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

Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of “transparency” — too little, too late

Bottom line: The BOM has added a page listing “Adjustments”. It’s two years late, inadequate and incomplete. Skeptics shouldn’t have had to ask for it in the first place, and we still don’t have the algorithms and codes, or rational answers to most questions.  No one can replicate the mystery black box homogenisation methods of the BOM — and without replication, it isn’t science. There is still no explanation of why an excellent station like Rutherglen should change from cooling to warming, except for vague “statistics”, or why any station should be adjusted without documentary evidence, based on thermometers that might be 300 km away.

Lo and behold, the pressure from The Australian and independent analysts means the BOM has made a weak belated attempt to do what it has implied it always has done. When Michael Brown provided cover for the BOM he said the notion that scientists were hiding data was “pseudoscience”. The BOM, meanwhile, added a page called “Adjustments”, two years after launching “ACORN”, quietly admitting that the skeptics were right. They did not correct Brown’s baseless namecalling. Other apologists for their inexplicable anomalies, major adjustments or errors – like David Karoly — demand the skeptics publish in the peer reviewed literature before they will even consider their point of view, but neither Karoly nor the BOM can name the peer reviewed document, or any publication or link, with the full homogenization code. How can skeptics discuss a method in the peer review literature which is not publicly available? The BOM homogenization technique remains a black box method that cannot be replicated — only the secret guild of anointed BOM staff are privy to the details.

Let’s open that BOM black box: let’s have a replication of the homogenization process, open to public inspection, so it can be audited. So everyone can see where every homogenized number came from, back to the raw data and the adjustments. No public company could shield its finances from observation like this: they have to produce audited accounts every six months that show all money in the company bank account, all money owed, and all money owing. All of it.

And once we have replication, then we can have an informed discussion of the ramifications of the current homogenization process, and how it might be improved or made more realistic.

Is the BOM a science agency or a PR bureau?

On August 29 2014 the BOM said it had published everything:

BOM said its methods had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals but did not say where or in what form.

Later on Sept 11, 2014, the BOM says they have finally complied with a recommendation made years ago:

A spokesman for BoM said “publication of this table meets the Bureau of Meteorology response to the recommendations of the Independent Peer Review Panel”.

So which is it? Either they were wrong before that the methods were published, or they are repeating  information now and pretending it is new in the hope of getting the critics off their back. The answer is “both”. It was inadequate before. It’s still inadequate now.

The new “adjustments” page doesn’t resolve much at all. There are still blatant errors — The changes to long term trends in minima are not “neutral”,  but increase the trend by nearly 50% (See Ken Stewart’s site here and the finished set here). The hottest day in Australia was almost certainly not in Albany in 1933 (which remains uncorrected at 51C). Many maximums have been adjusted and become lower than minimums. Those mistakes did not exist in the raw data. The homogenisation has created them, like the new discontinuity in Deniliquin.

The adjustments page is just a glorified rehash of the same old excuses

Effectively the bureau is saying “we need large mysterious transformations of data to make Australian trends look like international trends”. What serious climate scientist thinks Australia is supposed to get hotter, colder, wetter, drier, or cloudier with the exact same timing and patterns to the rest of the world? Even high schoolers know that when it rains on the East Coast with El Ninos, it’s not raining on the other side of the Pacific. Just because other homogenizations have produced the same trends by blending data to the point where it is unrecognisable does not make it “good” science.

Lots of international bankers were marketing the same overrated mortage bundles. Anyone want to buy subprime science — I have a collateralized trend for sale?

Three years ago the independent audit team, with Senator Cory Bernardi, asked for an ANAO audit of the BOM’s “High Quality” HQ data set. The BOM was not enthused. They dumped the HQ set that they had previously lauded and set up a new one called “ACORN”. We listed some of the errors in June 2012. Two years on, nothing much appears to have changed. They still haven’t released the algorithms used in the homogenization process. They are still using stations more than 100km away, some 600 km away, to “adjust” temperatures.  The mystery black box adjustments are still producing inexplicable nonsense, and the BOM still can’t explain why — on individual stations like Rutherglen and Bourke — anyone should find their adjustments necessary and scientifically justified. There is no documentation showing Rutherglen has moved. But there is documentation suggesting perhaps Bourke’s deleted “hottest” day really might have been 125F in 1909.

The BOM’s active silence on the long hot records of the late 1880s and 1890s suggests they are more interested in promoting one message — “it’s warming” — rather than being custodians of the real and more complicated history of the Australian climate.

The BOM still hides the “warming” effect of their mysterious adjustment procedure

The official CAWCR Technical Report No. 04 claimed the adjustments were “balanced”:

“There is an approximate balance between positive and negative adjustments for maximum temperature but a weak tendency towards a predominance of negative adjustments (54% compared with 46% positive) for minimum temperature.”

Even in 2014, the BOM still maintains that the adjustments do not affect the national trends:

“And the bureau says an extensive study has found homogeneity adjustments have little impact on national trends and changes in temperature extremes.” — August 23, 2014

But a simple analysis shows this to be a misleading half-truth. The number of adjustments may be balanced, but Ken Stewart shows that the size of the warming adjustments is so much larger than the cooling adjustments that nationally the mimimum trend are warmed by nearly 50%. Given that skeptics pointed out the size of adjustments was larger two years ago, it would appear the Bureau is aware of the problem, but instead of justifying or fixing it, they carefully created ACORN so they could be seen to answer the critics while maintaining the same bias in the results. Seeming, not doing.

Where are the computer codes?

BOM’s 2011 independent panel called for the release of the computer codes:

recommended a list of adjustments be made publicly available along with the adjusted temperature series including the rationale for each adjustment. It said the computer codes underpinning the national ACORNSAT data-set, including the algorithms and protocols used by BOM for data quality control, should be made publicly available.”

Graham Lloyd’s article in The Australian yesterday shows that the BOM is under pressure, but their lack of transparency continues, and this new page appears to be more like a public relations effort than a big advance scientifically.

What Australia needs is a full working replication of the BOM methods and techniques — only then does a true scientific peer review process begin. If the BOM is so sure it’s doing obvious world’s best practice, why won’t it release the full code? Unpacking and replicating this detailed procedure would take months of analysis. If the Australian government is serious about our climate, they need to fund a proper independent study instead of leaving it to volunteers to do on the weekend, and hoping that someone with the right combination of IT, statistical, climate, and scientific skills will find it entertaining and want to do it for free.

The Greens would surely support more funding for climate research and a better, more rigorous Australian climate database. To oppose independent replication of the BOM procedures is to admit that they prefer the BOM to be a PR agency, not a scientific group.

Bureau of Meteorology warms to transparency over adjusted records

 THE Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to publish details of all changes made to historic temperature records as part of its homogenisation process to establish the nation’s climate change trend.

Publication of the reasons for all data adjustments was a key recommendation of the bureau’s independent peer review panel which approved the bureau’s ACORN SAT methodology.

BoM posted a new site on its ACORN SAT website on Monday, two weeks after being questioned by The Australian about the transparency of its homogenisation process.

Independent researchers had been calling for publication of BoM’s methodology for more than two years.

The Australian

All my posts on the BOM show that there are still more questions than answers.

Resources:

The page for ACORN-SAT data.

The page for the entire computer code… does not exist.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (135 votes cast)
Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of "transparency" -- too little, too late, 9.5 out of 10 based on 135 ratings

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

163 comments to Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of “transparency” — too little, too late

  • #

    Is Davey “Pier Review” Karoly the same Davey as the one that withdrew a paper recently after it was pointed out by skeptics to be, how do I put this, not errrrrr … “right enough” ?

    374

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      The answer is very simple: no-one who has had any connection to the University of East Anglia’s Climate research Unit in the past 23 years should be employed in any weather or climate related job. the way to do it is to revoke that department’s right to grant degrees until it teaches standard physics. In turn, the climate modles won’t predict Thermageddon and there would be no need by organisations like the BOM to cheat.

      91

  • #
    Bulldust

    I posted the following in a previous thread (Ken being Ken Stewart):

    Just curious… In The Conversation they claim the data mangling reduced the overall warming trend. Ken, Jo says you find the data-mangling has increased the trend significantly. Assuming the same, or at least very similar, data were used by both Ken and TC’s source, then both cannot be true. Surely this is the key point of significance?

    The thread dropped back quickly with all the new stories cropping up and there was no answer. Does anyone have an answer to this?

    122

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      You are assuming that those at The Conversation can do arithmetic .

      271

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Sorry, BD, I can’t keep up with everything… if you post a question at kenskingdom I have better chance of seeing it.
      The Conversation is quoting a study of hot days, and for sure and certain not from the same locations as the Acorn sites. My analysis was of raw vs adjusted at the specific Acorn locations. The two analyses cannot be compared.

      161

    • #

      Hi Bulldust

      A peer-reviewed paper by Blair Trewin from the BOM published in the International Journal of Climatology in 2013 explains that, “negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperature, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperature showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do” (page 1524)”.

      As far as I know this is the only peer-reviewed paper that compares raw to ACORN-SAT and it clearly states that ACORN-SAT produces a warming trend relative to the raw.

      So the guys at the Conversation must have been quoting popular hearsay. So typical of academics. ;-)

      474

      • #
        The Backslider

        So how is a national trend calculated? Would this not use both minimum and maximum temperatures? If the minimums are adjusted up, then just how much does this affect the calculations?

        51

        • #

          When you start exploring the data (raw and ACORN-SAT) its obvious that most of the tampering is with the minimum values. The mean is derived from the minima and the maxima and so any change to either values will affect the overall trend.

          The actual formula used to derived the overall national mean trend is apparently complicated and uses a weighting system. So changes to some minima may have a disproportionate affect on the overall value/trend.

          233

          • #
            the Griss

            You mean like the widely spread site through the inner half of Vic, NSW, Qld. and the one or two sites in NT.. a large proportion of which seem to have been given this treatment.

            Iirc, Alice Springs accounts for something like 10% of Australia.. adjust the Alice, you adjust the whole of Australia.

            Also, if you assign “urban” temperatures to a large area surrounding them, rather than just to the urban area they truly represent, you are weighting them far more than they should be weighted.

            232

            • #
              Ken Stewart

              Re: “urban” temperatures.
              The 8 stations identified by the Bureau as having urban warming are not used in the national climate analysis. However, we do not know whether “urban” warming may be present at other sites. Also, I’m pretty sure urban stations are still included in the AWAP analyses which are also used for climate commentary, and for comparison with Acorn.

              50

          • #
            the Griss

            Here is an example of what I mean.

            Suppose in an area of 15000mk^2 you have 3 sites. Sites A and B are country sites and have a change over a decade of +0.1C and -0.2C respectively.

            Site C is urban and has a change of 0.7C over the decade, (caused by population growth and urban encroachment on the site.).

            Weighted equally, you get a change of 0.2C for the whole area over the decade.

            Now suppose the ‘real’ areas that can be assigned to each site are A=8500km^2, B=6000km^ and C=500km^2..(that’s still a biggish urban area)

            I’ll leave y’all to find the area weighted change. :-)

            ps.. and I’m sure BOM would find a way to ‘homogenise’ them so they all matched the urban site. :-)

            103

          • #
            The Backslider

            its obvious that most of the tampering is with the minimum values

            It’s also obvious that with tampering of the minimums there was a hope it would escape notice.

            83

          • #
            Rolf

            But this is I understand only according to the theory. The warming should be minimum getting warmer ? so what’s the problem ? / sarc
            Maybe this is the only way they can show the theory is true, obvious it’s not …

            41

    • #
      Ian George

      If you check the actual graph of mean temps on the BoM’s adjustment page, you will quickly see how the AWAP temps have been adjusted down prior to the 1970s and how the ACORN temps have been adjusted upward relative to the AWAP temps after 1990.
      It appears that they have cooled the past and warmed the recent temps.
      They have made adjustments to the annual means up until 2011 but there has been no adjustment for 2011 or 2012 (maybe they’re to come or there is no need to homogenise anymore).
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Adjustments

      BTW, for the past five years, Aust mean temperatures have averaged 0.43C pa compared to 0.56C pa for the five years from 2004-2008. We have had an average cooling lately despite all the warmest hype.

      62

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Ian #2.4

        Been looking at the Data and network tab > Station details:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-network

        There’s hotlinks to Min data Max data.

        At #17 there’s the example of Kerang:

        Kerang 80023 adjustments:
        Min 18/01/2000 Move -0.4
        Max 01/06/1957 Move -0.71
        Min 01/08/1932 Move -0.61
        Max 01/01/1922 Statistical 0.33

        For 1957 there’s a -0.71 adj to Max prior to 19570601 for a Move but not a corresponding adj to Min. Here’s the Max and Min data around 01/06/1957:

        Max
        19570527 19.1 (+0.71 19.81)
        19570528 18.7 (+0.71 19.41)
        19570529 21.3 (+0.71 22.01)
        19570530 21.3 (+0.71 22.01)
        19570531 99999.9
        19570601 99999.9
        19570602 24.4
        19570603 23.9
        19570604 25.6
        19570605 23.9
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.080023.daily.txt

        Is that -0.71 adj really necessary if the following Min is NOT adjusted (and see 1959 and 1959/60/61 below)?`

        Min
        19570527 4.4
        19570528 2.2
        19570529 1.4
        19570530 6.9
        19570531 4.4
        19570601 99999.9
        19570602 99999.9
        19570603 5.4
        19570604 4.1
        19570605 4.6
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.minT.080023.daily.txt

        There is no Max adj for 1959. Here’s some 1959 Max data:

        19590930 15.6
        19591001 99999.9
        19591002 99999.9
        19591003 99999.9
        19591004 99999.9
        19591005 99999.9
        [1005 to 1027 99999.9]
        19591027 99999.9
        19591028 99999.9
        19591029 99999.9
        19591030 99999.9
        19591031 99999.9
        19591101 24.4

        Same for Min.

        There is no Max adj for 1959/60/61. Here’s some 1959/60/61 Max data:

        19591231 39.2
        19600101 99999.9
        19600102 99999.9
        19600103 99999.9
        19600104 99999.9
        19600105 99999.9
        [19600105 to 19611227 99999.9]
        19611227 99999.9
        19611228 99999.9
        19611229 99999.9
        19611230 99999.9
        19611231 99999.9
        19620101 32.2

        Same for Min.

        # # #

        2 days of 1957 Max and Min data missing for a 1957 “Move”. A -0.71 adjustment is made to Max but none to Min.

        31 days of 1959 Max and Min data missing. No adjustment to Max or Min.

        The entire 365 days of 1960 Max and Min data are missing but no adjustment is made to either.

        Amazing how the breakpoint detection method (PM-95) works with missing data.

        30

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Re #2.4.1 (awaiting moderation at this comment time)

          BEST on the other hand DOES make an adjustment for the Kerang missing data around 1960:

          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151895

          Note: BOM shows raw data for Kerang 1959 (see #2.4.1. above) but BEST doesn’t for Kerang Post Office 1959.

          Both BEST and BOM make the 2000 and 1922 adjustments but BEST does NOT make the 1957 and 1932 adjustments that BOM makes. BEST makes a 1904 adjustment but BOM doesn’t.

          BOM Kerang 80023 adjustments again:
          Min 18/01/2000 Move -0.4
          Max 01/06/1957 Move -0.71
          Min 01/08/1932 Move -0.61
          Max 01/01/1922 Statistical 0.33

          00

  • #
    Streetcred

    These [anomalies, errors and inconsistencies] by the BoM must be kept ‘front and centre’ until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. Any public service misconduct must be identified and prosecuted in the fullest to send the right message that the People will not tolerate our historical records being tampered with.

    291

  • #
    pat

    kudos to everyone who has forced BOM’s hand, however limited their response is so far. keep up the pressure.

    however, right on cue, we have:

    12 Sept: Australian: Rosie Lewis: Kevin Rudd lauds China action on climate change
    KEVIN Rudd has taken a swipe at the Abbott government for scrapping the carbon tax as China moves towards an emissions trading scheme.
    The former prime minister was speaking in New York at an Asia Society event with chairman of the Paulson Institute and former US Treasury Secretary, Henry “Hank” Paulson.
    Mr Rudd spoke at length …
    Mr Rudd today said climate change could no longer be ignored and urged the global community to act.
    “If China gets its approach to climate change right, we’ve got a chance,” he said. “Climate change threatens all of us. It threatens China, it threatens America, it threatens Australia.”…
    “I think there’s now been a much deeper both scientific policy and political consensus in Beijing that on the wider question of climate change, they must now act globally in their own national interests. If China is to have … the China dream … opportunities to expand their living standards and to enjoy a better life, then they’ve reached the conclusion this could all be throttled comprehensively by irreversible climate change.”
    A description of the New York event on the Paulson organisation’s website said Mr Rudd and Mr Paulson have “unrivalled experience with the issues China’s emergence is raising for its leaders, the region, and the world”.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/kevin-rudd-lauds-china-action-on-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1227056501813

    Time Magazine: 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
    Blameworthy: Hank Paulson
    When Paulson left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary in 2006, his big concern was whether he’d have an impact. He ended up almost single-handedly running the country’s economic policy for the last year of the Bush Administration. Impact? You bet. Positive? Not yet. The three main gripes against Paulson are that he was late to the party in battling the financial crisis, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big mistake and the big bailout bill he pushed through Congress has been a wasteful mess…
    http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877341,00.html

    111

  • #
    Jock

    Jo
    Who was on the “committee” that gave the thumbs up to ACORN?

    181

  • #
    the Griss

    Absolutely !! :-)

    93

  • #
    pat

    O/T but surely this will fire everyone up to keep pushing until the CAGW scam is dead and buried:

    12 Sept: Australia: Troy Bramston: Distinguished fellow Rudd adds another string to bow
    KEVIN Rudd has secured another high-level appointment in the US as a distinguished fellow at the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago.
    The institute, an independent policy centre and think tank, is chaired by former US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson. Mr Paulson is a former chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs and worked with Mr Rudd during the global financial crisis.
    “Kevin Rudd has been a leading thinker and doer — in Australia and on the global stage,” Mr Paulson said. “Especially during the challenging days of the financial crisis of 2008, he showed great leadership for ­Australia and the world.”…
    The former prime minister and foreign minister will focus on the US-China relationship, working closely with the institute’s think tank, and also “participate in projects and initiatives on Chinese economic and environmental policy’’.
    This aligns with Mr Rudd’s work at Harvard University, where he is a senior fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government leading research on ­relations between the two countries.
    “I am delighted to be joining the Paulson Institute, established by my good friend and colleague Hank Paulson,” Mr Rudd said. “We worked closely together in 2008, so I am pleased to be collaborating again with Hank and his team…
    In addition to the Harvard role, Mr Rudd is a distinguished visiting fellow at Chatham House in London, a distinguished statesman with the Centre for Strategic and Inter­national Studies in Washington, and a visiting professor at China’s Tsinghua University.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/distinguished-fellow-rudd-adds-another-string-to-bow/story-fn59niix-1227055863116

    let it rip, Taibbi:

    Jan 2013: Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi: Secrets and Lies of the Bailout
    The federal rescue of Wall Street didn’t fix the economy – it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come
    It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you’d think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we’ve been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul – right?
    Wrong.
    It was all a lie – one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people…
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104

    101

  • #
    TdeF

    Why not forget the homogenization and just perform the arithmetic? Surely the BOM has the unadjusted, unedited results? Let everyone see why homogenization was even necessary.

    Or was it? You would think temperature was the one thing which was easiest in the world to measure after distance and despite the occasional small error and unless there was some extraordinary reason, you would accept the temperatures, discontinuities, site changes and all. Or does the raw data show substantial cooling over the 20th century?

    212

    • #
      TdeF

      I mean the BOM should just publish the unedited, unexpurgated, unhomogenized graphs for the entire period of recording. Surely they exist? How difficult is an average?

      Then at least we would have the raw picture and if homogenization changes the broad trend, that really would need good justification as well as explanation and computer code.

      232

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The top bureaucrats at the BOM potentially have a lot to lose here, most obviously their comfortable lifestyles funded at the taxpayers’ expense.

    This amount of official obfuscation only indicates there is very definitely something to hide.

    It remains to be seen if that ‘something to hide’ is the result of incompetence, laziness or malice, or a combination of all three.

    Notice how the official voices of the ecoloon movement are not clamoring for the facts and total transparency.

    Funny that, but then again what else would you expect from ‘climate science’?

    Bottom line: Keep the pressure up and keep digging; only the tip of the proverbial iceberg has been uncovered so far.

    291

  • #
    Aaron M

    Warmists often reply when queried on BoM adjustments, that the BoM already provides all of its data and algorithms. What specifically is missing, so that I may answer such queries?

    51

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      So why not read what Jo has actually written above?
      “and we still don’t have the algorithms and codes” was on the second line.
      I would add,
      -Details of the statistical tests.
      -Details of the stations used for percentile matching.
      -Their comparison of national trends at the exact same locations.

      191

      • #
        Aaron M

        Sorry. I meant, “How do I respond in Warmist terms” – you know, if you just state the facts they rebut with their facts.

        Half cocked sarcasm again….I really need to watch more American TV.

        Apologies.

        81

  • #
    Chester

    Bottom line: The BOM has added a page listing “Adjustments”. It’s two years late, inadequate and incomplete. Skeptics shouldn’t have had to ask for it in the first place

    Wow. When you read a bit of JoNova, you realise she has found her true calling at last – as a purveyor of Conspiracy 101.

    Lesson 98: Even when they give you what you ask for, if merely confirms their guilt.

    Meanwhile, please give her some money. Jo is a highly successful person in life (unlike the unemployed and unemployable leftists that typifies the “warmist” religious cult), who is only doing all this for the betterment of mankind and doesn’t need your money really. But being a conspiracy theorist requires her full time effort and so, as pal Jennifer implores – please give her more money so she can have a nice well-earned holiday with the kids and her Babe. That’s if the lowlife
    Leftists haven’t yet had all the holiday locations turned into ecological sanctuaries – which is what they really want to do – you know it’s true!

    This is pretty lame Chester, even for you. Be careful, you’ll wear out your favourite “tool” — everyone will notice you say “conspiracy theory” every time, every day, no matter what the topic is. – Jo

    687

    • #
      the Griss

      I do have to wonder..

      Which particular hallucinogen are you on this time?

      Or is your mind always this garbled and incoherent!

      This is pretty way-out psycho stuff, even from you.

      373

    • #
      Tim

      How is that Conspiracy 101? Are you saying that the information provdied is atually complete and was provided a few years ago?

      Stating facts is by definition not indulging in conspiracy theories.

      362

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I would fully expect that Chester is an avid reader of the GUARDIAN. Probably he reads the Fauxfacts rags as well, and more than likely while listening to the ABC. The link provides some insight into the sort of people Leftist twits that fit Chester’s mold.

      372

    • #
      the Griss

      The really bizarre thing is that someone actually gave him a thumbs up.. really !!

      One has to seriously wonder about the mental capacity of that person.

      Is that you, Phil ?

      242

      • #
        Heywood

        I like to think that the random red thumbs (and greens for the trolls) is actually the ghost of everyone’s good friend “Michael the Activist Realist” still haunting the blog, unable to communicate.

        Although it is possible that Chester has bought himself a mate along the way.

        152

      • #
        NielsZoo

        He just hops on to another computer to do a bit of self-encouragement. It’s kind of like changing the trend to the direction you wish it was going… instead of down the intellectual drain.

        152

    • #
      bobl

      Not to mention defamatory… Jo would have every right to sue you, and then we could get to read her site for free as she and her “Babe” live off the damages award. Jo, good on you for passing this through in spite of the obviously defamatory content.

      193

    • #
      Mark

      Chester…. Your brain has been homogenized!

      122

    • #
      James Bradley

      Chester,

      There is no conspiracy:

      1. The pause that isn’t has had an awful lot of alarmist’s explanations for why it is, including – ‘well we could have predicted it with today’s technology’.

      2. Those adjustments from BoM just never seem to have information that can be confirmed and then there are the predictably desperate alarmist’s explanations – no data before 1910, the stations moved, the trend would have been warmer if we hadn’t adjusted the data, I must have left the algorithms in my other jacket.

      3. 99.5% of the 11,944 scientific papers used by John Cook did not say CO2 caused global warming, Cook only used the .5% of papaerrs that did say it.

      Just seems like incompetence and negligence to me.

      162

    • #
      Steve

      Actually I get really annoyed when people rabbit on about anyone with an ounce or two of effective grey matter seeing things for what they are – a deliberate and coordinated effort to bring about an underhand act – ergo a conspiracy.

      It wasn’t that long ago the leftist a realised that in order to head off the reality they were upto no good and had been caught pants down, that they would do their usual trick and try to hijack or nullify a word, in this case ” conspiracy”. Then all they needed was the rentacrowd and big brother watchers to latch onto it and run with it.

      I hate the fact the bulk of the electorate are so easily fooled on climate stuff …but I think it’s changing. One thing even dim Australians hate is being deceived, but wise fleeced and then pooped on from a great height. Not even 50 rounds of ” up the workers” will save the red raggers now…..

      51

  • #
    the Griss

    “the unemployed and unemployable leftists that typifies the “warmist” religious cult”

    Oh look.. Chester has found a whole wall of mirrors.

    272

  • #
    Gee Aye

    This is getting close to the line of attack needed

    102

  • #
    the Griss

    Totally OT, but I like searching for interesting music on the net. Found this. :-) :-)

    43

  • #
    Tim

    The homogenisation and adjustment claims are a total nonsense.

    You can only produce a “national” temeperature if you have a large number of long term, well-sited, reliable sites.

    But if you have that, you don’t need to homogenise and adjust.

    If we have lots and lots of good sites with reliable data, the trends should show up in those data just as they are. If we do not, then you cannot produce a national temeprature with any kind of accuracy at all – how can you?

    272

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Correct. How do they explain a maximum temperature LESS than the minimum temperature?

      182

      • #
        Gary in Erko

        “How do they explain a maximum temperature LESS than the minimum temperature?”
        Big numbers are heavier than small numbers. Large temperature numbers fall below smaller temperature numbers. Gee – isn’t that obvious?

        241

        • #
          NielsZoo

          Heavier numbers… hmmmm. Who woulda thunk it? Is that the same physical mechanism that’s sending all that “extra” heat down to the bottom of the Atlantic?

          161

    • #
      Robert O

      I tend to agree, just us a random selection of stations with good basic un-homogenised data would suffice
      for a national trend, and I do not see why the old records should be expunged, apart from, perhaps, embarrassement. The more stations one uses, the smaller the standard error, but 10 stations should give a trend, 15 would be better and 20 probably too many. One could also stratify the sample a little on climate zones. The old timers were pretty meticulous with their records; why delete them? It was pretty cold in the early 1800′s (after the mini ice age) and fairly warm in the 1890′s; aren’t these part of the record as well, and if not they should be!

      The other point is that we are only looking at less than a degree celsuis of warming for the 2oth. century so the accuracy of the data used is critical, and if altered, can give a totally false representation as appears to be the case.

      221

      • #
        The Backslider

        It was pretty cold in the early 1800′s (after the mini ice age) and fairly warm in the 1890′s; aren’t these part of the record as well, and if not they should be!

        No sonny. To do that invites the danger of showing that the past was in fact warmer than today. It really messes up the graphs.

        181

    • #
      diogenese2

      Tim, the homogenisation has nothing to do with the “national” temperature – which can be determined, after a fashion, using the raw data. The problem is that to feed near surface temperature into a general circulation model you have to determine a number for the grid size which your model uses.
      The grid may contain several (or no) data points. The Acorn series was designed to meet this need. The problem being the standardisation of the past records. Homogenisation attempts to deal with the issues. The adjusted data bears no relationship to the actual temperatures at any station – they are virtual!

      51

      • #

        We had to destroy real data in order to save the world.

        After all, which is more important, knowing what reality is actually doing or delivering to our “glorious” leaders what they paid for? (Blanking out that the funds used for payment was extracted from the rest of us by force and fraud.)

        The Dancing Marionettes continue to dance in hopes we won’t notice that we are all slowly being turned into Dancing Marionettes who are only permitted to dance to the tune of our “glorious” leaders.

        Like I have said, we don’t need better people ruling us, we need better ideas in the people. Then we won’t cling to the people who pretend to be ruling us. The fact is, they can’t rule by faking reality. They can only destroy. If they refused to fake reality, they would refuse to pretend to rule.

        41

      • #
        bobl

        Virtual or not to be representative they MUST have the exact same statistics, otherwise chaos theory predicts you will get completely different end points on your GCM.

        Not that GCMs are any good given they don’t even attempt to include gravity, momentum and many solar (especially solar electric) energy inputs and outputs. This is just a smokescreen, adjusted data that is not representative of the input data in some ways is worse than useless, it’s counterproductive, leads you on wild goose chases.

        Nothing in climate science will be scientific until they get rid of the activists, the environmentalists masquerading as scientists. Science must be cold and brutally objective, environmentalists on a mission to “save the planet” give me no confidence of cold and brutally objective science.

        For those lurkers let me tell the truth:

        Nobody has a f…… clue what the temperature will be in 100 years. At best they have an inking about 4 days, and they can probably pick tomorrow 70 or 80% of the time, though lately they’ve missed the precipitation on about 10/10 occasions.

        Isn’t it interesting that the sceptics mission (if any) is in effect to get the scientists to admit that “they don’t know enough to say”

        101

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”Effectively the bureau is saying “we need large mysterious transformations of data to make Australian trends look like international trends”.”

    Heh, circular reasoning in the case of HadCRU. They use BOM’s HQ Daily for Australia in CRUTEM4 (and therefore HadCRU4).

    But,

    >”They [BOM] dumped the HQ set that they had previously lauded and set up a new one called “ACORN” ”

    Dumped huh. CRU didn’t get the memo?

    Anyway, Rutherglen from a Trans-Tasman perspective carried over from the previous ‘Australian summers were hotter’ thread starting at #24:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-lost-climate-knowledge-of-deacon-1952-australian-summers-were-hotter-from-1880-1910/#comment-1563692

    Rutherglen and Amberley excerpts at #24 from:

    ‘ACORN-­‐SAT Station adjustment summary’

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Station-adjustment-summary.pdf

    At #24.1.1.1, a comparison copied below. NIWA and the NZCSC do not make adjustments for unknown reasons in the NZT7 as BOM does in ACORN-SAT (and as BEST does too).

    Assuming BOM’s adjustments for known reasons are valid and those for unknown invalid (see #24 linked above), we can make the following cumulative adj comparison BOM ACORN-SAT vs R&S93 as applied by NZCSC to NZT7 (similar by NIWA – see #24.1.1 at link above):

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    For Min,

    Rutherglen 82039 Min 01/01/1974 Statistical -0.57 Valid

    Cum sum: -0.57 BOM, -0.57 R&S93

    Rutherglen 82039 Min 01/01/1966 Statistical -0.63 Invalid – no R&S93 adj

    Cum sum: -1.2 BOM, -0.57 R&S93

    Rutherglen 82039 Min 01/01/1928 Statistical -0.49 Invalid – no R&S93 adj

    Cum sum: -1.69 BOM, -0.57 R&S93

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    For Max,

    Rutherglen 82039 Max 01/01/1950 Statistical 0.63 Valid

    Cum sum: +0.63 BOM, +0.63 R&S93

    Rutherglen 82039 Max 01/01/1938 Statistical -0.59 Invalid – no R&S93 adj

    Cum sum: +0.04 BOM, +0.63 R&S93

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    Thus we have a Trans-Tasman aberration.

    112

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Re #16 for the benefit of the one “thumb down” so far.

      The respective methodologies, BOM ACORN-SAT vs NIWA/NZCSC NZT7, are almost exactly opposite in approach.

      BOM runs an automated breakpoint analysis on the raw data first. When breakpoints are found BOM looks for a documented local reason as a secondary exercise. Even if no record of a site change is found BOM makes an adjustment for a breakpoint anyway i.e. the documented reason for a site change, or absence of one, makes no difference in BOM’s adjustment procedure.

      NIWA/NZCSC look for documented site changes firstly. But an adjustment is only made when the respective criteria, NIWA vs NZCSC/R&S93 are met where the site change is documented. No other adjustments are made for any other undocumented breakpoints and none are looked for as BOM does.

      An example of the respective adjustments, NIWA vs NZCSC/R&S93, is given for Wellington at #24.1.1 in the previous post here:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-lost-climate-knowledge-of-deacon-1952-australian-summers-were-hotter-from-1880-1910/#comment-1563869

      Clearly, in the NZ situation it is not individual adjustments that make the difference. It is the cumulative effect e.g. Wellington from #24.1.1:

      Cumulative adjustments Wellington
      -0.73 NIWA cumulative adj sum
      -0.48 R&S93 cumulative adj sum

      Series Trend (°C/century) Wellington
      Unadjusted 0.01
      NIWA method 0.86
      Rhoades & Salinger method 0.59

      But an individual BOM adjustment for no known local reason can, and does in instances, reverse the sign of the trend of the entire series. I find that bizarre.

      52

      • #
        the Griss

        “I find that bizarre.”

        Not only does this, what should be a step change, reverse the sign, it also, for some unknown reason, changes the trend of the data before that break point, from negative to positive. ie its not just vertically shifted.

        As you say… bizarre !!!

        62

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    How to turn 0°C into -0.5°C in five easy steps.

    Read it and weep:

    Figure 15 illustrates this process, based on a site move at Kerang (Victoria) in 2000 and using
    Swan Hill, Echuca, Deniliquin and Bendigo as the nearest neighbours. Figure 15(a)
    demonstrates a transfer function based on Swan Hill; based on matching frequency
    distributions, a July minimum temperature of 0°C at the pre-2000 Kerang equates to −1.2°C at
    Swan Hill, which in turn equates to −0.5°C at the post-2000 Kerang. Hence, using Swan Hill as
    the neighbour, a temperature of 0°C at Kerang pre-2000 would be adjusted to −0.5°C to be
    homogeneous with the post-2000 period.

    Page 50. CAWCR 049.

    http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf

    Don’t forget to break the ice on the chooks’ water trough before you go to school Blair.

    111

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Re #17 Kerang 2000.

      [Trewin TR049] >”a July minimum temperature of 0°C at the pre-2000 Kerang equates to −1.2°C at Swan Hill, which in turn equates to −0.5°C at the post-2000 Kerang.”

      ACORN-­‐SAT Station adjustment summary
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Station-adjustment-summary.pdf

      Page 24 pdf:

      Kerang 80023 Min 18/01/2000 Move -0.4 77094 74258 80015 75175 76047 80091 78077 81049 74128 88043

      No local reason for the -0.4 adjustment.

      5 rows down on that page is one of only two valid local reasons for an adjustment on the entire page of 24 adjustments:

      Rutherglen 82039 Min 01/01/1974 Statistical* -0.57 74034 82053 82002 72097 82100 74106 81049 81084 72023 82001 Site moved at least once between 1958 and 1975

      Unless “Merged across moves” is valid for two of the adjustments. I don’t know what that means yet.

      52

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re #17.1

        Kerang 80023 adjustments:

        Min 18/01/2000 Move -0.4
        Max 01/06/1957 Move -0.71
        Min 01/08/1932 Move -0.61
        Max 01/01/1922 Statistical 0.33

        One wonders what “Move” actually means if there were not a corresponding Max adj 2000, Min adj 1957, and Max adj 1932. How can a “Move” effect one and not the other?

        There is nothing in “Notes” to clarify. Are these actual documented site moves or just supposition?

        62

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        >”5 rows down on that page is one of only two valid local reasons for an adjustment on the entire page of 24 adjustments”

        Wrong here. There is “Screen” in the Cause column 2nd row down I missed (Mildura).

        There is also 12 “Move” instances in the Cause column but it doesn’t make sense that Max adjustments are made for a “Move” but not a corresponding Min adjustment and vice versa (see Kerang example #17.1.1 above).

        Neither does “Move” ring true when there is nothing in “Notes” describing the move e.g. what distance was the move horizontally – 10m, 100m? Vertically?

        There should be more information to justify the adjustment especially when the adjustment is substantial e.g. Kerang 80023 Max 01/06/1957 Move -0.71

        32

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        >”No local reason for the -0.4 adjustment. [Kerang 2000 Min]”

        Cause column has “Move” but nothing in Notes column describing the move.

        What was the “Move” exactly, that required a -0.4 adjustment?

        42

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re #17.1 ACORN-­‐SAT Station adjustment summary

        On page 28 of the pdf is Table guidance notes:

        Columns:

        • Temperatures adjusted describes which aspect of the temperature record was adjusted – Max for the daily maximum temperature, Min for the daily minimum temperature
        • Date – All data prior to this date was adjusted for the reason (cause) cited
        • Cause describes why an adjustment was required
        o merge – data from two different station numbers are being merged with overlap,
        o move – a documented move (this is restricted to changes at the site that are firmly documented)
        o move (n) – a documented move together with a change of station number
        o screen – indicates a change or repair to the screen
        o obs time – indicates a change in observation time (most often the 1964 change at some stations from a midnight to 9am observation time),
        o site env – a change has occurred in the local site environment (e.g. addition/removal of building nearby, change in vegetation),
        o statistical – a change found by statistical methods without specific metadata support
        o statistical* – indicates some kind of metadata support which may be imprecise or subject to interpretation

        see notes
        o AWS – installation of an automatic weather station (if there was an associated site move this is shown as ‘move’)

        # # #

        So “Move” does appear to be actual “firmly” documented site changes (including installation of an AWS). That still doesn’t explain why Max is adjusted for a Move but not Min and vice versa.

        I find it hard to believe that a site move at one site only effects Max but a move at another site only effects Min.

        However, statistical and statistical*
        remain the most problematic.

        52

        • #

          Richard, I presume what you write is correct that “• Date – All data prior to this date was adjusted for the reason (cause) cited”. The “all” can be used to fudge data whether it is justified or not.
          Take for example: a storm ten days before the end of 1940 causes a tree branch to crash into the screen slightly damaging some of the louvres on the south (non significant) side, in 1940 the average temperature is higher than in 1939. The screen is repaired in 1941. It seems they can adjust downwards all the temperatures prior to 1941 on the basis of “o screen – indicates a change or repair to the screen” and “o statistical – a change found by statistical methods without specific metadata support”
          It is difficult to reason how a repair to a screen in 1941 should affect a temperature reading in 1890 with a brand new screen.

          31

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            cementafriend #17.1.4.1

            >”I presume what you write is correct that “• Date – All data prior to this date was adjusted for the reason (cause) cited”

            Yes that was copied from the ‘Table guidance notes’ at the bottom of the BOM document:

            ‘ACORN-­‐SAT Station adjustment summary’
            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Station-adjustment-summary.pdf

            >”The “all” can be used to fudge data whether it is justified or not.”

            No that’s not what is happening. The series is compiled backwards (and sometimes forwards) from a “reference” period at the location (a town say). Therefore “all” data prior to a step adjustment Date must be adjusted by the same amount to be in terms with the “reference”.

            You can see reference periods in the Notes column of the document linked above.

            >”It is difficult to reason how a repair to a screen in 1941 should affect a temperature reading in 1890 with a brand new screen.”

            It doesn’t. As above, the series is in terms of a “reference” period, usually a recent AWS site at the location or the current open site. Therefore if a discontinuity occurred in 1941, the 1890 data would not be in terms with say a 2000 – 2014 reference site in the homogenized series. All data prior to 1941 must be adjusted to achieve that.

            This example would probably not be a contentious adjustment because there is a valid local reason for the adjustment (“Screen” in the Cause column). But if the adjustment was simply for a statistical reason, and there are many of those in ACORN-SAT, that is where the contention arises. Rutherglen is good(bad) example of that.

            Adjustments for statistical cause i.e. no known local cause, have been shown to reverse the sign of a series trend in some instances.

            00

  • #
    Mikky

    Another line of inquiry to check on the very early instrumental record that BoM seems shy about discussing is to look at temperature proxies. This looks like a good article to read, from the 2008 Australian Year Book:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/ee757a3d884140bdca2573d200110d50!OpenDocument

    42

    • #
      the Griss

      Sorry Mikky.. in the part about temperature ABS says..

      “As is well known, Australia has seen substantial warming since 1910, and especially since 1950.”

      If they are using adjusted BOM data, there is absolutely no guarantee that this statement is correct.

      That is the problem.. because of BOM’s intransigence and data corruption…….. We just DON’T KNOW !!!

      That is a major problem.

      Fudged data in one area spreads to another, then another, then another, until one has basically no idea what data or statements can be trusted.

      183

  • #
    Lord Jim

    and without replication, it isn’t science.

    In the absence of all methods being publicly available, alleged BOM facts about the thermometer record is just OPINION that we are supposed to take on TRUST.

    But science is not about opinions or trust, it is about objectively verifiable facts.

    It’s no good trying to falsely robe this process in the legittima of science – no argument from scientific authority can be grounded in a non-scientific process.

    141

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Pre 2000 Swan Hill was at time 1.2 degrees cooler than Kerang.
    After 2000 Swan Hill was 0.5 degrees cooler than Kerang.
    Therefore the pre 2000 figures for Kerang have to be adjusted.

    Why?
    They’re saying the new Kerang station is 0.7 degrees warmer than the old one. Why has the old one have to be adjusted downwards while retaining the new higher figures? What would happen if they merely reduced the new figures DOWN by 0.7 degrees to line up with the old figures?

    Oops! No warming?

    222

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Their fingers have been caught in the cookie jar and now they are behaving like children saying “It wasn’t me … honest.”

    81

  • #
    Peredur

    ” Is the BOM a science agency or a PR bureau?”

    Back in January 2010 the then Australian Government Department of Climate Change placed advertisements calling for authors to nominate for roles in preparing the upcoming IPCC AR5, in which the Department defined itself as “the National Focal Point for IPCC activities.” The ‘selection criteria’ were brazenly committed to the Cause. Unfortunately the link no longer works, but perhaps others can retrieve it.

    Is there any doubt that the Department, its closest continuers, and subsidiary agencies, have scrupulously maintained their subservient support for IPCC direction? This most recent defence of ‘black box’ homogenisation powerfully indicates the agencies are still in total thrall to IPCC direction and as such they are no more than PR apparatchiks, as you suggest.

    171

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Its “artificial cooling”, Jo. Just believe me, please. I read an article by an astrophysicist in the Fairfax press and that is what he characterised the false Rutherglen temperature as and he has a PhD and researches astrophysics. You have to beieve him, he’s an astrophysicist. He must be in the know, its not like he just got tapped on the shoulder in the Monash staff room …. is it??

    142

  • #
    Contracts8u

    If a corporation had falsified work that I have some type of interest in, then i would consider running a private adiministrative process in common law or under private international law directly to the man/woman behind the corporation. The purpose would be to gain agreement and form a private record.

    In the private world there is no limited liability as you are dealing with men and women and not corporate persons.

    Hence, if people felt so strongly about whether xyz corporation is falsifying records, then simply learn how to run a private administrative process and form a record. Lodge a claim in a public court and bring your record into the public. It’s not that difficult to do.

    If the BOM have nothing to hide then no problem, if the men or women behind the BOM have tampered with data, then they could be held personally liable. This process would most likey resolve any doubt on the data once and for all v’s what we are seeing now with the current circus.

    Just a thought.

    91

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile…

    more honours for a CAGW believer:

    12 Sept: BusinessSpectator: Climate councillor takes out Eureka science prize
    The Climate Council’s Lesley Hughes has won the prestigious Australian Government Eureka Prize for ‘Promoting Understanding of Australian Science Research’ for her expansion of public understanding of climate change…
    ***In awarding the Prize, Australian Museum director and CEO Kim McKay said: “With issues like climate change, the science may be settled, but the debate rages on. For many scientists, this gap between science and public understanding is unfathomable. Lesley Hughes is bridging that gap.”
    Prof Hughes – an ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University – has also contributed to furthering the science of climate change through her free online course for Open University Australia and as a lead author for the IPCC fourth and fifth assessment reports…
    “Information from Prof Hughes and the Climate Council has reached 120 million people through the media in the past year alone.”
    “The important work that Professor Hughes and the Climate Council do communicating climate change science is driven entirely by generous community donations.”…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/9/12/science-environment/climate-councillor-takes-out-eureka-science-prize

    ***Australian Museum director and CEO Kim McKay, wearing her other hat:

    LinkedIn: Momentum2 Pty Ltd.
    Momentum2 is an ideas based social and sustainability marketing and communications company that generates and adapts creative concepts to the ever-changing communications needs of business and the community.
    Momentum2 interprets emerging global trends to create social marketing & communications strategies that work
    Momentum2 understands the environmental and social sustainability issues affecting business and the community to help organisations navigate and communicate effective sustainability solutions…
    ***Founded in 2005, Momentum2 is directed by Kim McKay, AO, a multi-award winning strategic communicator and an influential advocate for sustainable business and environmental behavioural change.
    https://www.linkedin.com/company/momentum2-pty-ltd

    41

    • #
      the Griss

      Its interesting just how many of these CAGW “scientists” are from Macquarie University.

      Would someone remind me which uni it was that Mr Salby had issues with ?

      The more I look at it, the more I am convinced the whole Salby saga was a set-up from start to finish.

      The irksome side of the CAGW agenda.. !

      123

    • #
      Steve

      Hey they gave al gore and obummer Nobel prizes for doing nothing , which makes any other award laughable…….

      11

  • #
    Tim

    What makes rusted-on public institutions like the BOM and ABC still behave as if they have God-given rights, with no accountability to the people that fund them? They need to accept that they are now dealing with a sceptical, better informed and educated public.

    Shape up or ship out.

    111

    • #
      Mikky

      It is common to all monopoly public institutions, in which the paymaster (govt) is not the same as the end user (public).

      They all become self serving, inward looking, self protective.

      The ONLY solution is to empower the end user. I would set up a complaints system in which any unresolved issue gets passed to the CEO to deal with at 6pm.

      111

  • #
    The Backslider

    we need large mysterious transformations of data to make Australian trends look like international trends

    Ok, well, the trend since 1950 in the USA has been cooling. Please adjust accordingly!….. no, wait, no adjustment necessary!

    71

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    Joanne, it’s more than clear you’ve got them. It’s also crystal clear that they’re corrupted. By subordinating integrity to some “higher cause” they’re leaving themselves wide-open to an easy take-down. Clearly they need leadership change at the top, as their leaders aren’t willing &/or able to face and deal with reality.

    191

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I hear an echo that just will not diminish.

    We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
    http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/

    161

    • #
      PeterS

      The irony is that process of trying to find something wrong is exactly what true scientific research is supposed to do as part of the scientific method. As far as I’m concerned, true science is now dead, at least in the field of climate research.

      211

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    A report on station data and adjustments contains this paragraph:

    Once the data has been collected, it is subjected to an automated quality control (QC) procedure that looks for anomalies like repeated entries of the same temperature value, minimum temperature values that exceed the reported maximum temperature of that day (or vice-versa), …

    Search for QUALITY CONTROL
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

    One of the issues came with Min/Max thermometers and when they were read during the day. This is the time-of-observation (TOBS) question; see here (read comments and follow links):
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/09/24/tobs/

    Because this issue is understood it is now generally taken care of, but past reports (print on paper) will never be corrected and many digital records may not, either. I haven’t looked at the TOBS issue in OZ.

    51

  • #
    PeterS

    In any other field or activity the leaders responsible for similar wrong doing would be either sacked, fined heavily and/or put in jail. I’m waiting for the time AGW alarmist leaders and their so called official “scientific” leaders to be so charged.

    132

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So I guess I should ask, what’s new? But everyone knows it’s the same old same old.

    This has been the modus operandi for as long as I’ve been following global warming. Adjust, tweak, distract ,dodge, lie, and by all means put up a false front then hide behind it. That’s all the world ever gets.

    Is there any chance of someone on the inside being converted to the side of honesty and spilling the beans? Otherwise they might as well still be saying it’s a done deal and no debate is possible as they started out in the first place. Just one insider going public with the details might would be a bombshell.

    the BoM

    151

    • #
      bobl

      Roy, that has already happened, around about 2000-2007 or so there was the great purge, anyone who opposed the official line on AGW was removed from any position of influence, especially in the CSIRO. To this day it is not permitted for CSIRO employees to speak to the press without approval of their masters. This has occured because a lot of CSIRO’s work was focussed on the environment, when you promote environmental activists into positions of authority, you inevitably end up with groupthink promoting “the cause”

      There has been a kind of Coup in our government, one where greens have managed to place themselves at points of core influence, kind of like in the EPA in the US.

      NASA has the same problem, because some of their work is environmental monitoring, they have unwittingly or through pressure promoted some environmental activists into positions of authority. They have then set about purging NASA of the unbelievers. NASA is not irretrievable though, there are still a few engineers that work there.

      151

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Bob,

        NASA isn’t the only place they’ve purged of opposition and replaced with yes-men. 197 top general officers have been sacked and replaced with the same kind within the the 3 military services. There’s nothing new in this by itself. A president or prime minister has the right to the advisors he wants. But the bad leader surrounds himself with bad advisors, not good ones. It is terrifying to think of the possibilities.

        The cricket is always smaller than Pinoccio.

        10

        • #
          bobl

          Didn’t know that Roy, I get most my US news from Doomberg, so it’s likely that hot pit of alarmist claptrap avoided that reporting. At least they get the stock index prices right ! I think though they need to put some half decent Engineers in charge of both the EPA ( eg to avoid simple traps like the EU Vacuum cleaner power limits) and NASA ( Ostensibly to do things with space and aeronautical Engineering instead of Muslim outreach – what a unique concept )

          When the conservatives get onto the treasury benches it seems to me that they are too timid to reverse the socialist changes made in law and the public service, and thus we get creeping communism. Already they want to herd us into urban gulags in the name of “Sustainability”, conservatives seem to be communist lite these days. I blame the lack of a secret vote in parliament, it makes politicians behave like sheep.

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I expect you really should want your MP’s vote known. The public needs to know how their representatives vote. The real problem is when the voters aren’t paying attention and aren’t informed about what’s going on in the world.

            The people we don’t want in power are the ones who like all the secrecy they can get.

            As much as I think you may be right about “sheep” behavior, I think the solution has to come from the voters. And they don’t pay enough attention to what’s being done.

            00

  • #
    diogenese2

    “is there any chance of someone on the inside…spilling the beans”
    This has already happened .. ‘FOIA’ in 2009 exposed the corruption and mendacity within the climate science establishment.Also several within the IPCC have revealed the bizarre processes by which the prime authority conducts its affairs, leading the raspberry lady to expose the utter systemic corruption of their “assessment reports”.
    So why does the charade still continue? It is because CAGW was always a political ideology. Science was used to support and promote the narrative but never to test it.
    This is why the ‘climategate’ exposure did not destroy the movement and we still struggle daily with unreason.
    Its nemesis will be political not scientific.
    “all political lives…end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and human affairs” (Enoch Powell)
    The same is true of political movements and this one is failing fast – not only due to the force of reason but by the contradictions within it, pitting its proponents against the
    developing world who have grown in strength whilst the proponents of the narrative have become impotent.
    There are daily signs that the political establishments are abandoning CAGW and its consequent policies (aussie first!).
    As any prop forward knows – when they are yielding – push harder.

    121

    • #
      ROM

      diogenese2 @ # 33

      Off topic but i couldn’t let diogenes2 post go past without a favourable comment.

      With your simple, ground level basic truths in your post above I think you have nailed quite a lot of symptoms and the down stream effects of the still developing situation in what has now become one of the most world wide economic and development damaging sciences that has ever existed.

      A science peopled by a species of empathy lacking, self centred, narrow minded, narrow viewed scientists who seem utterly incapable of ever appreciating the immense harm they have done and are continue to do to the advancement and development of most of the Earth’s peoples in continuing to promote their personal ideological and often paranoiac driven view [ or to be completely cynical about most of their motives, their far more likely, "monetary" driven view ] of a global apocalypse due supposedly in their belief [ note "belief", not "science" ] in the immense dangers of even allowing a very small increase in a low concentration, essential to all life atmospheric gas, that of CO2.

      Climate Science is a branch of the almost as equally development and advancement destroying, so called Environmental Sciences that has ever appeared in the annals of science history since the beginnings of the modern industrially based civilization some 300 years ago..

      No where through modern history has such a so called Science created such destruction of economic well being or has become the central main culprit for the destruction of so much wealth and the creation of so much unnecessary poverty and suffering and has become the prime reason for so many of today’s avoidable deaths both in the developed world and in the undeveloped world.
      All to supposedly save the planet from a fate for which those same climate and environmental scientists cannot find any definitive proof for or even identifiable beyond doubt scientific supportable substance for the claimed effects or for the supposed cause or for the downstream consequences in all of life, weather, climate and the Earth as a whole.

      Climate science along with large sections, in fact the greatest bulk of all of the so called Environmental Sciences are highly destructive and even deadly to economic development and to advancement of humankind at every level.

      “Science” is supposed to be about leading nations, peoples and our society towards an ever better life and increased well being.

      Nearly every other discipline in Science does just that, tries to improve or does improve the lot of humankind around the planet..

      All except Climate and most of Environmental Sciences.

      Climate Science and large parts of the Environmental Sciences have done exactly the opposite, they have made life much harder, increased suffering and created quite avoidable deaths in the climate and environmental scientists drive to implement Climate Science’s unproven and ideologically motivated and driven inhuman agenda.
      ________

      [ I have posted this previously in a number of high profile blogs and have only one "tongue in cheek" answer from "sophocles" that makes any positive points.

      His answer being "It sells papers."

      Question;

      After 25 years of very expensive, ever expansive publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where climate science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable or useful and useable benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ? ]

      ________

      But the populace in the nations most affected by the depridations of Climate and Environmental Science are waking up along with their political leaders who are finally becoming aware of the immense destruction of national goals and their populace’s well being that Climate Science and Environmental Sciences have inflicted on their peoples and nations.

      And to support that view the following very surpising news via the GWPF that signals a major shift in priorities is under way in the very home of the global warming, climate change, renewable energy promoting cult, the EU itself.

      EU Dismantles Its Climate Commission Amid Economic Struggles
      [ quoted ] European Union leaders announced they will be consolidating energy and environmental goals under a new commissioner, effectively axing the intergovernmental groups’ climate arm as green policies are making it harder for citizens to pay their power bills.

      [ more ]

      And then this also which is another very substantial nail in the renewable energy scamming industries drive to access ever more of the ordinary citizens hard earned.
      It is another major source of disillusionment in renewable energy in the heart of the the world’s current major renewable energy promoter, Germany, where disillusionment with the renewable energy industry along with an ever increasing percentage of other Europeans is on an increasingly rapid rise.
      _________________

      One for Tony of Oz in this case which really backs up everything Tony has posted on renewables , particularly wind renewables.

      From the NTZ blog

      Spiegel: Germany’s Large-Scale Offshore Windpark Dream Morphs Into An Engineering And Cost Nightmare –

      Opened last year  in August 2013.; Cost 400 million Euros [ AUD $710 million ]
      Has not produced power since except for a few days due to “frying” of voltage and AC / DC converters.
      The current losses from all the required converter systems must be huge.

      Global warming / climate change with the EU’s major down grading of it’s Climate Commission spells the ultimate death knell of the whole deadly Climate Science scam.

      And along with the death rattles of the Catastrophic Global warming faith goes the now clearly heard death rattles of the blood suckers of the Renewable Energy scamming industry.

      30

  • #
    scaper...

    A shame that the BOM’s 2011 independent panel link goes to a Lloyd article instead of the report.

    If one had access to the report one could lobby to have it realised. After all…nothing to hide if BOM is above board. Can anyone here link to the actual report?

    52

    • #

      Scarper, the ACORN link at the bottom of the post shows a tab called “expert Reviews

      Report of the Independent Peer Review Panel 4 September 2011.

      BOM responded to it.

      Good idea to add this link to the post though. Shall do.

      73

      • #
        Ian George

        Joanne
        From the IPRP report as given at 34.1 above – an interesting analysis.
        ‘The Panel finds that the approach and methodologies applied to ensure the homogeneity of the ACORNSAT data-set are amongst international best practices.
        Indeed, the Panel considers the Bureau to be at the forefront in this field. Internationally, the ACORN-SAT is the first national-scale homogenized data-set of daily minimum and maximum temperatures. It will be very
        useful for assessing changes in temperature extremes, in addition to changes in mean temperatures.
        Although a few countries are developing a similar data-set (e.g., Canada), none has gone as far as the Bureau has. Documentation of the ACORNSAT approach would be helpful for other countries to develop a national-scale homogenised daily temperature data-set.’

        Didn’t the BoM say it was following others’ world best practice?
        Did the BoM make this process up on its own? Mmmmm.

        81

      • #
        scaper...

        Thanks Jo.

        Now I’ve got some meat I can make a sandwich. I know that the Minister concerned is getting a lot of traffic on this issue, I’ll put it to him that he act on the recommendations.

        11

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Jo, I hope you and the others working to get full disclosure, keep up the pressure. There are two things that will make them act 1) Increasing pressure from the public to explain everything that they did including algorithms, computer code, and if the same exact procedures were used at all stations, and 2) the national government of Australia must threaten to cut BOM fund unless full transparency is made to the public and then make significant budget cuts at BOM if they do not follow the law.

    Bad publicity and budget cuts are the only way to get BOM’s attention and force compliance with the law.

    152

    • #
      bobl

      Well no, the way to bring the BOM to heal is to get the minister to call them out on the deception. While Hunt is there I can’t see that happening. The BOM should be audited, financially and for their data management practises by a sane group of brutally objective auditors.

      192

      • #
        bobl

        So Mr Red Thumb, you oppose brutally objective cross checking of the BOMs data and methods. The BOM should not be subject to the same treatment you and I are subject to every year in our tax returns? This is because they are “special” right?

        182

        • #
          the Griss

          As far as I can tell, content makes absolutely no difference to the poor little worms.

          My OT links at #14 to some music earned me 2 red thumbs. That’s just silly and childish.

          But I’m sure they do it because they luv us and look up to us for truth.

          … and really just want our attention…… Hi children ! :-)

          93

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Griss,

            They live in the woodwork (or worse) and come out to bite only when it’s dark. Then they scurry back into their holes lest they be discovered.

            Their bite is harmless and means you touched a nerve they didn’t want touched.

            I’d say you did well.

            11

  • #
    geran

    Another horror of all the Bad Science, from governments and institutions, is that our grandchildren will not be able to trust “institutional science”, even it eventually, somehow approaches reality.

    Our grandchildren will no longer have real science! (As they frolic in the snow….)

    82

  • #

    Here is a challenge for anyone who thinks the BoM data is easy to navigate.
    Find the temperature record for Cato Island or Cato reef.
    Here is a picture of it from Wiki (2003?).
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Cato_Island_Station.jpg
    Here are current observations from it.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60701/IDQ60701.94394.shtml
    or
    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94394.shtml

    52

  • #
    john robertson

    BOM leads to WOM leads to Canada’s gift to UN corruption.
    Maurice Strong.
    Sure it is just coincidence that these mystery Algore rhythms started to be used at national metrological institutions just after the creation of this UN creature, the world metrological Organization.
    The script seems to be being followed very well, unfortunately(for them) the world has ignored their cause.
    And exposed their corrupt practises for all to see.
    As the world diverges from the imaginary temperature record, panic spreads through the bureaucrats.

    82

  • #
    john robertson

    Duh WMO.

    32

  • #
    pat

    those commenting are not impressed!

    VIDEO: 12 Sept: UK Daily Mail: Sarah Griffiths: Piccadilly Pond and paddy fields outside Parliament: Artists imagine London in 2100 after climate change has taken its toll
    Artists have imagined how London’s landmarks may change in 15 years from now and much further in the future
    In different scenarios, global warming has caused flooding in the city and turned it into a desert
    Views from The Shard skyscraper have been created showing how planned buildings will transform the skyline in 2030
    These images are as realistic as possible and take into account planning permission for imminent skyscrapers
    Survey commissioned by The View From The Shard found 30% of Britons think capital will be unrecognisable by 2030
    Some also think that we won’t use paper money and that there will no no monarchy in just 15 years time
    PHOTO CAPTION: Here, Piccadilly Circus is under water, but is being put to good use with wind turbines generating power.
    PHOTO CAPTION: This is one of the most whimsical images created showing a paddy field just outside what is the Houses of Parliament.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2752312/Piccadilly-Pond-paddy-fields-outside-Parliament-Artist-imagines-London-2100-climate-change-taken-toll.html

    62

    • #

      You just have to admire the absolute irony depicted in those images.

      Look at the very first one, showing London all lit up.

      Just where do they think the humungous electrical power comes from that actually enables every one of those structures to be lit up, to have air inside them, to actually run London for 24 hours of every day. Scroll down and see even more of those megastructures being planned.

      You can only laugh here.

      These people have constructed images to show what it ….. might ….. look like, and in doing just that, they unwittingly keep showing they have no clue whatsoever about what is needed to keep the city operational.

      What a comedy.

      And check out the image with the wind towers, 19 of them, in that space. And all those solar dishes too. Oh, ho ho ho! That is so funny.

      Tony.

      122

    • #
      Tel

      Large parts of the UK Midlands used to be marsh some hundreds of years ago, until humans changed the local climate, using this amazing technology as drainage. Now they are much better places to live.

      70

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      The artists all picture life carrying on in a quite normal futuristic fashion. Where are all the torrid imaginary visions of the devastation predicted for the more than 2degC rise? Everything, although changed a little, looks quite ordinary. It doesn’t measure up to the horrors of the great fire of 1666, or the WW2 bombing, nothing like the plague of the 14th century. Who are all these timid artists that haven’t learned their lessons from Goya.

      60

    • #
      cohenite

      Great link; alarmists are delusional. They think life will continue as is if you get rid of the energy source.

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Life will certainly continue. But it won’t be the way it’s depicted.

        I don’t know the population of London but I suspect it’s more than large enough that it can’t possibly keep going more than a few days without tons of food and other necessities being brought in every day using transportation relying on fossil fuel. The future with renewable energy for any big city looks like a lot of dead bodies to deal with, not some sci fi utopia.

        20

        • #
          James Bradley

          What was not included were the effects of a number of disenfranchised and marginalized sub-cultures frustrated with years of higher costs, no work, poverty, constant blackouts, unclean water and a growing economic divide between the Green elite and just about everybody else – I’d portray that as quite the dystopia….

          10

  • #
    pat

    11 Sept: UPI: Daniel J. Graeber: Investment banks commit to climate financing
    More than $75 billion delivered since 2011.
    ADB Vice President for Sustainable Development Bindi Lohani said the six banks — the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and World Bank Group — were committed to financing for a low-carbon economy…
    “We will continue to invest $2 billion annually in clean energy and sharpen our focus on adaptation by including climate risk management in all projects,” he said in a statement…
    Warmer average global temperatures have been blamed for everything from increased flooding in the United Kingdom to threats to North American bird species…
    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/09/11/Investment-banks-commit-to-climate-financing/6761410442353/

    12 Sept: Devex: Jeff Tyson: World Bank: Carbon pricing ‘fundamental step’ to fight climate change
    As world leaders, mayors, CEOs, environmental advocates, civil society and other stakeholders get ready to attend the U.N. Climate Summit on Sept. 23 in New York, one of the main items on the agenda is which price to put on carbon pollution…
    Putting a price on carbon pollution is a “fundamental step” in the struggle against global warming, according to Rachel Kyte, vice president and special envoy for climate change at the Washington, D.C.-based financial institution…
    ***Companies from around the world have been invited to review the criteria and announce if they will adhere to it if they want to be featured at the U.N. Climate Summit.
    https://www.devex.com/news/world-bank-carbon-pricing-fundamental-step-to-fight-climate-change-84313

    ***and if you won’t “adhere”, you will be silenced?

    51

  • #
    thingadonta

    The reason they don’t release the computer codes is that they are applied ad hoc and subjectively.

    For stations that just don’t want to conform during a first pass, they have to introduce new measures such as detecting anomalous short term variations (such as might occur with weather) in order to justify a change.

    The BOM will argue tooth and nail that it can do whatever it likes with the stations, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, or more like O’Brien in 1984 saying he is holding up 5 fingers when he is actually holding up 4. The data must be made to conform.

    The data is simply tortured until it confesses to temperatures on the other side of the world.

    72

    • #
      Tim

      Then homogenize all that global ‘doctored’ data and you build a case for a warming planet and a universal Carbon Tax to save us all from catastrophic destruction.

      52

  • #
    MadJak

    It’s worth making it completely clear that we are only interested in the discovery of the truth. If they release their workings and algorithms and it’s clear that their logic is sound and unbiased – or even if their reasons for their data homogeneization are vald, then that’s fine. I for one will be happy to admit that I am wrong on any one of these points.

    If given valid information for an analysis to be made.

    However, those who wish to continue hiding their workings lack personal and professional integrity and as such, must not be trusted. They lose all credibility when behaving like this – particularly when they are funded by us the people who are asking for this information.

    In my opinion, any civillian taxpayer funded institution for whcih the safety of the countrys’ taxpayers must be, by law, forced to publish their workings – particularly on a matter of importance to their funders – us.

    Failure to do this should result in the immediate cessation of funding for any such institution.

    101

    • #
      Tel

      If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

      That’s what they say at the nudie scanners in the airpirt, anyhow.

      92

      • #
        MadJak

        Tel,

        I wonder if there was some sort of petitions from sceptics making it clear that we’re quite happy to accept we were wrong if after seeing the BOM methods we find that homogenisation is well justified etc etc etc. Maybe then they might release their working sand actually start a dialogue?

        I for one have been quite clear all along – I am happy to be proven wrong. Knowing what really is happenning and how to react is much more important to me than a bruised ego.

        If they’re so immature that they’re afraid of being critiqued, then seriously, they don’t belong in any academic or scientific realm, IMHO.

        The current situation is simply not an acceptable situation – for anyone.

        83

        • #
          NielsZoo

          It doesn’t make any difference when we accept valid adjustments. We have not converted to their faith in Mankind’s Destruction of Earth and they believe that anyone that is not 105% for them is a heathen and must be broken and converted. They want us silenced and dropped into the dungeon of the Climate Inquisition, tortured until we agree, profess and preach that 12ppmv = 4°C no matter what occurs in reality.

          41

  • #
    pat

    would this be an example of who the World Bank helps to finance “clean energy”?

    12 Sept: Bloomberg: Natalie Obiko Pearson: Morgan Stanley’s Continuum Raises India Wind Farm Loan
    Morgan Stanley-backed Continuum Wind Energy Pte. will get a $50 million loan from the World Bank Group’s private-sector financing arm (IFC)to build a wind farm in India…
    IFC’s loan will also help facilitate an additional $100 million of financing for the project from Yes Bank Ltd. (YES), according to the statement…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-12/morgan-stanley-s-continuum-raises-india-wind-farm-loan.html

    52

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Quote for today:
    “If by some miracle a prophet could describe the future exactly as it was going to take place, his predictions would sound so absurd, so farfetched, that everybody would laugh him to scorn.
    ‘Only if what I tell you appears absolutely unbelievable, have you any chance of visualizing the future as it really will happen.’”
    Arthur C. Clarke

    72

  • #
    cohenite

    A similar situation has/is occurring in New Zealand with the BOM equivalent, NIWA. In 2012 after the NIWA court hearing about the NZ temperature record the same advocates who support BOM and who work for BOM claimed NIWA had supplied the methodology to replicate their methods of homogenisation.

    For instance this from BOM scientist ‘bugsy’:

    If by ‘code’, you mean a list of what adjustments were made and what data they were made, then you only have to search the site, cohenite.

    For instance, here’s a list of adjustments detailing what was done to what data.

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf

    They also say that the raw data is available (free!), you only have to register to get a username and password.

    I have not bothered, but I’m sure you will want to.

    By the way, using this information the results can certainly be ‘replicated’, what they will not be is ‘duplicated’ (i.e. make an exact copy). You can either replicate their results, or apply your own adjustments the raw data (make sure they are justified for the time series you are adjusting!), and then you too can replicate the trend!

    I defy anyone to find any methodology/code there.

    Why the secrecy with alarmists?

    52

    • #
      Lord Jim

      By the way, using this information the results can certainly be ‘replicated’, what they will not be is ‘duplicated’ (i.e. make an exact copy).

      Eh? The point of repeatability is to get /the same result/.

      40

    • #
      NielsZoo

      I see no methodology at all other than a reference to using “statistical” methods and “established procedures” along with data from other stations. What I do find, unsurprisingly, is that 15 stations had 24 pre 1975 temperatures ranges adjusted down, 7 stations with ranges adjusted up (3 of those post 1996) and one mixed where pre 1943 was cooled and ’44 to ’75 were warmed.

      Looks suspiciously like a trend in itself. It’s certainly enough to warrant an independent review of the processes involved in why these changes were made to the data used for calculating trends from, supposedly, 7 (or 11) of these stations along with additional maritime data from a cited 1995 paper. Conveniently the paper is not easily available but a quick internet search shows it is cited in many pro AGW works including the EPA “Endangerment Finding” on carbon dioxide. No real surprise there either.

      They do say that the raw data is preserved and that’s a very good thing. Let’s hope it doesn’t get the NASA treatment.

      31

  • #
    Ceetee

    Hasn’t this happened before in other parts of the world?. Why can I smell the distinct odour of rat?.

    32

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Does Aus have more tamperature than temperature data?

    61

  • #
    John S.

    The lack of public code for BoM’s mysterious data adjustments and “homogenisations” is not the worst lapse. What’s far more egregious is the lack of serious scientific rationale for tampering with any actual measurements–whatever they may show. Accept or reject them as being regionally representantive, but don’t pretend that some algorithm can make them a better indicator of local reality.

    32

  • #
    Unmentionable

    This has been a stunning and relentless take-down of an organization which I foolishly once considered beyond reproach.

    The disturbing part of this is that when I lodge a flightplan and obtain an en-route and terminal weather briefing can I trust the data presented any more? Last summer I detected numerous times that the max temp broadcasts (to pilots) on the local airport ATIS, and the temp which the BOM subsequently reported that night, for the exact same airport sensor site, was routinely diverging by 2 to 3 degrees C, and up to even 4 degrees C, one day last January.

    So I can’t help but wonder what air traffic controllers working for Airservices or ADF controllers think of the BOM’s official daily max temp reporting, for it can not have escaped their general notice that BOM is consistently reporting significantly different max temps to what the ATIS broadcasts to pilots (upon which life and death decisions are made). So they must have noticed that the BOM’s max temps quoted on evening TV weather reports routinely diverge with the ATIS maximum temp which they broadcast to pilots that day.

    Apparently Airservices Australia are capable of getting the correct temp data to pilots accurately and consistently correct with hardly any effort but the BOM curiously struggles to read the same temp sensors at the very same recording sites. Somehow BOM continually read 2 or 3 degrees higher than the ATIS, and even 4 degrees C higher on day last January – the hottest day of the year according to BOM but the ATIS record said it most certainly wasn’t. Nice huh?

    And this pap is what’s going out to the public as the unvarnished truth each evening. But now more pilots are beginning to notice that the BOM’s temp reporting is often inconsistent with ATIS max temp values and are finally realizing that BOM are likewise using the very same sensor sites as most of the ATIS broadcast data is coming from. So what I now do is point this out to pilots to pay attention to this consistent divergence between daily ATIS max temps and the BOM’s officially reported max temperature for that day. This is a rather easy conversation because pilots are always talking about the weather, and they do actually pay attention and watch TV weather reports as well which contain the erroneous BOM max temp claims. Once they finally notice the divergence they will be shocked and they will not forget this.

    So I think BOM’s data fudging includes the real time data as well and this will also blow-up in their face at some point, then the full scope of BOM’s ideologically-driven wholesale temp record corruption will become too obvious to ignore or let slide any longer. At the moment it’s still mostly in the ‘unthinkable’ basket, for most people, but the ATIS data is always accurate, but BOM rarely is.

    When such clear and unaccountable organizational fudging of basic raw observation becomes routine and apparently is occurring even with the real-time data it becomes a very practical concern which goes public safety and basic decision-making.

    So it’s time to get people like air traffic controllers and pilots to note the daily substantial divergences between raw data they see each day and the data which BOM claims to be the maximum (and also minimums) for that day. If BOM can’t get the simple basics like reading a thermometer right or reporting it accurately, but Airservices constantly does get it right, all day, every day, at multiple airports for all pilot needs, then shouldn’t BOM be using the apparently far more accurate ATIS data records of daily max temps?

    Because even if you remove a decimal place and round it up or down to the nearest integer, the Airservices ATIS data record is still 1 to 2 degrees closer to reality on most days last Summer!

    How is that to be explained away? Instrumental error?

    Frankly we can only guess at what else BOM’s infestation of global warming ideologes have been doing unseen to the present-day data record as well. But I do now know they’re doing it. The key thing now is to make people far more aware that it’s going on, to expose the BOM’s present day data record as well.

    I suggest that any scanner owners out there begin recording their local ATIS airport weather frequency every day and maintain an archive of time-stamped recordings of the max and min broadcasts, then plot the ATIS max and mins, and the BOM’s max and mins for that day, at your local airport (if both are recorded at the same site that is) and contribute your findings each quarter so that we can begin to get a handle on just how widespread this real time BOM max temp record corruption is, as well. I suspect it will be commonplace but we wont know until people start recording the ATIS and checking the divergence trend.

    Because if we start doing this nationally I think we are going to see a sudden drop in all the daily maximums across the entire country, as BOM will become too afraid of getting caught out with yet more extremely dodgy fudging to the publicly-funded national temp data records.

    If we want the BOM to become accountable and to cut out the ideological smurfs that have infested it we’re going to have to drag them kicking and screaming to it the hard way.

    Frankly what would really assist this is if Airservices could supply ATIS log records under freedom of information so investigators could examine these and compare them nationally to the BOM data, as that would clarify the situation rather quickly. I’m guessing there will be resistance to this until it can be demonstrated that a systematic substantial divergence does exist between the national ATIS logs and BOMS max temp claims.

    Given what we know now about BOM’s abysmal ethics with regard to data reporting I don’t think we can rule-out a more concerted data corruption process in real time, so we need to develop such independent methods to cross check the claims, and the airservices ATIS logs seem to be one of the best avenues available for really boring down on a national level to investigate and chart BOMs recent temperature record for systematic divergence and fudging.

    It’s staggering that we should even have to go to such lengths to sort out basic facts from BOM fictions but this where their unethical behavior has landed us.

    00

    • #
      Unmentionable

      Last summer I detected numerous times that the max temp broadcasts (to pilots) on the local airport ATIS, and the temp which the BOM subsequently reported that night, for the exact same airport sensor site, was routinely diverging by 2 to 3 degrees C, and up to even 4 degrees C, one day last January.

      I should have pointed out here that this divergence in BOM’s record always diverged higher than the ATIS’s max temp, by 2, 3 or even 4 degrees C. It never diverged to a lower temperature than the ATIS.

      00

  • #
    Mervyn

    What BoM has been doing with temperature data is what New Zealand climate scientist, Peter Salinger, did with the temperature data at NIWA and lost his job over what became infamously known as “KIWIGATE”… fudging the data to create a false warming trend in New Zealand, which was not evident in the real temperature data of the New Zealand Met Office.

    10

  • #
    Gary Pearse

    Are there resources to take raw data from each thermometer station in the list and do a scientific analysis of it and create a new data base for Australia? It seems part of the pal review is to be found in BOM wanting to comply with their international temperature benders. Their seems to be international UEA inbreeding among those at the controls of climatology. Certainly there is in the US with NCAR etc.

    00