Frankly I doubt that even the stats for Cape Otway show what CSteele would like them to show --this is from his favoured source:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml

CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE

Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years[1861 to 2000]
Mean MINIMUM temperature (°C) 13.3 13.9 13.2 11.6 10.0 8.5 7.5 7.8 8.5 9.5 10.7 12.0 [Mean -- 10.5]

Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years [ 1971 to 2000]
Mean MINIMUM temperature (°C) 13.5 14.3 13.6 11.8 10.5 8.6 7.7 8.1 8.8 9.7 11.0 12.2 [Mean -- 10.8]
An increase.

But, if you consider the other end of the spectrum

Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years [ 1861 to 2000]
Mean MAXIMUM temperature (°C) 21.4 21.6 20.3 18.0 15.6 13.7 13.0 13.8 15.2 16.9 18.3 19.9 [ Mean -- 17.3]

Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years [1971 to 2000]
Mean MAXIMUM temperature (°C) 20.7 21.5 19.8 17.7 15.6 13.4 12.9 13.5 14.7 16.4 17.7 19.1 [ mean -- 16.9]
A decrease

Now if you consider a more recent year --since 2000 (say 2007) --as some will suggest: You get an increase --yes.
Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years [for year 2007]
Mean maximum temperature (°C) 21.2 22.1 21.1 18.3 17.1 12.5 12.8 14.1 15.6 16.5 18.2 21.3 [ Mean for 2007 ---17.6]
above the 145 year mean of 17.3

But, likewise, if you consider earlier years against the 145 year mean ( say 1870)
Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Years [for year 1870]
Mean maximum temperature (°C) 23.9 23.6 21.1 19.5 16.0 14.0 13.4 14.1 15.5 18.4 18.1 20.6 [ Mean for 1870 --- 18.2]

Even higher!
Has the temperature trended down since 1870?

?

Dear GrahamY and Horus,

Isn't this a great set of data and a great tool from the BOM too.

A place like the Cape Otway Lighthouse should be a lot more influenced by the dampening effects of the ocean, far less influenced (if at all) by the urban heat island effect and quite a bit more susceptible to solar irradiance (SI) as a driver.

I'm in fierce agreement with you about the temperatures presented. My playing with the data showed a very slight trend up reflecting the small increase in global temps.

As the CSIRO says “Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.”

Indeed that seems to be what it shows with the jump SI in the mid to late 1800s corresponding to a similar leap in temps.

But the two do diverge after 1970 when a stable to decreasing SI not explaining the temp spike we have had since 1980.

So for those attributing the increases in global temps to SI would seem to have a problem with the Cape Otway Data although I'm open to an explanation. Earlier correlations seem to have withered. If you have other data sets it would be good.

Graham,

I had seen the ozone piece before. I think it needs a fuller explanation on how it works and it is a pity it is over such a small time scale but it deserves some attention.

C, what dataset are you referring to for solar irradiance? I'm also not sure why the temperature increase should be larger away from the coast. You might like to explain that part of the theory.

Yes, the ozone paper covers a short period, but then so do all these datasets, relatively speaking.

Csteele, GY,

I might be off beam here but.....
As I understand the explanations from some climatologist scientists, I have recently been email introduced to, current measurements exclude those data points that have historically been abhorrently high, possibly influenced by the urban island effect.

They told me that the likes of Cape Otway Light night temps would be affect reliability by prevailing sea currents and the temps there of. They referred me to satellite temps as being more reliable.(particularly some of the newer or upgraded ones.

Another factor they raised was that temperatures will have variance between place to place i.e. historical temp % rises from Cape Otway would be different from say ones from mid Coast NSW depending on prevailing wind directions.(overland or off the Sthn Ocean).

One expressed some concern about the accuracy of historical data in micro climate comparisons. i.e. factoring in changes of one environment when compared to another that may not have had the same changes.
He referred to CSIRO paper on changes in Victoria that showed as the trees went the land temp unevenly raised. Essentially they said measuring one or two sites may or may not actually show much.

They indicated that temperature from at the same latitude won't necessarily show the same degree (%) increase(s), more factors need to be considered, then the conversation went into computations etc beyond my comprehension. The temp increases will be different in different places.

They knew of or read Plimer's book and weren't impressed , apparently
one knew the author of one of Plimer's mis-quoted citings. Beyond that they dismissed the book as being largely as unscientific, more a polemic. I let it drop because I was more interested in the argument about + or - feedback with water vapour in the air.( Plimer and Carter's torpedo). One agreed to write me an answer explaining that one.

Cont

Cont.
CSteele, GY

BTW I asked them to submit an article to OLO via GY and if it was published could they monitor the responses with comments further info etc. They said they'd look at it. I made much the same request on Real Climate boys. (NB in both cases I stressed I was a lowly commenter and had absolutely no authority to promise anything. it will be up to GY) I
simply thought it would be an interesting exchange.

This contact was through someone I know here who has worked with these scientists O/seas. I'll follow them up for my own interest but if they're interested they'll presumably contact GY direct.

I haven't got any further in understanding the water cycle, but I did come across this link (well a related one anyway), posted by michael_in_adelaide in another thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUcxYdMmj4

It is a video of Professor David Rutledge talking about how much organic carbon (ie the stuff we burn) is left in the ground. He gives lots of stats and graphs to back up his estimates, and they look plausible to me.

In the video is Rutledge says there is less than 500 Gt of recoverable coal left in the ground. You may recall David Archer said their was around 5000 Gt +/-50%. In the predictions being out by a factor of 2 does not change things overly, meaning we still have to take voluntary action (such as the ETS) to avert an uncomfortable amount of warming. But if the 500 Gt figure is correct things like the ETS really won't matter as its entirely probable they won't be able to reduce the total coal consumed to below 500 Gt, even if they were wildly successful.

The one caveat is Rutledge's estimates are controversial, in the same way Peak Oil is controversial. No only do his estimates go against conventional expert option given by business and governments, Rutledge admits he doesn't have a clue what basic physical and economic principles drive his curves for coal.

Rutledge's web site:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mmic/people2/Rutledge.html

Similar comments from another scientist:
http://www.energybulletin.net/50905