle marxisme that dances through our institutions spraying pc in all directions.
Actually doing some research and telling their audience the facts has been replaced by a mix of ignorant mee-too-ism and activist propaganda.
The bitter harvest we now face is largely down to the relentless advocacy of the media. We have a choice between two main parties at the next federal election, one which is quite mad about “renewables”, and the incumbents who are slightly less mad.

12. duncanm

I always find it useful to look at a remote (minimise UHI) , long-lived (for Oz) site, such as Tibooburra, Menindee, and Marree.

None of them show any change of significance over a century.

13. struth

How do the Greens with 8% of the vote control Liberal “environmental” policy? Closet Greens galore everywhere in Libi land, I fear.

It’s got nothing to do with the greens.
It is dictated by the UN.

14. You have nailed the very crux of the matter.
a) As McIntyre and McKittrick pointed out at least ten years ago, the concept of the parameter “global temperature” is mathematically and thermodynamically impossible.
b) The notion that surface air temperature and climate are interchangeable ignores the fact that climate is regional and is comprised of many parameters other than temperature. A “global climate” is further from reality than a “global currency” or a “global language”.
c) The suggestion that “the planet is warming” in the face of a very slight cooling over the past 8,000 years demonstrates the extent of the sham as well as our gullibility.

15. Genghis

Good article. Two points,
1. Maximum temperature may only be for a minute or two when say the sun comes out whereas the minimum is produced quite slowly.
2. The greatest drought in recorded history was in the late eighteenth century – early nineteenth century where paddle steamers were stuck in waterholes on the Darling for a decade.
Regards,

16. Fat Tony

It’s always been about money & power – it’s never been about the science.
The “redistribution of wealth” is from the middle class to the rich bastards behind this scam.

17. Mark M

November 28, 2012
Fourteen Is the New Fifteen!
In other words, James Hansen sent word that 14 is the new 15.

the average surface temperature of Earth is 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit), but this is a new value which has quietly replaced the original average of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit).

18. Snoopy

Thank you, David.

19. cohenite

Good effort. There are some people doing this very thing with the BoM temperature record and basically this record is shot to bits, manipulated beyond reasonable use but it is one of the fundamental justifications for the vast amounts of money being shovelled into climate science and renewables. Make no mistake these policy decisions are one of the main reasons, if not the main, for the economic mess Australia is in.

In respect of the global atmospheric temperature (GAT) which is also used to justify economic and social response here and elsewhere in the world there are 2 primary papers addressing the idea of a GAT. The first is the Essex, McKitrick and Andresen 2006 paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

The second is the Pielke et al 2007 paper:

https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

To keep this brief I’ll refer only to the Pielke et al paper. Before doing so just a quick mention of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. SB is represented by the equation, E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K. What this means is that all surfaces emit radiation depending on their temperature but that the difference in the amount of radiation emitted between surfaces of different temperature is not linear because of the T^4 part of the equation. Large differences in the amount of emitted radiation can occur for instance, from 200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2. From 300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2. The increase in 50K from 300 to 350 causes a much larger increase in emitted radiation than the 50K increase from 200 to 250K.

Put simply more radiation is emitted from the equator than at the poles and a temperature increase at the poles will have a much less effect in emitted radiation than a similar temperature increase at the equator.

“[6] At its most tightly coupled, T is the radiative temperature of the Earth, in the sense that a portion of the radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere originates at the Earth’s surface. However, the outgoing longwave radiation is proportional to T4. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of longwave emission than a 1C increase
in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, whereas equation (1) ignores the consequences of this assumption. A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface changes would be to evaluate the change of the global average of T4.”

The greenhouse effect is not measured by GAT but by radiation. AGW theory says the Earth radiation balance (ERB) is increased because the extra CO2 traps energy/radiation from leaving the planet. Measuring this effect with GAT is plainly incorrect.

The GAT is incorrect because it does not allow for the SB effect, that is: (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4; GAT can increase but the ERB need not change; conversely, the ERB can vary but the GAT temperature stay the same. How can this happen? If the temperature is increasing more rapidly at the North Pole than the equator where temperature may even be slightly declining you will still get an increasing GAT with a declining ERB because the amount of increased radiation at the North Pole will not compensate for a slight decline at the equator because SB is not linear.

20. DaveR

David, good work.

In addition to the Adelaide site move referred to by David Bidstrup in comments, you need to find out whether you are using raw, measured temperatures of the day. Or like most BOM records have they been adjusted (“homogenised”) for various, usually secret reasons?

