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

BOM homogenisation in Deniliquin creates discontinuities and changes trends

The list goes on, and there is more to come.

In Deniliquin NSW, the homogenisation has lifted both the maxima and minima trends — again converting cooling to warming.

Graham Lloyd continues to increase the pressure on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. In answers to Lloyd the BOM could only defend their work with the extraordinary statement that while some trends at individual stations look anomalous, overall the results showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations. ”

So they inadvertently admit that they expect Australian trends to look like trends in other parts of the world. Despite the fact that Australia is drier, flatter and surrounded on every edge by oceans, the Bureau would consider it a fail if our trends were different to others? We’re in the opposite hemisphere to many international climate organizations, which may or may not matter, but we’ll never find out if we are trying to fit our data to theirs. And El Nino’s and La Nina’s mean very different things to countries on opposite sides of the Pacific. We’re blurring the resolution from thousands of data-points. The raw data is blended not just on regional scales but thanks to mindsets, on international scales too. It’s Groupthink, or should we call that Climate Freud at work?

The Australian Sept 5th, 2014

Bureau of Meteorology ‘adding mistakes’ with data modelling

Both Maxima and Minima trends have changed after BOM homogenization.

 

SOME of Australia’s long-term temperature records may contain faults introduced by the Bureau of Meteorology’s computer modelling, according to a widely published expert.

David Stockwell said a full audit of the BoM national data set was needed after the bureau confirmed that statistical tests, rather than direct evidence, were the “primary” justification for making changes.

Dr Stockwell has a PhD in ecosystems dynamics from ANU and has been recognised by the US government as “outstanding” in his academic field.

We need a full audit of the data, just as we requested with Senator Cory Bernardi in the Senate three years ago:

Dr Stockwell has called for a full audit of ACORN-SAT homogenisation after analysing records from Deniliquin in the Riverina region of NSW where homogenisation of raw data for minimum temperatures had turned a 0.7C cooling trend into a warming trend of 1C over a ­century.

The bureau said it did not want to discuss the Deniliquin findings because it had not produced the graphics, but it did not dispute the findings or that all of the information used had come from the BoM database.

Surely the BOM has more to say than this?

It has said that while some ­stations may show anomalous ­results, the overall record showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations.

Given the large adjustments made in the USA, we can only wonder if other international agencies are justifying their adjustments because they fit with other nation’s “adjustments”?

Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ­bureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling.

“The discontinuity at Deniliquin is not seen in the raw data and so must have been introduced by the homogenisation process,” he said.

Read it all at The Australian

Caveats that need to be said: Some station data definitely needs adjustments — preferably on a station by station basis with documentary evidence and statistical demonstration of discontinuities. Note that Deniliquin is not like Rutherglen in that there are recorded moves. Though Deniliquin is like Rutherglen in that the raw data showed cooling trends in minima for both.

Station notes:

Deniliquin (074258/074128)
The current site (074258) is an automatic weather station located in flat terrain over natural grass at the Deniliquin Airport, about 4km south of the town and well clear of the urban boundary.
History
The original site (074128) was located in the town area, with the site becoming built up from about 1950 onwards. The site moved 1 km northwest in September 1971, then moved to the airport (3.7km south) in September 1984. Temperature observations continued at this location until 2003. The site number continues to be used for rainfall observations but these are made at a different location.
The current site is about 500 m south of the last position of the previous site. It has been operating since May 1997.

Behind the scenes emails are abuzz among the independent BOM audit team at the moment, and it’s remarkable how quickly they are being converted into the media stories. Kudos on Deniliquin especially David Stockwell and Chris Gillham. (Plus Jennifer Marohasy too of course).

Cheers, here’s to all the quiet heroes digging through data — Thanks to their efforts we may eventually get some accountability and a better national database.

Commenters please be careful with remarks — especially about motivations.

* Credit with thanks to Markd for Climate Freud :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (88 votes cast)
BOM homogenisation in Deniliquin creates discontinuities and changes trends, 8.4 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lc7d24f

124 comments to BOM homogenisation in Deniliquin creates discontinuities and changes trends

  • #
    Greg

    What if other international organizations are homogenizing to match homogenized Australia. This could be a giant circular firing squad pointed at the taxpayers.

    282

  • #
    Tom

    Here is the thought process that pushes a well-meaning scientist to pencil-whip temperatures to match a preconceived notion of warming. In his own words.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    71

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Tom,
      Do you see a danger that, sometime in the future, there will be a paper saying ‘Just as we found errors when we moved from XBT floats to Argo, we now report errors from the Argo system discovered when we moved to the latest Xxx system’.
      It was very poor science to publish about ocean heat and its global implications before the accuracy of measurement had heen properly tested.
      It was known that there were production batches of Argo floats. After publication, batch differences were found. Good science would have found batch differences before a publication that was used to scare the gullible.
      This is so elementary in the routine of measurement management.

      Willis then gets written up as a hero for finding the error. Incredible reversal of blame.

      71

      • #

        Yes Geoff, back in my days at Uni we calibrated everything before carrying out experiments. I remember calibrating mercury in glass thermometers which might have been correct at 0C and 100C but had errors of upto 1C in the middle due to lack of perfection in the glass tube diameter. Electronic balances were calibrated against standard weights, electrical instruments were zeroed and calibrated against standards or other known stable standardised instruments. Measurements of gas concentrations were calibrated against standard gas bottles. Scientists in the past took much more care than those presently at BOM or CSIRO. I would much rather accept as accurate the records of the likes of Inigo Jones at Cromhamhurst Observatory than present BOM which is likely not to be accurate , altered and homogenised.

        42

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Cement,
          At age 29 I borrowed heaps of $ and set up a large analytical chemistry laboratory.
          We were among those who participated in the establishment of the National Association of Testing Laboratories, NATA.
          We encouraged NATA from its small start because of its insistence on an audit trail of weights to calibrate balances, pipettes, volumetric flasks, etc, relatable back to a certified standard.
          It seems this attention to being correct is not so well known in this post-modern, stupid meme.

          51

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          The reason for the adjustments is precisely because weather stations were not properly calibrated in the past.

          The homogenisation process attempts to overcome this by effectively stistically calibrating nearby temperature stations against each other.

          00

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Jo,

    Given the nature of the local terrain of Deniliquin I would find it very difficult to conclude how anyone could justify adjustments based on recording site location movements.

    I am curious to know what the current temperature anomalies might be between the current site and previous locations, if identifiable.

    Given the history of Deniliquin and surround I would be surprised if there were not adequate historical sheep station records that would contribute to this discussion.

    181

  • #
    Mark D.

    * Credit with thanks to Markd for Climate Freud :-)

    SWEET! I’m somebody now!

    221

  • #
    Brad

    On a more serious note: Wouldn’t an accountant end up sitting in court if they played this type of game with a company’s books?

    I am no longer amazed as to what people find, just depressed…

    Need to go to the wine store to restock my meds. (While Australia has some good wines, I am boycotting them since some of your wineries have decided to take a stance contrary to mine in the USA 2nd amendment issue, by no longer supplying wines to the NRA wine club.)

    161

  • #
    Mikky

    As an engineer seeking to get some work approved for issue I always had in mind an awkward old cuss of a reviewer who would insist on seeing technical justifications for everything. That happened to me a few times early in my career, but for the last 10 years or so the reviewers were mainly project managers who were only really interested in meeting deadlines and pleasing the govt customer but not the end-user of the product. That is one way in which once mighty organisations become cowboy companies, before going bust.

    I wonder if BoM is following this path.

    Anyway, let me be the awkward old cuss here. No temperature record to be issued without details of all change-points (both auto-detected and via metadata info), plus a physical justification for the offsets applied. The 2C drops in temperature minima (i.e. early morning before shade becomes an issue) would struggle to get past the last part.

    That only amounts to a few pages of info per site, the whole set could be reviewed in a day or two.

    241

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I also strongly believe they have to dump the homogenisation process. I can not understand the thinking behind doing this anyway.

      Station corrections where appropriate, but NO homogenisation of data.

      161

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Agreed Greg.

        Is it reasonable to expect that with thousands of stations across the country, some in areas that may be affected by local conditions almost no matter where you place them, that errors of one type or another will be in the data, even if its just typos? Probably not.

        But how does applying an algorithm that tries to cancel/modify those errors without a perfectly accurate picture of what constitutes the type, nature, extent and effect of those errors in the first place, serve to do anything other than add more errors?

        We are having a debate in the 21st century about whether the planet is in imminent danger of turning on mankind and wiping us out. That debate hinges critically on about 1c of temperature movement over 100 years and how to interpret that change. When you take into account that there is some doubt about how much of that 1c is caused by man and how much is natural variation, then apply that understanding to the fact that the BOM is making changes 2-3 times larger than the entire temperature movement, let alone the debated portion. You cant help but wonder if these revelations are not ending this entire argument right here right now. I mean we are not even certain about the accuracy to tenths of a degree of the measuring methods, yet we are somehow certain about 2 full degrees of warming coming in the next 20-50 odd years?

        You simply cant have it both ways. If homogenisation is required, then it confirms the raw data is untrustworthy. If so the entire debate is moot. If homogenisation is not required then the raw data suggests a cooling tend and the entire debate is moot.

        This particular global scare campaign is basically done I would contend. People are running about like chicken littles over a set of dodgy numbers, run through a dodgy computer model and interpreted using a political algorithm. It has ceased to be amusing.

        “Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ­bureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling”

        End of story really.

        122

        • #
          ianl8888


          When you take into account that there is some doubt about how much of that 1c is caused by man and how much is natural variation …

          Not just some doubt – the ratio of natural/anthropogenic is all doubt

          Judith Curry ran a thread on this recently. It has over 650 comments to date, from which the collective wisdom is “we dunno”

          111

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    The BOM statement is stunning evidence of confirmation bias. Means that neither the regional expectations flaw that smears problem stations into good ones, nor the Menne stitching bias are being delt with. And the gridding stunner when the US portion of GHCN switched from Drd964x in 2013 to nClimDiv in 2014 is a smoking gun for all of CONUS. 40 out of 48 states were gives a new strong warming trend. Changed 0.088F/decade since 1895 to 0.135F/decade.
    Not just a few stations changed. The whole US record. Overnight.

    191

  • #
    Mikky

    Besides homogenisation I think the BoM have some explaining to do on historical heatwave records, they seem to have beliefs that prevent them from accepting some measurements as being genuine, in addition to the case of Bourke that Jo has covered:

    Melbourne (1851, before the “official” records begin, but it illustrates how they think): http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/382
    Data from 120 years in the future are used to obtain a revised 1851 temperature maximum to within 0.1C. Breathtaking.

    Mildura (1906): http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/383
    Data from several hundred km away (Deniliquin) are used to obtain a much nicer maximum at Mildura, again to within 0.1C.

    There may well be other examples.

    141

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      So even back in 1851 the official line was minimising AGW?

      The disagreement is between records of The Argus, (taken by whom, where and under what conditions we are not told. Maybe the copy boy was told to go and read the thermometer on the roof) and those of the Abstract of the Meteorological Journal kept at Melbourne Port Phillip, during the month of February 1851 as recorded by the New South Wales Government Gazette.

      Clearly a massive warmist conspiracy going right back to 1851.

      02

  • #
    The Backslider

    showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations.

    Never mind that the USA has in fact cooled since the 30′s, as shown by Hansen.

    81

  • #
    Manfred

    “showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations. ”

    Hard to conceive a scientist stated this, marketing guru perhaps, “climate scientist” maybe, politician likely but scientist, I think not. Nevertheless, it appears to fit quite well with the sickening cliché:
    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

    71

    • #
      old44

      Please do not refer to them as scientists – they are activists.

      132

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I remember John Anderson of the National Party, who was later Deputy Prime Minister under John Howard, justifying the rate of farm bankruptcies in Australia under his policies on the basis that it was simiar to Europe and the US.

      I assure you that until Barnaby Joyce came along, the science of economics was no sounder than the BOM’s science here.

      31

  • #
    Peter Miller

    BOM temperature data, it all started with a bad smell and now it’s a stench.

    At the current rate of stench intensification, even the alarmist collective might soon notice a slight odour.

    Keep digging!

    One thing the alarmists hate most and that is actual observations and facts, as opposed to the ‘findings’ of their beloved models and homogenisation. And here is a classic another example of this.

    122

  • #
    NielsZoo

    Great Moments In Science: Revised for the 21st Century Using Climate Science Paradigms

    Copernicus decides the observations of the stars and planets he has made are in error so he adjusts them to match the tracks required for an Earth centric solar system. Decides not to publish On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres after conferring with the establishment scientists and the peer review from the Vatican. Dies believing the Earth is the center of the universe.

    Galileo drops two different sized lead balls from top of Tower of Pisa. They land at the same time. Galileo dismisses results as the consensus is that light objects fall slower and he has made an error. Updates his notes to show the larger one landed first.

    Gregor Mendel looks over all the notes of his plant experiments and after conferring with other monks decides that natural variability is in the hands of god and he has no business messing with it. Uses his notes as fire starters.

    Albert Einstein looks over his Theory of Relativity and compares it to the work of the great physicists of the day. He decides that since he’s nothing but a lowly patent clerk all those other guys are right and he must be mistaken. Chucks all his papers into the trash and eventually becomes head of the Federal Office of Intellectual Property in Bern. He’s given a fine gold watch when he retires.

    Hundreds of thousands of people die from starvation and cold when global temperatures plummet as an interglacial period ends. Main stream scientists don’t think it can happen again so when the next interglacial rolls up hundreds of millions of people die because there were no new power plants built to provide energy for heating. Scientists also recommended denying permits to mine coal or drill for oil and gas to power those plants and to power industries that make fertilizers and equipment for food production causing wide spread starvation.
    Oops, this one hasn’t happened yet…

    301

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Scary thoughts for the day and made scarier by the thought of what mainstream ‘climate science’ is today.

      91

      • #
        NielsZoo

        I’m just terrified to think of how many real scientific discoveries have been squelched because these *sses have been silencing the debate. A larger problem is the great grant vacuum that’s sucking money out of hard science and real medical research to fund 10′s of thousands of studies about the effects of CAGW on almost everything. None of that research is moving science forward and, due to the massively corrupted methodologies used, is most likely pushing scientific knowledge backwards. We won’t even go into the problems that have been induced into statistical practices by these loons.

        10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Brilliant…

      51

  • #
    bemused

    We all know that there are lies, damn lies and then statistics.

    51

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The BOM buried its head in the sand with the first article and thought it would all blow over. Credit graham Lloyd for keeping the pressure on them.
    The BOM had better watch out, by now some politicians will have noticed their mess and soon questions will be asked, and not ones that the BOM will be able to fob off.

    133

  • #
    pat

    the new president of the British Science Association doesn’t believe in tempering his language! talk about pot calling kettle.

    note the ridiculous attempt to smear GWPF in the side column!

    4 Sept: UK Daily Mail: Ben Spencer: Climate sceptics should be ‘crushed and buried’: Sir Paul Nurse attacks politicians who ‘distort’ facts on global warming
    Comments were made by new British Science Association president
    It is believed attack was directed at former Secretary Owen Paterson
    Mr Paterson, who was sacked by David Cameron in July, has said he believes the negative impact of global warming has been exaggerated
    He also targeted lobby groups such as that run by Lord Nigel Lawson
    ‘Politicians live in a world where the strength of their rhetoric means much more than scientific content,’ Sir Paul said
    Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be ‘crushed and buried’, according to the new president of the British Science Association.
    Sir Paul Nurse, who starts his presidency next week, pledged to ‘take on’ the ‘serial offenders’ who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments.
    In an extraordinary outburst, Sir Paul accused those who refuse to accept scientific orthodoxy on global warming of ‘distorting’ the facts…
    Sir Paul, speaking in London yesterday, said: ‘Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2743255/Climate-sceptics-crushed-buried-Sir-Paul-Nurse-attacks-politicians-distort-facts-global-warming.html

    81

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Far-out, that is extraordinary. Thanks Pat.

      31

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Classic British Establishment – always choose the guy who is politically ‘sound’ and never the one who is competent.

      In the good old days, when it was the other way round, the UK had an empire and was the most powerful nation on the planet.

      It would be nice to go back to those days of choosing competence over croneyism.

      91

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be ‘crushed and buried’”

      Why wouldn’t you recycle them, rather than simply sending them to landfill? Doesn’t sound very sustainable to me.

      Never mind the fact that finding a mortar and pestle big enough to fit Tony Abbott in wont be easy.

      20

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Soylent Green was supposed to be silly concept of an unlikely future apocalypse.

        “It’s the year 2022… People are still the same. They’ll do anything to get what they need. And they need SOYLENT GREEN.”

        30

  • #
    Bruce

    They are all at it, not only in Australia. This has been known for some time.

    It would come to an abrupt stop if some of these jokers receiving a stiff jail sentence.

    71

  • #
    Peredur

    Climate consensus = group homogenisation

    81

  • #
    Debbie

    I note that anyone defending BoM continues to talk about ‘peer reviewed’ literature & then demand that those who are asking questions about these records get themselves ‘peer reviewed & published’
    HUH?
    Isn’t this about whether BoM has complied with the process attached to applying homogenisation as per the peer reviewed literature?
    Since when has it become necessary to publish in journals to correct a failure to comply?
    Our bureaucracies don’t need to publish in peer reviewed literature when they investigate or fine members of the general public for a failure to comply!
    Shouldn’t BoM just investigate these anomalies, check whether they have correctly followed the homogenisation process & then simply issue a correction if they have not complied?

    141

    • #
      Leigh

      Debbie, anybody thats looked at the climategate emails know that when it comes global warming.
      Peer review is corrupted and controlled by a virtual “star chamber”.
      It’s stands to reason that “our BOM” is using this very same corrupted peer review process to justify changing our temperature record.
      Simply to fit the artificially created “climate anomalies” that have a vice like grip on the world of climate science.
      That is, thanks to Jo and co. rapidly becoming alarmingly transparent to all.
      Why is it taking so long for government to do something?
      Is it because there is not enough votes at risk yet?
      At the very least Minister Hunt should be making a statement he is aware of the growing concerns with “OUR BOM”.

      92

      • #
        Debbie

        So BoM is assuming that they have some ‘peer reviewed’ mandate to operate above the laws associated with compliance and auditing?
        They are digging a big hole for themselves if they think that will work.
        That’s spectacularly UN- Australian!

        52

        • #
          Debbie

          I see a red thumb there.
          Is there something wrong or offensive about my questions?
          Surely if it’s simply an issue of compliance it should not be difficult to solve?
          What does peer review have to do with it?

          51

        • #
          Leigh

          Debbie this is from an earlier post.
          “The raw temperature records are “homogenised”, a method BOM says has been peer-reviewed as world’s best practice and is used by equivalent meteorological organisations across the world.”
          This “world’s best practice” was given to us by some of the same people that gave us the climate gate emails.
          It’s this “worlds best practice” that has everybody across the skeptical blogesphere up in arms.
          It simply can not be right to change a cooling trend to a warming trend.
          This post from Rom at 1.2.1 under the heading “Explain this? Rutherglen homogenised with 17 stations including Hillston!”on September 3rd clarified a hell of a lot for me.
          As a layman that can only see “black and white” when it comes global warming and those taking us all for a ride.
          It really did open my eyes.
          It is long but I read it a couple of times.
          Simply put, the “tools” they are using to adjust our temperatures up are broken.
          I hope it helps you as well.

          41

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      There can only be one path to take and that is an “independent” audit of BoM data and processes. The only way to achieve independence would be a panel of no more than four, two friends of BoM and two friends of the rest of us. Neither a whitewash nor a witch-hunt would ever be acceptable but that would be the result if just anybody conducted the audit. Justice must be seen to be done but also must be done.

      I don’t think Minister Hunt will approve an audit as he is a closet warmist but the PM might if the result leads to the real wind back of wasteful green spending.

      51

  • #
    Robber

    The BOM’s hockey stick? And they can’t even explain the rules.
    Their most appalling statement: “showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations”.
    That’s not science, that’s consensus.

    102

  • #
  • #
    Bernard U.K.

    It’s all about Agenda 21,look It up.Not a conspiracy theory but an on-going ‘Utopia’of the Greens.
    Followed by Goverments who use It to tax and control you.
    Agenda 21 has been adopted by most ‘Gestapo’ Governments.
    The origins of Agenda 21 was to create a common threat to mankind so as to create a World Government.
    Dig deep and check It out.

    71

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ­bureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling”

    Gee ya think?

    With all the smart people on this site Im surprised I have never heard anyone suggest that before.

    /sarc off.

    Truth is often stranger than fiction isn’t it? As a group if we wrote a novel about the BOM fiddling data, I doubt we would have included this scenario and the BOM’s responses because it would just seem too perfectly far fetched. Yet here they are, the “Marx Brothers” of climatology, hamming it up with their funny eye pokes and face slapping, desperately trying to create the impression they arnt bumbling idiots. Well even I don’t think they are, but like so many good people on the AGW side, they have been dazzled by the spotlights of MSM attention to their little corner of science and worried more about the “face” and the “spin” than the substance.

    The quote above from Dr Stockwell could be the epitaph of climate alarmism. Here lies climate alarmism in a modest grave, with a simple headstone made from recycled wind turbines, which read simply, “we may have placed too much trust in computer modelling”. RIP

    121

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Here is an opportunity to develop new language. Usefully.

      Why did we not till now associate “computer model” with “tamper”?

      41

  • #
    Robert O

    The global warming scare is entirely due to computer models and their erroneous projections taken into the political field. And here we have more examples of computer models being used to change original data from cooling trends to warming trends. In view of the fact the reputed global temperature change for the century is less than a degree Celsius it’s looking a bit dubious.

    62

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Spot on, the agreed errors in the method now outweigh both the total change over 100 years and the debated portion of that change.

      Its like arguing your going to accurately measure out 1ml of water using a fire hose.

      61

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    What concerns me is the continual tinkering and the decision to apply an automatic method of adjustment. With automated mathematical adjustment, historical records that had already been adjusted to compensate for a known move to another location could with the passage of time be subject to further adjustments.

    In the case of The Melbourne move from the original Domain Parkside Observatory site the BOM 100 year history “Weather Watchers” at Chapter 4 1905-08 records the move to “Frosterley” Headquarters, “close to the site on Victoria Parade where Hunt established a fenced enclosure for the meteorological instruments to record Melbourne’s weather” (Page 63 see also Bibliography note 55 – Courier Brisbane , 19th June 1907)

    “The new instrument site was on the opposite side of the city from the instruments of the Melbourne Observatory….since the new instrument site was further from the sea and among the warming effects of human activity rather than in the tranquil surrounds of the observatory’s park-side location. Curiously, this readiness to shift instruments was in stark contrast to Hunt’s determination in other states to maintain the continuity of the weather records by retaining instruments in their original locations”.

    “In Victoria, though, any future comparison of the records kept by Baracchi with those maintained by the new Bureau would have to be adjusted for the effect of the shift from the old observatory. But that was a small price compared to the benefit of having a meteorological bureau organised on national line” (Page 65 and see also Bibliography note 56 – Secretary , Department of Home Affairs’ Remarks on C’wealth Meteorologist’s Report on Observations during his inspection of State Meteorological Services, 1909, MS 11, BOM Library, Head Office.

    Lots of reference material and snippets of information, compiled by David Day for the 100 year publication issued in 2007 – David in his preface to the book refers to the excellent documentation available in The National Archives and those of the Bureau – however he also warns that many records from before the second world war were lost or destroyed before they could be archived [page x]

    While this Melbourne shift appears to have been documented for (unspecified) adjustment at the time, how many others were verified and audited (that is also mentioned in the book) at the time, but could well be subject to further automatic adjustment.

    Contemporaneous records (and newspapers of the day printed as recorded the BOM temperatures, hot off the press for the information of readers keenly interested in the official weather!) are just so important in that regard. On the face of what we see in the way the historical record has been distorted (tortured??) meticulous care was not, the objective of this algorithmic and political assault on the historic temperature records. On exposed can of works that can only be cleared up with a truly independent audit that includes sceptical scientists.

    41

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Darn – should be exposed can of worms….

    31

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Nick Stokes has an excellent piece showing how it is done on Amberley at http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjusting-amberley-as-it-must-be.html

    The only thing he doesn’t do is justify the dismissal of hard data.

    It is 50 years since I first saw a newly lettered scientist doing a trial, getting a different result to his predecessors, and responding not by searching for reasons for the difference, but by declaring the predecessors in error.

    It seems little has changed.

    61

    • #
      the Griss

      Yep, Nick uses 2 stations that are coastal on the other side of the hills, and one which was subject to massive increase in local population. (How to create a warming trend in one easy lesson!)

      There is no reason to assume the climates for the three place Nick chose were anywhere near similar to Amberley.

      Another guy chirped up and said that Amberley’s climate was very different even from nearby Ipswich.

      It was a classic example of how NOT to homogenise, yet Nick put it forward as an example to support BOM homogenisation.

      142

  • #
    ROM

    Last night not knowing if or when o would post further on Rutherglen or the BOM’s homogenidsation processes I posted this [ # 1.2.1.4.2 ] here ehashed post on the Rutherglen article.

    The below comment can be found in the Ice Cap blog which is a long running climate skeptic news aggregation site.
    It is an added “Ice Cap Note” comment note to the report of the WUWT post on this, Jo’s Rutherglen post.

    The link here is to my suggestion above that the algorithms used to “adjust” and homogenise BOM’s data and etc and etc climate organisations data are probably all very similar due to the benefits of being able to exchange data and for programming climate models.

    Richard C pointed out above that all the different climate analysis organisations BOM. CRU, GISS, NCDC, and etc appear to use different algorithms to process the weather cum climate data from around their own nations as well as probably the GHCN.

    Well now it seems and is verified by an ACORN document that sets out the “Guidance” for BOM’s ACORN system that one of the USA’ s most hard line warmists, Tom Peterson, who was during the ACORN guidance and review period, head of the NCDC where most of the suspected corrupting and most of the suspected [ deliberate ? ] alterations and undoubted and admitted down grading of past recorded historical temperatures first occurs before the data is pased onto the various global climate analysis organisations such as CRU, GISS, the IPCC and etc.,

    Similar to the problems which are now appearing across all the various national and global temperature records base station data as “Nature” refuses to co-operate and cover up the incompetency now appearing in the NCDC and other climate analysis organisations by refusing to increase global temperatures to fall into line with the ideological stance of the most hard line warmists in climate science, Tom Peterson being one of those.

    Tom Peterson was one of the three “eminent climate scientists” advising and guiding the BOM on the ACORN review panel as per BOM’s own document below.

    Tom Peterson also tried to destroy skeptic Roy Spencer’s career when he accused Spencer in front of a senior climate scientist’s committee of what was basically fraud over what turned out to be a very minor mistake Spencer had made in some calculations and which he corrected in a few minutes then and there whilst in that committee sitting..

    Roger Pielke Sr who was present has said it was one of the most disgraceful, exhibitions he has ever seen another scientist stoop to in the manner in which Peterson attacked and accused Roy Spencer over what was a very minor matter.

    ****************
    Roger Pielke SR’s blog “Climate science” [ now discontinued ] May 2011

    The Selective Bias Of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) With Respect To The Analysis And Interpretation Of Multi-Decadal Land Surface Temperature Trends Under The Leadership Of Tom Karl and Tom Peterson

    [ quoted ]
    NCDC, under the leadership of Tom Karl and Tom Peterson, has ignored studies such as these. More importantly, the significance of our findings with respect to the level of confidence we should have in the robustness of their analyses, and the accuracy of their reports on temperature anomalies and trends, are misleading the public, government and the rest of the climate science community.
    [ / ]

    **************

    To quote the relevant part of the Ice Cap blog entry as it relates to the BOM ACORN review and along with the David Wratt NZ head of Climate Science in the NIWA [ with a combination like Peterson and Wratt advising BOM plus Jones and Karoly in there as well does any one really believe that some semblence of truth and integrity would ever emerge from BOM's changes to it's data analysis system? ] which probably needs no expanding on just how seriously NIWA has deliberately mangled and completely corrupted the NZ historical climate data.

    All of which gives some extremely good grounds to suspect that there is a good deal of highly suspect manipulation of data going on with a high level of the associated propaganda emanating out of BOM using the so called ACORN based recent record temperatures that weren’t any sort of historically based record by a very long shot.
    Or at least wasn’t until the historical data had been manipulated sufficiently or had been superstitiously pushed to the back of some BOM archival warehouse where it would never be found they hoped;

    ______________________
    ____________________

    From Ice Cap

    The Blogsphere
    Tuesday, August 26, 2014
    Australian scientist calls for ‘heads to roll’ over adjusted temperature data (NCDC next?)

    [ quoted ]
    “The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.”
    ***********
    Icecap Note:

    Ironically the changes in the United also had the biggest change was in 1913. Here in Maine, temperatures cooled by an unbelievable 5F in 1913 after the latest changes made this spring. That early record cooling ensure, the annual temperatures will rank among the warmest every year.
    The only common player in both countries changes was Tom Peterson of NCDC who engineered GHCN and USHCN and also was on the consulting committee advising/directing Australia on their updated data set.

    ________________
    ________________

    The following quoted from the BOM’s document ; ACORN-SAT guidance document

    [ quoted ]
    Three eminent climate scientists with specialised knowledge of climate data collection, management and analysis will provide technical expertise for the Review. Each is internationally recognised for his/her work and is widely published in the field.

    The technical members of the Review Panel are:

    Dr Thomas Peterson is an expert in data fidelity, international data exchange, global climate change analysis as well as the impacts of climate change. He was a lead author on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and served as co-chair and co-Editor-in-Chief of the 2009 report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. In addition to serving as the Chief Scientist at the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, Tom is currently President of the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology.

    Dr David Wratt is Chief Scientist, Climate, at New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research. David has a PhD in Atmospheric Physics and has worked in the USA, Australia and New Zealand on climate and meteorology. He is a Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and a member of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Dr Xiaolan Wang is a Senior Research Scientist at Climate Research Division of Environment Canada. She has considerable expertise in the analysis of climate trends, extremes and variability. She is at the leading edge of development of methods for climate data homogenisation to enable more realistic assessment of climate trends. Dr Wang is a member of a Global Climate Observing System/World Climate Research Programme working group on surface pressure and a member of the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Change Detection and Data Program Panel, 2009.

    [ / ]
    ________________

    Draw your own conclusions when considering the amount of ideological commitment to a anthropogenic created climate catastrophe that lot subscribes to and who appeared to and have a well known collective history of putting the achieving their agenda above scientific integrity and openness with the public.

