David Karoly knew he had to defend the BOM with regard to the hot questions about adjustments to Amberley, Bourke, and Rutherglen data. What he didn’t have were photos of historic equipment, maps of thermometer sites, or quotes from people who took observations. Instead he wielded the magic wand of “peer review” — whereupon questions asked in English are rendered invalid if they are printed in a newspaper instead of a trade-magazine.
Prof David Karoly, Climate Professional called people who ask for explanations poorly informed amateurs. In response, we Poorly Informed Climate Amateurs wonder what it takes to get Climate Professionals to inform us? Instead of hiding behind ‘peer review’, vague complex methods, and the glow of their academic aura, the professionals could act professional and explain exactly what they did to the data?
We discussed the mysterious transformation of Amberley and Rutherglen — where cooling trends became warming trends due to unrecorded site movements that were detected by thermometers hundreds of kilometers away. I also discussed how skeptical scientists have been asking for details for years but the BOM would not provide them. What we still don’t know is why thermometers in 1941 were recording temperatures nearly 2 degrees celcius too high at both Rutherglen and Amberley and why records this inaccurate are included in our national database? Nor do we understand why the error was not discovered for 70 years or why the BOM apparently didn’t ask the people who worked there at the time. We are grateful though, that so many RAAF planes at Amberley operated safely despite the poor equipment.
The articles by Graham Lloyd on Jennifer Marohasy’s analysis are generating debate.
Letters to The Australian 28th August 2014
Bill Johnston, former NSW natural resources research scientist, Cook, ACT
DAVID Karoly’s response is a contradiction. He is a well-known climate activist and editor-in-chief of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal. Independent peer-review or not, he is quoting his own stuff, which he published in the journal he edits.
His claim about amateurs is both silly and frustrating. We live in a marketing age and everybody should question everything. Joining dots is not science.
In the article he referred to, Karoly stitched together two sets of data. He chose to end one set, which was relatively continuous, in 1950. The second set, from 1910 to 2010, was the heavily homogenised Australian Climate Observations Reference Network — Surface Air Temperature data. Most ACORN-SAT series were derived by stitching together data from, for instance, now closed post offices and airports to form a single series. For some, gaps were filled using more distant stations. Karoly knows this.
He should also know that for his 1910 to 1950 comparison, most of the compared data sets were identical. They were long-term post office, pilot station and lighthouse data. Irrespective of homogenisation, close agreement could therefore be expected for those years.
That period of agreement, however, was not a reason to believe that data from 1950 to 2010, which was highly homogenised, would remain comparable.
Confounding his methodology, was that 1947 was an important climate-shift year. The worst drought ever known in Australia ended with a an exhausted, overgrazed and burnt-out Murray-Darling Basin in 1948.
Michael Asten, School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University, Melbourne. Vic
GRAHAM Lloyd’s article (“Amateurs are challenging BOM warming data”, 26/8) on Jennifer Marohasy’s study of homogenised temperature records in Australia, notes a comment by my colleague David Karoly to the effect that poorly informed amateurs are at fault, and suggests they submit their re-analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature records for peer review.
I would prefer Karoly first offer comment on the extraordinary examples of two weather stations (Rutherglen in Victoria and Amberley in Queensland) where raw data shows annual average minimum temperatures to have a flat or slight decrease over the past 100 years, but the data shows significant increasing temperature trends after application of the BOM’s homogenisation process, a necessary step to gain estimates of continent-wide average temperature changes.
The logical demand on any inference or projection of a data set is that it must first be consistent with the original data, and Karoly as an expert might well ask, as does Marohasy, what confidence do we have in homogenised data which fails this test?
Our confidence will increase if and when BOM publishes or supplies its homogenisation algorithms, a step which would be quite consistent with existing requirements of the better peer-reviewed journals.
Greg Buchanan, Niagara Park, NSW
DAVID Karoly calls for people who claim the BOM data adjustments are under suspicion should have their claims submitted to peer review. Would that be the same peer review process uncovered via the “climate-gate” emails? Unfortunately, since climate-gate, climate science, the peer review process and confidence in scientific experts has been damaged, possibly irreversibly.
I suggest BOM release all its data and adjustment methodologies to the amateurs out here in denier land so that they may review it for themselves.
Related information
- BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations “might” have moved!
Big adjustments? BOM says Rutherglen site shifted, former workers there say “No” - The Australian: Heat is on over weather bureau and Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures.
I was once told that if you couldn’t explain a concept to an intelligent layman, you probably didn’t understand it yourself. David Karoly, Come On Down!
911
You are absolutely correct about that. If nothing else, you need to be able to write it on paper or type it into the computer so that when you come back a few days or weeks later it still makes sense. If it doesn’t then your understanding is suspect.
Better by far if someone else can read it and it makes sense.
501
I’m beginning to enjoy the red thumbs. 🙂
61
> red thumbs
I’m curious about the point of those. If I look at a post like, say,
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/abc-invites-bom-and-marohasy-to-speak-bom-decline-marohasy-accepts-but-is-cut-off/
then there are no red thumbs. That’s because no-one from outside the walled garden has bothered comment. On this post (or, e.g. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/man-to-live-on-melting-iceberg-for-one-year-to-urge-climate-change-action-an-unthreaded-thread/), lots of red thumbs is a label for comments by me or others who don’t agree with your groupthink. Wouldn’t it be more convenient for us to wear a yellow star or similar, then you wouldn’t have to bother with the thumbs?
120
Sorry, but the yellow star is reserved for exceptional posts.
51
Actually, we all know what your “yellow star” reference is to. You are beyond contempt.
121
It is only people like you, John Cook, Al Gore, Barack Obama ad nauseam who wish to label skeptics with the yellow star of “climate denier”.
50
In my old country, people like you must wear the blue hat.
30
The WC should be wearing a straitjacket, not any sort of star.
And maybe a big black “L”, for loser, in the middle of his forehead.
Draw the “L” backward so he can read it every time he looks at himself in the mirror.
51
When I stop laughing I’m going to have a cup of tea and read it again.
Billy really is a silly and he doesn’t realise how much it shows.
Like the proverbial “dogs”.
Since I’m being trivial, that reminds me of a Kangaroo we saw in Saigon Zoo long time ago.
It was so hot and inactive that it’s generating equipment had descended so far they were almost dragging in the dirt.
Sticking out like a dogs.
KK
11
Connolley,
I think you don’t have a clue about this blog. There’s no closed club as you imply. And what would be much more convenient, not to mention much more honest, would be for those who want to dissent about something to have the courage of their conviction and say so, just as I’m doing now to you, instead of expressing anonymous disapproval.
As for you, you’re just one more arrogant ass pretending to be a big man when you haven’t the slightest idea what a big man is.
111
How right you are Roy.
Naah! That closed club would be those other blogs where those of us from our side of this debate do not even get to have our comments shown, or have them routinely censored, or taken down.
Funny how they come here, and then have the gall to complain that we give them red thumbs, and then proceed to take advantage of a host who gives them more opportunities than they would give any of us at those sites.
And also notice how they conveniently avoid Threads, Posts, and Comments that might cause them some embarrassment. (Hey! Look over there. Isn’t that Britney Spears?)
We give as good as we get here, and the Comments are for all to see. At those other sites, they just remove the Comment.
Tony.
141
“closed club” are your words, not mine. Clearly, comments here are open (unlike at WUWT, or BishopHill, where there is routine censorship). I assuced the commentators here of groupthink; of having closed minds.
> instead of expressing anonymous disapproval
Its good to see you expressing criticism of the many anon posters(the Griss, Backslider, Winston, etc etc) here who do little but sneer. However, whilst you use a name – “Roy Hogue” – that may even be your real name, you’re not thereby an identifiable person because the name is too common. Its a step away from anonyminity but it doesn’t identify you, the way I or our hostess are readily traceable to real identities.
> you haven’t the slightest idea what a big man is
https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/14978198772/
18
s/assuced/accused/
05
That tells me you haven’t been reading here very long because going back clear to the start of my experience with joannenova (2008) there have been long running debates and disagreements by regular contributors over all sorts of things to do with climate and other subjects not always on topic, which Jo for the most part will tolerate because she is by far the most gracious hostess on the Internet. So sorry, group-think doesn’t begin to be the truth. And a lot of us are simply angry at the ridiculous degree to which climate change alarm has been pushed and if it shows then maybe you should offer up well thought through arguments supported by real data that can show us why we’re wrong.
As for whether Roy Hogue is my real name, it is. It identifies me as uniquely as anyone’s name, as uniquely as yours identifies you. And the only thing that could add to that online would be a blog of my own that I could link to each comment I make. I don’t have one so that’s that.
If you find my name too common for your liking be glad it isn’t Smith or Jones, which are the most common names in the phone book. Roy is very uncommon compared with other names and neither Roy nor Hogue were choices I got to make and I’m stuck with them whether you like it or not.
Be glad even more that I have the courage and decency to put my name on what I say. That puts you and me in the same league, something you ought to appreciate.
Now, back to William Connolley. You remain an arrogant [snip ad hom – Mod]
20
I should add that I don’t ever click the red thumb.
10
Mod,
If you snip #1.1.1.1.2, then you should snip #1.1.1.1.6 (up above) also. Same statement there. And at this point I do think my opinion is right.
Roy
10
Oh dear, you poor WC… Do you need a hankie to dry those tears, little child ?
00
Yes, William,
And you have every right to be curious about the concepts of: counter-argument, dissent, different views, alternative opinions.
You see these concepts are verboten on sites such as Skaredscience and others sposored by proponents of global warming.
You see they are affected by censorship which has the affect of closing down a democratic debate and shutting freedom of speach allowing only the biased opinions of members of tax-payer funded personal interest groups.
130
I find that reference offensive, but not unexpected from the likes of you. Of course, as a member of the liberal (lower case ‘l’) left, you consider yourself far more moral than everyone else so you probably don’t give a stuff about any offense you cause.
21
You’re another of the anons that RH is criticising – why don’t you reply to him? As for offense: dahling, you’re a delicate flower. Review some of the other comments here. This blog has no policy against virulent attacks against other commentators, let alone comments like mine.
19
I’m not the one who invoked Godwin’s law [snip]
[snip.]
[snip]
00
It seems my post above proves you completely wrong on that point.
As for being an ‘anon’, I have a very good reason which I am not willing to share with you. Bit of a moot point really, I mean, how can we know if you are really William Connolley?
10
The statement was by Richard Feynman, and is found in the introduction to Feynman’s Lectures on Physics, Cal Tech 1961-1962. My copy is threadbare in places. Was part of his reason for agreeing to teach the two year introductory physics course in the first place. If he couldn’t explain it to freshmen, meant he did not really understand it himself.
