Thursday, June 14, 2007

So much research, so little temperature analysis

Do you not think it strange, that so much research has gone into the effects of increased temperatures at night, when , on this blog, I have done greater analysis of temperatures at night then in any scientific literature?

For example, my own analysis renders this one useless. I would have expected a greater statistical analysis into temperature throughout the day and throughout the night before we start looking at the side effects.

It's such a pity that so much has been hypothesised, and yet, people still assume that the minimum temperature is a relfection of the temperature during the middle of the night - just like the maximum is during the middle of the day.

Such a poor, wrong assumption means that so much money is being wasted on illegitate research. I am still perplexed that we can spend tens of billions of dollars on the problem of global warming, and yet we still have not done the proper statistical analysis of the warming.

Given the lopsidedness of the research, I would think that this particular research on my blog would be worth at least a million, maybe 10 million, as it is, still to this date, the most comprehensive analysis of Australian temperature.

It's kinda sad really.


Anonymous said...

28 Years Later.

Consider this:

Range of model ‘climate sensitivity’:
1.5 to 4.5 °C: NAS, 1979
1.5 to 4.5 °C: IPCC FAR, 1990
1.5 to 4.5 °C: IPCC SAR, 1996
1.5 to 4.5 °C: IPCC TAR, 2001
Unchanged since 1979

(From the second slide here.)

To which we can add IPCC 4AR, released earlier this year. 4AR says "2.0 to 4.5", but goes on to say that values below 1.5 are very unlikely, so it's really 1.5 to 4.5 still.

The NAS 1979 value was an in-the-head calculation (no back of an envelope needed), based on the very first global warming calculations following the mid-1970s global cooling crisis.

As the above link concludes, "Despite phenomenal progress in modelling and understanding of climate and climate processes over the period, uncertainties in the range of expected climate change have not decreased." Or changed. Or so much as twitched, unless you count the "2.0 no we mean 1.5" in 4AR.

Yet nobody ever asks, why do the outputs of the models not depend on the inputs, or even the models themselves? How do these guys get more funding every year when they never produce different results in 28 years? Where are the contract monitors on this work?

Bob Hawkins

Anonymous said...


I have a couple of temp monitors collecting data at 1min intervals at Halls Creek WA.

I can send you, (and Warwick Hughes) the data every few days for analysis.

get back to me on email if you want the data.

hissinkl1947 AT

Jonathan Lowe said...

Hi hissinkl,
thanks heaps, but one can actuall get this type of data from the BoM. Unfort. minute by minute data has only been going on for about the past 10-15 years, which is no way to judge long term temperature variation, although perhaps looking at a particular station that shows large increases in max/min temp in last 10 years could well be worth looking into to judge sunrise/min. temp time variations.

JesusSaves said...

Hi Jonathan,

I am starting to collect daily max/min temp. information from my location in Wales, UK. Could we swap our data yearly please? I would only be interested in your daily max/min.

Kind regards,