G'day Count,

I didn't suggest taking a "blogger" on face value. I did suggest that the data analysis shown by Mr Lowe has some merit, unless someone is able to dispute what he has done.

The analysis of cyclones is nothing new at all and conforms to published research. James Cook University has done similar research and come to similar conclusions.

The analysis of drought is a little different and Mr Lowe has chosen to use selective data in some examples he uses. This is where I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the analysis would be able to have a basis to argue. But only a basis. It would start a discussion that it would seem that Mr Lowe is quite prepared to continue on this forum. I, for one, would welcome that.

However, water, being very important in Australia, has been subject to extensive analysis and Mr Lowe's analysis of drought is also not particularly unique or earth shattering. I pointed out in another thread that the threat of global warming has caused productive farmland, currently experiencing five years or so of far below average rainfall, to drop in value by 30% in the last three or so months. The farmers, and the realtors agreed that the drop was because of the fear that this was not an "ordinary" drought but rather a taste of what is to come because of global warming.

Actually, global warming, does not necessarily cause the productive Eastern Australian farmlands to become more drought prone. But the fear has caused real people to suffer terrible losses. These are farms that are amongst the most efficient in the world. Australian farmers do get drought relief but they do not get the myriad of subsidies enjoyed by European farmers or even the special protections, subsidies and other advantages that US farmers get.

The three big exporters of grain in the world are Australia, Canada and the US. The fear of global warming damaging Australia's capacity to produce and export grain would have a very marked effect on the world.

And Count, the graphs and data for cyclones, for instance, does not require very much analysis at all. The figures are not particularly complex and Mr Lowe's graphs are well set out. The drought data is more complex and I would agree with you that a lay person would not be able to look at what he has done and spot flaws quickly if they were there. In that respect, I was thinking more of myself and others that do look at climate data as a normal part of their day.

But feel free to comment on any of the data in respect to drought or even raise questions and, if Mr Lowe, is not available at the time to respond, I will be happy to do so.

As to scientific publications and research relating to data, this is one area where research is actually difficult to come across. Much of it pre-dates the Internet. The research is often complex in its terminology and even in its assumptions.

I have a thread that I'm going to post soon looking at a research paper that attempts to prove that urban effect is inconsequential. I believe I can present it here so that even those that have no background in data analysis will be able to understand the principals and what I consider serious flaws.

As to data research being reviewed in other published research, it just does not happen in climate science. So Mr Lowe's blog information may be the best you are likely to get.

The real classic example of misuse of data was the research of Ms Oreskes in relation to the "consensus" of climate research. This research was blatantly biased, in my personal opinion. It was an example of just what not to do with data analysis. A number of scientists, often in the field of data analysis, or in fields relating to scientific methods, have produced research papers demonstrating just how flawed this research is. The publisher would not even publish a letter critical of the research, let alone publish any research papers showing quite different results using the same source of data.

This is also true for urban effect and the analysis of Surface Air Data data sets. They just do not get published.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness