What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The Sydney Observatory shows several degrees warming since the 1940s.


SYDNEY(OBSERVATORY_AS_MeanTemperature_Jan_Dec_1895_2015

It is carefully situated next to a couple dozen lanes of asphalt, with a tall building reflecting the afternoon sun on to the thermometer.

Screenshot 2016-02-09 at 01.02.00 PM

Despite all of this, there has been no increase in the frequency of hot afternoons, which peaked in 1926.

SYDNEY(OBSERVATORY_AS_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold95F_Jan_Dec_1895_2015

Rural stations in New South Wales show a sharp decline in the frequency of hot afternoons.

BOURKEPOSTOFFICE_AS_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold95F_Jan_Dec_1880_2015

DENILIQUIN(WILKINSO_AS_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold95F_Jan_Dec_1870_2015

Government climate scientists prefer surface temperatures over satellites, because they can manipulate the station selection and give them the answer they are looking for.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

  1. darrylb says:

    Surprise, surprise, surprise !!!!
    I am going to send this to Jennifer Marohasy in Australia, an accomplished scientist at Queensland, an author in “Climate Change, the Facts 2014”, and has a very long list of accomplishments.

    Her specialty is plant and water quality,. She has been fighting an uphill battle against the
    orthodoxy of climate change. Quoting from her writing, (along with John Abbot)

    “The theory of AGW has very little practical utility, but tremendous political value. It is a
    theory that accords with the mood of our time, the zeitgeist, which assumes that man’s
    greed is despoiling the earth and that political action based on a scientific consensus can
    save the planet——–That is part of the reason why credible scientific rebuttals fail to achieve its
    over throw.—-
    —– the other is the history of science shows it is competition, not logical argument—-
    that replaces a failed paradigm.”

    Well stated, and I completely agree with her except for one thing. That is the word ‘theory’ which implies that data, experiments, facts etc can be explained by it. In fact, in the case of AGW, there is no valid theory, because the facts show otherwise. It is an hypothesis which at its core should be replaced or at best completely modified.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    My “local” weather station. (I’m slightly inland so using Williamstown rather than Nobby’s)

    • ristvan says:

      AndyG55, you are running Tony’s SW. I cannot yet cause am only Mac platform for company/security reasons. Check Rutherglen and send that to Jennifer also. She, JoNova, and I had quite an email correspondence about that station as I was drafting essay When Data Isn’t for my ebook. They both got lots of footnote credits.

  3. Andy DC says:

    So it appears that whatever they claim as global warming is simply Urban Heat Island and some creative thermometer siting. What a farce!

    • Billy says:

      Or maybe – just maybe – this is why the data are adjusted to correct for things like urban heat island effects?

      • ristvan says:

        Billy, according to NASA GISS own website, there are two ways to correct for UHI. You can cool the present to remove the effect. But then the temperature is not what the weather report says. Or, you can warm the past to get a trend without the UHI component. Which is what GISS says it does, using Tokyo as the example. I reproduce it in essay When Data Isn’t.
        But in reality, as Tony has shown many times, the past is cooled. Backwards and wrong.

  4. JPinBalt says:

    FYI, that “tall building reflecting the afternoon sun on to the thermometer” seems to be the 40 story Shangri-la Hotel in Sydney built in 1992. Aside, looks like PDO correlated to no surprise.

  5. gator69 says:

    It is amusing to hear them say, “Well we placed the sensor 150 feet from any pavement”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GreenRoof/Images/atlanta_thermal.jpg.

  6. gator69 says:

    The same people that scream about man-made CO2 re-emitting a virtually undectable amount of heat will also tell you that steel and asphalt, that can burn at the touch, does not effect urban temperatures.

    • Sparks says:

      A few tenths of a degree big green global warming circle jerk doesn’t change UHI does it? To put it another way, when did a fabricated global temperature anomaly over power a local reading? Where’s the warming? Fact! There is warming in these lying bastards eyes… waisting billions that could be used for hospitals, schools or any other soical project, the political puppets at nasa and their cheerleaders should bow their heads in shame… shame on you fuck- eejits… and your abuse of power towords your intellectual opposition has been noted for all time… well done NASA scum that the world can look up to…

  7. OrganicFool says:

    Supreme Court blocks Clean Power Plan
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-clean-energy-plan-2016-02-09

    And Trump wins NH. I predict the stock market will rally tomorrow!

  8. AndyG55 says:

    SG, Does GHCN get its data before or after BOM’s “homogenisation” trend increase?

  9. eliza says:

    Cruz comes in 3rd at 10% just behind kashich 12%. This likely means Cruz will be the GOP nominee and trounce Sanders/clinton. Already AGW is cooked we probably do not even need a Cruz to finish it off (re EPA is finished)

  10. ngard2016 says:

    Over at Judith Curry’s blog Zeke Hausfather admits that they have adjusted US warming up by 100% compared to raw data. . Here’s his quote——-
    “Fixes to errors in temperature data have effectively doubled the amount of U.S. warming over the past century compared to the raw temperature records.”
    So how does that compare to the Watts stations used in their study? Dr Spencer said that the Watts study reduced US temps by 50%. That’s a turn around of 150% between the 2 data-sets.

  11. Murray says:

    Let alone ‘theory’, it barely fits the criteria for ‘hypothesis’, if at all!

  12. Robert B says:

    The roads are at the entrance to the Sydney Harbour Bridge built in 1932. North bound traffic (left lanes) is free. Traffic went up from 11000 cars per day to 180 000 per day and with the tunnel opening in 1992, congestion eased. The step in 2000 is most likely a switch to AWS.

    The ANA Hotel was built 1989-1992 . It is one the coastal side of the station where the sea breeze comes from to keep Sydney cooler than outer suburbs but its hard to see in the plot how the building affects the readings. Reflection from the Sun should affect the March & Sep maximum but nothing obvious in the data.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=066062&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=09

  13. John Sayers says:

    Johnlsayers.com/Stuff//Observatory_Hill.png

  14. John Sayers says:

    I’ll try to post it again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s