    92

  • #
    TdeF

    The graphs are not particularly interesting. Maybe a bump at the end of the 20th century in maximum temperature, but otherwise the trends are minor and arguable. What is worrying was the comment from the University of NSW ARC that “adjusted data showed a cooling trend over parts of northwest Australia , which wasn’t seen in the raw data”. If this was meant to reassure, it did the reverse.

    It means that in this strongly defended homogenization, data editing and elimination, that the analysts may have been seeking to confirm warming, literally the hot topic in world weather. If their international peer group had the same approach and the same intent and techniques, they could collectively manufacture a heat wave in line with increasing CO2. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, they confirmed what they all expected to see, but a result which was possibly not in the raw data. It is also arguable that if they wanted to find cooling, equally they could have found it. When creating a single temperature for Australia with weightings, elimination and truncation, you can see what you want to see or accept a wrong result without question because it is what you expected. Scientifically the elimination of extremes in the homogenization process may also have meant the elimination of real and significant data which could tell us a great deal about the weather.

    As for the earliest records from the 19th and early 20th century, every forensic attempt to include them should have been made. Who needs inaccurate tree rings when we had thermometers? It is worrying these temperatures may have been discarded simply because they undermined the story that the world’s hottest years were at the end of the 20th century. As the scare of carbon dioxide produced global warming fades, these records must be reexamined and the records put back where they belong.

    72

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The warming trend at Deniliquin from October 1999 to current, directly corresponds with the annual ‘Deni Ute Muster’ where over 3000 Co2 emitting vehicles create deadly climatic disruptions.

    This negligent production of Co2 is only eclipsed by the slaughter of billions of brain cells from deadly Co2 infused beverage’s….. /sarc off.

    51

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    ACORN-SAT has 112 stations. Why pick Deniliquin and ignore the large regions of the north where the adjustment process reduces temperatures?

    http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

    314

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Phillip, for a very simple reason. For Austrlia as a whole, that did not happen. Rather the opposite. You will be able to read about it soon in a forthcoming book.

      113

    • #
      The Backslider

      Oh Philip…. while you are here, perhaps you can give a reasonable explanation as to what Hansen showed us back in 1999 for temperatures in the USA and what we see now from the NOAA and NASA?

      112

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Backslider, I thought the “skeptic” position was that anything by Hansen is rubbish.

        Anyway, so the data shows that the United States, which is land covering 1.6% of the earth’s surface, was warmer in the dust bowl period of the thirties than in 1999.

        And the significance for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming is…?

        22

        • #
          The Backslider

          And the significance for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming is

          The numbers used for temperatures in AGW/CO2 theory are land temperatures. Certainly the significance is that, for the USA at least, AGW/CO2 theory is falsified. Now, if we could somehow get better numbers I am sure we would have the same for the whole planet.

          Also note that Hansen says it’s all because the Atlantic is COOLING…. I bet elsewhere you will find the usual alarmist meme that it is warming (you know, more powerful hurricanes and tornados etc.).

          21

          • #
            The Backslider

            Oh, just Google “atlantic warming”….. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

            20

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Backslider, it is incorrect that AGW /CO2 theory is restricted to land temperatures.

            AGW research is directed at ALL aspects of the factors affecting GLOBAL climate change.

            This includes the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors.

            It would be impossible, not merely ridiculous, to ignore the role of the oceans in this.

            11

            • #
              The Backslider

              You misunderstand Philip – the TEMPERATURES that have been used all throughout the history of the global warming scam have been land temperatures. It is from these that “global temperature” has been calculated. In that respect the USA is a little more significant than you allow.

              11

            • #
              The Backslider

              In fact, considering what is now happening with “homogenisation”, I think that eauropean temperatures should be homgenised based on the more accurate USA temperatures.

              10

    • #
      Heywood

      Didn’t think it would be long before you came along after seeing “Dr Brian” pop up on Bolt’s.

      How’s that rebuttal paper going to counter McKitrick’s recent effort? Made it to the review stage yet?

      92

      • #
        the Griss

        The big question is.. “Has his monkey got a new straight edge measuring stick”? :-)

        62

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Heywood, I did reply to your post on Bolt the other day, but it was not put up.

        http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years/#commentsmore

        Recently I have come to seriously doubt your reading comprehension skills.

        I did indeed clearly write:

        “And I note that the Graph is not by McItrick, but the “ever excellent” WUWT, who have not shown the actual WFT trend line, but put in one more to their liking.”

        So yes I clearly understood that it was Watts and co up to their usual tricks with graphical data and that was not the fault of McItrick.

        They put in a negative slope on the WFT graph, rather than the WFT least squares fit which has a warming slope of

        Trend: 0.093 ±0.100 °C/decade

        While the warming is not statistically significant this is higher than the warming rate for the last century:

        Trend: 0.073 ±0.011 °C/decade

        Why is it that skeptics are free to criticise papers on AGW without being told to submit their objections for publication in the journal?

        My criticism is simply pointing out that McItrick has cherry picked a data set and Watts and co have put in a misleading slope.

        These observations do not constitute original research and would not be worthy of publication.

        So I will leave it to you to tell me where I am wrong.

        34

        • #
          the Griss

          Hey, looks like the monkeys have got a new straight edge stick,

          And they are letting Phillip use it !!! yipppppeeeee !!

          More hilarity assured. :-)

          22

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Griss, I was commenting on Watts’straight edge stick.

            Go complain to Anthony.

            12

            • #
              the Griss

              Your monkey are getting jealous are they ?

              And so what if you are commenting.. meaningless and trivial, as always.

              20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Jelous of a crowd who continue their history of producing graphs with trend lines meant to mislead?

                I don’t think so.

                A Watts moderator, D Boehm, is in the habit of wearing two hats at the same time, failing to tell us that he is commentating while moderating.

                He was outed in “The Y-axis of evil” on skeptical science, so changed his name to DB Stealey.

                Here is how he goes about one of his deceptive tricks.

                He goes absolutely berserk when temperature data is presented showing that the temperature rise over the last 160 years is well fitted by an accelerating curve, so he doctors his graph by putting in a completely extraneous line at 9 on the y axis so as to squash the data in the vertical direction.

                http://tinyurl.com/bkoy8or

                He then says: “That chart shows unequivocally that there has been no acceleration in global warming.”

                Without the extraneous lines and the demagnifying trick Boehm’s the graph looks like this:

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset

                The straight line fit is now far from “unequivocal”.

                A pathetic attempt by Boehm /Stealey to mislead.

