David Bidstrup. More doom and gloom and we are paying for it

Climate change has reached fever pitch again with more doom and gloom being shouted at us each day. Two articles appeared in papers I read this morning [a day or two ago]. “The Australian” proclaimed “Climate lowdown warns of no escape from rising heat” and “The Advertiser”, (always handy to have in case there is a need to wrap up any old dead fish), had a full page expose titled “Feel the heat” in large letters.

Both articles have their origin in the latest scaremongering by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. This is the fifth “State of the climate” report and it tells us that we are going to fry/get more storms/get acid seawater/be inundated by rising sea levels and many other effects from the dreaded carbon dioxide.

I was interested in the doomsday graph that showed temperature changes compared to the “1861-1900 mean”. Apart from the fact that average temperatures mean absolutely nothing, (read the paper by Christopher Essex), and have been demonstrated to be constructed from very sparse data, (see work by John McLean), I thought I would see how long temperature records have been kept, particularly in the period used as the baseline for all the drama.

The table below shows a sample of locations around the country and the date that data collection began. It is not exhaustive but interesting nonetheless.

[Editor, I can’t line up the columns. The order of columns is:]
Records start
Years to 1900
1861 to 1900
% of time

Location Records start Years to 1900 1861 to 1900 % of time

Melbourne 1855 45 40 113%
Sydney 1860 40 40 100%
Hobart 1880 20 40 50%
Adelaide 1888 12 40 30%
Brisbane 1890 10 40 25%
Cairns 1890 10 40 25%
Total 132 240 55%
Broome 1900
Darwin 1940
Alice Springs 1940
Townsville 1940
Oodnadatta 1940
Perth 1945
Coober Pedy 1965

5 capital cities and Cairns all have some data in the period 1861 to 1900 but it is not continuous except for Melbourne and Sydney. The rest have percentages ranging from 50 to 25 of the period.

When the “data years” are compared with the “actual years” the percentage of time with data is about 55%, but mostly concentrated in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Hobart with a smattering from Brisbane and cairns.

It is also interesting to note that places like Darwin, Alice Springs, Perth and some regional places have no records until 1940 and later.

Anyone who has travelled a bit knows that the climate in Darwin is very different to that in Hobart so to believe that there can be an “Australian climate” requires a bit of gullibility and anyone proclaiming that it is so is kidding us.

The same goes for temperatures. There is a wide range of maximum and minimum temperatures across the country and to pretend that an “average” can be taken that is representative of the whole country is verging on the fraudulent.

Another example of hyping the data occurred the other day when “The Advertiser” proclaimed “Tex cools off as Adelaide prepares to boil”, showing some footballers swimming and bemoaning the forecast of 35C for Christmas day. According to the article the hottest Christmas day was in 2016 with a temperature of 41.3C and it also noted that there were only 3 occasions in 40 years of Kent Town records where the Christmas day temperature has been 35 or higher. Some investigation of the BoM records showed that the 2016 temperature was in fact 38.9C not 41.3C and that the hottest Christmas day was in 1888 at 42.1C. Also, the 90 years of records from the West Terrace observatory contained 16 instances when Christmas day was 35C or above. (Adelaide’s first weather observatory was on West Terrace and operated for 90 years between 1888 and 1978. The BoM then moved to Kent Town and stayed for 40 years. The observatory moved back to West terrace at the start of 2018).

It seems that the one time venerable and respected institutions of BoM and CSIRO have become fully paid up members of the climate change club, and it is a pity no one in authority is game enough to make them do what taxpayers pay them for.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Guest Post, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to David Bidstrup. More doom and gloom and we are paying for it

  1. 132andBush

    The increase in doom boosting has nothing whatsoever to do with hiding the non appearance of El Nino.

    /sarc

  2. Crossie

    I’m pretty certain that temperature on Christmas Day 1983 in western Sydney was 43 degrees before an afternoon storm came through, dumped inches of hail and cooled everything down by 20 degrees. We had a foot of hail/ice behind our garage that took days to melt.

  3. Mark M

    State of the Climate: Thank goodness for ocean sinks currently holding more warming extremes at bay

    “As the ocean warms it is expanding, which is coupling with ice melts to raise sea levels.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-20/bom-csiro-biennial-state-of-the-climate/10631122

    Wait.

    fact check abc

    Is the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu growing, and not sinking, as Craig Kelly says?

    The verdict
    Mr Kelly’s claim checks out.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318

    Now that is an inconvenient fact check, but don’t expect the abc to fact check the CSIRO/BoM.

  4. ArthurB

    A day or so ago I watched The Drum, all four panellist were (surprise, surprise) leftists. The first topic for discussion was Climate Change, and the terrible things that are going to happen. One of the panellists was our old friend John Hewson, who quoted the old canard that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening. Don’t these people ever read, or question anything?

  5. mem

    Good work Sir. Surely someone at this blog can assist you to line up figures and percentages? It would give your analysis far more impact and I think would be well worth doing.

  6. Rafe Champion

    Arthur B, the stupidest thing about the 97% in Cooks paper is that we are ALL in the consensus (that there has been warning since the Little Ice Age, and even a bit this century) and also there is a human contribution (especially if you consider the urban heat island effect) but the Cook paper did not specify any AMOUNT of warming, or whether it was ALARMING, or HOW MUCH humans caused, and there was NOTHING ABOUT CO2. So much for the 97% being alarmed about CO2.

  7. jupes

    Don’t these people ever read, or question anything?

    They just lie.

  8. Crossie

    Don’t these people ever read, or question anything?

