JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Big adjustments? BOM says Rutherglen site shifted, former workers there say “No”

The hot questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) mount up. Rutherglen was one of the temperature recording stations that was subject to large somewhat mysterious adjustments which turned a slight cooling trend into a strongly warming one. Yet the official notes showed that the site did not move and was a continuous record. On paper, Rutherglen appeared to be ideal — a rare long rural temperature record where measurements had come from the same place since 1913.

The original cooling trend of  – 0.35C was transformed into a +1.73C warming after “homogenisation” by the BOM. To justify that the BOM claims that there may have been an unrecorded shift, and it was “consistent” with the old station starting  further up the slope before it moved down to the hollow.

Today retired scientist Bill Johnston got in touch with Jennifer Marohasy, with me and with Graham Lloyd of The Australian to say that he worked at times at Rutherglen and the official thermometer had not moved. It was always placed where it is now at the bottom of the hollow. That information has already made it into print in The Australian.

...

The original thermometer records suggest a slight cooling trend. The adjusted ones (red) are very different.

 

From The Australian: “Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology

Retired scientist Bill Johnston, who has worked at Rutherglen, said a temporary thermometer had been put on higher ground near the office of the farm but it never provided temperatures to the bureau.

“Some locals thought the ­official data was not particularly inviting for winter tourists,’’ Dr Johnston said.

“So they established a second Stevenson screen near the office on a watered lawn, near fruit trees, so it was pretty useless as a weather station.”

That BOM explanation of the adjustment (again):

Rutherglen: the major adjustments in minimum temperature data are in 1966 and 1974. Both were detected through comparisons with neighbours. The nature of the change is consistent with the site moving from a location near the main experimental farm buildings (which are on a small hill) to its current location on low-lying flat ground (minimum temperatures are normally higher on slopes than on flat ground or in valley bottoms).

Graham Lloyd points out the official catalogue of the national temperature network claims that Rutherglen  is 7km southeast of the town and was established in 1913 and “There have been no documented site moves during the site’s history”.

If our “best” thermometer data needs massive adjustments 70 years after temperatures are recorded the accuracy of the whole network comes into question (as I said yesterday). The BOM don’t mention how unreliable thermometers are when they tell us how many new extreme records we seem to be setting.

It’s not just one station. The adjustments over the whole network are not “neutral” as claimed. Ken Stewart showed they raise the raw trends on minima by as much as 50%.

Bill Johnston contacted a former colleague today who confirmed the site has been there since “year-dot”. Hopefully we will get some photos soon. Bill has a lot more to say, and I’ll be adding to this with more information or another post soon.

 

Related information:

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (132 votes cast)
Big adjustments? BOM says Rutherglen site shifted, former workers there say "No", 9.6 out of 10 based on 132 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m3qro4x

149 comments to Big adjustments? BOM says Rutherglen site shifted, former workers there say “No”

  • #
    john robertson

    BOM.
    Busted.

    380

  • #
    Eliza

    Yes I agree. Most Australians including fervent warmists will NOT like being duped. Maybe the AGW fraud will collapse sooner than we all thought. This will undoubtedly spread to the USA and other countries. Of course it was predictable after putting together all the adjustment stories everywhere except ironically Russia where no one believes in AGW, what a joke. BTW the NZ meteorological office will fall very hard for what they have done (erasing all temp records)

    630

  • #

    Proving an original offense against a government dept is usually difficult, but nailing them on the subsequent cover up is a lot easier. I wonder how many BOM ants are willing to take a bullet for their leaders’ fixation with global warming?

    Pointman

    580

  • #
    luvthefacts

    So sad. Australia’s credibility as a scientific nation was was earned through the hard work and honest reporting of our scientists.
    It’s sad that the BOM is prepared to risk trashing this reputation just to appease the Global Warmers.

    620

    • #
      the Griss

      Also, CSIRO used to be considered a very worthwhile institution that contributed great advances to science.

      Then they put a bureaucrat in charge, and now it is going down the gurgler.

      It should have stayed away from the climate change junk, and stuck to what it was good at.

      521

    • #
      NielsZoo

      I’ll respectfully disagree with you a bit. The travesty is based on the actions of people calling themselves scientists along with the politicians and bureaucrats who drive, enable and pay them. When you also have folks like Jo, Jennifer, Bill Johnston, his colleagues and others… plus the actions of some actual news reporters trying to keep things both real and honest. You’re showing the world that you won’t take that cr*p. They’re out there showing fellow Australians and the rest of the planet the script for the BoM’s “Kibuki Temperature Show” and how it was made up by those who’ve either forgotten how to do science or never knew.

      In my book everything that’s happening now makes you all the leaders in the search for truth and I can only hope that the efforts here in the States can get as much traction as you have managed to get.

      390

    • #
      Leigh

      And let us not mention the cost to us all by these government funded fraudsters.
      These records and how many others are being used to sell the fraud of global warming to us.
      One can only be grateful for the diligent and scientifically educated people associated with blogs such as Jo’s that are willing to call them out.
      These findings will snowball and reverberate around the world.
      I’m just an internet “nut job” they can fob off.
      It’s a hell of a lot harder to fob off so many of their peers with morals.

      250

  • #
    Peter

    Rutherglen: the major adjustments in minimum temperature data are in 1966 and 1974. Both were detected through comparisons with neighbours.

    BOM are looking for reasons to adjust the temperature records!

    410

    • #
      the Griss

      Note, this is at approximately the same time as the mythical adjustment due to site move at Amberley.

      Just before the more reliable satellite data because available.

      No “official” record before 1980 can be trusted because to the massive fabrications that appear to have taken place.

      Not just here, but the US, NZ and anywhere the alarmista can get their grubby hands on it.. all to INVENT a warming trend.

      480

      • #

        Griss, it’s a lot harder to adjust temperature trends with satellites operating after 1979, and there aren’t that many people who remember the 1920s. All in all, it’s not surprising that the era from 1910 – 1970′s is where the big adjustments end up happening. And pre 1910 (remembered by everyone older than 120) simply disappears…

        320

        • #
          ghl

          Thank God for old newspaper files.

          230

        • #

          Joanne, it will be another 10 years before the satellite folk have any concept of what was measured. Been there, done that. The measurements are pristine, never to be adjusted by any government official. But what was measured, fun time at the Steak and Ale, with much beer. No one knows, but by God those measurements are indeed the best measurements of whatever we were measuring at that time and place. You mess with my written numbers, you die!

          30

        • #
          Carbon500

          Jo: re. your comment that “All in all, it’s not surprising that the era from 1910 – 1970′s is where the big adjustments end up happening. And pre 1910 (remembered by everyone older than 120) simply disappears…”
          It’s my current entertainment to point out to the warmists that in 1900 the Central England Temperature record (CET,available online from the Met Office)gives the years’ average temperature as 9.56 degrees C. Which is exactly the same as 2013.
          I always ask them to show me where the dangerous man-made global warming is manifesting itself in this data set. No-one’s been able to do so.

          70

    • #
      the Griss

      Note also that if it was a site change, there might be a shift up or down of data prior to that date, the trend in that prior data would not change.

      but for the Rutherford data shown above, the trend in the prior data also changes from a negative trend to a positive one.

      This looks more and more like outright FRAUD !!

      210

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It sure does look like willful alterations of a historical record to get a specific outcome.

        If an engineer did that, he’d end up in prison.
        If an accountant did that he’d end up in prison and the company get a huge fine.
        If a historian did that, well I don’t know what would happen.
        If a teacher did that for a student or class grades, they’d be sacked real quick.
        If a minning company did that, they’d be hounded and fined by 20 different departments.

        There absolutly has to be an enquiry into this.

        240

        • #
          Rolf

          Sorry, these people made sure no one is accountable. Not anywhere.

          120

          • #
            ianl8888

            Agreed

            That is classical bureaucracy

            40

          • #
            Peter C

            Maybe some of these people coud be held accountable:
            Climate Council
            Tim Flannery
            Gerry Hueston
            Lesley Hughes
            Will Steffen
            Veena Sahajwalla
            Andrew Stock
            Amanda McKenzie
            Sarah Perkins

            However they are all privately funded now that the Climate Commission has been disbanded. Should that give them protection?

            How about the Climate Authority which is still piublicly funded.
            Bernis Fraaser
            Ian Chubb
            David Karoly
            Heather Ridour
            Clive Hamilton
            John Quiggins
            Anthea Harris

            Most of them noisy exponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory.

            And lets not forget Dr David Jones of the BOM

            80

            • #
              Safetyguy66

              You forgot the empress of smug, Anna Rose.

              60

            • #
              Peter C

              Correction: Heather Ridout.

              LEST WE FORGET.

              20

            • #
              Peter C

              Another correction: Bernie Fraser.

              20

            • #
              Streetcred

              That’s why those “scientists” look so scared!

              50

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Now that’s the self-identified list of amateurs. Karoly is on it.

              Chubb doesn’t know what a cyclone is called in the northern hemisphere. Karoly can’t do statistics. Flannery doesn’t know what rain looks like. Hamilton gets it off on stuffed animals. Heather Ridout is an out and out green left Labor apparatchick. Bernie Fraser is a superannuation salesman. Gerry Hueston should have a brother called Tom – they’d known as Tom and Gerry, and they’d be a laugh a minute. Tom’s Terror.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9FhxoaARp8

              And who has ever heard of what’s her name; McKenzie?

              20

        • #
          gnome

          It was climate science that did it, so it’s not even going to get a mention on the ABC.

          They will have worked out a media strategy by now, which will depend mainly on it being ignored until it is old news, and then, who knows what unlikely reasons they will give, to their total satisfaction.

          Remember how they handled the hiatus- first it didn’t exist, then there were about twenty different reasons why “it’s even worse than we thought”, now it’s just old news and didn’t matter anyway, because 97%… And as a fall-back, it didn’t exist!

          Someone ought to start a book on what it will take to get this news onto the ABC, or how long it will take the ABC to acknowledge it.

          100

          • #

            Someone ought to start a book on what it will take to get this news onto the ABC, or how long it will take the ABC to acknowledge it.

            I am willing to bet that the icecaps meeting at the equator for fifty years may cause one or two of them at the ABC to question global warming. Most would still carry the faith to the grave.

            40

  • #
    Peter Miller

    First they were civil servants, then they became bureaucrats and now they is climate scientists.

    In terms of integrity, it is kind of like watching evolution in reverse.

    420

  • #
    Jaymez

    This is incredible. You would think that if the adjustments and homogenisation process was done as claimed based on peer reviewed, above world’s best standards, then you’d think BOM could pick any site and show detailed scientific reasons with calculations on justifying why and how the raw data was adjusted. Not just hopefully throw out that it is consistent with a move of the site even though there is none recorded.

    This is classic data manipulation to achieve a desired outcome and it has been done shamelessly by teams of BOM staff for years. And when their procedures are questioned, rather than provide a sensible explanation, they say trust us, we used world’s best practice.

    Well if this is world’s best practice then what state is the global temperature record in?

    371

    • #
      the Griss

      “Well if this is world’s best practice then what state is the global temperature record in?”

      Anywhere the alarmistas have managed to get their mitts on it, they have CREATED a warming trend.

      Combine them together, you get the massive wholesale fabrications called GISS or HadCrut !

      290

    • #
      Streetcred

      I’d be looking for collusion with other agencies and intermediaries … some intelligent person might like to make a FOI request for relevant communications.

      70

      • #
        Streetcred

        Simon at ACM, maybe?

        60

      • #
        DaveR

        It is fairly obvious that when BOM say their adjustment process has been peer reviewed, they are talking about the cosy club of NIWA in NZ and the Met Office in UK, all of whom have been artificially adjusting temperature records warmer. A new definition of “rotten institutions”.

        200

    • #
      Bulldust

      I don’t see how they can determine one station is more accurate than another, and then decide the latter needs homogenizing. It is all relative unless they have metadata to suggest one needs adjusting. Anthony Watts’ project clearly demonstrated how dodgy stations can be due to a number of variables probably not accounted for by BoM. So we come back to the original question of how they determine one is right and the other wrong? Maybe they are both right, or wrong… who knows? Certainly not the BoM.

      The peer reviewed papers probably give a cogent methodology for adjusting data, but I bet they don’t answer the question of which stations need adjusting, and why. That is the crux of the problem, not so much how they are adjusted. BoM has to be able to definitively justify the adjustments, or they are arbitrary. Simply saying a station may have moved is a bullsh*te answer.

      20

  • #
    Bruce

    I see that jackass Karoly said in The Australian yesterday Marohasy is an amateur, as opposed to himself. He then went on about peer review-gibber, gibber.

    Hell, we all know what this homogenizing is about; it’s method of jacking up the temperature, nothing more nor less.

    Now that they have been caught with their pants down, they will lie even more.

    I think Mr Lloyd has caught on.

    550

    • #
      Leo G

      As a defender of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Professor David Karoly had defined himself as an amateur.

      130

  • #
    Ron

    Does anybody have a list of all the adjustments made world wide? It would be interesting to see how many have been adjusted down and how many have been adjusted up. If it is a 50 to 50 split I would be very surprised.

    Yes, Frank Lansner looked at raw data worldwide. I wrote it up, and am planning to revisit it. – Jo

    100

  • #
    Eliza

    This will get to Abbot. There will be a thorough investigation of BOM and heads will not roll but retired or ask to move aside. Then it will occur in the US when Obama leaves and Rubio takes over.

    130

  • #
    Eliza

    Then and only then will the AGW scam terminate (Europe will just “retire AGW”) LOL

    120

  • #
    WFC

    Would it be impolite to say that some people (not Jo) may soon be owing Steven Goddard an apology?

    230

  • #
    bemused

    The climate hysteria won’t collapse any time soon. The perpetrators of these lies will continue to find weasel words to cover their fraud and continue as they have. Those weasel words will be swallowed whole by the Leftist MSM and every effort to cover up these things will continue. Afterall, this is not about climate change, but about Leftist social engineering.

    281

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Correct…..

      Moral people limit their actions if it seems wrong.

      The Left however pursue a result, regardless of whats required to achieve, often with amoral means.

      Its no wonder then that Communists crack down or outlaw religion and impose atheism, as it allows them to operate in a moral free vacuum.

      It just another form of Jones-ville cultist behaviour.

      They wont aplogise for their actions.

      Neither will they ever admit they are wrong.

      They are wedded to their CAGW religion as a death-cult, and will go down with their ship, still bleating their propaganda as the water consumes them…

      It has been said by others that CAGW inflicts a form of psychosis on its adherents – normal people become almost pathologically incapable of reason and need to be de-programmed. I just dont understand how it happens.

      Is this what happens to a nation that has an event 100 years ago that defines it but has nothing since to live for?

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Conditioning behaviour is relatively easy, when people are in their late teens or early twenties. Deprogramming them is considerably harder, if not impossible, once they are past thirty.

        The good news is that the majority of people in their late teens and early twenties today, have grown up with their grandparents being sceptical, and cynical, and telling them to figure things out for themselves, and not to take anybody else’s opinion at face value, without some serious checking.

        120

        • #
          Ross

          I would like to think you are right RW , but I’m not so sure. One of the things that new technology has done is make communication much easier and faster, as well all know. One of the effects of this is that when young ( and older people now) have a problem
          (or read something) they don’t really have to think about it and try to solve it themselves. They can easily contact a friend or parents or anyone else almost instantly to get the answer. So this means their problem solving skills are not developed or used as much. Obviously I’m generalising here but it is more prevalent than some of might like to acknowledge.

          50

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            My wife reckons the gen Ys are smarter than some previous generations – I dont agree with this. I think they are similar intelligence, but they have greater access to more data via the internet. One disadvantage is the development of the hive mind/borg mindset.

            I always maintain this current generation are so heavily connected, they are as only as intelligent as their internet connection.

            I also find them a bit too touchy feely/collaborative for me – I prefer the lone wolf approach, and collaborate as necessary ( and then only infrequently ), but hey, I’ a consultant so…

            I find the whole need to sit around and compare knitting patterns a bit too effeminate for my liking, which also fosters an imbalanced view of thew world where they move as a pack of sheep and not daring to venture outside the group. This is fine if you’re a sheep, but not so for people who do need to be able to think independently. And worse still, if the group says CAGW is cool, then its a hard meme to break….

            I guess I grew up building bolt bombs, fireworks, and blowing stuff up with crackers, rocking roofs and getting up to all sorts of mischief, building go carts, playing with shanghais and roaming the neighbour hood till all hours ( but never had a run in with the Plod…), I find the modern 20-30 something a bit underdeveloped in real world thinking for my liking.

            What think-eth others?

            Flames to usual email address please….

            20

        • #
          Streetcred

          Well none of them has experienced any global warming yet.

          40

  • #
    Eliza

    Bemused:I disagree I believe now that there is too much anti-AGW momentum occurring.People in general have had enough, even mainstream media will see more money in the FRAUD story than IPCC parroting. Again follow the money. This time its going in the skeptics direction. Mark my words: In exactly 2 years time the fraud will be finished…. completely. LOL

    140

    • #
      tom0mason

      Eliza

      Anti or pro CAGW hopefully the public do tire of it. That will mean politicians will pay less attention to it and pays more to what the voting public really need and want. This will go against the wishes of the UN-IPCC but who gives a darn what the UN elitists proclaim.

      Measures to mediate against CO2, CAGW alarm, etc., is exactly what nations do not require, as it ensures national poverty.
      Don’t think so? Compare and contrast economic performance of EU, or USA to say India or China.

      70

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        No, the scam has to be exposed for what it is. We can’t let it die away forlorn and forgotten. Someone has to be put on display in the town square.

        It has to be recorded as in the history books.

        150

    • #
      bemused

      I do hope that it happens sooner, rather than later; however, I am sceptical as to it dying off in two years time. There are far too many vested interests in the scam, from science communities (universities), alternative energy industries, finance industries etc for them to let go easily. For these people it’s all about money and for the rest it’s about social engineering, getting us back to the Stone Age (or close enough).

      The MSM etc are too supportive of the Left and not intelligent or motivated enough to really analyse things for themselves. If you look at some of the technology websites, where you would expect some higher level of intelligence (I said expect), every one of them supports catastrophic climate change claims and simply regurgitates what the likes of Flannery, Karoly etc spew out.

      00

  • #
    Robert O

    It’s good that we now have satellite coverage of temperature which gives data for both land and sea and is less prone to human error and manipulation. Dismissal of earlier data coming from post offices, railway stations etc. taken by dedicated people is really an affront to their integrity. Olden mercury thermometers were not all that bad, just gave data with a greater standard error than modern equipment.

    Unfortunately, there appears to be less integrity associated with climate science than there should be with examples of the “hockey stick”, withholding of unfavourable data in the Email scandal at the University of East Anglia, and a multitude of erroneous prediction by luminary scientists such as Flannery and Karoly. Why do we have all these unused very costly desalination plants other than politicians accepting their flawed predictions? What we really need to guarantee our water supplies are more large strategic dams to lessen the risk of flood and provide water for the dry years which are part of our normal climate. However, the greens are against them and its been a while since a large one was built. Can anyone imagine the Snowy Hydro scheme being able to be built again today?

    Unfortunately, politics has stuck its nose into science, and the result is obvious for all to see, “the greatest threat to humanity” etc.

    220

  • #
    CARFAX

    BOM BOMB?

    50

  • #
    bit chilly

    all i can say is well done on getting this far to all involved. a word of caution though,the climategate emails should have opened the doors to a thorough investigation in the uk at least .instead policy makers at the time ensured a whitewash. phil jones would have folded like a cheap pack of cards if put under proper scrutiny and the politicians of the time made sure it never happened. keep the pressure on or the same thing could happen all over again.

    180

    • #
      john robertson

      True but now the whitewash is getting pretty thin.
      The pathetic coverup by the bureaucrats, of the Climate Gate inquiries, only deepened public distrust of the politicians.
      Very difficult to now start claiming that your scientific advisors mislead you.

      50

  • #
    CJ

    These adjustment thingies remind me of McIntyre’s (or is its Watt’s) Starbucks Deficiency Principle in that Australian realclimate(t) scientists seem as avers to trekking into the wilds to actually SEE the instruments and sites as are the vaunted US realclimate(t) scientists. So much easier to sit in the office at the computer and compute the temps than research it. And no fear of not having a Starbucks nearby…..

    70

    • #
      Another Ian

      Time to remind you of my suggested new descriptive word

      “Empixellated” – to describe those who spend too much time looking at computer screens and not enough looking out of windows

      40

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Unfortunately climate science has grown to resemble medieval Aristotelian scholasticism in its appeals to ‘authority’; however this is a pivotal moment when ‘the authoritative literature’ of ‘best practice’ has run head long into an empirical fact and been found wanting.

    I await further obfuscation on the part of BOM et al, however.

    120

  • #
    Yonniestone

    These types of slip ups always occur when bureaucratic overconfidence through years of easy funding and protection produces complacency in the wrong political environment, the damning evidence against them will be ignored by the accused as over time the true zealots have taken over positions of leadership that require good strategic decisions instead of the arrogant ill advised responses driven by the egotistical belief that their show of strong dedication to the cause/cult will garner protection from a higher power.

    Let’s hope all CAGW driven government departments and NGO’s carry on ad usum, for all our sakes.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    Between Jennifer and Joanne BOM certainly have their hands full.
    This O/T but interesting——–

    Interesting that Phil Jones agreed in 2010 that if evidence could be found for the Med WP in the SH it would change the AGW debate. IOW so called recent warming since the end of the LIA wouldn’t be unprecedented or unusual at all.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

    Well here are a number of PR studies that show the Med WP in Antarctica as does the recent Pages 2K study.

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/antarcticmwp.php And here are numerous studies that show the Med WP in the SH.

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php Just scroll down to find S America, Australia and NZ and central America.

    But will these fools now change there minds? This is easily the biggest con and fraud for the last one hundred years.