Of course, being Feynman, he also commented that there were some topics where he regreted he had not been able to add anything new. An example of ‘new’ was his rigorous uBrownian motion ratchet demonstration of the Maxwell’s demon problem. There are hundreds of now legendary others. The Principle of Least Time and mirages, barium titanate capacitance, …
160
Rud Istvan
They’re are to be found online at http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
and links at
http://www.feynman.com/
and other places.
Also the videos are at http://www.youtube.com/user/FeynmanVideoLectures
70
The problem with Science is people do not understand what it is, and what it is about. Too many people believe it is about absolutes, when it is about possibles and approximations.
Science can only describe the universe that we experience in approximate ways, as time goes on our descriptions get closer to the truth, but we can never know for sure that we have an absolute truth.
150
There is a similar debate currently going on in Cosmology, with the concept of “The Electric Universe”. A lot of the cosmological “givens” seem to have exceptions that prove the rule, one of which is magnetism. How and why is it generated in the cosmos? You need electricity to generate magnetism (and vise-versa), but nobody has yet come up with a generally accepted hypothesis. Search for “Electric Universe” on YouTube – fascinating stuff.
81
Understanding electricity, magnetism, and time – today’s imponderables.
All three together give you e/m radiation.
Good luck trying to sort any or all of them out.
50
You left out gravity.
20
A good general overview of electric universe theories can be found at the following link, which itself has links within it for further articles in greater depth for those so inclined.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Electric%20Universe.htm
40
I learned that from, of all places, an FBI SSA who said that anything technical you should write clearly enough to be understood by your grandmother.
120
What if she is dead?
61
Find the nearest “Medium” and send it that way. May cost a quid but it would be worth the try to see what the response was. 🙂
50
Ok… If your grandmother were to read it she would understand it. Geez… picky picky.
10
Not meant to be NZ – OK, just a bit picky. Deep sigh 🙂
00
Sorry.
Some things are just irresistible.
20
Kevin, having worked as a finance manager in two universities, I always found that the academics who were true masters or mistresses (am I allowed to say that?)of their disciplines could explain them to intelligent lay people. The “would be could be”s could only mumble unintelligent garbage.
130
The fact is that this BOM system is so very like the “secret women’s business” in the Hindmarsh Island scam cooked up by Labor leaders looking to buy some votes.
The evidence had to be kept sealed, as it could never pass inspection in the light of day. Still we mere fools were expected to believe it.
80
In June 2012 Karoly demonstrated his lack of understanding of statistics when the paper “Evidence of unusual late 20th Century warming from an Australian reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis (David Karoly co-author) had to be withdrawn from the Journal of Climate after being examined on by amateurs at Climate Audit. In June 2010 Karoly was outed for his enthusiastic support the “Butterfly” paper which which he co-authored see here http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/butterflies-fly-early-as-planet.html (follow the links to down load the paper). Karoly is a political activist and member of the socialist political Wentworth group of Concerned Scientists. He has demonstrated he has no understanding engineering science and little skill in mathematics and statistics (unless he is deliberately using false information) Maybe he thinks that over 2 years people forget his past indiscretions. “you can fool some people some of the time but you can not fool everyone all the time”
140
It’s called “progressive Enlightenment liberalism”?
00
“I suggest BOM release all its data and adjustment methodologies to the amateurs out here in denier land so that they may review it for themselves.”
==============
Let’s work from strength, no need to lure them into our lair :),
although the opposite might work too.
351
Shades of the old guilds. If you knew how to do something you joined the guild and everyone protected that knowledge from the masses, lest the masses suddenly discover they could do it for themselves.
Unfortunately these knuckleheads work for the taxpayers one way or another and disclosure of their whole operation is incumbent on them. Will it take angry taxpayers knocking on their doors with picks and shovels in hand before they wise up?
I don’t know whether to hope yes or no anymore. But this is repeated far too often.
401
Guilds!
Of course, that is what the gatekeepers of climate statistics have modelled themselves on.
181
… and I thought it was the Court Jester.
100
Climate Scientists are to Climatology, what Apothecaries were to Pharmacists?
That sort of puts into perspective.
80
I think you are being hard on the apothecaries..
80
Hi,
I love the treehouse series!
02
They are not gatekeepers for science. They are more gatekeepers for the “progressive Enlightenment liberalism”? And one of the things they strive for is the feeling of “end of history”.
00
Peer Review? So much depends on open Peer Review,
not gate-keeping-coterie-Peer-Review. Instead
evience-without-fear-or-favour-Peer-Review. Say,
is that too much to ask?
Beth the serf.
20
Give me a ‘d’! ‘Evidence.’
10
All the big companies and corporations employ data analysts and business analysts whose job it is to provide valuable information from the historical data.
If they fail, the company might go down. Information is key to these organisations and I have two points
1. It is many times more complex than the BOM situation
2. It is not peer reviewed
291
Add to EternalOptimist list:
3. It is independently audited!
Why is BOM so scared of providing the details of their temperature adjustments? Surely if they are confident they are robust, they have nothing to fear.
471
I am not sure that an audit is required, but
They do have to be clear and transparent, especially to their customers (thats us, the taxpayer)
Personally, I would not sack the Bommers for using a dodgy algorithm or for having an agenda, thats all human nature
but I would sack them for treating their customers with contempt. Thats a sin too far
222
The lesson I learned from Paul Keating; where he said on many occasions that he wanted Bob Hawks seat and Bob kept him on as second in charge because he was indeed competent. Is that people with ambition (or noble purpose) will succeed by hook or by crook.
For me, they are morally corrupt and must be removed.
142
Greg: And before you remove them, make them crunch the real raw data temperatures under the watchful eye of competent non-BOM scientists who know how data should be handled and then make them present it to the public on national television along with their fudged charts to show the people how they corrupted the real temperatures. And make all the BOM ‘climatologists’ stand on stage in front of the camera while this presentation is made under the watchful eye of competent non-BOM scientists. Make them admit to their temperature manipulation on live TV.
70
That is not going to happen – to many people know where the bodies are buried in regard to who said what to whom to achieve the required political results.
30
Perhaps Australia, the UK, and US all ought to fire 80-90% of BOMs, NOAA, and NASA and keep the 20% or so to maintain the buildings, field instruments, computer systems, etc.
Then with the 80% or so of the salary funding left they might solicit bids from honest scientists in the private sector (not including NGOs living out of the global warming scam)and task them with creating reports of all raw data time series, adjusted time series, all algorithms and codes and their authors, and all internal emails, other computer files, and other pertinent information they ferret out in their analyses.
These reports should be subject to real in-depth review, and produce the final reports. The drafts of the final reports, review comments, final reports, and all supporting information then could be published in hard copy and online. Finally, the homogenizers should be held accountable for their actions at their own expense.
Sorry for the long rant, but nothing but full transparency of everything these agencies and their employees have done will ever straighten out and bring light to their work
50
Nice idea. Here in the States Obama’s dumped thousands of qualified folks out of the military and those are folks who watch weather and climate like their lives depended on it… ’cause it did. That would be my first pool of new hires.
30
Exactly
It reeks of the Wizard of Oz, whereby this massive image on the screen thundred out authroatively & loudy, but when you pulled back the screen there was a small man with a microphone and amplifier….”Do not look behind the screen” it thundered…..too late….
This is one of those few moments where “if you have nothing to hide…” applies
The modern age is as much about teaching people what propaganda is and how to stop being influenced by it. Teaching children especially to question everything is the best failsafe against them being hoodwicked by the authorities later in life.
120
fwiw here’s some climate gate email disclosures from a programmer Harry
From CBS News:
Courier Mail
In addition to (the leaked CRU) e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named “Harry”—possibly the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris—was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:
I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know – time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
Sorry the link covered the whole post, then I edited and mistakenly hid it. Now the link is fixed – Jo
80
All the big companies and corporations employ data analysts and business analysts whose job it is to provide valuable information from the historical data.
If they fail, the company might go down. Information is key to these organisations and I have two points
1. It is many times more complex than the BOM situation
2. It is not peer reviewed
But Corporations can only record data about what has occurred within the scope of the enterprise, and then usually only in terms of numeric data. It is useful for audit and post-mortem purposes.
However it cannot be used to inform the future, unless the causes of variation in the historic data can be identified and quantified, and shown to be still present in the marketplace.
Extrapolating past performance, in order to predict future performance, leads to anarchy.
Same thing applies to Climate Science.
30
I doubt the “complexity” aspect. Climate – or weather really – is profoundly complex in the mathematical sense. Hark back to Edward Lorenz and the discovery of the first “strange attractors.”
The problem with peer review isn’t the peers; it is the anonymity. Very few journals conduct peer review in a fashion that reveals potential conflicts. The approach permits agenda driven cliques to form and then control publication. Karoly’s “amateur” remark was beyond stupid since many of the critics like Jennifer Marohasy are working scientists themselves. In fact that attitude is a socially isolating one and will serve further entrench and politicize what should be a scientific debate.
50
Why should they explain their temperature revisions to you when
you are only going to try to find something wrong with it?
[I think some people missed the deliberate tongue in cheek 🙂 – Mod]
7210
Prof. Phil Jones?
Or just paraphrasing one of the founders of alarmist theory?
100
A few mistaken red thumbs there 🙂
Well said Eugene. 🙂
262
Post # 5
Eugene WR Gallun
August 28, 2014 at 5:47 am · Reply;
Why should they explain their temperature revisions to you when you are only going to try to find something wrong with it?
_________
As you can see in the below comments nothing much has changed in the academic arrogance and condescending attitudes of some warmunists climate scientists towards the interested those who are seeking further information .
The same arrogance and condescension shown by Phil Jones back in 2004 is still there and still highly visible from those in climate science as we are seeing right here with Karoly, another of those who seem to believe they are intellectually far superior to any of those knuckle draggers out there whom they in their hubris regard as far below them in status and intellect and whom they don’t wish to associate with, whilst very conveniently forgetting of course that those very same low street level knuckle draggers are paying the entire amounts of their very lucrative salaries and grants and the costs of the comfortable quarters they occupy during their working hours.
For those who may not be familiar with this quote of “Eugenes” in his post # 5 and who unfortunately gave him a red thumb, here is the history of that quote as quoted from Steve McIntyres Climate Audit ;
__________
Background
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) of the U.S. Department of Energy has been heavily involved in global warming research since the early 1980s and began their sponsorship of Phil Jones and CRU at that time. Station data and documentation for the early studies(TR022 and TR027) on 2873 stations (NDP-020) was made available around 1990. Since then, there have been several iterations of the dataset, including an increase in the number of stations from 2873 to 5129. However, to my knowledge, there has been no updating of the archive on station documentation. Limited updating of the archive of station data was done in 1994 but again, to my knowledge, nothing in the last decade – thus almost nothing since IPCC came on the scene and transformed the politics of the issue.
In 2003, a major update of the CRU gridded dataset took place, but again, there was no updating of the archive of station data. In July 2004, Warwick Hughes asked Jones:
Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ? Note, I am not asking about the CRU gridded data which I can see on your web site.
Jones refused, citing supposed confidentiality restrictions from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) – one of the organizations that constituted IPCC. Hughes then attempted twice to obtain the station data from WMO, failing to obtain any reply to either inquiry. After WMO failed to reply, in Feb. 2005, Hughes again emailed Jones requesting the data. On Feb. 21, 2005, Jones replied:
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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. There is IPR to consider.
_________________
For the Climate Gate e-mails, the URL is ; http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
130
This relates to my just posted comment which is in moderation for some reason .
It is the Climate Gate “Harry Read Me txt files ” where Harry, the guy tasked with trying to make sense of the CRU’s data system gets totally frustrated at the incredibly bad state of CRU’s data and computation systems.
And this don’t forget was CRU, the scientists who were right at the heart of and the main [ Mann, Briffa, Jones , Trenberth, Santer etc etc ] proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ideology in the early 2000’s and who were THE main influences and contributors to the IPPCC’s AR3 with it’s “Hokey Schtick” cover.
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file
130
Must be some people came late to the party.
Everyone who has not yet done so, should read the Climategate papers, assuming they can still be found on the Interdweebs.
80
Made me laugh out loud.
A green thumb from me!
110
Isn’t the point about ‘tongue in cheek’ that everyone isn’t supposed to see it ?
10
I have a couple of questions of my own for the BOM, but one’s a trick, it’s not really a question, it’s a self evident proof:
Q.1 Why does it persist in relying on climate models and peer reviewed papers that did not predict the ‘Pause’?
Q.2 Why does it persist in reporting each new theory to explain the ‘Pause’ when it insists there isn’t one?
Q.3 Why does it persist in transparent excuses for homogenising-down historical raw data that has the effect of distorting an actual cooling trend?
420
Q.2 Why does it persist in reporting each new theory to explain the ‘Pause’ when it insists there isn’t one?
Check this latest entry:
Temperature hiatus periods to become a ‘thing of the past’ as emissions soar
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/temperature-hiatus-periods-to-become-a-thing-of-the-past-as-emissions-soar-20140827-1091p3.html
. . .
The audacity of these climate frauds is astounding.
After failing to predict the
pausehiatus, then denying there was a‘pause’hiatus, they now claim to know it will stop.They just can’t predict when.
210
Fifteen years according to those on the defensive warming front.
“The key to the slowdown in global warming in recent years could lie in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans where excess heat is being stored – not the Pacific Ocean as has previously been suggested, according to new research.But the finding suggests that a naturally occurring ocean cycle burying the heat will flip in around 15 years’ time, causing global temperature rises to accelerate again.”
http://gu.com/p/4xvxb
00
A recent quote from warmist, Dr Richard Betts, UKMO:
Well may we ask the same question of our BoM … it is patently clear that the GCM’s they rely on are not fit for purpose. Dr Judith Curry concurs:
So if the GCM’s are not fit for purpose, then it follows that neither is the theory and the algorithms used by the BoM to falsify the Australian temperature record … unless, of course, they set out to knowingly and deliberately corrupt the record.
190
Link for Dr.JC quote
40
Why not a FOI request for the computer program. As a programmer, I would love to see how it works
[My understanding is that previous FOI requests to BOM have been rejected, and the rejection upheld by the judiciary, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. Which is why a request went to the Auditor General for an independent Audit of BOM- Mod]
261
Good luck with that, Mod. Have made an inquiry, it has been looked into and there appears to be no evidence. This issue will go nowhere, I’m afraid.
80
Yes it went to the Auditor-general for an audit as Jo says; but the audit never happened as I recall. Instead, BoM threw out the old data set and adopted the shonky ACORN confabulation.
An audit is still needed. And it needs to include am analysis of the homogenization algorithm.
There is no other way short of a Parliamentary enquiry or a Royal Commission.
80
On the morning radio lately they’ve been talking about the results of the immunisation program. Our local area is running at 89% of the population under (4 years old I think it was).
This morning I heard on the radio that they are going to do an inquiry into why the Sunshine Coast has such a low uptake of immunisations.
They can do when they want to, real quick.
40
Hmm…seems “the fix” is Establishment-wide then?
30
Scaper said:
But do you believe that there is no evidence?
00
Oh ho…so it *really* is a matter of the whole thing being money driven then?
Got ’em…..
70
I suspect that “commercial sensitivity” in this case encompasses the possibility of outing their programmers as feckless nincompoops.
Seen it far too often where the confidentiality of source code in software packagaes is not to protect it from being stolen and used used by others, but to conceal the evils within.
40
A bit like NSA backdoors in popular OSes?
00
Science is based on observation, experiment and measurement. There have to be compelling reasons to alter the original data, and if there are, the trends of the original and modified data should be the same. In this case for Rutherglen and Amberley cooling trends have been changed to warming trends. Is this the tip of the iceberg, or are there other sites with the same pattern, or warming trends change to cooling trends? How many? There is also the need to justify the exclusion of old records collected in the 1800’s. Were they that unreliable?
In view of the importance of accurate data to base government policy the data should be impeccable, otherwise it is subject to derision as now appears to be the case. How can anyone have any confidence with the data when significant anomalies have been shown, and they are greater than the global temperature trend of less than a degree Celsius anyhow?
With increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and stationary global temperature for a decade and a half now, the whole “carbon industry” is looking pretty sick but still the politicians, media, continue with their rhetoric about saving the planet which belies their scientific illiteracy.
I heard the whole panel of Q & A including big Clive talking of this theme a week or so ago and the need to do something for our future generations. What indeed, a carbon tax will achieve naught as there is no correlation, and other hypotheses, such as that of Svensmark may explain temperature changes, but how do we stop cosmic rays reaching our planet?
How long will the AGW theory will maintain its momentum is difficult to say, but now, at least, evidence of its flaws are appearing in the media. But at what cost to us all? Trillions!
280
There are many other places all over the world, and done by many other official agencies than BOM. Reykjavik done by NOAA. Maine done by NOAA. Sulina Romania. De Bilt Netherlands ( home of KNMI). Luling Texas. All of Switzerland done by Meteoschweiz. World done by NASA GISS ( see a previous Jo post for one of several pieces of evidence). All now provided as ammunition to Dr. Marohasy in the form of an essay from from my next book, forward by Dr. Judith Curry of GIT, our US ClimateEtc equivalent of Joannenova.com.au.
120
Rud, If you want to update your copy of Richard Feynman’s 6 Easy Pieces,Penguin Books reprinted this title in 2008. popularpeguins.com A$9.95
10
Rud Istvan
Are all the country’s agencies you mention primarily in the weather forecasting busness?
If so from the list you have given has the weather forecasting improved or not from having such adjustments?
What is BOMs primary role? To supply accurate a timely weather forecasts? Will these adjustment improve forecasting of weather? If not why are they being done?
Surely such a question has already been addressed, and the answer is on record?
30
Re weather forecasting, NOAA is and NASA is not. But both are big into climate change and CAGW. Hansen ran the NASA GISS temperature program. Gavin Schmidt took over upon his retirement. NOAA produces GHCN, which HadCruT relies upon. All have demonstrably the same problems as BOM ACORN. NOAA also runs NODC, which has fiddled the raw ARGO data available from KNMI. As we say here, a real can of worms.
20
ECMWF are the best. Even better (if you’re a wacko; if you’re normal, it makes no difference), they don’t do climate.
06
Interesting this “amateur” tag game. Is this the same Karoly, that along with steig, smeared warming all over the Antarctic. Didn’t a few “amateurs” make them disappear, retract, “place on hold” that complete “peer reviewed” paper. The man is short on memory and long on arrogance. Already having been made a fool by amateurs, he comes back for more…amazing.
It’s actually pretty simple Mr Karoly…just answer the question…and this time, think before you speak so there won’t have to be a retraction later.
310
I believe a quote I saw once is along the lines of “a dedicated amatuer will out do a seasoned professisonal, every time”.
They should be worried – we will succeed in exposing it all.
60
Karoly is noted for serial Gergiscide: The withdrawal of papers published in haste, apparently without due diligence.
50
I wouldn’t trust GL to quote DK correctly, but DK is right; you are poorly informed amateurs. Just look at your (lack of) response to Nick Stokes.
> everybody should question everything
No. This is a stupid idea. Its so stupid that no-one believes it, not even Bill Johnston who wrote it. BJ doesn’t question the existence of “the Australian”, or of DK, or of the existence of Amberley. What BJ actually questions is certainly very closely selected items that happen to fit his prejudices (which prejudices are yet another thing that neither he nor any of you will question). And yet you reproduce this unthinking junk unthinkingly.
799
I am a professional. I admit I am poorly informed though, but only beacuse BOM are hiding their workings
530
Me too.
50
Apparently BOM have been in control of the Amberley site for over 40 years.
They DO NOT have any record of a site change.
BOM is never wrong, right ? Therefore, there WAS NO SITE CHANGE. !!!
Nick’s little fakery of using 3 stations, none of which would bear much resemblance to Amberley, just doesn’t wash.
Ipswich has been a rapidly expanding urban area.
Brisbane is on the coast heavily effected by the Pacific Ocean
Samford is also on the eastern side of the hills.
NONE of these climates will be similar to Amberley.
The whole “site-change” things is a FABRICATION and a FRAUD.
Right down your alley, hey WC !!
602
What puerile waffle. Ipswich and rapidly expanding urban area – come on – the town is much the same as it always was and the few new areas are greener.
There are other regional stations one could have picked as well.
And climate of SEQ is affected by the Pacific Ocean – gee nobody knew that – do you ever think before you rant.
Amberley is in a basin very atypical of Ipswich – much colder in winter and much warmer in summers. The drome itself has been scraped and changed dramatically over the years. With major changes in albedo.
Stokes is right on the money. Screech on. We know who the frauds are.
221
Yep, looks like you are one of those frauds.
roflmao…. Thank you, for confirming that Amberley is very different even from Ipswich.. well done 🙂
11
“Ipswich and rapidly expanding urban area – come on – the town is much the same as it always was “
And just so we can all see what a “wrong” statement this is, here are the populations statistics for Ipswich from census data. The big step from 1981 to 2001 was because of the inclusion of the, also rapidly expanding, Moreton Shire.
As you can plainly see, this is a rapidly growing urban area.
Many new big buildings, large UHI effect..
No wonder Nick chose it to homogenise Amberley Base against. 🙂
How to create a warming trend in one easy step.!
1861……3287
1871……4820
1891……7625
1911……9528
1921…..20,517
1954….38,953
1966….54,531
1981…..73,229
2001….123,355
2006…140,181
2011….166,904
Methinks this Diver has had a few too many attacks of the bends. ! 🙂
10
“do you ever think before you rant”
Do you ever think… at all ?
Or are you just another brain-washed non-entity.?
11
Too right!
10
As usual with W,C comments made, but nothing actually said. Why do your comments almost never have any useful content?
370
It’s called ILST syndrome where I come from
90
To make WC feel usefully content.
20
Also amusing to see how WC immediately played the man in his first line. Par for the course for someone unable to form a decent argument. Follow this up with a meaningless red herring and run back to the stoat burrow to post a snippy blog. Ho hum.
60
This is not a ‘stupid idea’ it is perfect common sense. Obviously it is not meant literally, but what one should question certainly /includes/ one own prejudices (as Socrates says, ‘know thyself’). Indeed, I would have thought questioning one’s own prejudices as well as the scientific dogma of the day (one of Bacon’s ‘Idols of the Theatre’) was a basic part of being a scientist.
In regard to Amberley we can consider two possibilities: 1. No questions were asked and BOM continues in its erroneous assumption that the site was moved; 2. Questions are asked and BOM’s assumption of a site move is shown to be fallacious.
Which or 1 or 2 is the more scientific? The one that sustains dogmatic thinking about ‘worlds best practice’? Or the one that shows there are errors in assumptions made by BOM?
250
> its erroneous assumption that the site was moved
Notice how you’re not prepared to question that, or your own prejudices. There’s another, fairly obvious possibility: that there really is an inhomogeneity in the Amberley record, and the BoM were correct to adjust it.
467
“and the BoM were correct to adjust it”
…. with absolutely ZERO evidence, because it didn’t fit their whim.
That is called FRAUD !!
482
Except if this were true [the site was moved], there would be a record they could produce to support it, and it would have been in the notes they made for the ACORN data set. They can’t just assumed it must have happened with zero evidence! That would be amateurish!
Keep up WMC and stop throwing out those hopeful ‘hail Marys’ in support of your alarmist buddies.
330
Notice how you answer with a non sequitur?
The claim that there was necessarily a site move is clearly shown to be an erroneous assumption by BOM.
It does /not/ follow from this that that the site did not need ‘adjusting’ because of instrument error.
/However/ it does not need adjusting by reason of a site move.
The fact that BOM would wheel out /a clearly wrong reason/ for a site adjustment should not inspire anyone with confidence.
310
Although I don’t agree with some of the statements you assert are facts, I’m nonetheless happy to see you state so clearly that you disagree that “everybody should question everything”. And to think, only a comment or two above you were defending it.
354
A comment or two ago I said, “Obviously it is not meant literally…” – i.e. “questioning everything” does not entail Pyrrhic scepticism.
240
But certainly EVERYTHING from BOM should be questioned.
They have proven themselves completely unreliable and unscientific.
Which is why the WC is trying to support them.
403
the Griss says:
August 28, 2014 at 7:39 am
But certainly EVERYTHING from BOM should be questioned.
They have proven themselves completely unreliable and unscientific.
Which is why the WC is trying to support them.
___________________________________
Indeed Griss. And the very fact that he is supporting them without bringing anything new to the table tells you just how unscientific both he and BoM are.
212
The words JUNK SCIENCE come to mind.
How sad after so many hours and so many tax payer dollars this is the best they can do.
90
As someone who works for government I find the BoM serial obfuscation and reticence with regard FoI requests abhorrent. Sure there are avenues to weasel out of such requests, but carte blanche denial of information on the basis of vague comments regarding privacy or sensitivity are weak … appallingly so.
I love the way they cite how expensive it is to get information digitized in their report. That is prime grade BS. We are digitizing tonnes of files in our department every year, and our records staff number but a few humble souls. I tell you what is really expensive … basing multi-billion dollar policies on shonky data. That is inexcusable.
161
“that there really is an inhomogeneity in the Amberley record, and the BoM were correct to adjust it.”
AKA “Notice how you’re not prepared to question that, or your own prejudices”
Oops pot/kettle Bill.
220
When you face your prejudices in respect to your tampering with Wikipedia, we’ll take you seriously. Until then you are a hypocritical troll.
320
Streetcred. Your comment is the best one I have seen re WC & Wikipedia.
50
WC says “and the BoM were correct to adjust it.” well not according to the BOM’s service charter http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/services_policy/serchart.shtml when upon reading it appears they have been negligent in most areas outlined.
‘What you can expect from us – Quality-we will: • Ensure that all our services have a sound scientific basis.’ I would have thought that the National Meteorological Service for Australia had an understanding of the importance of the positioning of a Stevenson Screen let alone keeping track of ‘official’ ones.
A failure in this textbook task will not ensure a sound scientific basis.
190
William, have you ever been to Amberley?
You trot out nonsense, you are ok with killing people through poverty, burning edible food as ethanol, forcing grannies into fuel poverty, you even want to lower the temperature back toward a depth that killed 50% of europe, and reduce the gas that plants rely on to survive and thereby feed us, reducing the food supply, No doubt you are against GM crops, and intense agriculture using fertilisers too. Do you really hate your species, humanity so much?
281
In a word – yes. They do.
The reality is the people behind the scenes really do hate humanity – they are termianlly genocidal in their little black hearts, and think nothing of the deaths of millions to protect their mythical “Gaia”. This is Nazism in its truest form, recycled through the green movement.
They have a form of collctive psychosis, that surfaces as an anti-human occultist religion. This is why they see death of humasn as “benevolent” and follow occultists like Blavatsky seriously. Blavatsky advoctaed the UN as the main vehicle for all this.
80
> you are ok with… burning edible food as ethanol
You haven’t got a clue what I think about biofuels. As usual for you lot, the answer is readily available, and easy to find, and not the one that fits your prejudices. But you’d rather make things up than check the facts.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/10/04/biofuels-again/
014
No WC, that site is where they dump all the leftovers, after processing.
61
Hmm, all the other tbings to kill people you’re ok with then, you’re ok with indigenous Africans being removed from their lands or killed to make way for carbon offset forests? How about spending nearly a Trillion dollars on solar panels and windmills instead of medicine, you ok with that? You ok with building windmills to prevent cyclones in the Phillipines or would it perhaps be better to build cyclone shelters there?
Your myopic vision is kinda sad, much more important things to do for humanity at the moment than worry about a mythical warming we couldn’t do anything about if we wanted. Did you know for example that at a climate sensitivity of 3.2 an ETS as efficient as Rudds would cost 0.5 quadrillion dollars per annum to aleviate just 1 degree of warming, and if the sensitivity is lower say 1.5 deg per doubling that figure would be 1 Quadrillion dollars per annum
It’s just math William, it’s easy stuff to check this ludicrous bovine excrement. None of it stacks up, nothing I have ever checked has.
90
And the really silly thing is that an extra degree of warming in the upper latitudes (which is where it would occur) would actually be HIGHLY BENEFICIAL.
Just like raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 600 or 700ppm would be HIGHLY BENEFICIAL.
This dumb attempt to restrict CO2 emissions is probably one of the most stupid things humans have ever done.
Thank goodness it isn’t working very well.
61
You’re still just making things up and fighting strawmen, because you’re too weak to engage with reality. What a dull world you must live in – surrounded by your own imagination instead of the real world. On subsidising renewables, no, I prefer a carbon tax: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/06/carbon-tax-now-1/ or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/12/22/solat-panels/
015
The only strawman around here is YOU.
And that straw is mouldy and decaying… sullage.
“surrounded by your own imagination instead of the real world.”
Self analysis, well done. !! Look deeper and try not to spew.
You have zero idea of reality because your mind is so WARP by your own ego and what you imagine you once were.
Your continual links to your own putrid, worthless site shows this to be the truth.
71
to WC at 10.4.1.7.2
… and the Socialist/Fascist underpinnings jump right up to the surface. Please enlighten us as to how increasing the prices of food, fuel, fertilizer, ores, electricity, medicine, housing and everything else dependent on the price of reliable power is good for us? I’m in Florida where hundreds of thousands of people move when they retire as our weather is nice most of the year and it’s less expensive to live. Millions live in poverty in urban areas that freeze solid in winter. Millions more in Africa could benefit from less expensive fertilizers, grain, medicine, building materials and the list goes on. How does a carbon tax help any of them? It does not. How does a carbon tax hurt them? That list is far too long for a post.
Why do you and your short sighted ilk keep bleating about taxes, fees, credits/offsets that will do nothing but enrich the oligarchies in government and the UN at the cost of eliminating the chance at a decent life for billions of people? Is there any possible justification for that? You know what, don’t answer that last question. I’m tired of hearing the same unsubstantiated garbage about “saving” the planet for our children. Your actions and those of your cohorts speak volumes… you care only for yourself, your self importance and your delusional superiority.
60
> Socialist/Fascist… Please enlighten us
Its entirely orthodox theory: internalising externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Even libertarians like it (well, some do: libertarians are a broad church and don’t agree on anything, and more than economists do).
You do know at least the basics of std economic theory, don’t you?
114
Ok then Gillards Carbon tax places the cost of 1 degree of mitigation at 300 trillion per annum, yep that’s better then. Totally unworkable, imagine what could be done if just 1% of that were spent on third world poverty, or building coal plants in Africa.
Face it William your beliefs on this supports an effective death sentence to millioms. It immoral to spend so much on useless windmills and solar panels while people are dying from cancer, aids, malaria and even measels. Much more important things to spend money on than your little crusade.
40
William,
Have you not wondered why the regulars here seem to steadfastly avoid going to your site. Even though you steadfastly include a helpful link to your latest burble?
Perhaps it is because we would prefer to be surrounded by our own imaginations, rather than wading through your strange illogic.
You have obviously developed some form of negative charisma. You should try patenting it.
80
> why the regulars here seem to steadfastly avoid going to your site
I’ve no idea whether they come or not. I don’t track visits.
Quite a few people loudly and repeatedly proclaim that they don’t visit. Their why is obvious: they prefer a warm comfy site where they can be surrounded by people who agree with them, and not be disturbed by dissident opinions.
But you do realise that these links aren’t for you, don’t you? They’re for the lurkers. Most sites have far more people who read and never comment. I wouldn’t bother comment here if I was only talking to “the regulars”, it would be pointless.
111
No. They prefer a blog which actually tolerates dissenting opinion and isn’t run by an arrogant tool
80
No the WC, those links to you putrid Stoat site are for your ego.
That is their only purpose.
You know that your life and slimy opinions have become worthless and meaningless, and its hurting you.
Get over yourself.
21
Ahhhh, the “it’s possible” defense. Sure, (almost) anything is “possible”, however unlikely.
But, in the case, the facts are… there is absolutely no evidence that the site was moved. None, nada, zip. In fact, all of the available evidence is to the contrary.
Therefore, we have no reasonable scientific basis for adjusting the data based on some entirely theoretical (I would say wishful) notion that the site was relocated.
It stinks of confirmation bias.
140
There is no reason for the inhomogeneity. Try looking at BOMs explanation it is fanciful. With raw temperature data the only way you know it is “odd” is from the raw data of nearby weather stations, and then comparing with known events (resiting, urbanisation, new equipment etc.). This has been looked at a few days ago.
You consistently lack logic and reject the understanding of the experts.
90
WC
Karoly is the amateur here and you must surely be his stooge for supporting him. He and his peer reviewers tried to suppress the medieval warm period and were forced to take down this paper… J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, 2012, pp. 120518103842003-. DOI. Lots of ducking for cover ensued
Flushed!
423
I think McIntyre nailed the paper’s lousy statistics, not the peer reviewer’s. Surprise.
I believe Mr Karoly has a PhD in mathematics!
151
Well then, that school should be deregistered.
90
Actually SC, I suspect that Karoly thought he could get away with the fudging because his ego told him he was “the best”.
Always seems to be an “ego” thing with these guys. !!
A PhD is the start of learning, not the end.
140
” poorly informed amateurs” pointing out the poor quality of your life’s work. Oh the indignity!
240
Nick Stokes has been responded to.
He has given no case for a data adjustment, except that BOM wanted to adjust it because they didn’t like it..
414
Two of the sites used by Nick are large urban areas that have grown considerable since the 1970’s.
If anything, the stable, un-UHI affected Amberley record should have been used to adjust Ipswich to have a more realistic downwards trend.
392
Um, Amberley is not likely to be unaffected by UHI, recent temperatures there should be reduced maybe 0.5 – 1 deg. The Urban heat island for the Ipswich/Brisbane conglomerate ends further west than there about Walloon. Amberley Air base is also considersbly changed since WW11 with many more buildings and bitumen on site, However essentially you are correct in that Amberley is less contaminated by UHI than almost all the surrounding stations except maybe Gatton. I would not say uncontaminated though, it IS an airport you know!
110
The more you look at it, Ipswich and Brisbane are probably the two sites that you would choose if you wanted to intentionally create a warming trend in the neighbouring Amberley site.
Thanks for showing us this, Nick 😉
It give a pointer as to how BOM works. 🙂
293
Spot on Griss.
BTW Will and Nick still haven’t explained away the BOM lies about the site at Rutherglen. They’ve been rather silent about that inconvenient truth (TM)
290
This is just dumb. The issue is whether there was a discontinuity at Amberley in 1980. It has nothing to to with recent development, UHI or whatever. It is detecting a discontinuity.
You make completely uninformed claims about dissimilarity in climate, with no evidence. The fact is, as my plots show, that for that decade temperatures in Samford, Ipswich and Brisbane track very well. Amberley is the odd one out. By adding a simple step change correction, Amberley lines up too.
211
Any real scientist would say, “Now that is interesting, I wonder why that site is noticeably different?”
That is the way discoveries are made, qualified and quantified, papers produced, and science advanced.
At least, that is the way in any real science.
In Climate Science (TM) that is not the case. Outliers must not only be ignored, but homogenised out of existence, or otherwise covered up.
Is it any wonder why Climate Science (TM) spawns so much criticism from real scientists and other professionals.
110
Watching our car temp gauge on the way north from Melbourne was interesting this evening. 16C in Kew at about 6pm; 10C in Lilydale; 10C over most of the way through Healesville to the top of the Black Spur; 7C in Narbethong and hovering between 6 and 7 C thereafter. It’s cold and clear now…perhaps we’ll have a good frost again tonight as we did early today. I relate this as there were large differences we encountered over short distances in a short time.
20
Holy cow Annie, how did you possibly survive a life threatening 10.0C temperature variation when any-more than a 2.0C average global temperature variation is going to be apocalyptic?
70
RW, its obvious that Nick never was a scientist, just a data molester.
21
Meant thumbs down…touch screen slip again. 🙁
01
Nice heading for your post, Nick !!
You should put it as a warning on all your posts.
20
“You make completely uninformed claims about dissimilarity in climate, with no evidence.”
And you assume totally uninformed that these places are homogenous. That is rubbish, they most definitely are not.
What you are doing is trying to obliterate any proof that they are different.
You should go back to school and study some basic geography.
Maybe get some common-sense into that brain-wash scone of yours !!
11
Brisbane and Samford are on the east of the hills. Different geography zone. They should not be used for homogenisation.
Ipswich was undergoing rapid development in the 1970-80’s. Ipswich weather station stopped reporting in 1994.. Why ?
It is FAR MORE LIKELY that something happened to Ipswich weather station which caused it to read high.. eg a building cutting the breeze or something.
It seems that the proper adjustment should have been to push the post 1980 Ipswich data downwards.
Before 1980, the Ipswich data should also be tilted down slightly to counteract UHI effects.
This would then be homogeneous with the general downward trend seen in many places to the west of the ranges.
21
ps.. It seems that temperature data for Ipswich only started in 1965. Much shorter than the Amberley record.
11
WMC you begin your comment wearing your own obvious bias on your sleeve: “I wouldn’t trust GL to quote DK correctly”
Why is this, to date there is no evidence that Graham Lloyd has misquoted anyone. So you have no reason to make such a statement.
Then you support David Karoly’s announcement from on high “you are poorly informed amateurs”
Well WMC, we are using the same data that BOM, CSIRO and many scientist use unquestioningly when writing their scientific articles, advice to politicians and peer reviewed research. The difference is we ‘amateurs’ are finding obvious flaws in the data which the BOM cannot explain. Or when they try to explain, their explanations are easily found to be wanting. Either outright wrong or at least without scientific support.
So if we are poorly informed amateurs, that should make you even more concerned for the ‘professionals’ you so vigorously and predictably support.
Then you go off on a silly analogy to ‘prove’ we are amateurs because we didn’t attack the line “everybody should question everything”. You say Dr Bill Johnston didn’t question ” the existence of “the Australian”, or of DK, or of the existence of Amberley.”
Yours is a laughable grotesque attempt to derail the logical and very justified questioning of the the BOM Acorn data set, by asking “how do we know we aren’t all just dreaming this”!
Yet you claim it is us with the blinding prejudices simply because you can’t bear the thought that all those years of work deleting and re-editing entries at Wiki supporting the part of climate science who are prepared to make the data fit their theories was a complete waste of time. Part of your life down the drain and being shown up for what it was.
Don’t lecture us on ‘prejudice’ WMC!
532
Basic investigation concept – ‘Let the Facts Speak for Themselves’:
Observers claim BOM manipulated historical raw temperature data to show a warming trend.
Search for historical raw data is is difficult as records are obscured or deleted by BOM.
Achival records are found and persusal of archival raw data records show a cooling trend.
Observers question BOM about alteration of historical data.
BOM claims differnces because of modern satellite data, but is unable to produce evidence and then amends its own explanation.
Observers question BOM about substantial specific inconsistencies in the new explanation.
BOM now claims specific inconsistencies reflect physical changes to specific data collection units.
Observers evidence indicates physical changes as stated by BOM did not occur.
291
If it looks like bovine byproduct, smells like bovine byproduct, tastes like bovine byproduct, then it probably is bovine byproduct.
Be careful not to stand in it.
40
As pointman correctly notes in his latest blog entry about the climate zombies:
“They were suddenly emerging out of the stifling humidity of their warmist hellfire holes in ever greater numbers, and as if through some pathetic compulsion to once again become a force in the blogosphere, attempting to mob the perimeter defences of any blog that looked vulnerable.”
And, so, @jonova, there is Dr. William Connelley, (for a doctor he is) a.k.a. “the stoat”
~ ~ ~
Dr Connelley’s latest effort at his blog claims “Roy Spencer jumps the shark” (don’t forget to thank jonova for that jump in traffic)
Come to Sydney, Dr Connelley where, according to your fellow UN-IPCC 97% consensus climate scientists,
you can jump sharks in the streets:
Quoting 2007, Michael Archer, the dean of the science faculty at Sydney’s University of New South Wales;
“[With the ice sheets at the poles and Greenland melting] the sea levels will be 100 meters (330 feet) higher than they are today. Forget Venice. I mean we’re talking about sharks in the middle of (downtown) Sydney.”
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=2866985&page=1
. . .
Apocalyptic?
Shark Jumping?
Keep up the good work, Dr Connelley.
280
Selling the climate apocalypse is getting to be hard work. So much so, it is almost becoming an apocalypse all of its own! I love the irony.
70
Karoly will say anything to keep the alarmist show on the road.
Too bad for him the wheels are coming off the bandwagon.
Karoly is not a serious scientist.
331
Oh, come on. Be reasonable. That makes him sound like a joke.
Hmm? … Carry on …
20
The adjustments/homogenisations are surely peer reviewed and available some how, so why doesn’t BoM tell where to find the procedures and methodologies.
260
The methods used for homogenisation are in the peer reviewed literature, all ready and waiting for you to bother go look for them. And the BoM tells you which ones they’ve used for ACORN. http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf is sitting there waiting for you to read it. But rather than actually look for it, you’d rather whinge about BoM not spoon feeding you.
557
How about instead of hand waving you quote the chapter and verse of the BOM booklet that specifically says that Amberley data was adjusted by x because of a site move.
412
I’ve read the ‘peer reviewed METHOD’. What we are looking for here is EVIDENCE that it has been applied!
It’s all very well to keep telling us they used peer reviewed best practice, but why can’t they explain specifically on a site by site basis how adjustments were made using that method. It should be so simple. It should be there somewhere on a simple database. Instead we just get statements like ‘maybe the station was moved’ even though the BOM record doesn’t indicate that!
You really are grasping at straws WMC.
362
There was a time when Scientists took notes of every step in a process, so it could be replicated …
But that was pre-Post Normal Science.
20
A very impressive document, so all the BoM have to do is publish the list of methods and associated parameters that were applied to the sites in question, so folks can understand how cooling became warming. If they can’t or won’t do that then some will regard it as a doctor waving a medical textbook at an angry uncured patient.
220
For what its worth, the link provided by WC makes the point that the homgenisation was a one off intensive manual effort.
It is feasible that it could be automated. in the future
120
Automate it… Oh No !!!
As Nick pointed out, they need to be able to choose the sites they homogenise to.
Automation would have sites in totally different geographic and climate situations being put against each other, unthinkingly.
Oh wait.. that’s what Nick did. !!
Did he think about which sites to use.. or did he NOT think? !!
Interesting question, that goes to the very heart of the homogenisation process.
Auto selection is stupid and unscientific….
….. deliberate gaming of the system.. is FRAUD !!
262
So Nick, which are you…
incompetent ….
or a fraudster… 🙂
202
I am not quite so dismissive of automation.
What becomes clearer is that there was a massive manual (subjective) data take on exercise. how was that checked ?
the amendements themselves do not appear to have an audit trail with versioning.
that is a worry.
my caveat is that one persons justifiable amendment is another persons fiddle.
100
When I did engineering at QIT. All data obtained from observation during the performance of an experiment was recorded. There was always outlier data points, inevitably, due to human operation of recording equipment. THE CURVE OF BEST FIT WAS DRAWN ON THE PLOTTED GRAPH…the data was never massaged to fit the curve. The formula was derived from the curve and then tested against theory.
What BOM is doing is exactly this, they are massaging their data to fit their theory. It is wrong! Karoly is a fool if he thinks he can browbeat a change in thinking.
371
Good lord!
Homogenisation in and of itself is NOT the problem.
Of course it has its uses!
The problem lies with the underlying assumptions for homogenising this data.
If the assumptions are incorrect then the results are also likely to be incorrect.
It’s not ‘rocket science’ WC.
Us Aussies are a sufficiently educated bunch to understand the calculations of a mean and do it for ourselves. Most of us could do it by the time we reached high school.
Quite clearly the published trends at these sites is attributable to the homogenisation and not the recorded temps.
If the assumptions underlying that homogenisation are WRONG then Jennifer Marohasy and Ken and others are entirely correct that the data has been corrupted.
Speculating WHY is another issue altogether.
Karoly et al are attempting to side step the actual question . . .which is a very simple question.
That’s not a good look IMHO.
330
William,
Would that be the same peer reviewed literature that failed to predict the ‘Pause’ and the same peer reviewed literature that relied on CO2 based warming models that failed proving CO2 is not a factor, or would that be the peer reviewed literature that disdclaims the ‘Pause’ by acknowledging 37, 38… now 39 new theories for the missing heat that caused the ‘Pause’?
240
I’ve just had a look through the document Will. In amongst all the waffle I noticed the following in table 6 on pg 71:
Of 331 adjustments “supported by metadata”, 279 were because of alleged site moves.
As we’ve seen from Jo’s latest posts, BOM have either lied about site moves or made unjustified assumptions. Table 6 shows that roughly 84% of adjustments were made because of ‘alleged’ site moves.
In other words, the BOM adjusted data is a crock of sh*t.
260
Well, yes they are. And they contain a fundamental logical flaw. Can you spot it? Hint. Scrutinize BEST station 166900, changed from no trend to warming. The BEST algorithm contains at least some of the same buried faulty assumptions as provably BOM ACORN, NASA GISS, and NOAA GHCN v2 ‘PHA’.
Facts are stubborn things, Dr. Connelly. They do not die because you seek to disappear them on Wikipedia. That you suppose they might because you used to be able to speaks volumes. But not about facts.
230
Except the methods are NOT objective young padwada, the BOM needs to disclose the exact nature of those changes and the deltas calculated for each adjustment, otherwise we dont know where subjective assesment was applied or for example when the BOM imagines station moves to have happened.
Since the bods at the BOM work for ME, the ever suffering taxpayer, don’t you think I have the right to demand they justify themselves?
One more point here, peer review is NOT part of the scientific method, it is how periodicals avoid having an expert on every topic they publish about, it is a pre publishing check for article quality and is part of the publishing process not the scientific process. All that matters in science, William, is who is correct. What his/her qualification are or who read the article, make no difference to that, if you are right then you’re right, and if you are wrong then you’re wrong. Having a PHD doesn’t make one right, nor does missing one make one wrong, in fact I can disprove several papers conclusively wrong with less than 5 minutes worth of math.
140
Real Peer Review is an integral part of the scientific process. Look back at the correspondence of the great scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries and they regularly ran their work by others before it ended up in a book. That was actual review of actual work by actual scientists. What the academic press has done is create a generation of climate “scientists” (among other disciplines) who believe their work is validated because someone else hired by a magazine read their paper and agreed with it. We need to change the name of that particular process to something that reflects the fact that all it is now is having a paper read (or more likely scanned) by someone in the same field who almost always already agrees with the author. I think we should start calling it what it really is: Pre-Publication Confirmation Bias Conformation because that appears to be all that’s happening to the pro CAGW papers. Write a paper that toes the line and someone else that toes the line will make sure your line toeing is in lockstep with the rest of your “peers.”
00
> the great scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries and they regularly ran their work by others
Careful: you’re drifting off message. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/
> someone else hired by a magazine
You’re showing your ignorance. Reviewers in the scientific press aren’t paid.
> who almost always already agrees with the author
Again, you’re showing your ignorance. Talk to any actual scientist and they’ll tell you what a pain peer review can be, because of objections the referees make. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/20/peer-review/
07
Oh the pain, Will, the pain…
00
No, it’s not, the original journals had resident experts who checked papers (Editorial review), but with broad periodicals this became expensive and unweildy, peer review was born. Peer review is not integral to the scientific method at all, it is an editorial review step that is part of the publishing process.
Peer review didn’t contribute to schottky’s discovery…. he built a transistor, it worked! Peer review didn’t invent graphene, it just helped get the spelling mistakes out of the journal article published about the discovery.
00
You are off the mark here Niels. In fact I think the peer review process might actually work better if expert reviewers were ‘hired’. That is if we can’t have editors of specialised journals who are sufficiently competent in the field to cull out the obvious chaff, and then allow readers of the journal to do the real peer review.
I have peer reviewed papers myself and it is a pain in the butt which you squeeze in to your busy schedule. It is a process which is bound to suffer from confirmation bias and whatever the opposite to that is. Meaning if you generally agree with the principals of the paper you will easily miss mistakes. If you don’t you might find some where none exist!
A major problem is that we know peer reviewers rarely check the data – they assume it is both genuine and accurate. We know that because obvious flaws have gotten through the review process and that many authors don’t provide the data so it can be checked and many journals don’t require it to be readily accessible.
There is also a strong suggestion which I don’t think is without reason that those who are prepared to act as peer reviewers are more likely to get their own papers reviewed (and passed) more readily; in addition to papers written by others which they put forward or recommend. This is a natural result of having unpaid reviewers where journal editors are beholden on the goodwill of the reviewers.
That problem lead to the Climate Gate exposed situation where climate alarmist scientists who were regular reviewers were able to hold sway over editors, get editors sacked, and make it virtually impossible for skeptical scientists to get published.
00
I can buy that. My biggest problem with the “mainstream” climate science community is that the term “peer review” has been warped into the climate version of a Professional Engineer’s Stamp on a set of drawings. As if their work was checked two or three times by many people as real lives and property depend on them being accurate. These climate guys say “peer reviewed” as if that alone proves their pet theory is correct and the good Lord has pointed to them and said “you are right and anyone who disagrees is a sinner.” They remind me of the Lord Kelvin character (brilliantly played by Jim Broadbent) in the 2004 version of “Around the World in 80 Days” where he pontificates that proof isn’t required… they are the Royal Academy of Science! Unfortunately, for better or worse, that’s my current opinion of “peer review’ when it comes to most of the CAGW “research” I’ve seen.
I like your idea for a compensated reviewer but I doubt that any of these publications are going to spend the money… but it would be a step in the right direction. If a theory or conclusion is wrong the feedback from publishing the paper is where that gets stomped on by your peers. The actual publication review should work like you’ve proposed. I’m far more concerned, not just with the mistakes but with the actual fraud that seems to be happening in supposedly reviewed research.
Every bit of work I do is checked by another engineer. I’m a stickler for doing my due diligence because I make mistakes. I expect my peers to check everything I do to find my errors just as I do with their work. That all gets done before we release a design or start fabrication and especially if someone else is using our data as a basis for their own work. (Like governments using research to justify destroying our economies.) When I was in school I had someone else read my work (every chance I had) before I submitted it to my prof’s and would gladly do the same for my fellow students. I also expected honest appraisals of my work and I gave the same.
Why can’t the majority of our “climate scientists” see that critical review is what makes your work better?
10
It is not the methods but instead the methodology that is being questioned. If you do not know what methodology is, then possibly you missed class the day it was discussed. I realize it is fashionable in some scientific circles to confound methods and methodology, but this is what happens when you do. No one seems to be able to explain just why temperature records from 1913 should be altered downward nearly 2 degrees C. That is, no methodological justification has been offered. To further confound the issue, the individual refusing to provide the methodological justification on the grounds that mere amateurs won’t understand, is known to hold a theoretical viewpoint which the unadjusted raw data does not support, but which the adjusted data DOES support.
70
It is incredibly simple, when people use the arguments of, “you’re an amateur, you need to be a professional to understand this stuff,” then you know with 100% certainty that someone has something to hide.
In this instance, when you then also throw in the highly dubious defence of pal review, you then know for sure that the “something to hide” is not only very serious, but that some very serious people want it to remain hidden forever.
Bottom Line: There is something very rotten here and a lot more digging is required.
When the time eventually comes to stop digging, I think we shall find that even the most sceptical of sceptics among us will be surprised by what has been uncovered.
411
And when the likes of the WC get involved.. you KNOW something STINKS !!!
342
The reason why WC trolls here so often will become immediately apparent if you access his blog ‘Stoat’.
“Sad” is the obvious word that comes to mind.
190
” if you access his blog ‘Stoat’”
make sure you have a spew-bag ready before you go to that sewer !
182
Ghastly stuff. It’s up there with Cafe Whispers and the luvvie group thinkers inhabitants!
131
We should all be appreciative of WMC’s input here.
It is clear to most of us who have followed this story a long time, that BOM have made adjustments to the temperature record which:
1. Adds an overall warming trend
2. Does so by artificially cooling the past
3. Thus making the claimed ‘record high temperatures’ of recent times only achievable by adjusting down the records of the past.
But an occasional reader of this site might not have read all the evidence which shows this is the case and that the BOM have not provided any proof that their adjustments were actually done using scientific best practice.
So the inane statements and questions from the master adjuster himself, WMC, helps us tease out the facts so less regular readers will understand that the BOM Acorn data set has been built on a house of cards. Had that not been the case, BOM would be ready to reveal it’s solid foundations rather than simply bring in cheerleaders like David Karoly to say yes they used peer reviewed methods.
WMC pointing us to the documented peer review methodology, http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf is like a builder waving the building codes at you. It is not proof the builder has built to code. But he should be prepared to have his building inspected by an independent party to ensure the building does meet code.
WMC has allowed us to make it clear that BOM appear to have so little confidence in the construction of ACORN to ‘code’ that they dare not have anyone do an independent inspection.
542
best post i have read on any blog in a long time.explains the situation perfectly .
90
“Peer review” appears to be mainly a smokescreen here. Yes, no doubt the general methods and algorithms being used have been peer reviewed and published, but …
The BOM should have full traceability of their published data back to the raw data, with detailed justifications for each algorithm used at each site. It should be like a doctor keeping records for each patient. If such traceability does not exist then the organisation is not Fit For Purpose, and taxpayers (regardless of their beliefs about AGW) should be demanding it.
140
It is traceable. BOM have been in change of the Amberley site for over 40 years.
There is no record of a site change.
Therefore there wasn’t one.
So any adjustment of the data is a FABRICATION.
232
It’s not only about peer-review, or homogenization. Look at the graph from Amberley in the previous article. There is actually no reason for any homogenization at all if you read the definition. Homogenization should be used after a detection of a break in the series which is statistically ‘safe’. But there is no break in the series at all. This is all in the shadows as, let’s say there is a natural step of warming of one degree then the temperature continue with the same trend. Then they will change the temperature record because there is a break in the series which should actually be there. So to be able to any of this they has to also record a change at the site and what is the change. They also should have some documented reason for the adjustment made, like a shorter time series running simultaneous. Without this it’s just guesswork and we now know how they will use the technique to serve a purpose.
50
You want to revisit the “Harry-read-me.txt.” The big problem is that there are so many stations that it is too costly to correct data problems by hand. Instead the various agencies that mangle climate data have instituted automated systems to scan and “correct” data where “problems” are “found.” That in itself is not so bad. What is a problem is that the new “data” apparently has been subjected to little or no “ground truthing.” In the USHCN system it is now known that there are an unknown number of “zombie” stations that are closed, but which still seem to be accumulating data. Worse in some ways, there are station “moves” that are mythical. A station on Long Island was moved around over a quarter of a mile according to NOAA data, but has never been moved. The sole change was the replacement of the Stevenson screened shelter with an AWS system which was located about 3 to 4 meters away from the older instrument shelter. NOAA records showed three locations for this station and each move justified additional “adjustment.” So, in short the first and for most problem with the available data processing is quality control. Following that are the problems of why adjustments might be needed and how these adjustments would be implemented.
50
How interesting…This from the Bureau of Meteorology response to recommendations of the Independent Peer Review Panel
The above response is the most recent posting on the ACORN-SAT site and the question has to be asked when will the final set be released?
170
I’m concerned about “pending re-evaluation of the inhomogeneities and applied corrections”. This reads as though they’re assuming an error.
There may indeed by errors, but a site read by human eye twice daily to be in error needs some good justification. One reading may be in error, but a series going on for years I will not believe. There must be some other explanation for a step jump in a temperature series.
90
It still amazes that anyone thinks that in a country as vast and climate-diverse as Australia, that temperature records should be homogeneous. !!
201
These are the same people that analyze an oblate spheroidal planet with surface comprised of oceans, land masses, ice, vegetation, atmospheric clouds and fairly strong magnetic fields and assume that it can be modeled as a perfectly circular, planar black body radiator. I have to assume from that that they are more than capable of ignoring or misunderstanding an extremely wide variety of natural processes if they don’t fit the notion they’re trying to prove at the moment.
170
Great comment NielsZoo, thanks.
40
I am thinking that they must have broken laws along the way can they be charged and put before a judge if so who do we have to tell in order to get that started. The fact is people who live and die by the weather and climate ie fishermen , farmers ,miners, should have a case I would think.
131
“Professor Karoly said a recent independent analysis by him of the temperature data for southeast Australia from 1860 to 2010 had been published in the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal after anonymous peer-review”
I was stunned when I read in the original article Karoly say “anonymous peer review”, as a defence of his speculation.
I cant help wondering how I would go in my workplace if my boss asked me “how you going with that work” and I said “you don’t need to know, its been anonymously peer reviewed”. I would expect to be seeking employment shortly after.
But this is the beauty of the world occupied by the likes of Flannery, Karoly, Steffan, Bandt, Milne, Gore etc etc You can say what you want, achieve absolutely nothing in your life and suck the public purse while your doing it. Then when your bored you can go into the MSM and insult those who work for a living, threaten their jobs and claim intellectual and moral superiority while doing it.
Karoly has placed himself squarely in the nonsense opinion camp and his views can now be safely dismissed in the debate.
511
Hear Hear!
182
It would be far more credible if Karoly was to answer the questions rather than attack the questioner.
Secrets? What? The BOM is owned and paid for by the Australia Public. Nothing is sacred. They do not work for the IPCC or their peers overseas or some network of meteorologist. The BOM works for the Australian public who pay the wages and all the costs. We want answers. We can understand the answers. Are we seriously going to see commercial patents on averaging temperatures from the BOM? Is this a secretive organization operating independently on its own agenda? When did the weather, the single most important topic of conversation, become a state secret?
Can the calculation of an average temperature be so hard? This is addition and multiplication at best! Should the computer program be more than a few lines? If it is a big job, is someone trying to get the a correct, fair and reasonable answer or modify the data to fit a complex model? If so, are we trying to model the whole climate or are we trying to measure the temperature. Has reporting of temperatures ever been so fraught with mathematical complexity? Besides, how do you average Cape York and Tasmania anyway? And why? Is the data being modified to fit the theories? If so, this is not science.
Whatever anyone thinks of the very idea of a single temperature for the planet or even for Australia, the way in which it has been calculated should be transparent. Commercial secrets! Bollocks.
210
Correct in all respects TdeF. So why are we so hamstrung with the BOM (and the CSIRO for that matter) who act as though they are a secret government agency like the CIA or ASIO? The problem is clearly lack of interest on the part of our political leaders. They can easily force such arrogant organisations to reveal the truth if they wanted to. If we are to make such organisations reveal the truth we need to convince, in fact demand that the incumbent PM do something. Otherwise we are wasting our time, unless someone has a spare few million to fight it in the court system.
80
I would correct you there TdeF. BOM is undoubtedly owned and paid for by poor Aussie public, however they work for Big Green, and have done so for years. All those grants and jobs need BOM’s peer-reviewed data to back them up, you know.
130
Not only is Science is based on observation, experiment and measurement, as Robert O states, upthread, but it requires publication. The goal of publication is not, mirabile dictu, simply personal aggrandizement, but to facilitate REPLICATION, the acid test of hypothesis and experiment. IF IT CAN’T BE REPLICATED, IT’S NOT SCIENCE.
Failure to include full methodology reduces BoM publications to irrelevance, no matter who wrote them, no matter who or how many peer reviewed them, nor how great their egos.
300
Actually the failure of BOM to publish all computer modelling methods, justifications for corruption of data and every assumption they make, shows negligence .
They have failed to perform their jobs.
Sack the lot.
151
Yes, it’s very negligent. However I’d only sack the negligent ones, for the most part their weather forecasting and hydrological monitoring is pretty good. I’d just get them out of the 100 year crytal ball gazing business.
91
The militant wing or the political wing? Seriously, I would expect the rank and file just do their work- and that includes all the observers who do great work taking actual measurements!
30
Yes true science is based on observational and experimental evidence that can be repeated. That’s why climate science is not a true science. It can’t be repeated in the lab or elsewhere, like say the experiment of simple harmonic motion or Ohm’s Law. The climate scientists base their results on computer models that are not only incomplete and contain many assumptions that are questionable at best, they have failed to reproduce the observational evidence of today and the recent past. The leaders of climate science who neglect such obvious discrepancies and continue to peddle the AGW hoax are more like the high priests of some theological or religious group. It’s not science but scientism. Science is the search for the truth always with a skeptical mind whereas scientism is arrogant and dogmatic peddling a cause that’s not related to real science. In other words, scientism transforms true science into an ideology, which is the opposite to what true science is supposed to be about. It’s time to call modern climate science that’s peddled so much in the public media these days as scientism, not science. I understand I will get some opposition to the view. Some would say what about true climate studies or the science of say how the Universe came about? Theories like the various Big Bangs are neither directly observable no repeatable (perhaps yet). Yes such work is indeed true science. The study of the Universe and its origin is another branch of science that requires analysis, study and interpretation of the available evidence which is not repeatable, which often leads to any number of theories, some of which contradict others, as is the case of the various Big Bang theories. This is much like forensic science in a crime scene (unless a video or true witness is involved). So, in the case of climate science, they can’t reproduce the observed climate changes in the recent past so their models have no value in predicting the future changes with any degree of accuracy. So, the climate scientists, in particular those peddling the AGW theme are not performing any form of real science, be it observational/experiential or forensic. They are peddling scientism.
80
we have to defund the amateur BOM now.
ALL government funding is robbing us of real innovation and invention.
One of my Aunt’s spent a lot of years reading and reporting the results from a Stevenson Screen and often I would watch her.
If Karoly ever came near me I would deal with him as the fool that he is.
Shame upon you sir.
Resign NOW!
151
And cut funding to “universities”.
They have lost their way.
Climate “science” is a joke.
It is something to be laughed at.
111
I am following this closely here in the UK. Congratulations to Jennifer and Joanne. Keep up the good work and keep demanding answers.
130
Newsflash
Teacher arrested at Kingsford Smith Airport
Police this morning arrested a public school teacher as she attempted to board an aircraft while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a fore noon press conference, the Environment Minister Greg Hunt said he believes the woman to be a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. Although he did not identify the woman, he confirmed that ASIO charged the accused with carrying weapons of math instruction.
“Al-Gebra is a problem for us” declared Mr. Hunt. “They derive solutions by means of extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.” They make use of secret code names such as “X” and “Y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns”. We have determined that they belong to a common denominator on the axis of medieval coordinates in every country. Quoting the Greek philosopher Isosceles Mr. Hunt remarked “There are always three sides to a triangle”. He went on to say “Teaching our children sentient thought processes and equipping them to solve problems is dangerous and puts the government at grave risk.
440
Multi thumbs up for a good laugh!
10
Al-Gebra! LOL
10
A judicial inquiry is the only way to fully reveal to the public the convoluted nonsense these clowns are peddling and to discipline the scientific /academic communities against even thinking about pulling a scam like this again.
101
The judiciary have already refused to rule on the science. To go this route you must prove it on other grounds.
30
I think everyone is pretty sick of the terms Peer Review, and best practice.
Does anyone know who these peers are:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT_Report_No_1_WEB.pdf
20
Me think it´s a bigger fraud.. me think it´s a world wide fraud.. me see the same hold down trend for the 1930 and the toning down of MWP here in Sweden.. think SMHI goes by the same rule bock as BOM… Me smell crook…
120
No. You smell Maurice(the) Strong.
World Metrological Org, UN scheme.
71
The homogenisation method creates a warming bias – good explanation why – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/problems-with-the-scalpel-method/
41
As I noted in an earlier thread, and now repeated by a Moderator in #7 above, the ACORN code has sections censored from public view on the grounds of “commercial confidence”, confirmed by a Court. Indeed, the BoM sold a copy to NZ after the NZ BoM equivalent admitted they had not kept raw data records (admitted under oath in a Court)
When, or much more pointedly IF, that block is ever released then questions may be answered. Until then Karoly will be able to claim peer review ad nauseum
30
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period.”
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Yet, Tim Flannery is loved by the MSM.
110
I think it was Bill Thompson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) who said that a physics theory was no good if it could not be explained to a barmaid.
60
Ha! This is new. Perhaps things were much simpler then before quantum mechanics, but there is no evidence that getting an average temperature is any more complex than it was in the 19th century.
It is tragic to think of the countless readings made carefully by generations of dedicated people even in very remote locations, readings which have been thrown away by modernists who found the results did not fit their narrative. So is it a coincidence that ‘global temperature’ has failed to change with the introduction of the satellite measurements which cannot be so easily explained away or just ignored? So was it really imperative to artificially lower past temperatures and so create rising temperatures?
There is another reason Karoly and Co. do not want to explain their results. They can’t.
30
You guys are nuts. How can you claim the BoM doesn’t publish their methods? They are here…
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports.php
OK, so you can’t even google, except for when you wanna hang out at [SNIP baseless namecalling – substantiate your terms – Jo]. OOga Booga!.
Also, do you know that if you use the raw data then the warming trend over Autralia is even greater? Furthermore, there are plenty of sited where the homogenisation has resulted in a cooling trend at a station. Oh, but that is ignored so you can all continue on your merry [snip-crass]. Have fun [snip crass]!
—-
OOga Booga to you too Mr Greenie. When you find the site specific descriptions of adjustments that we’ve been asking for years for, let us have that link. OK? The BOM can’t find it either, or they would have sent it to us. – Jo
119
Brunswick or Brunswick Heads? If the latter I would suggest some Mullum heads.Better for Greenie brain matter.
20
That’s Mullumbimby Madness sonny…. oh, the 70’s…… I wonder whatever happened to Jimmy Jingles..?
30
Oh I read that as “mullet head” 😉
20
Hi BG, Hey, being a greenie, you would know just how much plants and trees NEED CO2.
Did you know that CO2 is the main building block of all life on Earth? Well it is.!
Did you know that plant life, and thus all life on Earth flourishes in a CO2 level around 1000-2000ppm. TRUE !
That should be our aim, 1000ppm atm ospheric CO2 at least, for the benefit of all the trees and all other life on Earth. 🙂
Warmer is also good.
We are only just above the lows of the LIA. Another degree or so worldwide would be highly beneficial.
But its needs to be a REAL temperature increase, NOT a fabricated one.
102
Seems I’m not the only one to realise that CO2 is very important for the world’s existence.
11
Brunswick Greenie
They are here…
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports.php
Yes I’ve read every word in them.
if you use the raw data then the warming trend over Autralia is even greater?
Um, no, maybe you have a link to support your rather odd claim, but I have checked the raw data vs Acorn data (and before that, the late and unlamented HQ) and found exactly the opposite- Acorn increases the national trend by 47%. See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-australian-temperature-record-revisited-a-question-of-balance/
and http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/the-australian-temperature-record-revisited-part-3-remaining-sites/
there are plenty of sited (sic) where the homogenisation has resulted in a cooling trend at a station. Oh, but that is ignored
Yes, I checked that too. There are 38 sites that have been cooled and 66 that have been warmed- that’s 63.5%.
Next time you comment please take the time to check the facts first. I guess you were too blinded by incoherent rage this time, so you are forgiven- especially as it gives readers a chance to see which guy it is who is nuts.
222
Well, not even part of the word is mentioned in that list. Try homo, zero zilch … So where is the code ? The method description we have but the code ?
20
Well… most of us are amateurs by definition as we are not getting paid. Albert Einstein was an amateur physicist when wrote his Theory of Relativity. Goodyear was an amateur chemist when he invented vulcanization. Thousands of basic discoveries in the sciences were made by amateurs in history… just because they weren’t getting paid is no reason to ignore their discoveries nor to dismiss them.
We amateurs would be better informed if the governments of the world would quit hiding the data us amateurs are paying for with our taxes.
200
And do not forget the heroic fight that occurred against ingrained concensus thinking of the Medical establishment, when two two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall, revolutionized the treatment of Peptic ulcers.
Sadly the originator of the idea lost his livelyhood for going against the consensus as he was a mere Greek pharmacist called John Lykoudis.
Warren and Marshall were awarded the Noble prize, John Lykoudis is consigned to a footnote in history.
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Peptic-Ulcer-History.aspx
80
WHY !!!!
Why are so many reasonable people with scientific knowledge voluntarily falling under the bus. This is a really strange social phenomenon. Are we witnessing a repeat of medieval witch hunts or other wide-spread waves of weird perceptions from the past – the ones we wrote off as superstitions? Is it occurring mainly within particular cultural zones? Are there just as many public media and blog disputes going in other regions – in Spanish based South America, or South Africa, of Asian countries, or north African?
100
Interesting thought, sometimes the attraction of belonging to or founding something is so great that even the intelligent can falter in reason, and remember intelligence is only as useful as the tool wielding it.
40
This is a really strange social phenomenon.”
Not so strange – its how academia works. You are not allowed to think differently, even if the facts support you.
100
And this is not conspiracy ideation … Simply go to The Conversation and try to post anything skeptical of CAGW and they will gang up so quickly your head will spin. Who knew the ivory tower doubled as an echo Chamber? Sad to see those that should be skeptical are uninquisitive when it comes to the established faith.
40
So, it’s the middle ages all over again. How did this happen?. When did ‘What is’ become ‘what we say it is’?.
30
“Man is the measure of all things” goes back to Protagoras (See Plato, Theaetatus for a critique).
10
Didn’t go down that well 2500 years ago, why should it now. If man is the measure of all things then AGW isn’t a problem. We can simply ‘know’ it away!!.
10
It’s part of the never ending battle against sophism of which post modernism is the latest example.
00
US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
It might be interesting for someone down there to see if Australian temperatures have also been so adjusted.
80
I did, and the answer is probably not. See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/adjustments-vs-co2/
30
thank you Ken for all your hard work.
IIRC the trend to the CO2 correlation (from US example) will take 4 or 5 years of incremental adjustments.
10
This is the time Tony Abbott could demonstrate he has balls and demand a parliamentary investigation
50
“he is quoting his own stuff, which he published in the journal he edits.”
And that children is why he knows the data is accurate.
20
post-tennis. so what is the MSM reporting?
28 Aug: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Temperature hiatus periods to become a ‘thing of the past’ as emissions soar
The momentum of global warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases is likely to overwhelm natural cooling processes within decades, according to research by the University of NSW…
However, such “hiatuses” are increasingly unlikely if carbon emissions continue on their present trajectory, and will be “a thing of the past” by the century’s end, according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“From about 2030, it’s highly unlikely that we will get one of these cooling decades,” said Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper. “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.”…
The researchers used about 30 models to simulate different events, including volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatau, the Indonesian island that erupted in 1883 with an explosion so loud it was heard almost 5000 kilometres away…
***By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said…
The threats posed by global warming were also raised by the World Bank on Wednesday.
Rachel Kyte, a vice-president of the bank and its special envoy for climate change, told a Canberra meeting the world is headed “down a dangerous path” with disruption of the food system possible as nations struggle to feed themselves.
Rising urban populations are contributing to soaring demand for meat, adding to nutrition shortages for the world’s poor…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/temperature-hiatus-periods-to-become-a-thing-of-the-past-as-emissions-soar-20140827-1091p3.html
20
***zero carbon is the target!
28 Aug: ABC: Climate change drove me to politics: Janet Rice
In this edited transcript of the maiden speech of new Greens senator Janet Rice, she focuses of climate change as being one of her primary concerns.
It was 1980. I was studying science at Melbourne Uni. I had just left a climatology lecture given by Dr Barrie Pittock and the implications of what I had learnt were still spinning in my brain.
Barrie had just explained the emerging understanding of the greenhouse effect, and the likely impact it was going to have on our climate and our planet. I walked out of the lecture into warm spring sunshine, past other students who were having lunch. All I could think was, ‘This is serious! The world needs to be doing something about this!’
Learning about global warming politicised me…
On my ride to Canberra, I asked the waitress in the local Murchison café what she would like me to do for her and her community. She replied immediately: “Anything to get renewable energy back on track. It was going really well, but now seems to be going off the rails.”…
If we don’t act now we will fall behind when China and India no longer want our dirty coal…
***I want to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them that it was during my time in the Senate that Australia turned the corner and legislated to begin the shift to a zero carbon safe climate economy,
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/08/27/4075555.htm
30
Maybe Rice should have done some Chemistry in her science course and learnt that Carbon is not a Green-house gas. The poor dear, like most lefties, is confusing Carbon soot with CO2.
20
Simple chemistry ignorance is an epidemic:
CarbonFree Sugar
Ummm if you take the carbon out of C12H22O11 (sucrose) you get 11H2O and a soggy 5lb paper bag for the price of a bag of sugar. That’s Progressive progress for ya.
10
Does anyone know whether the enhanced/homogenized data or the raw data from the BOM is past on to GHCN where it is further enhanced/homogenize before they pass on on to GISS & HADCRUT etc. where the process is repeated? If that is the case it could account for a lot of apparent but non-existent warming. As I understand it, the data is passed around in this way but I don’t know about if it is enhanced/homogenize at each stop along the way.
John
20
Homogenisation Algorithm . Isn’t that a great word for a bit of subjective ‘expert’ judgement applied at the time ?
Wasn’t the inverted Ice Core graph another Al Gore ithm ?
20
This new information on the corrupted Australian Climate data needs to be addressed promptly and expertly.
Soon we as a nation will be asked to reduce our CO2 emission on the basis of as yet unrecognised catastrophic warming, predicted by allegedly recognisable trends in temperature and theories of climate.
The theories at best are inaccurate and unreliable,but we must have accurate data, our most precious scientific resource, to be able to formulate accurate climate models.
If these latest findings are an indication that the longest accurate Australian runs of temperature are corrupted, then the wells of our knowledge have been poisoned.
An expert panel needs be set up to analyse the problem and recommend solutions.
It must contain persons competent in statistical design and scientific inductive logic.
The committee needs the equivalent powers of a Royal Commissioner, being able to demand the original documents and meta data, as well as alogrithms that have been used to determine the present published record of temperature, humidity rainfall and any other parameter that helps its investigation.
The data is held on behalf of the Australian Government, so access should be undeniable.
Persons on this site and others may want to draw up a list of matters that this enquiry may investigate,with a view to presenting this for action to an appropriate authority.
20
If this was ‘homogenisation’ was done in the prospectus of a company or to their annual financial report then the Fraud Squad would be called in forthwith. Oh, wait a minute, they are altering the data while being paid from public funds so …
Anyone know the number for the Fraud Squad?
To be fair, the Government should invest in a Commission of Audit and if the BoM, the CSIRO and the ‘grantees’ of my tax funds are found to be wanting they should be sacked. If they have falsified data through malfeance (to support a political agenda) or incompetence they should be sacked and all grants cancelled.
[snip, lets not speculate] just defund the lot of them now!
10
Interesting screen name — to capture “in passing”. May you make many successful captures.
Roy, an old chess player from my high school days.
00
There’s a moderately interesting generic article about data sharing at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2014/08/27/are-scientists-selfish/ Nothing detailed, not subject specific, but if read it can give those outside the scientific process some insight.
01