Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Summer/Winter hypothesis

Recently it was suggested to me, that if the sun was a major cause of global warming, then we should see some sought of summer winter effect. There are obviously more daylight hours during summer, so we should get some changes.

But before we go into the analysis, lets hypthesise what changes we should see.

During the night (at Midnight,3am and possibly 6am) we should see very little change between summer and winter. Summer temperature increases may be slightly more, but I doubt that they would be significant. Hence we would hypothesise that there would be no differences between summer and winter temperature anomalies at Midnight, 3am and possibly 6am.

During summer the sun generally sets at around 8.30 to 9pm in many parts of Australia, as opposed to winter when it goes down at 5pm to 6pm. Given this, if the sun was a major contributer to global warming, we should see a positive summer effect at 6pm and 9pm. That is, temperature is increasing at a greater rate at 6pm and 9pm in the summer than it is in the winter.

However what will happen at 9am, Noon and 3pm is interesting. 9am in winter is closer to the minimum temperature time than summer, a time where we see the biggest increase in the day. However in summer, the sun has had a longer effect than in winter.

Does a hotter sun with less staying power increase a colder place more than a hotter sun with greater staying power in a hotter place?

I'm not so sure. But either way if there is a summer/winter effect, it is evidence for the sun being a major part in global warming. If CO2 were the major cause of global warming, then we should so no sumer winter effect, in that all temperature at all times are increasing at constant rate.

We'll find out in the next post if this is or isn't the case.

47 comments:

Andrew said...

In your statistical journey have you looked at 365 day running means? We are told that 2006 (or whichever) is the warmest year on record. However the Gregorian year 2006 is only one of 365 possible 'years' that happens to fall roughly mid winter / summer for historical reasons.

Applying a very rough 'back of a spreadsheet' calculation for maximum temperatures for the Giles, Australia weather station (about as far from urban influence you can get) and doing averages for years ending 1/1, 21/3 and 22/9 (the equinoxes) you find that there is no correlation between the 365 day averages.

Phil said...

Jonathan, if there is an increase in nighttime outgoing radiation, you would find an effect in winter nighttime temps, i.e. more cooling, which would point to clouds as the cause rather than increased solar radiation, i.e. fewer clouds = increased solar insolation

Phil said...

Andrew, interesting. Any idea what it means?

Andrew said...

Phil, I take it to mean that the concept of an average temperature over a long time period has little meaning given the day to day variablity of the values. All you can really say is that winter will be colder that summer and that any given day will be approximately x degrees.

For example, Geraldton WA in March 2007 experienced three record days of 45C+ in a row. This will skew any average. It was caused by the west coast summer trough being stalled off the coast. This trough normally oscillates back and forward across the coast on a daily basis, for three days this year it didn't. Normally the temperature at that time of year is around 31C, three anomalies of 14C per day is enough to increase any 365 day mean including these days by 0.1C. I'll place my bets on 2007 being the warmest year on record in Geraldton, courtesy of these three days.

Jonathan Lowe said...

True Andrew, but that's the exact reason why we don't look at any one year for proof or nonproof of global warming. Its the overall trend, which should realistically be for longer than currently recorded that we look at.

In the long term trend, such noise is easily accounted for.

Count Iblis said...

There shouldn't be a Summer/Winter effect according to Solar Variation Theory. The reason is that the variation in the Solar Constant (the flux of solar energy) is well known and far too small to have any significant effect.

The only possible effect the Sun can have on the climate (on the time scale of decades) is via its magnetic field. A more active Sun keeps cosmics ray away from the Earth, leading to less cloud formation.

Now, this theory has been debunked, but it still has some support among the few remaining global warming skeptic scientists.


This just shows that if you do not understand the science behind what you are measuring, the results of the statistical analysis is worthless.

Andrew said...

Jonathan, my problem is that the media and others hold up annual records as proof of warming. You say long term, how long is long? Decades? Centuries? Over what period does the noise disappear.

The global warming modellers say that the planet has warmed by 0.7C per century or 0.07C per decade. 3 x 14C anomalies can skew twenty years of data.

Anonymous said...

count iblis, as usual you are wrong. Or is this an example of the 'science is settled' and we can therefore ignore recent discoveries.

“The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).” Such an increase is sufficient to explain most of the observed warming.

http://www.warwickhughes
.com/hoyt/solar.htm

Anonymous said...

BTW, classic winter cold front passing through Perth at the moment. Very unusual for December. More evidence for the PDO shifting to a cold phase.

Count Iblis said...

Important discoveries are published in the peer reviewed journals, not on obscure webpages where everyone can write what he/she wants.

Jonathan Lowe said...

tell that to Steve McIntyre

Anonymous said...

Who is Steve McIntyre?

Count Iblis said...

Steve McIntyre spotted a small error, it is not an important discovery.

Jonathan Lowe said...

steve McIntyre: http://www.climateaudit.org/

if a small discovery means changing the entire data base of American temperatures, then you are only kidding yourself.

Anonymous said...

Any scientists will tell you that unpublished research is a waste of time. If this Steve guy doesn't publish you can't expect anyone to have heard of him. When are you publishing Jonathon? It is about time your research was peer reviewed, and open to public scrutiny.

Jonathan Lowe said...

if you were hip with the climate science news you would have heard of him, he was all over the TV and newspapers and his webpage got shut down due to either dos attacks or way too many people visiting his website.

I will be publishing, but it wont be in the next 6 months.

Anonymous said...

Well, when you have something to say that can be verified perhaps you can let your readers know? Perhaps an email list?

Jonathan Lowe said...

i can verify it now

Anonymous said...

Is that a joke? Are you saying that science should work on the honour system? I don't see the humor.

Jonathan Lowe said...

If you want to talk about peer-review science, then maybe you should read about the Mann case. start here

And just the same as every single journal article does, I have given the exact processes of my analysis and are free to give out the data (unlike other climate researchers)

Anonymous said...

What I would like to see is some credentials that you are actually presently enrolled as a PhD student. If you are being so up front you wont mind giving out your affiliation?

Jonathan Lowe said...

BSc (double major in psychology and statistics), Hons (statistics with minor thesis), Master of Science (by coursework and thesis - All at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

I did 2 years of my PhD at Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia, but stopped due to work commitments.

And in case you were wondering, lol, I'm not getting paid my oil companies! lol!

Anonymous said...

Sure Jonathon, work "commitments".

Phil said...

From the Wegman (congressional) report on Mann's HockeyStick,

In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility.


Croney science masquerading as peer review.

Anonymous said...

If you are going to believe American politicians, you will also think that Saddam had WMD's. If you believe those guys you are ridiculously gullible. I'll take my chances with peer review over Texas oil money anyday.

Jonathan Lowe said...

actually I am sure, work commitments.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, a lot of people bail out of their PhD 2/3 of the way through due to 'work commitments'. Strangely enough doing a PhD seems to leave them with less free time for important stuff.

Phil said...

And anonymous shows why AGW is a political issue masquerading as a scientific issue.

Jonathan Lowe said...

agreed Phill. And Anonymous, bailing out of my PhD when I was actually about 1half way through was the best thing that I did. My business that I run myself was starting to become very big and now it is huge. I take great pride in it, and would never be where I was if I hadn't left my PhD.

Now I am in a situation where my business works itself and I have spare time to pursue other things whilst still getting paid. Hence my decision to start my PhD again in about 6-8 months.

We can keep talking about my work or my PhD,but I would prefer to talk about the statistics that are given on the webpage.

I guess it's the last straw argument to attempt to criticise the credentials of the researcher rather than the research.

Anonymous said...

Yes Phil, in fact in addition to all the ballet dancers in Bali there will be a handful of politicians as well, as apparently climate change has some kind of political implication. And Johnathon, I'm not remotely interested in you or your stinking business, I am interested in your credentials and the perceived drop in educational standards in Australia. And now that I see that you have none I am genuinely relieved that there is no department that is responsible for you. Thank you, I honestly feel much better.

Jonathan Lowe said...

it is quite clear that even this reply to you anonymous is a complete waste of time.

Firstly, You questioned my "work commitments" so I gave them to you.

Secondly, my business is not "stinking"

Thirdly, on what evidence to you suggest that there is a "perceived drop in educational standards in Australia"

and fourthly, "no credentials". Please.

Please post something of scientific note, perhaps a reply to my most recent blog article, otherwise you are a complete waste of time.

Phil said...

And to hopefully end this thread on a better tone, (otherwise I'd rant on about the crass ignorance and stupidity of someone who could make a comment like that 2 before).

Jonathan, I didn't realize you had set up your own business and it's thriving. My estimation of you, already high, has gone way up. That is a very considerable achievement. Congratulations.

Phil said...

Anonymous, there is no cure for stupidity, unfortunately it's terminal.

Jonathan Lowe said...

thanks Phil. I was at a stage where I could either continue my PhD and basically put an end to my business (in mathematical modeling!), or leave the PhD and concentrate on my business.

Being a uni student for about 10 years, I needed the money! Now the business is almost all automated (via programming and off site employees), and after a bit of holidaying (I've got the travel bug!) early next year, I will probably recommence my PhD late 2008.

Anonymous said...

No Johnathon, you misinterpret me. I tip my hat to you, I am delighted that such as successful businessman so busy and important still manages to dedicate so much time posting worthless shit on the internet. I applaud your obvious commitment. I just didn't realise you had other priorities right now, I will come back to your website in a year and a half when you have "finished" and are in a position to make a well-informed conclusion regarding your research. Please take your time, if there is anything the world needs right now it is more mathematical models.

Jonathan Lowe said...

nuff said *sigh*

Phil said...

Jonathan, my view FWIIW is that people like anonymous are just trying to muddy the waters and poison the well. If it were my blog, I would just delete those kind of comments.

regards

Anonymous said...

I completely agree. Why is it that every nut job with an internet connection seems to be drawn to this web site like a moth to a flame? Could it be the content?

Jonathan Lowe said...

whatever, conversation over

Phil said...

Could it be the content?

You are almost there. It is the quality of the original content That makes this site so attractive.

Anonymous said...

Watch out Phil, Jonathon is deleting posts

Jonathan Lowe said...

I have never deleted posts before today. I am a little angry at myself for doing so because i believe that this is a move against the freedom of speech.

However, if you do not answer any of my questions than I will continue to delete your posts.

Please answer my comment in a logical way, and I will let your comments stand. Continue to speak garbage and you are gone.

Anonymous said...

Well, you often accuse GW scientists of just being on the gravy train but then when you are asked if your attitudes might have something to do with you being a failed scientist that is unacceptable? I think hypocrisy is the word you are looking for.

Count Iblis said...

Jonathan, that correction did not significantly alter the statistics on climate change.

The results climate scientists have come up are very robust, a small error here and there won't have much effect.

Similarly, errors were made by Edington who verified Einsten's theory of General Relativity.

Statistically, his analysis was unsound. But that doesn't change one iota about the validity of General Relativity

Anonymous said...

The results climate scientists have come up are very robust, a small error here and there won't have much effect.

So why are the adjustments applied to the temperature data almost identical to the warming trend over the 20th century (0.7C)?

The land temperature record is almost useless to measure a trend that is smaller than the error in the measurements.

Vague statements like, and I paraphrase, I'm a climate scientist trust me, don't wash with the thinking segment of the population. We need more persuasive things like convincing data and science that stands up to scrutiny.

But you (the warmers) have done a good job with the non-thinking segment of the population. Those whose attention span is limited to 30 second ads between reruns of Oprah.

Phil

Anonymous said...

If that is really true, how come no one has ever heard of this guy? Einstein found a small problem with them Michaelson Morley Experiment, and most people have heard of him. Is this Steve McKentrick your high priest?

Anonymous said...

Oops, Sorry, forgot discussions about physics were not allowed on Gust. Jonathon please add special relativity to the coriolis force and the Stephan Boltzmann equation on the list of suppressed topics. Then you can delete this post. Thanks very much.