We discussed yesterday how for south eastern South Australia, the rate of change in temperature at neighbouring times increased as we reached the maximum temperature of the day and decreased as the sun lost its warming power. If Co2 levels were the main cause of global warming, then this pattern would not occur and the rate of change amongst all times would be relatively constant. This of course did not happen. However, this is a clear indication that the sun is the main driving force behind recent global warming.
But this still doesn't answer why minimum temperatures have been increasing. We hypothesised that it also had to do with the sun and a warmer sun would influence the early morning temperatures. As an example, today at mount gambier (south eastern south Australia), first light was recorded at 6.22am and the sunrise at 6.50am. Hence we had a whole 30 minutes of the atmosphere heating up due to the sun before mount gambians actually saw it. The minimum temperature on this day, the 4th of May occurred at 7am with the temperature of 11.1 degrees. What this means is that it occurred shortly after the sun rose. As soon as the sun was high enough in the sky to make a significant difference, the temperatures increased.
If the sun was stronger than normal, then we would have still acquired similar temperatures at 6am as in the past, but the minimum temperature would be increased. The extra power of the sun would increase the atmosphere from first light. We had 30 minutes from first light to the rise of the sun and an extra 10 minutes until we reached out minimum.
Our hypothesis is therefore we should see an increasing trend when we minus the temperatures at 3 and 6am from the minimum temperature. In other words, over time, the minimum temperature should be increasing at a greater rate than at 3am and 6am. If the sun is effecting temperatures at the minimum and maximum, then we would also expect to see no significant trend of time with the difference between minimum and maximum temperature anomalies. I also hypothesise that we might find differences in summer and winter where mount gambier obviously has greater amount of sunlight in the summer than the winter. What differences these are we'll have to see.
So lets to the analysis:
Shown above the the output from minimum minus the 3am and 6am temperature anomalies over time. What is quite clear is the increasing trend, in that minimum temperatures are increasing at a greater rate than the temperature at 3am and 6am. It is obvious that minimum temperatures is not a good indication of overnight temperatures. The trend is so strong that it shows that minimum temperatures have been increasing by as much as 0.8 degrees per 100 years in comparison with 3am temperatures, and by 1.4 degrees per 100 years when compared to 6am temperatures. This 1.4 degree increase is actually very comparable to the 1.6 degree increase per 100 years that we saw minimum temperatures increasing by.
More evidence that minimum temperatures are increasing at a significantly greater rate over the last 50 years than temperatures at 3am and 6am. If co2 was the driving force behind temperature change, then this pattern would not occur, and it occurs so strikingly, that it cannot be ignored.
The difference between maximum and minimum temperatures anomalies in south east South Australia showed a slight increase, in that maximum temperatures were increasing at a greater rate than minimum temperatures, however the increase was not statistically significant.
Also the difference between 3am and minimum temperatures in summer was 27% greater than in winter. Even more than this was the difference between 6am and minimum temperatures anomalies in summer than in winter, which was 67% stronger.
This no doubt is because of the sun and perhaps less cloud cover in the summer.
In conclusion, we can say that our hypothesis have been answered. We have proven that over time, minimum temperatures have increased at a significant rate more than overnight temperatures. This indicates that minimum temperature is a poor indication of overnight temperatures, that is largely correlated with maximum temperature. It is therefore most likely the sun that is driving up minimum temperatures and not effecting the temperature before first light.
Hence we have more evidence that co2 could not possibly be the driving force behind global warming and that the sun is the main cause.
Well, maybe I should say south east South Australia warming instead of global warming. So are these patterns duplicated in other and in total within Australia?
the next posts will take a closer look at this.
4 comments:
dude you have to have this published. this stuff need not go unwatched
One other conclusion I'd draw from your data is that negligble climate warming is in fact occuring despite increased daytime warming.
For warming to occur, the increased heat in the daytime needs to retained overnight. However, it appears most of the additional heat gained during the day is being lost at night, resulting in little or no heat gain to the earth's climate system.
The nighttime temperatures show there is little or no climate warming despite the increase in daytime temperatures.
So daytime temperatures, maximum temperatures and minimum temperatures all exagerate the amount of warming that is occuring.
Recently I have taken an interest in the work of Peter Andrews (www.naturalsequencefarming.com) who argues that man has made a major adverse impact in de-moisturising the Australian landscape over the past 150 years. He argues that draining of wetlands and swamps, and monocultural farming practices have led to to the loss of water which has adversely affected the daily dew cycle which is an important factor on water balances in the country.
It seems likely to me that these changes in the moisture cycle are likely to have had impacts on the daily temperature cycles as well.
Perhaps this aspect deserves attention as well.
Re Peter Andrews:
He has a point, but I would add that the contribution of local evaporation to rainfall and temperature should be a function of rainfall. That is, where rainfall is highest the effect is least and where rainfall is least the effect is most.
I don't know if the data shows different trends for dry (drained) and wet agricultural areas, but it's a valid question.
Post a Comment