    These people were never reasoned into their convictions so they can’t be reasoned out of them. All their friends think as they do, besides they consider themselves as smart therefore they are right.

    Our elites are anything but elite, they are rather common.

  9. Nob

    If there’s “no escape from rising heat”, why are we squandering $$$bns on futile avoidance measures instead of just adapting?

  10. tombell

    As I recall there was a proposal to audit BOM data “smoothing” but the relevant minister at the time (was it during Abbott’s term ?) squibbed.

  11. GD

    a proposal to audit BOM data “smoothing” but the relevant minister at the time (was it during Abbott’s term ?) squibbed

    From memory, it was bedwetter Greg Hunt. This is another issue that I’m sure Tony Abbott wishes he had prosecuted harder. Why he didn’t, I don’t know.

  12. GD

    the relevant minister at the time … squibbed

    Hunt didn’t squib, he purposely chose to cancel the audit.

    Was he put on by the warmist lobby?

  13. Old Irrelevant me

    Nobody would read their paper if they didn’t put one out. And that would be bad for their economy.

  14. Boambee John

    IIRC, Hunt cancelled the audit as soon as Turdbull became PM. The proposal for the audit was probably one of the reasons that Turdball stabbed Abbott at that time.

  15. DaveR

    The BOM is a government institution firmly wedded to the UN-EU AGW theory and connected to fellow travelers (see the Climategate emails) and has fiddled the Australian temperature record in its ACORN-Sat data series to make global warming more significant than it is.

    Although your article correctly shows several temperature series extending back to the late 1800s, the BOM refuse to use data beyond about 1910 for a number of quoted reasons. Firstly they say that a change of instrumentation, notable the introduction of Stevenson Screens, makes the data series unusable before the changeover date. Their second concern is general “quality control. But no data is offered to back these claims and these myths continue to be used.

    But the true reasons are more damning . The Federation Drought of 1896-1903 produced temperatures hotter than today which is an embarrassment for the global warming narrative. So they are removed form the adjusted temperature record. Secondly, temperature adjustments in the ACORN-Sat series lowers early (1910 or so) temperatures to create the warming trend so often quoted. Trouble with those early lowered temperatures is that they are inconsistent with actual measurements of the day, and cannot be correct.

    And of course the magnitude of the temperature adjustment is bigger than the increase claimed to be due to global warming.

    Several Liberal ministers have been presented with the clear evidence of the questionable BOM homogenisation process (temperature adjustment), but Hunt and Frydenberg have both failed to require BOM and CSIRO to be subject to any sort of quality control review or process audit.

    And so the circus continues.

  16. old bloke

    Boambee John
    #2890519, posted on December 22, 2018 at 8:51 am

    IIRC, Hunt cancelled the audit as soon as Turdbull became PM. The proposal for the audit was probably one of the reasons that Turdball stabbed Abbott at that time.

    As I recall, the sequence of events went as follows.

    There was a group of individuals who were checking the BoM records and found numerous “errors” which indicated that certain places were much hotter than they actually were. The Australian newspaper published a number of articles which showed that the data was being manipulated, which caused the government some embarrassment (during Abbott’s period).

    The government contacted the BoM and said they would like to audit the records, the BoM didn’t want this interference so they suggested a compromise; they would appoint their own auditors to carry out a limited preliminary audit to verify that nothing was amiss. The skeptics were expecting a white-wash from this preliminary audit, but were surprised when the Bureau’s own auditors came back with a recommendation for a full external audit.

    They found that the data had been manipulated, and the process of “homogenisation”, whereby previous hot periods were made cooler, and recent records were made hotter, was undocumented and appeared to be made by one or two individuals, apparently at whim (the process was undocumented).

    The Bureau’s management then agreed that a full audit was required, Abbott announced that auditors would be appointed, then the next day Abbott was gone.

    The first announcement from the Turnbull’s government, from Greg Hunt, was that the audit had been cancelled. He said that it had been cancelled so that “the public can have confidence in the Bureau’s procedures”.

    The LNP aren’t fit to govern, they should be kicked out at the first opportunity.

  17. The reason meteorologists report max and min forecasts is because we don’t live in average temperatures. It is meaningless to forecast an average temperature of 20 for the day. Is it derived from a max of 30 and a min of 10, or a max of 22 and a min of 18?

    An average global temperature is scientific fraud. Over land (30% of the planet area) the temperature of the air 2 metres above ground is measured. Over the oceans (the other 70%) temperature of the water itself is measured. Then these are averaged out. FRAUD pure and simple.

    According to the climate bible, the IPCC reports, most of the man caused warming will occur at high latitudes, in winter and at night time.
    Therefore, even if we heated up the “average” of the planet’s temperature by, say, 3 degrees by 2100, most of that will happen where people don’t live, at times when some warming is welcome, during the coldest periods.
    Where most people live, the “average” temperature wouldn’t even go up by 1 degree, and most of that will be in winter, at night time.
    The alarmist language is pure fraud and has nothing to do with the health of the planet.

  18. Win

    Following a hot October in Brisbane a home temperature on Christmas Day was recorded at 43degrees Celsius.

  19. iggie

    David,
    Totally agree with everything you have written, but for:
    ‘It is also interesting to note that places like Darwin, Alice Springs, Perth and some regional places have no records until 1940 and later.’
    These do (but maybe they don’t want you to know).
    Darwin
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=014016
    Alice Springs
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=015540
    Perth
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=009034

  20. Anybody blogging on Australian temperature history who writes that Darwin and Alice Springs commence in 1940 needs to go back to the drawing board.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.