Real Climate Science

My previous analysis of Australia was incorrect. I wasn’t properly differentiating between stations with only precipitation data, and those with temperature data. That caused me to include stations with no temperature data in 1895.

The graph below shows the average station temperature at all 1650 Australia GHCN stations with temperature data. It creates the impression that Australia has cooled dramatically

But if I look at only the eight stations which have temperature records from both 1895 and 2014, it looks completely different. A large discontinuity around 1960.

I see a different discontinuity (at 1940) if I filter by stations active since 1960.

The only thing I can infer from this is that Australia cooled after the 1890s  and has warmed recently. I doubt that there is a valid way to make sense out of this data set. You could probably come to any conclusion you want by picking the right set of stations.

[UPDATE : This post is incorrect. I incorrectly included stations which had precipitation data back to 1895, but not necessarily temperature data. Ignore everything below, while I do further analysis]

There are 202 GHCN stations in Australia which were active in 1895, and were still active in 2013. They show Australia used to be much hotter, 1900 was the hottest year, and that BOM’s claim that 2013 was the “hottest year ever” was complete BS. It wasn’t even close.

Similar to the US, temperatures in Australia have been trending downwards for over a century. One interesting year is 1966, which was very cold in Australia.

List of stations below :

BIDYADANGA          
ROEBOURNE           
MARDIE              
DENHAM              
CUE                 
MURGOO              
CARNAMAH            
GERALDTON TOWN   
WALEBING            
ALBANY              
BUSSELTON SHIRE     
GOOMALLING          
KELLERBERRIN        
NORTHAM             
BEVERLEY            
KOJONUP        
 Continue reading →

Think of the Colorado River.  If a lot of snow falls one winter, then six months later there will be a lot of water in the river. If the following winter there is little snow, the response six months later is a reduction in river flow.

There is no gain or loss of water, just a delayed steady state response.

Glaciers are rivers of ice. If a lot of excess snow falls in the interior of Greenland for a few years, the response will be a delayed increased flow of ice, and vice-versa.

Climate morons calculate the “mass balance” of the Greenland ice sheet (including flow)  and scream that Greenland is melting down – even though it obviously isn’t. If there actually has been a reduction in net ice accumulation, this will eventually lead to a reduction in flow (like any river) and a return to equilibrium. There is no gain or loss of ice over the long term, just temporary changes in flow. Greenland is not melting down.

These people are brainless, and clueless, and lacking the most fundamental understanding of how natural processes work.

A few days ago, people were trying to claim that the Northwest Passage is open. Some people might get lucky and get through the ice, but the passage is definitely not “open.”

JAXA shows an increase in sea ice extent since yesterday. This is the first time since 2006 which  this has occurred so early in the autumn (today being the first day.)

JAXA ice extent is 3% higher than last year, and 49% higher than 2012.

www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot_v2.csv

Obama has opened the borders to millions of undocumented low wage earners and welfare recipients, then he blames low wages on Texas.

His goal is always to create discord and strife, and pin the blame for the mess he is making on somebody else.

The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search

In 1986, Hansen told Congress that the US had warmed 1-2 degrees since 1958, but his own graph showed no warming since 1958, and cooling since the 1930s.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2).

Some parts of Greenland have gained more than a metre of ice over the past 365 days, and more than 90% of the ice sheet has seen a net gain (accumulation minus melt) in surface ice.

Experts and journalists who say Greenland is “melting down” are lying through their teeth.

Map of the accumulated surface mass balance (in mm water equivalent) from September 1st (2013) to now.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzGx_XzxDeM]