    140

    • #
      tom0mason

      And what is the collateral damage to the Western nations?
      What has the UN-IPCC changes done for the poorer nations?

      40

  • #
    TdeF

    How much effort would be required to recreate a picture of Australian temperatures without the fiddles? Who could do this quickly? Then how much would it affect the world temperature, given Australia’s huge input into world temperature, 25% according to a recent comment. Any graph showing world temperatures not climbing as previously thought or even actually falling would be the end of the world for warmists.

    You can only think that there has been a desperate rear guard action to shore up temperatures, create graphs showing climbing temperature by quietly fudging data, world wide. The alleged hiatus may be a miracle of modern manufacture, a pathetic tribute to the triumph of commercial need over truth.

    The worthless excuses for Rutherglen and Amberley are enough to show that it is now about plausible deniability. At worst an administrative oversight perhaps, but it looks too systematic. After all, why would people push up temperatures and alter not just measurements but trends over many years? The problem is, we all know why. From the point of view of groups like East Anglia and the BOM, this has been nothing short of self preservation. With the vast monies involved and public service obligations for fairness and honesty, at what point does this become fraud and fraud becomes a criminal investigation?

    130

  • #
    tom0mason

    What the Brits do with their own data is small stuff, after all you could homogenize all of the UK to one temperature with very little effect to the rest of the world, probably not even on the UK itself.

    No, what is more sinister is HadCrut’s influence over other national agencies globally, and their ablility to persuade others to follow in homogenizing temperature data across vast (continental) areas of the globe.

    IMO homogenizing is just a tool to provide dumbed-down climastrophy data to the hard of thinking. It is scientifically wrong as it hides the useful anomaly information. The abnormalities, these location specific exceptional particularities, are where the clues to a better understanding of our weather and climate would would be hidden, and/or (these clues) may appear there first.

    With homogenized temperature data little research can be done in this direction – we have obscurred the pathway, hidden the light.

    160

    • #
      the Griss

      Note that the papers on “how to homogenize” appeared just in time for the CAGW hoax.

      An instruction manual, on how to create positive trends.

      Everywhere that gets “homogenized” the general change is always to create a warming trend from nothing.

      Has there REALLY been any global warming at all ???????????

      220

      • #
        john robertson

        The cold slimy hand of Maurice Strong.
        World Metrological Organization?
        Precursor to the IPCC
        CAGW Orchestrated, Promoted and protected from scrutiny.
        By Our Bureaucrats.
        I believe a lot of social damage and blatant theft of public treasure could be prevented by decreeing that no one may spend more that 5 years on the public teat.
        Military and Police, possibly exempted

        90

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again

    If records need adjustment by this amount – a;; its say6ing is that the uncertainty of any thermometer reading is greater than the trend they are trying to measure and so there is absolutely nothing they can realistically say about a trend.

    Full stop

    120

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      That’s been my point for some time.

      The size of some of the adjustments is more than double the total warming for the century. Some of the adjustments exceed not only the full agreed worst case scenario warming of 0.9c, they utterly obliterate the points of a degree in contention between AGW and natural variation.

      I regard the BOM and their data as no longer able to meaningfully contribute to the debate.

      80

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    I wonder what caused most storms
    CO2
    Jennifer
    Goddard

    60

  • #
    Streetcred

    The BoM is raping our intelligence !!

    50

  • #
    the Griss

    If you look at Wangaratta, Echuca, Deniliquin, Wagga Wagga, etc in Ken’s Kingdom (link is for Vic, next page for NSW)

    …you will see that all these “neighbouring” stations have been given similar treatment to Rutherglen. Near zero or negative trends change to same amount of positive trend.

    Would be interesting to look at say Shepparton, Tocumwal, Henty.. if records exist. Anything west of the ranges.

    90

    • #
      the Griss

      PS iirc Bendigo and Ballarat also get the warming treatment.

      80

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Are you baiting me or what? :)

        I actually came across an old post on Woodwork forums.com 20/10/2008 where a local chap in Ballarat made his own Stevenson Screen recording the results, take note of the description of positioning of the screen vs the actual recorded official temperatures at the Ballarat Airport.
        http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=81058

        It also appears going by the posts that many were aware and skeptical of how temperature records were being taken worldwide even back then.

        40

    • #
      the Griss

      Its almost as if they choose one station with a warming trend then work outwards homogenising as they go !

      140

  • #
    pat

    is the MSM taking notice of these revelations? probably enough to warrant another convenient LEAK to the CAGW-infested Bloomberg!

    27 Aug: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Irreversible Damage Seen From Climate Change in UN Leak
    The draft was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with official access to it who asked not to be further identified because it hasn’t been published yet…
    The 127-page document includes a 32-page summary and is filled with language highlighting the dangers from rising temperatures…
    The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC. It expects a gain of 0.3 degrees to 4.8 degrees for this century, depending on what policies governments pursue. That range would lead to a sea-level rise of 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 82 centimeters in addition to the 19 centimeters already recorded…
    ***In a nod to skeptics who argue temperatures haven’t significantly warmed since 1998, the researchers said that climate models aren’t so good at explaining short-term fluctuations in the temperature and that “natural variability” may be part of what’s being observed…
    The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012. The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012. And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.
    Over longer periods, the climate models seem to be more accurate. From 1951 to 2012, “simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend,” the IPCC researchers said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html

    30

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    With all these weather stations being moved around all the time, may be our politicians should increase funding for rural roads to repair the wear and tear.
    Seriously, the Acorn figures were supposedly based on sites selected for the completeness of their records. For the BoM to have to extensively ” adjust” the readings implies they are incompetent at selecting proper sites.

    100

  • #

    1966 or 1974 are “ancient history” to the smart youngsters who represent the BOM and other government agencies. They probably thought a hypothetical move of the Rutherglen thermometer “way back then” would be untestable and lost in the mists of time.

    The memories of organisations, and government organisations in particular, are very short compared to the memories of individual human beings.

    90

  • #
    thingadonta

    Homogenisation is being used to detect data which doesn’t fit the warming agenda, and changed to fit it.

    The surprising thing is that the people working on these datasets seem oblivious to what is going on (if you read the independent report on ACORN-SAT). They are pawns in a larger political process.

    The response of the BOM states that homogenisation is ‘standard practice internationally and used by many agencies etc’. Doesn’t it ever occur to them that whomever enforces the ‘standard’ might have an agenda?, knowing also that it can be an excellent opportunity to fudge the figures? Perhaps the push for homogenisation supports a political agenda? The naiveté is astounding.

    Why don’t the public service officials working on these datasets attend classes to detect fraud and errors in methodology, instead of continually making reports which harp on and on about how wonderful everyone’s work in the BOM is.

    80

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      I have assembled documentation from a lot of ‘amateurs’ and even some professionals (Joe D’Aleo of Weather Analytics, for example) on equivalent homogenization bias by NOAA, NASA, and BEST in the US, by HadCRU and Meteroschweiz in Europe, by NIWA in New Zealand, and even by NOCD for ocean heat inferred from ARGO data starting in 2003. Have provided it in explanatory essay form to Dr. Marohasy. Jo has an earlier version without Switzerland and the ACORN Rutherglen situation or the even more shocking nClimDiv change in thenUS ilistrated by the state of Maine. It will be a chapter in a forthcoming book on energy and climate. I trust Jeniffer to make good use of the information ‘Down Under’ if the opportunity presents.

      20

  • #
    Joe Prins

    If memory serves, there was quite a bit of a stir in 2008 or /9 regarding the Darwin station “adjustments” around the same time of the sixties. Willis E. did a good job explaining the discrepancies at WUWT. and I agree with the “Griss”: Aside the increase in global temps from the rebound out of the little Ice Age, is there any “man-made” warming at all? How can one possibly know??

    90

  • #
    warcroft

    So that’s where all the missing heat has gone. Into thermometers!

    60

  • #
    ROM

    Just thinking. always a bad sign!
    A number of significant items are now coming together that spells serious problems for the CAGW belief .ie ; it is collapsing as a scientific and therefore as a publicly promoted catastrophic meme

    1 / It appears that the major players amongst the global temperature data keepers have been fiddling the books for quite some time now and that is just on the point of becoming a public embarrassment for those keepers of the climate data ie; BOM in Australia, NIWA in NZ, NCDC in the USA and who knows what else will surface as the downhill cascade gets underway for those organisations.

    2 / An increasing volume of science papers are casting doubt at the very least on so many of the claims of a CO2 induced warming.

    3 / An increasing volume of science papers and most importantly, are being published in high profile journals which are casting serious doubt on whether there has been much actual warming at all particularly over the last decade and a half.

    4 / An increasing number of science papers are suggesting and even promoting other reasons such as solar output for the changes that have always occurred in both regional and the global climate.

    5 / A number of science papers have started to analysis the validity and veracity of the climate models which are the entire basis for any and all of the hype about the dangers of global warming and have found the models to be almost useless.

    6 / Climate modellers and more than the odd one, are now coming out and admitting as much about climate models; A Lead Author of IPCC AR5 Downplays Importance of Climate Models

    7 / Some sections of the MSM are now and have already shown a very considerable shift in attitudes in their now increasingly sympathetic reporting of non warming climate related news and events.

    8 / There is a major political shift well underway in OZ, Europe inc Germany and Spain and Italy, the UK, Japan and other nations that are starting to look at drastically winding back both the political underpinnings and the public largesse that has been showered on the global warming industry for the last two decades.

    No doubt many other straws in the wind could be quoted but if both North America in the NE and eastern regions [ the SW is forecast to have a slightly warmer than normal winter ] have the very bitter upcoming winter forecast in some circles and Europe also has another hard winter, the global warming meme and ideology will be dead in the water.

    Then watch as quite suddenly we will see an amazing number of prominent public figures who apparently had their serious doubts all the time about the catastrophic global warming meme emerge from the shadows to say how they were actually quite skeptical all the time about this stupid global warming belief.

    If and when that happens we will all know it is finished, dead and buried except for a few fanatical die hard believers as any dying cult always has.

    101

  • #
    pat

    i realise u r discussing weightier matters, but the tennis is over, & i want to document the following for the MSM & interested parties who continue to push “ethical” “green” investing:

    26 Aug: Bloomberg: Zain Shauk: Investors May Find It Hard to Break Up With Oil and Gas
    Investors seeking greener energy stocks will find it difficult to reproduce the returns offered by oil and natural gas producers, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
    With a market value of $4.9 trillion, oil and gas investments offers a combination of scale, growth and dividends that can’t be readily found in other industries, the London-based research company said today…
    Environmentalists have proposed fossil-fuels divestment…
    The divestiture movement is backed by Bill McKibben, an environmental writer and co-founder of 350.org, a group that has identified 200 companies with the largest reserves of coal, oil and gas. McKibben warns that fossil fuel companies hold undisclosed financial risks as governments move to limit emissions blamed for global warming.
    “If you are investing in fossil fuels, you are essentially betting that we won’t ever take climate change seriously,” Jason Kowalski, U.S. policy director for 350.org, said in an e-mail. Smart investors are moving “their money sooner rather than later.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/investors-may-find-it-hard-to-break-up-with-oil-and-gas.html

    ***if only we could get those pesky pension funds to cough up the dough!

    26 Aug: Reuters: Christoph Steitz: INTERVIEW-E.ON bets on investor help for wind power push
    The group’s board member in charge of renewables told Reuters green energy was now growing as a source of profits for the utility, but that it needed help from investors for large wind power projects as its own investments were being cut to tackle its 29.7 billion euros ($39.2 billion) of debt.
    “We have a big pipeline of developed onshore (wind) projects. But E.ON can no longer meet the capital needs for these projects on its own,” Mike Winkel said in an interview.
    “Therefore, financial investors are very welcome to join and it turns out they see this market as being quite attractive.”…
    ***Last month, Denmark’s DONG Energy A/S agreed to divest 50 percent of a German offshore wind farm project to a group of Danish pension funds, freeing up capital to expand its offshore wind business…
    E.ON’s smaller German peer RWE has also said it needs the help of external investors for big wind power projects, which swallow investments of at least 1 billion euros and carry greater risks when erected offshore…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/e-on-renewables-idUKL5N0QW1D420140826

    10

  • #
    Steve

    Some homogenisation of temperatures should be expected when estimating area temperature from point sources.

    However; it is criminally wrong* to alter the original data, under any guise. When estimating the area from point sources there will be a smoothing of the temperature anyway, giving a proper area weighted average temperature for the land mass. There is no requirement to change the original values.

    Certainly the complete change in temperature trend makes a lie of the claim to having had little effect on overall temperatures. Did the BOM think no one would check such a claim … I digress.

    Imagine if you will a grid of point source temperature measurements, assuming they are in a nice regular square grid. In fact each of those measurements has a square of land around it that it represents (caveat: somewhat).

    There are quite well established methods for weighting temperatures from the point/s inside and outside of the square to form the weighted temperature estimate of the square itself. Various Kriging methods come to mind.

    If the BOM is calculating the temperatures of areas from the point sources, where are the papers showing how they are doing it, they would be non trivial explorations of geostatistics (I personally include temperatures as geostatistics as they are of the earth) applied in an interesting manner.

    Where are the plots of the different shaped “squares” or areas of land estimated from the point sources, they are very important. Where are the variograms and explanations of how they were fit to give the weighting of samples.

    I can only throw my hands up in frustration and wonder what passes for good science these days.

    *(digression: why do I call it criminally wrong. That much money spent based on falsified statistics …. criminal misuse of public funds)

    70

  • #
    DMA

    I think i heard somewhere that Rutherglen is in a wine producing area. In California some of the growers and wineries have better weather data than the government. Has anyone looked for private records that correspond to the time period the official record is being adjusted?

    40

  • #

    Okay then, people, please don’t flame me here. I wasn’t sure whether to post this Comment here, or at the earlier Post, because that earlier Post dealt directly with Amberley, as does this comment. It is however dealing with areas of colder temperatures than some recordings, and how they may have been, umm, adjusted.

    I had three Postings to Amberley in my time with the RAAF, 69/70, 80 to 86 and 91/92.

    During that middle posting, I was still in my (relative) youth, and I was still playing cricket. I didn’t play for RAAF teams, as I really wanted to be associated with the wider community, no matter where I played, and those RAAF teams were always in lower divisions, not because they had lesser quality players, but because team turnover was always high due to postings.

    On one Saturday, I got to talking to one of the older guys who was watching his son, who was playing on the opposing side. We were batting so I had some time, as I usually batted just before the roller came on, and we were having a good day with the bat, so I had at least an hour or more to talk with him.

    Once he found out I was in the RAAF, the first thing he said was that we had a lot to answer for.

    He was a farmer whose property was not far from the Base, well, ten miles or so anyway.

    I was a little nonplussed really, and the next thing he said was how the base at Amberley had changed the local weather, especially since the mid 60′s, and this gentleman had been in the area for decades on his parent’s property, now his, and he was in his late 50′s early 60′s.

    For the Bomber replacement, we got the F111 and in the interim, the Phantoms on loan. They had extended and widened the strip, the taxiways and included vast new hard stands across the whole base, and that’s even been expanded further since then. That turned the area into a monumentally huge source of rising heat, and in that time, the 80/81 Summer when we were talking, the thing I noticed most during the early days of that posting was the plethora of thunder storms, right directly overhead, monstrous storms and we would sit on our living in accommodation balconies, with some Stubbies, and just watch the violence of these huge storms, the thunder crack at the same time of the lightning bolt, and my first (and only) experience of Ball Lightning, frightening, as it rolled along the lines and then blew up the transformer on the pole, blacking us all out. These storms became as regular as clockwork over that Summer, and this gentleman mentioned that they would NEVER happen in earlier days.

    This was the typical UHI, as those fronts rolled in, hit that vast area of a solid wall of rising heat and then burst, and it was always just localised over the Base itself. Reminded me almost of Darwin and the regular monsoonal downpours in the early mornings and late afternoons with clear hot weather in between them.

    He also mentioned that Winters had become colder in that area at that time, so the question I’m asking here is if there is such a thing as the reverse UHI, causing those Winter’s mornings to be so much colder, and trust me, they were indeed cold, colder even than in nearby Ipswich.

    Reverse UHI, c’mon Tony, you’re opening yourself up here.

    Tony.

    70

    • #
      the Griss

      Or it may just be that winter mornings got colder and it was an irregular summer, nothing to do with the base. ! :-)

      So, from around 1980, there was more heat from the runway, near the temperature station…..

      …. so temperatures AFTER 1980 should have been adjusted downwards.

      40

    • #
      Peter

      Tony

      Some years the storms roll down from the great dividing range to the south of Gatton and through the scenic rim. Some years there are no storms. I spent almost a decade in the gatton area and all the grass died on the mountain tops where the storms used to run. It’s always been this way and to suggest that somehow the construction of an airport changed things is a bit far fetched. Before the airport these storms would have come barrelling down the Fassifern valley and hit the hot air from the flats around Amberley and the greater Brisbane area! It’s still the same today.

      The record at Amberley at BOM starts in 1941 when the airfield was first built and I can find no record of a second site or a relocation of the recording equipment.

      40

    • #
      bobl

      Well, yes there is. If the area was opened up to the west, and expanded then it’s possible a microclimate was removed that warmed the base, adding windchill to the area. Particularly in the west of Brisbane where I live (not too far west of Amberley) wind chill from westerlies create bitterly cold days. Westerlies in this region create the coldest winter days and hottest days in summer, changes in westerlies impinging on the base due to terrain changes are quite likely to change the microclimate, especially given the structures now built on that base and the expanded tarmac. That change would almost certainly bias the Amberley base climate toward being warmer in recent times, classic UHI style although greater exposure to westerlies might make winters colder. Winter in QLD is comparatively short however.

      BTW homogenising Amberley with Brisbane is enormously stupid, the two places are in completely different climate zones, they may not be far apart but Ipswich is far from what I would call coastal, it’s protected to the east so it doesn’t get sea breezes. Brisbane airport OTOH is right on the bay. To the west Toowoomba is a km up on a mountain, it’s impacted from all directions and has a totally different aspect.

      You could only really compare Ipswich with Gatton, but I don’t think the Gatton UNI record is very long.

      30

      • #
        Streetcred

        Bobl … how do you then explain the downward trend at Brisbane Aero with its vast expanse of runways?

        10

    • #

      I want to take you back to 1937 here, and although this looks like my linking to a Post of my own, it has a special significance to weather.

      It’s about Bernard O’Reilly, a name probably long forgotten now, but hugely famous at the time, as it was he who found the wrecked Stinson in the Lamington Plateau, when everyone was looking off Sydney.

      It’s the last part of a 5 part series I did on this famous part of Australian air history.

      This man was just a farmer on the Plateau, but he knew more about weather conditions then than some know now. Some of the things that he treated as matter of fact in 1937 only gained investigation in the 70′s and later.

      O’Reilly’s At Green Mountains (Part 5)

      Tony.

      70

      • #
        Peter C

        Again, having lived here for 26 years, he knew the bush, and of necessity, he also had to know the weather. He knew of the cyclonic winds in the area. They roar up the face of the mountain on the Southern side, roll over the top, and then intensify on the way down, but now actually away from the side of the mountain, which is virtually in calm. He KNEW this because on the facing side the trees were disturbed and smashed by the weather, while at the top, there was virtually not a leaf out of place, which was also on the same on that down side. Then, when that fierce wind hit the bottom of the ravine, the trees and underbrush were all smashed again. All this he knew in 1937.

        Tony, I am assuming that you are referring to this bit.

        A brilliant analysis of airflow over a ridge by a bushman! I have not bushwalked in those areas. However I do know that it dangerous to fly on the downwind side of a ridge.

        40

  • #
    Randizzle

    With respect to what other impact this may have, combined with other events such as climategate the momentum builds. The climategate warmists escaped because of cooked juries but the whole scene left a bad taste in the mouth of many, including some journalists. This Australian revelation will stoke the fire!

    60

  • #
    Peter H

    I wrote to the Bom at climatedata@bom.gov.au

    and asked about the data, and they replied. I would be interested in what you think of their reply?

    As you aware, their have been a number of reports associated with the altering of historical temperature records.

    My enquiry was:

    1: Are all the original data sets being protected, and if so how, and if not why not.

    2: What is the methodology for defining the original and altered data sets and how are the original and altered data sets identified.

    they replied:

    The Bureau places a great deal of importance on the quality and transparency of its observations and analyses. The Bureau’s research is peer reviewed and published in high quality international journals.

    1:
    The Bureau collects and publishes a broad range of weather and climate observations and data and produces multiple temperature datasets, all of which are publicly available. These include the basic raw station data, spatially homogenised gridded temperature data and temporally homogenised data based on a sub-set of the total temperature network.

    As you have phrased your question, yes, the raw station observations are protected in our archives, and also freely available from the weather station directory on our website: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/.

    2:
    The Bureau has put together an extensive package of information in relation to our homogenised temperature dataset. This information, including explanations of homogenised data and a range of scientific technical reports, can be found at the following dedicated website: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/

    Our analysis techniques are based upon best-practice scientific methods. The preparation of the homogenised temperature data has passed through four levels of scientific peer review, including two internal review processes and the external review process associated with the publication of methodologies and results in international scientific journals. The homogenised temperature dataset ACORN-SAT has been subject to an additional, dedicated international peer review. This review assessed the Bureau’s practices in collecting and preparing temperature data as amongst the best in the world. All material relating to this review can also be found at the link above. You can also find a comparison of temperature trends across the datasets in the methods section.

    The homogenised temperature dataset is known as ACORN-SAT and is referred to as such in our products. The homogenised data is also freely available from the weblink above.

    Regards,
    Climate Analysis Section

    30

    • #
      Streetcred

      Well, with all of that “peer review” they should welcome an independent and transparent audit of the “work”.

      30

    • #
      bit chilly

      any reply from a governmental organisation that begins with an appeal to authority

      ” The Bureau places a great deal of importance on the quality and transparency of its observations and analyses. The Bureau’s research is peer reviewed and published in high quality international journals ”

      will always warrant close scrutiny. mentioning pal review does them no favours either.

      10

    • #

      None of the original data is ever avalible at that site, only the homoginized bull ****.

      10

  • #
    ROM

    Tony
    Somewhere a long time ago probably in one of the old gliding magazines of 45 or 50 years ago soon after I started flying in 1959 when a lot of the WW2 returned servicemen where still around, I read of an experiment or maybe only a proposed WW2 experiment somewhere in the NW or Western Australia if I remember right that laid down a square mile [ 2.59 square kilometres or 1.6 kilometres on a side ] of black seal to try and find out the effects for what reasons I can’t remember but maybe it was to try and ascertain the effects of such an area on the local weather patterns.
    Some huge airbases were already existent or under construction so with all that black seal on those immense military runway systems, they might have wanted to try and ascertain the local weather effects on an undisturbed base line without having aircraft in large numbers like dozens or hundreds stirring things around.

    North Field on Tinian by 1945 was WW2′s largest air base with four parallel 8000 foot long runways and hard standings for 265 B29 bombers.

    30

    • #

      That is a huge area of high emisivity in the 2-100 micron band. What were the temperature measurements?

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        Will, Can you help me with the absorption of greenhouse gases in the IR band, specifically CO2, CH4 and H20.

        I am trying to formulate an experiment to test the Green House Gas Effect Theory.

        My experimental temperature range is 80-95C.
        What might be the % absorption of these gases?

        00

        • #

          Peter C The absorption of those gasses at every altitude and every slant path is within the HiTran data base, measured not computed. The big however, is that absorption is for modulation of flux to fast for thermodynamic equilibrium. Fine for determining what you can see at every wavelength over yonder. This attenuation has nothing to do with any thermal electomagnetic flux to a destination with higher or lower electromagnetic field strength. The static radiative equilibrium has no effect on EMR passing through it.
          Peter, This is not for amateurs, like arrogant academic physics professors, It is quite precise, no handwaving!

          10

    • #

      ROM,

      coming from the RAAF, and being with 2 Fighter Squadrons with Mirages, (all through the 70′s) I went on numerous ‘exercises’ to other Bases. We’d do what they called Adex(es) and a flight of 4 Mirages would sit on the platform at one end of the Runway, hot, everything working on the aircraft, with DC and AC and Air cooling for the systems all plugged in, just needing the engine to fire up. He’d get the word, and they’d start the engine, unplug it all and he’d roll straight out onto his take off roll, usually between 30 and 45 seconds, what they used to call a Scramble in the old days.

      As ground crew, the sitting and waiting was the worst, as it was so damned hot out there, right in that immense heat, even in Winter.

      Being in such close proximity to the actual runway, you could see that immense heat shimmer, even in the cold of Winter, well, The Dry, as they referred to Winter at Darwin. That runway at Darwin was unique really, being a civilian base as well. You could (just) see the 747′s at the far end through the haze, starting their take off roll. There was a huge dip in the runway there, and those 747′s would virtually disappear from sight as they entered the dip, with just the tip of the tail showing. More often than not, they’d be almost at V1 as they exited the dip, so they’ just soar off into the air.

      The runway at Learmonth, near North West Cape (and the, umm, Naval Comms base Harold E Holt) was better viewing, and you could watch the C141 Starlifters supplying the Americans come and go off that strip, and watch as the wings lifted from almost touching the ground at rest to all but horizontal as the lift kicked in, almost like they were flapping like a bird, only in slow mo.

      That Learmonth runway still holds the record as being the runway that is closest to perfectly level throughout its 2 mile length, with less than a half inch from the lowest point to the highest, another feather in Australian caps as it was built by the RAAF’s 5ACS. It’s concrete, so to lay that much and have it as perfect as that is a feat of its own, and that strip was a source of RAAF pride at the time we were there in 1977, still only 4 years from becoming operational, still one of only three RAAF bare bases.

      Tindal was a little like Darwin, heat haze all the time, as were the numerous bases I, umm, visited.

      But, saying all that, you can see all of these as perfect examples of UHI. Looking at the runway from a safer distance, like everyone else sees it, you get no real perspective at all of just how much heat there really is, so it seems quite obvious to me that those bases must have an effect on the climate in that local area, so any temperature measurements would (imho) give false indications with respect to areas even close by, for example Amberley when compared to Ipswich, barely even a few miles away.

      Tony.

      70

      • #
        ROM

        Only a country aerodrome with couple of 1300 metre sealed strips but I know what you mean when you talk about heat off those seals.
        We have run an annual 8 day long gliding competition here at Horsham in the first full week of February each year since 1968 without a miss.
        We use to get about 55 gliders competing plus half a dozen launch tugs back in the hey day of gliding in the 1970′s and 1980s but are now back to about 30 gliders each competition.
        Gridding those gliders on the displaced threshhold at the ends of the runways and then waiting on that sealed strip in some of those stable mid summer 42 degrees plus days for an hour or so until the inversion broke and the thermals got going was a slightly toned down version of Hell.

        I think the worst day was around 44C or 45C at the BOM’s station near the junction of the two runways so it probably passed well beyond 50C out there on that sealed black top runway. It certainly felt like it.
        We were all near the human limits despite a lot of litres of water drunk by each of us by the end of the launch and as an about 70 plus year old at the time they gave me one of the easier jobs standing out in the middle running the launch sequences.
        The ground crew hooking up the tow ropes to the gliders and generally moving often and fast had to keep doing that until all the gliders were launched and away and that takes about an hour or more.
        So what with gridding pre launch, waiting for the weather conditions to break for lift to the safe thermalling height for competitions and then an hour or more launching we spend close to two hours each launch on that seal regardless of temperatures.
        Of course once airborne the glider pilots cooled down and if they can get above say 5000 feet it can get quite pleasantly cool and above ten thousand feet it can get very cold even with 45C on the ground.
        Been there. Done that many times.

        That was one of that series of extreme heat days in the late 2000′s summers but there have been plenty of others like it over the last 50 years.

        I’ve also been contract harvesting in the late 1970′s up around Hillston in central NSW when Hillston still had, according to the locals at the time, bushies that hadn’t seen civilisation and with 6 fingers and two thumbs on each hand emerging from somewhere way back in the scrub.
        Completely different now with a small but well facilitated town surrounded by the huge irrigation set ups and cotton spreads and etc.

        There were days up there during the harvest when nobody went more than about 5 paces without carrying his water container with him.
        At one grain unloading siding with a pub they even stopped drinking beer and stuck to water for a couple of days until late at night as it was so hot and beer tends to dehydrate one.
        Now that is serious heat indeed !

        40

      • #

        Yes, Tony airports do have have an UHI effect. Have been in the cockpit of a small passenger plane coming into Cobar you could see and feel the rising air stream over the bitumen runway and taxi strips. Have been in a glider getting a lift from the bitumen strip while circling to get height following a pelican doing the same. We then flew out over following a major highway for about 30 kms. Great experience. The Glider pilots can detect air movements and weather patterns by the type and position of the clouds. All the pilots I have met are scornful of the so-called scientists claiming alarm from CO2.

        30

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Doing a crossword, can anyone help me with a clue?

    Three letters, “A group of clowns”, firms letter B, last letter M.

    BOM comes to mind for some reason but surely not?

    50

  • #
    pat

    anthony had a thread on the following on 21 Aug and now, just when we are praising the Murdoch media in Australia for publishing details of the BOM data scam, the Murdoch media publishes this, complete with big, glam(?) pics. why oh why?

    27 Aug: News Ltd: Charis Chang: Scientists reveal how they feel about climate change in handwritten letters and photos
    SCIENTISTS can be a practical bunch, they deal with facts, data, hard evidence. But even scientists can lose their s*** sometimes and now they are revealing how they really feel…
    One of the founders of the site, photographer Nick Bowers said the project was a labour of love that came about after conversations with two fellow creatives copywriter Rachel Guest and art director Celine Faledam.
    “We were interested in environmental issues and discussed this constantly among ourselves, we all have young kids,” Bowers said.
    “We wanted to try and bring authenticity and humanity to this issue.”
    He said the scientists were photographed while they were being interviewed. This includes many prominent names such as mammologist and palaeontologist Tim Flannery…
    While some critics have suggested climate scientists are motivated by grant money, Bowers said he got the sense that they just wanted the debate to move on so they could do other science.
    “They want to get on with doing other stuff, they are sick of trying to spruik this stuff themselves.”…
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-reveal-how-they-feel-about-climate-change-in-handwritten-letters-and-photos/story-fn5fsgyc-1227038781108

    20

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Wow what a bunch of bed wetters they are. Its actually embarrassing to read and I couldn’t get any further than Will Stefan pretending to be sincere.

      30

  • #
  • #
    Tim

    Patrick Moore, John Coleman and Fred Singer at the Heartland Institute Conference. Spread it far and wide.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lJQkYJ12JI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    Patrick Moore, John Coleman and Fred Singer at the Heartland Institute Conference.

    Spread it far and wide.

    50

  • #
    Peter C

    “So they established a second Stevenson screen near the office on a watered lawn, near fruit trees, so it was pretty useless as a weather station

    I just thought I would ask. Why would it make it pretty useless as a weather station?

    Met criteria call for the station to be located on mown grass. If it is not watered in Australia it will mostly be located on brown or red dirt. That does not meet the criteria, yet it is true of many of our stations.

    Would fruit trees have a substantial effect? They are usually low and ,I would have thought, provide neither much shade nor transpiration.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Jock Strap

    Time for a Royal Commission. I doubt the climate science cabal would be so confident about the ‘facts’ when being grilled under oath by a QC.

    10

  • #
    Andrew

    So BOM originally claimed incorrectly that the site had moved down hill. While that claim has now been proven to be false, it is out there. So how long before we see claims by the usual suspects that the adjustment fraud has been “debunked”? Anyone keeping an eye out for that claim?

    20

  • #
    David Smith

    Hmmm…
    …On Jo’s last post Nick S said he’d done his own analysis, and I saw an interesting exchange over at his site:

    AnonymousAugust 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM

    There is NO RECORD of any site move at Amberley. You are adjusting the data using a whim and a fabrication.

    The AGW way !
    Reply

    Nick StokesAugust 27, 2014 at 8:52 AM

    There’s no record of a non-move either. The scientific way is to look at all the data and make the best estimate.

    So, according to Nick’s twisted logic Amberley must have moved because their is no evidence of a non-move. Now that the Rutherglen ‘move’ has been shown to be a lie, will Nick admit his ‘analysis’ was worthless? Will he take back his claim that “The BOM got this one right” as the Rutherglen incident has shown the BOM to be wholly unreliable?

    Also, Will C asked for sceptics to “Let us know when you’ve got something.” Well Will, we’ve got first hand evidence from Bill Johnston demonstrating that the BOM lied to show a move that hadn’t actually happened. What do you have to say now?

    Nick and Will seem remarkably quiet…

    60

    • #
      the Griss

      Yep, That truly is a PATHETIC response from Nick.

      Particularly as he then proceeds to use three station which are unlikely to bare any resemblance to Amberley Base.

      Don’t like the data ????? … change it until you do.

      That is, as anon says.. THE AGW WAY !!!!!

      Its FABRICATION and FRAUD.

      It is NOT SCIENCE !!!

      30

      • #

        You sound annoyed Gross, and I don’t blame you.
        It also enrages me that despite all the many instances of corruption in the AGW industry, from climategate onwards, alarmist acolytes still shout their ridiculous mantra from the rooftops and govts continue to throw billions of dollars at them. Billions of our dollars.
        It’s the biggest scam the world has known. Corporations, NGOs and individuals such as Gore have made billions out of the scam, helped along by ‘useful idiots’ such as Will and Nick.

        30

        • #
          the Griss

          Annoyed that someone advocating the changing of raw data on ZERO evidence can even think it is “scientific”

          This Nick guy seems to have missed basic science ethics.. as have most of the AGW alarmistas.

          20

  • #
    Anthony VIOLI

    Not forgetting too, that these years make up the BOMS dodgy baseline.

    Keep adjusting it down and of course it looks warm!

    This has gone on for too long, its time to make a stand.

    20

  • #

    Whoops – Griss.
    Many apologies. Damn you autocorrect!

    10

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Obviously the penalties for scientific fraud are inadequate.
    Otherwise they would not persist with such an easily exposed scam.

    40

  • #
    Sonny

    OK. Enough is enough.

    I am so sick and tired of living in a world in which lies, deceptions and hoaxes are the norm.

    This is not just in “climate science” but in almost all current events especially those relating to conflicts and wars.

    How much better would this world be without the [snip] who willingly lie to further their own agenda?

    [snip]

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, well, well. Something shifted.

    Could that possibly be bull shifting? ;-)

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Sorry but sometimes I just can’t stop myself.

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And anyway, there’s almost no use at all left in arguing the broken science or the broken record keeping.

        All that’s left to us is ridicule. That’s how bad it’s become.

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Sounds like there was more than Bull shifting over your way recently; the Earth shifted.

          All OK?

          KK

          30

          • #
            EternalOptimist

            from mighty ACORNS, little OKs are born

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            KK,

            The quake was a bad one with a lot of damage but it’s 400 miles (about 600 km) north of us so we didn’t feel it.

            Earthquakes are a daily risk in California. But you can go through the major ones without harm more often than being hurt by them. That’s no consolation to those who do get hurt — medically or financially — but the real risk isn’t so bad considering other risks like hurricanes where you’re virtually guaranteed to have them every year if you live in their path (like the Florida coast).

            20

  • #

    “…there may have been an unrecorded shift… “consistent” with the old station starting further up the slope before it moved down to the hollow.”

    The scenario is plausible, and that is what climate science is all about — plausiblilty. The fact it may not cohere with reality does nothing to detract from its value as rock-solid climate science.

    Once deniers get this last bit through their heads, they will find climate science models go down much more easily.

    01

  • #
    Robert O

    Talking about temperature records in general one has to remember that records up until about 1960 were taken in degrees Farenheit, and would have been converted to Centigrade (Celsius)sometime afterwards.
    The conversion being F-32/C = 9/5, roughly 2 degrees F is equal to 1 degree Celsius. 212 degrees F = 100 degrees C which is the boiling point of water, and 32 degrees F = 0 degrees C which is the freezing point of water. So when one converts from Farenheit to Celsius, say 60 degrees F, does it become 15, 15.5, or 16 degrees C? In view of the small figure for global warming of less than 1 degree C. this century, it’s 2 degrees F. I would say that this is possibly another source of error in the temperature records.

    00