A site move can often introduce a step change in the record, and is a valid basis for adjustment to the measured numbers before the move. But most of the BOM adjustments are for other, unknown reasons, which they refuse to discuss with the public.

Its interesting to see the Federation Drought (1898-1902) clearly represented in the highest no of days >38 deg. The BOM conveniently leave this period off their temperature time sequences, preferring to start their series in 1905. They cite “instrumental reasons” for not including that hot period, which was clearly warmer than today. There are also political reasons for excluding that hot drought period from the record. It also makes a mockery of their downward adjustment of the early 1900s temperatures, which they have done in many, many records.

From eyeballing your Tmax graph and data, I think I can also see the hot USA “dustbowl” period of the 1930s in the record (points 10-11-12). Some CAGW green scientists still claim this event was restricted to North America, or at least the Northern Hemisphere.

Make sure you save that data before the BOM adjust that away as well.

21. Dr Fred Lenin

Cohenite ,surely the BoM people must come up with the same figures David does ,true maths is true isn’t it? Or are they chided for upsetting the plan to subvert the West to enable the u.n. Communist takeover
“An Inconvenient Truth “.

22. cohenite

Cohenite ,surely the BoM people must come up with the same figures David does ,true maths is true isn’t it?

No mate. It’s all about adjusting the raw data or homogenising it. Basically BoM cools the past and warms the present in their adjustments thus creating a warming trend.

23. David Bidstrup

Thanks for the responses.
David Brewer is correct. The BoM site moved from West Terrace to Kent Town in 1978 and moved back recently – I think 2014 but not sure. Some could argue that my analysis is not based on a “continuous” record but the data came from the BoM so I would expect them to stand by it. It is well known that BoM has faced a lot of criticism about their record keeping.
DaveR also mentioned “homogenisation” and I do not know whether this has been done or not. As mentioned above, the data comes from the BoM website and we should expect it to be accurate.
duncanm mentioned “remote” places and I include a chart for Oodnadatta from 1940 to 2015.
The record has holes in it so purists might argue but highest temp was in 1960 and was 5 degrees above 2015 max.
X axis Year T max T min Range
1 1940 39 15.3 23.7
2 1950 42.9 13.9 29
3 1960 50.7 14.8 35.9
4 1970 44.4 15.7 28.7
5 1980 46 16.3 29.7
6 1984 42.1 13.4 28.7
7 1995 41.3 14.4 26.9
8 2000 45.9 15.3 30.6
9 2010 44.3 13.9 30.4
10 2015 45.3 15.6 29.7

Avgs 44.19 14.86 29.33

Highest temp 50.7 02-01-60
Lowest temp 9.4 14-08-47

Chart is not cooperating here but message is the same as for Adelaide – no “warming”.

24. Make sure you save that data before the BOM adjust that away as well.

Data F1ddlers.

a.k.a. rawdataophiles. Provision of raw, unadjusted observations is one of the basics of scientific endeavour.

The BoM claim that the original observations are unavailable, which leads one to presume that they have destroyed the original records.

Book Burners.

25. Roger.

David, please send this to every Liberal parliamentarian.

26. Fat Tony

a.k.a. rawdataophiles. Provision of raw, unadjusted observations is one of the basics of scientific endeavour.

The BoM claim that the original observations are unavailable, which leads one to presume that they have destroyed the original records.

This, in itself, proves it has never been about the science.

And while people are distracted by arguing about the “science”, our traitorous politicians around the world are busily destroying Western civilisation for whomever their Masters are – Chicoms, Soros, UN….

27. cohenite

Jennifer Marohasy, Ken Stewart, Jo Nova and others on the team have been looking at BoM fiddling for several years. It’s extraordinary what BoM has done. There is original data from a number of sources including CDO and Trove. Any comparison shows the fiddling.

One thing which does stick out in this analysis and others is the DTR, Diurnal temperature Range. DTR is the daily difference between the max and min temps with the min falling at night. Alarmism states the DTR should be decreasing because global warming continues to operate even after the sun has set. Therefore the rate of warming in the min range should be greater than in the max range. In fact DTR has been increasing over the last 50 years which is a major contradiction of alarmism.

28. Leo G

I recently found a couple of papers that challenge the notion that a “global average temperature” can actually be measured and that any such proclaimed temperature is nonsense.

Even if such a global average temperature does “exist” and can be measured, the current method using site-selective monthly minmax averages to generate monthly temperature anomalies as proxies for globally distributed measurements is statistically invalid. It is egregious abuse of the Central Limit Theorem, which requires variables to be identically distributed.