                13

              • #
                the Griss

                [snip]

                And again you have to resort to silly little curves on a temperature series deliberately altered to create the trend.

                Its so childish, its funny ! :-)

                31

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              I might add, “the Griss”, that McItrick’s paper also uses those straight edge trends.

              Go complain to Ross.

              11

        • #
          Heywood

          “Why is it that skeptics are free to criticise papers on AGW without being told to submit their objections for publication in the journal?”

          You’re kidding right? It is a common occurrence for warmists to fob off a skeptic by saying exactly that. Perhaps you need to read what some of the regular ‘trolls’ on this blog say.

          “So I will leave it to you to tell me where I am wrong.”

          Actually, McKitrick states in his paper that his method is immune from the cherry picking allegation. You then alleged that he is, in fact, cherry picking. This means the onus of proof is on you to provide evidence as to why. It’s no good doing it in a blog. You say he is wrong, then you should provide a proper rebuttal via the same peer reviewed journal. Otherwise we could just take the stock standard warmist approach and block out ears whilst pointing to the what The Science™ says via the peer reviewed literature.

          You see, on one hand we have a professor of economics who specialises in statistics publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, and on the other hand you have a semi retired nuclear resonance expert who claims that the paper is wrong in an opinion writer’s blog post. Yes, you can claim this is an appeal to authority, but it’s no different to what we are constantly being told by the warmist media when they say “listen to the experts”.

          73

          • #
            Heywood

            Thanks to the gutless wonders for the red thumbs.
            They are a badge of honour. Ta.

            61

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            “You see, on one hand we have a professor of economics who specialises in statistics publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, and on the other hand you have a semi retired nuclear resonance expert who claims that the paper is wrong in an opinion writer’s blog post. Yes, you can claim this is an appeal to authority…”

            We are in perfect agreement here Heywood.

            I do not make a claim of authority, merely of competence to comment on statistical analysis of data, having used such analysis in decades of research.

            Again I do not use the word “proof” in relation to empirical science, but I have given reasons, with evidence in the form of graphs and statistical results above for why I dispute the claims made by McItrick.

            Again I invite you to point out where it is faulty.

            I did try to put my comments on McItrick’s website the day I made them on Mr Bolt’s blog, but there did not seem to be an option for leaving comments.

            I will give a more detailed statement of my concerns later, and see if I can find a way to send them to McItrick.

            03

            • #
              the Griss

              “and see if I can find a way to send them to McKitrick.”

              Just to emphasise your irrelevance and lack of statistical understanding.

              At least he will get a good laugh if he even bothers reading past the first line.

              10

            • #
              Heywood

              Sorry Brian, You don’t get the say he is wrong then sit on your high horse and play the semantic game regarding the word ‘proof’ awaiting someone like myself to counter your counter-claim.

              “and see if I can find a way to send them to McItrick.”

              I’ll make it super easy for you.

              Ross McKitrick
              Professor of Economics

              Department of Economics
              The University of Guelph
              Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada

              Tel: (519) 824-4120 ext. 52532
              Fax: (519) 763-8497
              Email: ross.mckitrick@uoguelph.ca

              I look forward to you sharing his response…

              40

              • #
                the Griss

                I hope Ross has a sense of humour for the ridiculous. :-)

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Heywood.

                The objection to the word “proof” was not a semantic game.

                The concept is entirely wrong when applied to empirical science. It is important to note that to people who demand fulfillment of this inappropriate requirement in discussions of science.

                Having briefly made that point I then moved on to refute your objection, reproduced here with the “proof” requirement removed.

                “This means the onus is on you to provide evidence as to why.”

                I showed precisely what the evidence I had presented was.

                There is nothing high horse about that.

                It is you who is suffering from the effects of equestrian altitude sickness when you airily dismiss my request to show where the evidence so presented is wrong.

                Thank you for McItricks’ email address.

                02

        • #
          the Griss

          Poor closed-mind Phillip.

          The McKitrick paper is so far beyond him its funny.

          There’s Phillip with basic 1st/2nd year stats, if that, and a straight stick operated by a monkey, arguing against a real statistician.

          Its like a sugar ant trying to bite an elephant on the toenail. :-)

          40

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            I object strenuously to being called “Poor closed-mind Phillip.”

            It’s Philip, with one “l”.

            02

            • #
              the Griss

              Yawn !!

              10

              • #
                Heywood

                Griss, perhaps he would prefer his full name…

                Brian Philip Shehan BSc(Hons)(1st class),Grad Dip Hum (History and Philosophy of Science), Grad Dip Ed, PhD (The PhD is in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Actually Heywood, I would prefer it if “the Griss” had the courage to append his real name to his endless idiotic and irrelevant personal attacks.

                But there is absolutely no hope of that.

                14

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Make that “courage and integrity”.

                13

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                So, nothing to say “the Griss” except for the anonomous thumbs down?

                03

              • #
              • #
                the Griss

                Tell you what, when you stop posting your juvenile SKS monkey driven linear trend crap…

                I’ll stop calling it juvenile SKS monkey driven linear trend crap. Fair !

                ——-

                And y’know PS, there are some really low-life scumbags out there.

                The sort of person who would try to track someone down and complain to the person’s employer, try to get them sacked or something similar.

                This sort of slimy activity is particularly prevalent among the apostles of the AGW cult.

                We have seen esteemed professors sacked, journal editors removed, movies of children with exploding heads, litigation in a vain attempt to shut people down…..

                ..all sorts of really bottom of the bucket, low-life stuff.

                And for no other reason that they asked questions or disagreed with the warmist agenda or said something the AGW cultists didn’t like.

                And y’know PS, I strong suspect that you would be exactly one of those people.

                So you want my real name… WHY ?

                You can *** ******** !

                01

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              But thanks to those who gave me the thumbs up for my academic achievements.

              10

              • #
                Heywood

                I would like to think it is Michael the Activist Tosser Annoying Git Sook Realist allocating the red thumbs (and the green to you). I am comforted by the thought that he still reads the blog getting upset and being unable to comment.

