All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW

ICAC and AGW

by Anthony Cox

Anthony Albanese, the soft face of socialism according to Andrew Bolt, has released the State of Australian Cities 2013 report.


Obviously Albanese has made the most of the 10 minute briefing he would have had from the Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] before he went out and fronted the press. Unfortunately he, like most other pollies has taken whatever he was briefed with as gospel. If he had bothered to do some of his own research and checking [yes I know, stop laughing, a pollie doing his own fact-checking] he would have found that the BOM doesn’t even think UHI will be a problem.

Blair Trewin in his technical manual to the ACORN-SAT Australian temperature record can only find a UHI effect in minimum temperatures and in only one of the major urban areas Adelaide.

Trewin concludes on page 81:
This suggests that either any urban influence on temperatures at these locations was already fully developed by 1910 or that anomalous urban warming was manifested as step changes, possibly associated with specific buildings or other developments in the vicinity, which were successfully removed in the homogenisation process. It is likely that the first explanation is the dominant influence at Sydney, and the second at Melbourne.

On the face of it this is ridiculous. Since 1910 Sydney has increased in population and size 10 fold. How could its UHI effect be finished in 1910? Likewise how could the BOM’s “homogenisation process” cater for particular buildings?

What is more likely is that the methodology used by the BOM to “homogenise” or adjust temperatures is faulty. The new ACORN-SAT temperature network took over from the previous High Quality [HQ] network, corrected for the HQ biases but still found the same trend. I’m sure Albanese can relate to those sort of corrections!

There is no doubt the BOM has had trouble with its ‘adjustments’ to raw temperature data. The bias in their adjustments is well documented and noted in Stockwell and Stewart’s paper. Stockwell and Stewart list several areas where bias was incorporated into the HQ network. Supposedly Trewin’s technical manual overcame these biases in the ACORN-SAT. Yet at Table 6 and Figure 19 of Trewin’s technical manual we see the list and form of the ‘adjustments’ made to temperature to produce ACORN-SAT and overcome these biases in the HQ network.

These adjustments do not make sense.

For purposes of true adjustment neutrality the equality between negative and positive adjustments over the whole of the particular temperature sites is not important. The crucial point is whether those adjustments are neutral over the particular sites. Table 6 and Figure 19 do not tell us whether there has been equality of trend produced by the equality between negative and positive adjustments. That is because a particular site can be overall negatively adjusted but still have a negative trend produced by the adjustment and, to a lesser extent, because overall the trend has been increased or made positive by the adjustments, vice-versa.

In other-words, the adjustments have created a part of the trend. That is wrong.

So, the temperature information being provided to Albanese and which forms the basis of the State of Australian cities report he was spruiking is problematic to say the least. That doesn’t stop Albanese from claiming heat kills more people than cold.

Common sense tells us that cold is much more lethal than heat as numerous studies have found. And the reason why people die in heatwaves is because green policies based on the lie of AGW make using air-conditioners too expensive!

Albanese continues the lie of the 2012-2013 summer being an ‘angry” one. This is simply not correct. The satellite record is damning about the BOM’s claim of a record hot Summer:




This comparison is conclusive. The satellite/BOM temperature comparison clearly shows that the BOM ‘adjustments’ are misleading. The satellite record shows the 2012-2013 Summer as the 13th hottest since the more accurate satellite record began in 1979, not the first.

Albanese’s report also claims that the ‘angry’ Summer had Australia’s hottest temperature of 49.6C at Moomba, South Australia.

Again this is a blatant falsehood. The 1999 Australian Yearbook shows many hotter temperatures than 49.6C in the past including 52.8C in Bourke in 1877. As part of its “homogenisation” the BOM has removed or ‘adjusted’ all these past record temperatures.

Personally I’ve thought this winter has been as cold as any for a long while; my subjective impression is also shared by what is happening in the US.

But AGW has never been about the real world. It is a manufactured world conjured up by models and computers programmed by green zealots. Those very people are busy ‘adjusting’ the past to make sure it is consistent with the lie of AGW.

This week saw the recommendation by ICAC that former ALP NSW politicians be charged with fraud and corruption. Reality has entered their cosy little make believe world.

Is it too much to hope that similar charges will be laid against the main advocates and profiteers of AGW?

 



No comments:

Post a Comment





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!