29. manalive

No mate. It’s all about adjusting the raw data or homogenising it. Basically BoM cools the past and warms the present in their adjustments thus creating a warming trend …

Of course they do, that’s CC™ science international best practice.
They are simply adjusting the data to reflect what they know is happening to the temperature.

30. Gengis

David,
Great article but two points:
1. The highest temperature on any given day may only be for a minute or two but one has to much more gradual decrease to get to a minimum. I think a daily basis average would represent the data in a truer form.
2. The late eighteenth century was when Australia experienced its greatest drought – paddle steamers stuck in waterholes on the Darling for 10 years or so.
Regards,

31. egg_

Not much change in 130 years.

The BoM has learned to ‘cook the books’?

32. manalive

Josh on the New Era: the ’Adjustocene’.

33. egg_

A site move can often introduce a step change in the record

Oh, the ironing!

34. egg_

One thing which does stick out in this analysis and others is the DTR, Diurnal temperature Range. DTR is the daily difference between the max and min temps with the min falling at night. Alarmism states the DTR should be decreasing because global warming continues to operate even after the sun has set. Therefore the rate of warming in the min range should be greater than in the max range. In fact DTR has been increasing over the last 50 years which is a major contradiction of alarmism.

All that energy radiating into space of a night negates the ‘Greenhouse’ model.

35. cohenite

1. The highest temperature on any given day may only be for a minute or two but one has to much more gradual decrease to get to a minimum. I think a daily basis average would represent the data in a truer form.

This is a major controversy or at least should be. The BoM introduced AWS in the 1990s which replaced the old mercury thermometers. The protocol with the mercury thermometers was to take 5 minute average temps to obtain your max and min. AWS take 1 second readings which can and do catch outlier, freak high temps which then allow the BoM and the media to claim the highest temps ever when in fact they are meaningless.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/10/averaging-convention-not/

36. Kneel

“Basically BoM cools the past and warms the present in their adjustments…”

Indeed.
They also claim that “the adjustments sum to zero”. Which is true for any given year/period. But it is misleading, because the adjustments DO change the TREND. IOW, averaging is neutral at any point in time in the space domain, but is BIASED to warm for most locations in the time domain.
As Larry King says: “you need to ask the right questions and demand the right answers”

37. DaveR

Under the Meteorology Act 1955 (Cwth) the Bureau of Meteorolgy is required to take and record meteorological observations.

Under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cwth) it is an offence to destroy any primary data collected by a Public Service body.

38. cohenite

DaveR

#2710349, posted on May 14, 2018 at 12:44 pm

Correct.

39. mem

There is no “global climate” as the earth has a temperature range from +60 to -80 degrees, (140 degrees), so to talk of representing “climate change” by some dubious, statistically constructed, heavily manipulated and scientifically wrong “global average temperature” is simply wrong and probably fraudulent.

Reminds me of the shoe factory in Maoist China that under pressure to cut production costs decided to only produce average sized shoes. As a collective they were paid per pair, so it didn’t matter that the majority of shoes didn’t fit.

40. DaveR

David, what you need to find is a remote weather station in the bush that has a 100 year+ record, and has not been moved or surrounded by buildings or asphalt etc. These stations are pure gold – any manipulation by the BOM (=homogenisation) will be very difficult to justify, and very obvious.

41. Dr Fred Lenin

What youse are saying is Heresy ,when bullshitten and his gangrene comrades form government youse will be prosecuted for taking the mane of the BoM in vain ,under our new u.n. Freedom of speech laws this heresy will be stamped out .
(Notice I used the plural of you ,youse , learned that in a pub years ago from a shearer . )

42. DaveR

Youse is a word still in common usage on the streets of Dublin. Of course it means “you “(plural). But rightly said, the coming UN/Australia government will get us all.

43. manalive

Browsing the isotherm maps of Bartholomew’s The royal atlas & gazetteer of Australasia 1890, the 70F (21C) average temperature isotherm for December passes through Adelaide whereas on the current BOM average map for December the 18C isotherm passes through Adelaide (the 21C isotherm passes through Port Augusta).
Similarly for July, in 1890 the average for Adelaide was 52F (11C) while on the BOM map for July the average is 9C.

44. manalive

Generally, the 1890 average isotherms are more to the south than on the current BOM maps for the entire continent.

45. chrisl

Youse should be a word! Plural of you . The French have vous. The Dutch have jullie. Etc Should be word!