                11

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    I have read the Nick Stokes blog.
    It does not consider some major problems, Such as the distortion of results when an absolute value is needed, Such as raising T to a power as e.g. in Stefan Boltzmann.
    His blog shows examples of subjective estimates of corrections. Not all of them can be correct.
    Nick gives examples of procedures used in climate work. Our concern is that climate work is often outside the bounds and standards of general science. There are some science branches where adjustments to raw data are, ab initio, illegal.
    Nick’s site does not address whether large scale computer adjustment is good, bad, possible etc. What is wrong with having only a raw data set that each researcher can adjust if the particular project should not proceed without adjustment, for reasons explained in the resulting paper?
    There is a real danger that the construction of a general fiction like Acorn-sat will sometimes wrongly displace use of real data.

    95

  • #
    john karajas

    I am 99.99% certain that the BOM is undertaking sloppy science.

    74

  • #
    warcroft

    We knew it was coming. . . and now here it is. . .

    99.999% Certainty Humans Are Contributing To Global Warming!
    http://io9.com/study-99-999-certainty-humans-are-contributing-to-glo-1630581153/all

    Is this the climate change jump the shark moment?

    51

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    “Data Modelling” is an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

    There is “Data” which is useful stuff. It can be analysed statistically using simple techniques (e.g. linear regression, averaging/filtering) to yield statistical parameters and maybe give some insight into mechanism.

    Then there is modelling which can be useful if it is actually supported by a) the data and b) is based on the basic fluid/mechanics/thermodynamics etc of the mechanism.

    Data Modelling sounds like alchemy. Given that even great minds like Newton were entranced by alchemy many centuries ago it is perhaps understandable that some ‘scientists’ may be similarly entranced by the notion of “data modelling”.

    I imagine that the effect on “climate scientists” it is probably like ice (the drug) which gives euphoria to start with then it all goes south from there to psychosis and flesh ripping to get the worms out. Listening/reading the work of the CAGW loons this is about the best analogy I can come up with.

    ( Also posted at the BoltBlog)

    53

  • #
    Warren

    On Skeptical Science, blogging on this topic, they have this:

    “Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University, worked at BoM for more than 30 years and from 1990 until he left in 2005 had led efforts to analyse rainfall and temperature readings from across the country. He told me:

    “Pre-1910 there was not much of a spread but also there was more uncertainty about how the temperatures were being measured. By 1910, most temperatures were being measured in a Stevenson Screen. A lot of measurements were taken at Post Offices but in many cases these were moved out to airports around the middle of the 20th century. That produces artificial cooling in the data.

    I would have thought moving the measurements out of the town center would have removed artificial heating in the data.

    An important distinction I think.

    32

  • #
    handjive

    Should democracy be abandoned to respond to the climate crisis?
    PETER BURDON
    ABC Environment 5 SEP 2014
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/09/05/4081208.htm
    . . .
    Why am I not surprised?

    11

  • #
    handjive

    Some more ABC stuff.

    Pepare to laugh!

    This is how Scientists Feel

    Handwritten Letters from Climate Scientists like,

    Professor Steven Sherwood,
    Chief Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science

    Dr Wenju Cai,
    Ocean Climate Characterisation & Prediction Stream Leader, CSIRO

    Professor Nathan Bindoff
    Research Program Leader – Climate Change and Ocean Processes
    Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies

    Adjunct Professor Will Steffen,
    Fenner School of Environment and Society,
    Australian National University

    Dr Will Hobbs, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science,
    Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies

    Dr Elvira Poloczanska
    Climate Change Ecologist, CSIRO

    Dr Roger Bodman
    Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Victoria University

    Kevin Walsh
    Associate Professor and Reader, School of Earth Sciences
    University of Melbourne

    Anthony Richardson
    Climate Change Ecologist
    The University of Queensland

    Dr Ailie Gallant
    School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment
    Monash University

    Professor Andrew Pitman
    Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science

    Dr Sarah Perkins
    Climate Scientist, Extreme Events Specialist
    University of New South Wales.

    Emeritus Professor Tony McMichael
    National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health
    Australian National University, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment

    Associate Professor Katrin Meissner
    Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

    Professor Lesley Hughes
    Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University
    Founding Member of the Australian Climate Council

    Dr Alex Sen Gupta
    Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

    Professor Brendan Mackey
    Director Of Griffith Climate Change Response Program

    http://isthishowyoufeel.weebly.com/this-is-how-scientists-feel.html
    . . .

    This is called ‘circling the wagons’.

    51

  • #
    Liberator

    This can’t be real – I mean it’s only The Australian publishing this stuff about the BOM (researched by and not published an peer reviewed so it’s so nonsensical) – I mean really – if I am to believe any of this I won’t until I see it in The Age and on the ABC.

    33

  • #
    thingadonta

    Homogenisation reduces variation. Period. That is what the term means. That is what they want to do.

    Noun 1. homogenisation – the act of making something homogeneous or uniform in composition.

    Let us all UNITE and go forth to the final victory!

    31

  • #

    [...] says as much in a blog post that appeared an hour after The Australian published its latest story. Nova wrote: Behind the scenes emails are abuzz among the independent BOM audit team at the moment, and it’s [...]

    20

  • #
    Roger

    I wonder how long it will be before the description “Climate Scientist” is considered abusive ?

    40

  • #
    Tim Hammond

    If the well-sited sites with long, uninterrupted records do not show the claimed warming, then there is no warming.

    It is nonsensical to take the reliable and accurate data and make it show something else.

    I understand that to show a temperature for a large area requires data manipulation, but it is either fr[*]ud or madness to make the homogenised data show something totally different from the original data.

    [We want to be careful with the F word] ED

    11

  • #
    Peter Aslak

    In his blog Nick Stokes uses the comparison of the trend at Amberley with other Local stations to justify correcting theAmberley data, but, at Armagh , N I, Coughlin and Butler carried out a test of the Armagh data by installing three other Local sites with as near identical Micromicro climate as possible as the main site and using the same equipment supplied by the UK Office – LIG thermometers and Stevenson screens -the average difference from the main site was Tmin &Tmax values that were lower by 0.41 C & 0.11 C respectively and these sites were within 1 to 2 two kilometres of the main site. Clearly each site is unique in the parameters that affect MAST values and using pair-wise adjustments or kriging or whatever statistical tricks that can be dreamed up is not justified by empirical test data.
    Star.arm.ac.uk/Ambon/287cjb.htm

    10

  • #
    Dan

    It is 99.999 certain that climate change is man-made. I am 99.9999 certain that the man who made the climate change in Australia, works for the BoM.

    21