David Bidstrup: Sydney’s doing OK too.

This post follows on from my recent one titled “Not much change in 130 years” and analyses Sydney max/min temperatures from 1859 to 2017 in blocks of 10 years. The data is from the BoM website.

The method is the same as before. For each 10 year block I find the maximum and minimum temperatures for the period and count the number of days above 38 degrees C as a measure of “hot” days. The Sydney data is from one source, The Sydney Observatory, and seems to be continuous for the 160 or so years of record.

The table and chart below shows the results of the analysis which, to put it bluntly, shows that nothing has changed much. I need to come clean and mention that there are 3 “outliers” in the Tmax record that I have not shown on the chart but can be seen in “Outliers” opposite the yellow highlights. These are the 3 hottest days in the record and vary from the “next highest” by 3 to 4 degrees, (see T diff column). Remember that these represent only 3 days in a record of nearly 55,000 days. The total of the “hottest” days represent 0.26% of the record and it is interesting to note that there are times when they number 19 in a 10 year period, (1939 to 1948) while the number in recent times is 11, (1999 to 2008 and 2009 to 2017). Other periods from years ago show more; 15 in 1919 to 1928 and 18 in 1979 to 1988.

In earlier posts I mentioned Dr Darko Butina who has a website called www.l4patterns.com which contains a very interesting discussion about the atmosphere being a heterogeneous mixture of gasses and therefore it is impossible to find a constant temperature anywhere let alone fool ourselves into thinking that “average temperatures” have any meaning at all. If you look on his homepage there is a section called “Reports” and the article is titled “Why everything is local and nothing is global”.

I note comments on my other recent posts where the “quality” of BoM data is questioned and I am aware of the various articles pointing this out. Perhaps one day we might get a bit of integrity into the debate but it seems unlikely given the attachment our politicians and their “scientific” advisors have to the “climate change” hysteria.

What I am attempting to show is that there is little change over time except for the chaotic ups and downs that are part of the “weather/climate”. Rather than look at statistically corrupt and scientifically invalid averages it is better to recognise that we all live within a range of temperatures that vary a bit in a random way but which seem to stay within a certain range. In the case above that range is of the order of 30 degrees C. For Adelaide, the subject of my previous post, the range is around 38 to 40 degrees C and we still survive.

I expect 2017 will soon be proclaimed the “hottest year ever” by a wafer thin margin of hundredths of a degree but I think we need to treat any such claims as bullshit.

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

19 Responses to David Bidstrup: Sydney’s doing OK too.

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    Bet the people of the Northern Hemisphere could have used a bit of global warming in the last few months if there is any left we will be able to use it during the next three months it won’t go to waste .
    Rigged figures always come to grief embezellers always get caught eventually .

  2. Rafe

    I am waiting for evidence of any harm at all from the popular figure of 0.8C over 150 years. Imperceptible to human senses and beneficial if anything.

  3. mem

    I am waiting for evidence of any harm at all from the popular figure of 0.8C over 150 years. Imperceptible to human senses and beneficial if anything.

    Have always thought the concept of a global average temperature was confected statistical nonsense. Equivalent to how many angels can balance on the end of a needle.

  4. Egor

    Temperature has nothing to do with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    The UN chappie in charge has already admitted it’s just a massive redistribution program to the 3rd world.
    A fortuitous spear carrier.
    Yawn.

  5. DaveR

    The Sydney series seems to have no evidence of the Federation Drought (but is the 1889 to 1898 block missing?) or of the USA dustbowl event (point 7), which were both well represented in the Adelaide series.

  6. Alan

    Good call. I am also amused at the shrill ABC News squeals regards sea levels:
    See NOAA long-term relative “Sea Level Trends”.
    Click “Global” button > zoom to Australia > select arrow.
    Where does it say sea levels are killing us?
    Sydney: 1886-2010 = 0.21 feet in 100 years? 0.21 feet = 64mm. In 100 years.

  7. Fang

    Allen, 688mm in 0.21ft! Still, whats the issue!

  8. Seza

    @Alan – it is 0.12 feet/hundred years, not 0.21. No wonder Pinchgut is not sinking beneath the waves!

  9. Alan

    Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2 = 0.21
    Camp Cove, Australia = 0.12
    Try zooming in a bit closer – there are TWO stations.

  10. duncanm

    .. and this is despite the increase in local bitumen and concrete (the city), plus the construction of the Cahill expressway and circular-feeder around the obervatory in the 1950’s.

  11. duncanm

    Sea level trends are trivial .. look at the plots and you’ll see the same sort of noise David is talking about in the temperature record.

    Fort Denison

    Camp Cove (also note confidence interval is huge..)

  12. Kneel

    “I expect 2017 will soon be proclaimed the “hottest year ever” by a wafer thin margin of hundredths of a degree but I think we need to treat any such claims as bullshit.”

    If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that this already happened for 2016 – the announcement was front-page news, while the retraction was hidden on page 37 underneath a half page ad for a Gay Rights march, and just above the single paragraph in 0.0001 point type noting that PDT got something right.

    Perhaps the more pertinent question is: if we should look at GLOBAL temps for evidence of glow-bull warmening and ignore individual locations, why does Arctic sea ice coverage matter when global sea ice coverage is increasing?
    Oh, silly me – no political value in “everything is OK, don’t panic”, is there?

  13. Seza

    Sorry, my lack of knowledge of the Sydney area caught me out. I find it interesting that two close points on the same body of water can vary so much.

  14. Jim Hutchison

    Hi David Bistrup
    Regarding your comments about temperature in Adelaide and Sydney using BOM data.
    I started a similar exercise for my part of NSW Cessnock/Jerrys Plains [in the Hunter Valley]. Other research overtook my project so I did not get as far as you have. I was using 10 year segments and also attempting to test significance using Students ‘T’ test. My hypothesis was that there was no statistical significance between the ‘gaps’ recorded near the beginning of the series compared with those recorded near the end. Your analysis suggests that this correct.

    Your method of counting days above/below the means is more elegant than my approach and much easier for non-statisticians to understand. I will dig out my stuff and pass it on to you if you are willing to let me have an email address.

    Impressive work.

    Jim Hutchison, WOLLOMBI

  15. David Bidstrup

    Jim Hutchison: you can contact me at [email protected]

  16. W Hogg

    Temps in a city have nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with UHI.

    It’s harder to fake temp unless you put an umbrella on your weather station. There is zero trend in Sydneynewsletter since 1850. Absolutely none.

  17. W Hogg

    I am waiting for evidence of any harm at all from the popular figure of 0.8C over 150 years. Imperceptible to human senses and beneficial if anything.

    Differentiate between the benefits of +0.8C, which is debatable, and the 18% faster plant growth from CO2, which has saved 1bn people from horrible deaths.

  18. W Hogg

    I had an educated person try to argue
    – CO2 causes record seaside property losses rather than (for example) building seaside propertycausing it
    – the active 2017 hurricane season proves CAGW, even though there was an unprecedented 12 years where no Cat 3 hit AND that 2017 saw the greatest COOLING IN HISTORY after the 2016 El Niño. (In fact 2017 was so cool that they couldn’t adjust it to “hottest evah” despite $billions in funding to do so.)

    Why did the severe hurricanes all occur during the massive cooling rather than during that actual heat? Does hot weather cause hurricanes to form 12 months later?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *