…
Who knew? With intrepid dedication the Australian BoM has uncovered our hottest ever day, buried under erroneous calculations, hidden from view in High Quality expert data sets that were World Class til they weren’t. Strangely the BOM hasn’t issued a press release, even though their supercomputer-marketing team put out a Hottest Ever January media release within hours of January ending. It appears the BOM hasn’t even issued a press release to tell the world they’ve finished the third complete reanalysis of Australian temperature history.
Luckily for the BOM, which may have run out of bytes or letters of the alphabet, volunteers like Chris Gillham of the unofficial BoM audit team noticed that the BoM ACORN dataset has become ACORN2. So we’d like to tell the world. Once again, the genius at the BOM is able to retrospectively compensate for all the flawed sites and thermometers that kept reading too high. Incredibly, no one noticed for a hundred years.
As we launch ACORN2 let’s remember how proud the BOM were of ACORN1. This is from them back in 2017:
Bureau of Meteorology statement on temperature observations
01/08/2017
The Bureau of Meteorology holds the integrity of our weather observations and climate data to the highest possible standards. The Bureau rejects allegations aired in some media outlets that it has sought to tamper with temperature data.
So the highest possible standards just got higher. Luckily they have arrived in time to find extra warming trends before the next Australian election.
From Chris Gillham: ACORN 2 influence on Australian temperature trends
An example of the haywire homogenisation that’s rewritten Australia’s temperature history is that Carnarvon can now claim to have had Australia’s hottest ever day, with ACORN 2 listing the town at 51.0C on 23 January, 1953. The bureau names Oodnadatta Airport at 50.7C on 2 January 1960 as Australia’s hottest ever day.
In the ACORN 1 dataset, 23 January 1953 at Carnarvon was 48.5C, and in RAW it was 47.7C. ACORN 1 lists Albany at 51.2C on 8 February 1933 but ACORN 2 cools this day to 49.5C (RAW 44.8C).
So the original Carnarvon record just got 3.3C hotter. The Albany record which got 7 degrees warmer in the last round has dropped back 2.7C. Lordy, look at the size of those centigrade wrestling matches!
The original ACORN may have been a bit rushed as it arrived just in the nick of time to save the BOM HQ dataset from being audited by the Australian National Audit Office. (Something Cory Bernardi requested with our help). The old HQ stood for High Quality. So much for that.
Cooling the past once again?
Thermometers in 1910 -1940 were reading far too high despite them being in Stevenson Screens at some of our best sites:
….
What bad luck. All this time the raw data was conspiring to hide Australia’s true cooler history.
It was even more true of Minima:
….
It’s a big news day when a town is even forecast to maybe possibly beat the old Oodnadatta record, so I expect (not) that the media will go crazy about this new discovery, or they would if the hottest ever day was not 60 years ago.
There’s a lot more we will say about ACORN2. Questions we are all waiting to find out — does it still have nearly a thousand days where the minima are higher than the maxima? Are they still creating monthly square wave patterns in the data as temperatures whip-saw up and down with adjustments going a degree either way on each side of New Years Eve? Just how much has this cooled the past and warmed the trend and where are these changes most apparent? Will the BOM call these adjustments “neutral” like the last time. How do they compensate for the Urban Heat Island effect, for the introduction of electronic super sensitive thermometers and all the site moves?
The Australian people pay a million dollars a day for this inept and biased operation.So far the only thing new about this version is that the BoM don’t seem so keen to tell the world about yet another revision of history.
For the record, when this new version was “launched” a year ago, I went through the full history of scandals and revisions in one post (just in case you want to be reminded how many times the BoM has shifted the goal posts).
Thanks to all the dedicated BOM Audit team who don’t get paid, thanks to Jen Marohasy, Senator Cory Bernardi, Graham Lloyd and The Australian. All of whom have played an important role in keeping the pressure on.
__________________________________________
THE BOM LIST grows — Scandal after scandal
- BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia — how “noise” creates history and a warming trend
- Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice
- BOM scandal: “smart cards” filter out coldest temperatures. Full audit needed ASAP!
- BOM scandal heats up: Kininmonth, Watts, Nova quoted in The Australian “We audit banks, why not BOM?”
- Scandal: Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures
- On Sunday, Goulburn got colder than the BOM thought was possible (and a raw data record was “adjusted”).
- Two-thirds of Australias warming due to “adjustments” — according to 84 historic stations
- The mysterious BOM disinterest in hot historic Australian Stevenson screen temperatures
- The lost climate knowledge of Deacon 1952: hot dry summers from 1880-1910
- 1953 Headline: Melbourne’s weather is changing! Summers getting colder and wetter
- The mysterious lost hot Sunday in Bourke, did it really happen?
- Wow, look at those BOM adjustments – trends up by two degrees C!
- Australian BOM “neutral” adjustments increase minima trends up 50%
- Was the Hottest Day Ever in Australia not in a desert, but in far south Albany?!
- Hottest summer record in Australia? Not so, says UAH satellite data
- Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
- BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!)
- Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set, starts again, gets same results
- Australian Temperatures in cities adjusted up by 70%!?
And will the BOM declare Feb as Victoria’s hottest month evah! It’s raining once again, 9C and it feels like it’s about to snow.
333
Bugger – they adjusted the temperatures down AGAIN??
That means I have to write to Broken Hill hospital AGAIN!
The hospital administrator already thinks I’m not packing a full picnic after the last request that my birth temperature must be adjusted!!
282
Positively hot where you are bemused. It was only 5C here from 0329 until 0804…now 8C at 0910! We even had a bit of rain yesterday.
191
I’m kind of wondering, if this is summer, what’s in store for winter?
161
Well if Europe and America are anything to go by……….bloody cold !!
70
It rained in Adelaide & the Adelaide Hills yesterday..Much later tomatoes at this rate in my organic garden..Bugger !
90
The hottest place in Victoria is Bacchus Marsh…..its near Melton…….. 🙁
90
Annie:
I think that under Political Correctness minimum and maximum temperatures will be shared around at random.
Try not to complain as you are told that your morning is “the warmest ever” as you shiver waiting for the kettle to boil.
21
And it is snowing in Hawaii!
https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/hawaiis-maui-state-park-sees-rare-dusting-of-snow/video/cf4e8844ac6788b053381d80719f6f2a
Global Warming is coming…….., surely.
81
Somewhere for the Polar Bears to holiday!
20
No, no, it is UNPRECENDENTED (at least since the last time it happened) and therefore PROOF of ClimateChange©.
30
Certainly an unprecedented level of data tampering.
10
I always imagined that the BOM had thermometers that read to the nearest hundredth of a C degree, to judge by their published temperature record. However to latest rewriting of the past shows that if variations of up to 7 C degrees from the originally published temperature are possible,then the BOM thermometers may only read to the nearest 10 C degrees.
383
For BOM to keep reporting record high temperatures soon they will have to start relocating some of their thermometers to where the sun doesn’t shine, if you know what I mean. It will give an additional meaning to the Orwellian term “memory hole”.
292
Well done Chris. I will be posting the first in a series about Acorn version 2 later today (or maybe tomorrow!) at kenskingdom.wordpress.com . We will soon have a good idea about the answers to some of Jo’s questions above.
Ken
264
Maybe do a Tony Heller and chart up the adjusted minus raw. See if their adjustments climb as we get closer to present day. Wonder what excuse BoM might have for their Acorn2 copying GISS etc.
71
It is COLLUSION I tell ya- co-co-lusion says Foghorn Leghorn. The R_R_R_Russians I tell ya. In 12 years, when we all die, I will be pushing 90 – I don’t wanna die young. Please stop the unbearable heat here in Western Canada. It’s already up to -23C this morning with “white stuff” falling again. I’m almost waist deep in global warming “white stuff”. My last 12 years may be unbearable; unless the pollies migrate south – then it might be unprecedentedly bearable.
50
REV, I thought that was demonstrated to be so years ago.
Meanwhile, the absurd minima over maxima case is an outstanding example of how computer models work/don’t work.
Don’t let them forget it! That on its own discredits their entire system.
20
A BoM audit would be useful, to unravel this mess, then we can have a Royal Commission.
294
That would be really good but of course that’s very unlikely to happen. We would need a government that understands the whole CAGW affair is a scam and a hoax. The only party at this time that’s even close to that understanding is the ACP. So no go that way. The only other way is for a whistle blower to come forward with hard evidence, much like what happened to the tobacco industry when Jeffrey Wigand exposed the fibs they were telling the public.
234
Many years ago Cory went into bat on this issue, he can do it again.
161
Malcolm Roberts if he is elected to the Senate bats on this the best so in QLD vote for the one nation Senate team and Malcolm in particular.
40
So it’s Carnarvon then? I still reckon Oodnadatta 1960 and Mildura 1906 are the best examples of how climate can kill me. What’s a nice river town like Mildura doing running two 50+ days together after a 45 and 47? And check the temps to the side of the old 1960 record: they copped days of furnace in Oodnadatta.
I see where Carnarvon was driest in 1891…That does it. Cancel the time machine. At least now we’ve got lawn sprinklers and air-con.
224
The GeeUp morning shift has arrived…and, my, that’s a busy little thumb.
This indicates to me that the present topic is very sensitive. As it should be. Well done, Jo.
I’m a bit different in that I don’t care if a global temp can be taken and I don’t care if it’s up or down a bit. That’s for the very obvious reasons that temps can only go two ways and cloud messes so much with temp stats anyway.
What concerns me is that we are being forced into irrelevant, economy-killing remedies to old problems. I know how a heatwave can ravage Sydney because I was there in 1960 for the big one. Even on a hill overlooking the George’s River it was grim. Only four days in the low forties or less, but that much sustained heat in a big city can do some seriously bad business. Which it did.
1896 and 1939 were our deadliest heatwaves, and conditions then were worse than they thought. 2009 is the reminder that everything is still worse than we thought or will be worse than we will think. Or whatever.
Turn on some real power. Nobody has coal like we have coal. Just get it going.
414
There are facts and fabrications.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Fabrication: something manufactured, falsehood, forgery, fake, fib.
“The Bureau rejects allegations aired in some media outlets that it has sought to tamper with temperature data.”
It seems that the BoM believes in “adjusted” facts.
312
In my experience “FACT(S)” is one of the most misused, or perhaps misunderstood, words in language.
“your facts are wrong!” is an inevitable phrase heard in most any debate
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable”
Mark Twain, I think.
161
Maybe someone can clear this up but I have always wondered with the sparsity of weather stations west of NSW to WA how the BOM comes up with those detailed Australian temperature maps.
130
It’s called “lying”.
113
Gary
You could try to decipher this.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/austmaps/about-temp-maps.shtml
and this.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jshess/docs/2009/jones.pdf
10
Gary.
The data is extrapolated. Personally I don’t read too much into those maps, they are only their to give a rough guide. The real data is the numbers.
01
There
10
The treatment of data by the BOM is indicative of the contempt that Australian Government, in all its forms, has for the Australian public.
In recent days I’ve been shocked by the firm belief held by so many people that Australia must quickly “transition” to renewable energy to get away from dirty fossil fuels.
The key to this firm support for renewables is to be found in the media, as so many on this blog have stated.
Last night while driving home, listening to one of the many Government sponsored propaganda units, I finally understood why so many believe.
The lady reading out the latest broadsheet on the joy of moving forward with renewables was given a script which mentioned the usual objections voiced about them.
One by one those objections were dealt with and dismissed so smoothly that the listener had no choice but to “Believe”.
A wall of Verbiage was thrown at criticisms of renewables but there was little or no factual content, just words that gave an impression of truth.
To come across such blatantly incorrect, highly structured output from the National Radio, RN, that appears designed to deceive, is alarming.
Pure and simple: Propaganda.
And this is not Venezuela or Russia or China.
Any suggestion that in Australia we have free speech is wrong.
University scientists have been silenced.
Electrical Engineers have been sidelined and
We have been Duped.
KK
444
Its going to end in tears…..
Just think of whats going to happen when the public realize the govt has been lying through its teeth to them, and their kids and parents start dying from starvation in the LIA as it really gets going …. 40-300 years of LIA cold, Valentina Zharkova was predicting.
This is why I think the Germans are moving into the Russian energy orbit, they know full well its a matter of survival ( and making them depenedent on a communist country…on purpose ), and why the Chinese have produced plasma reactors to provide ongoing clean power for years to come.
Buy a gun while you still can. You may need it….
203
Indeed. Same as in the case of the ABC. How any group funded by the government can get away with so much baloney is beyond me. Sometimes I wonder if the LNP really deserves to be in power. Then again we know the alternative is much worse. We lose either way.
284
I was thinking – who did we get here? Answer – Fabian Socialism.
Why? Coz it works. Frog in a boiling pot sydrome. The rot is incremental so there isnt enough outrage to trigger most peoples BS radar, until it gets so far gone we get this socialist behomoth that rises up, or in the USA case, a full blown Communist attempted revolution against a legally elected govt.
234
We can’t tell for sure yet what type of political system the globalist elite will thrust upon us. There are many of them from which to choose. Doesn’t really matter what it is as long as it works for them. All we know for sure is it won’t be good for us.
141
Peter, the libls have the same money hungry mindset as laba.
They’re the same, just coming at it from a different angle.
60
It is only a lie until it is repeated enough! 🙁 🙁
140
Perfect fit to the AGENDA (21-2030).
110
Can anyone take the BOM seriously any more?
263
No way, the more we learn the more clear it becomes that BoM is part of the world wide hoax, professionalism overboard in favour of pleasing socialist globalist political masters.
293
I don’t that’s for sure. Anyone who does is either ignorant, stupid, or both.
142
Please excuse the bad grammar 🙂 I only had one coffee so far today.
132
I just wondered if this sentence had some words in the wrong order
“does it still have nearly a thousand days where the minima are lower than the maxima?”.
Also there is an “f” missing in “shifted the goal posts” or perhaps that is a Freudian slip?
123
It should not be forgotten regarding the first complaint about BoM media releases not matching BoM historical record data, in 2014/15 from memory, made to the Minister responsible he asked BoM management for an explanation and the response was errors and omissions, and that steps were being taken to ensure no repeats.
The Minister reported to the Abbott Government Cabinet and PM Abbott recommended due diligence, independent auditors be appointed to investigate. Apparently his motion was defeated in Cabinet.
We now know that PM Abbott struggled to control his Cabinet because of Minister for Communications and his supporters (they call themselves the Black Hand Faction) of left leaning Liberals In Name Only MPs. PM Abbott was replaced by PM Turnbull in September 2015.
214
The reality is there is a strong campaign to cover up the truth by globalists who have temporarily teamed up with the left to do most of the dirty work. How far it goes before the nation wakes up only time will tell.
180
When I go to the gym early some mornings, I am appalled at what constitutes morning tv.
If thats what is consumed by most australians in the morning, a few points :
(a) What are you doing letting kids watch tv in the morning? it will rot thier brains. Thats bad parenting IMHO….but it produces useful, unthinking, CAGW and Socialist future worker drones.
(b) Most morning commercial tv is brain rot. If thats what works, boy were in trouble as a society.
(c) Most morning govt tv ( ABC ) is “intelligent” brain rot. No surprises there.
172
Years ago an Anglican priest in Melbourne Diocese said that you only have to look at tv commercials to see the attitudes in society. I think they not only refect these attitudes but actually lead changes to them.
150
Ha! I haven’t watched a television program for well over 15 years now. Last weekend I thought I’d investigate what’s on TV these days. So sometime around lunch time I switch it on and go through every channel (about 80 of them). I think I saw 3 programs repeated on every channel. When I saw an award ceremony for a “reality TV” star, I turned it off. Since when does a personality doing a reality TV show become a star? Did they act? or was there some skill involved in what they did? Seriously?
140
Many years ago a friend of mine called TV the ‘moronoscope’ AND that was in the 80s before any of this new crap was around.
110
Fred Hollows’s name for television was “The Cretiniser”. We’re in our sixth year without tv and don’t miss it at all.
100
Oh, Serp, that was so tempting 🙂
10
Not really OT , covers the history of drought going back 10,000 years in oz .
https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
112
61% Fake Data
I wonder what the percentage is wrt BOM.
102
No scientist would have done this. This is political. Outrageous.
A scientist does not alter data. Never. The temperature at Carnaveron was what was measured, nothing else. Unless there was a major mistake. You can make a slight adjustment in absolute accuracy proven for the instruments of the time, but that would have to be expected to be less than 0.5C. You cannot adjust for a lack of reading resolution, say +/-0.5C. Any such adjustments would have to be fixed and made to all such instruments in an identical manner. Some cannot go up and others down.
This is computer generated rubbish. Consider that there are relatively few readings for a vast continent. You have to interpolate but when you do so, you know cross the street can give a wrong figure. Even the assumption of a smooth surface is unjustified, but it is the best you can do. Even so you would start with your fixed data and fit a surface which uses the known points as knots, fixed and determine the XYT surface from them. To move the fixed data to suit the model is outrageous.
It is not science. It is not even accurate reporting of Australia’s data. Who is directing this and why does any employee of the BOM feel they have the right to change the data? It does not matter who or why, but they would be very good questions which have nothing to do with Rational science. This makes Mann’s made up Hockey stick data seem a minor transgression.
When will the BOM stop using computers as the excuse for making things up? Computers do what they are told to do.
324
I suppose there wasn’t a torrential downpour in Townsville last week either, as the computer in hindsight would decide it was improbable, so you just adjust the rainfall gauge to somewhere between two of the highest rainfall areas in the world and zero. Toss a coin. Many times. Computers should not adjust rainfall either.
192
Well heres a case of were predicting sea level rises, but climate change aint happening..uh oh…oh…but wait….
Its almost as dumb as saying higher glibal temos caise increased cold weather.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318
“The science tells us that Tuvalu, which I often hear about, is actually growing not sinking,” he told colleagues.
Is Tuvalu growing? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.
The verdict
Mr Kelly’s claim checks out.
“In the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu’s total land area grew by 73 hectares, or 2.9 per cent.
“The expert behind this research told Fact Check the nation’s islands were continually adjusting, and that the new land was habitable.
“But that’s not to say Pacific nations are not at risk from rising seas.
“One expert told Fact Check that among the Solomon Islands, for example, reef and volcanic islands had disappeared or been eroded, in some cases displacing indigenous communities.
“Smaller islands in Tuvalu, though uninhabited, have also shrunk.
“The research cited by Mr Kelly suggests certain islands — specifically, larger atolls and reef platforms — can adapt to the current pace of sea level rise.
However, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sets out four scenarios for future rises, three of them more severe than what Tuvalu has so far faced.”
So…1…2…3… Were all gunna die!!
But as a minister in a restaurant allegedly said to a delegate from a pacific nation…” Its always about the money…”
90
N3xt stop is Vietnam…..
00
Exactly, the temperature IS the temperature at a particular site. Other than minor reading errors of the instruments, as you stated.
ANY models generating historical temperatures are rubbish in = rubbish out or if its real in -> garbage out at least.
91
It is not science because there is absolutely no way to prove it right or wrong. If I cannot drive it, they cannot prove it, so it is nothing more than an academic exercise,
That is fine – run your algorithms, see if they suggest anything interesting – but do not claim this is truth or fact.
41
Disprove it, not drive it!
20
Adelaide recently had it “hottest temperature ever” or at least hotter than that in 1939. Yes, between 3.30 and 3.50p.m. the temperature soared to 46.6℃. It was a brief hot spell, the temperature at 3.30 was obviously cooler than “the record” at 3.36pm. but by 3.50 pm. a cool change (not visable anywhere else) had dropped the temperature to 45.2℃.
At least we know that it was a hot day and only 30,000 got blacked out.
P.S. it was 9℃ at 7am. this morning in the Adelaide Hills. This is not, to use a much overworked word, UNPRECEDENTED. There was a morning last month of 8.5℃.
132
As we drift into a cooler regime the midlatitudes will take the brunt of weather extremes, too hot and then too cold. This cold air outbreak (CAO) is all down to the wayward jetstream and the collapse of the subtropical ridge.
51
This is weird…gas maybe?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-02-13/why-is-the-ground-burning-on-an-outback-nt-cattle-station/10802676
“A remote cattle station in the Northern Territory is experiencing an unusual problem with its stock yards.
The ground is on fire and it is proving very difficult to put out.
Terry Martin from Mt Denison Station said after weeks of extraordinarily hot temperatures, smoke started to rise from the yards and he cannot work out why.
“We saw the smoke and went to have a look and there’s this burnt ring on the ground and it’s smouldering around the edges,” he said.
“We doused it with water, but then later that afternoon it started in another spot.
“We let it be to see what would happen, and since then there’s now another 10 or so spots that have started up and they’re slowly spreading.”
………..
“”From the video that I saw, there’s a surface fire burning in a stockyard, and what I think that tells us is that there is a lot of cattle, there is a lot of excrement, which is very rich in organic matter, it’s very combustible material,” he said.
“This is a unique example of enriched organic matter in the desert because of the high concentration of animals, being pulverized by their hooves, heated up by a heatwave, moistened by a lot of urine, plus bacteria, and then the wind came and triggered a little ground fire — very interesting.”
80
Well, haystacks can self-combust if they are a little damp.
80
Think how compost heaps heat up if they are properly constructed (mine rarely are!).
60
That Professor Bowman guy came up with one of my most stupid answers I ever could have heard.
Gas leakage from the ground would seem the most logical answer. We have huge gas fields out west. They say the ground itself is over 200C, so dousing the fire with water doesn’t put it out. It self ignites again afterward.
An odd situation to say the least. But we do have a Burning Mountain in NSW.
http://www.aussietowns.com.au/town/burning-mountain-nsw
43
Being the ABC, Professor Bowman just had to mention ‘climate change’! Pathetic.
Do I remember correctly that there is a coal seam in WA that has been burning for 100 years? That can’t be blamed on AGW/CC as there were no SUV’s and A/C 100 years ago, were there?!
51
I have seen ‘cow pat’s’ burning in dry paddocks when I was in the RFS. Not unusual in very hot temps.
50
Remember that until now, the official estimate of Australia’s global warming has been about 0.9 Deg C for the century ending 2010.
These adjustments that Chris reports so precisely will require that national estimate to be revised, to something like 1.1 Deg for that century.
We have done other work, like using official Commonwealth Year Books from the 1950s to try to match recent BOM estimates. We can see national global warming of about 0.4 Deg for the century, but beyond that, it is mostly early adjustment.
So, we can see 0.4 Deg and BOM might soon be claiming 1.1 Deg. Nearly 3 times as much.
That is an enormous difference, mostly from BOM adjustments.
This is serious. It asks questions about fundamental scientific methods. In general science, it is uncommon to alter observed data to the extent that the alterations are several times the size of the effects being examined, in this case being the reality of actual global warming. Geoff
183
What they are trying to do is somehow prove their warming theory is real when its fake. They must know its fake or they are just plain idiots.
71
It’s simply good old Noble Cause Corruption fuelled by righteous wishful thinking.
50
Geoff, have you published any of your research into temperature increases using the Commonwealth year books ?
50
Bill in Oz,
The scientific publication process is for new discoveries, new data of significance, new advances of understanding. It is not a place for articles that demand no more than simple addition, subtraction and averaging. So no, we have not published.
The modern blog is more appropriate. The material to which I refer has been seen on this blog of Jo’s and on the Chris Gilham blog referenced therein and on other blogs such as Kenskingdom, Jennifer Marohasy, to name just some.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warming-trend-is-due-to-adjustments/
The relevant material has been sent to the BOM, whose response was that they could not consider material that was not published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.
Geoff.
91
Thanks Geoff for that link.
It predates my interest in this whole issue.
So I did not know about it.
I am still reposting your chart of BOM’s temperature for MacQuarie Island which shows no change down in the Southern Ocean. In fact Cheifio has incorporated that BOM data into his discussions of temperature as well
Bill
41
It’s almost as though BOM and NIWA (NZ’s) were/are moving in lock step…
Scary thought.
11
If only the BoM put its energy into making climate predictions for now – that help Australians, instead of fiddling with past temperatures to fit their failed narrative.
The recent 100% failure of the BoM to predict the current devistating, drought-breaking floods in Queensland requires accountability.
How and why did they completely 100% not predict it?
132
Particularly since BOM has an Extreme Weather Desk…
40
Have you noticed that Pravda-on-the-Yarra (The Age) has a section each day labelled ‘Extreme Weather’?
70
http://mtmawson.info/snow-cam/
0800 Wednesday 13 February, -1˚C Mt Mawson, Tasmania, covered in snow from the summit to the base huts: Coldest Snowiest February EVAH!!! (?). Pictures update regularly; see them before they’re disappeared…
Another site reported 15 cm of fresh new snow on Carstenz Pyramid in equatorial Irian Jaya / PNG the past 48 hours. Oh my Gaia, all this anthropogenic heat™ is causing freezing snow blizzards around the globe – in winter and summer – what next!
162
You have to understand Greg that during the recent fires in Tassie a group was formed called ” Bushfire survivors against climate change” They have been so successful it is now snowing in areas where fires still burn. I’m guessing that next year there will be a group formed called ” Blizzard survivors against climate change”.
111
“We simply MUST take action against existential freezing!” shouted the Tasmanian branch of Blizzard Survivors Against Cuckoo Change (BSACC). Yessirree Bob, I can see the headlines already up in sugar cane & croc country: Queensland
DroughtFlood Survivors Against [insert latest settled séance bogeyman catchphrase].Huzzah – I scored a down-thumb! What was it, precious, taking your goddess’ name in vain? Asking, what next? Using that banned word, snow?
70
“It sounds like he high school term paper that got back a low mark.”
> And with that one sentence President Trump demolishes the UN green global warming scam. <
https://news.grabien.com/story-trump-mocks-green-new-deal-high-school-term-paper-how-do-you
TRUMP MOCKS GREEN NEW DEAL: ‘HIGH SCHOOL TERM PAPER,’ ‘HOW DO YOU TAKE A TRAIN TO EUROPE?’
‘How are we getting to Hawaii on a train?’
"This crazy senator from Hawaii.
How are we getting to Hawaii on a train?
She didn’t think about that. She’ll figure it out.
They want to take away your car, reduce the value of your home and put millions of American out at work.
Spent $100 trillion, which by the way, there’s no such thing as 100 trillion.
You have to spend $100 trillion.
Remember this, no other country is going to do it. That’s a little problem.
While the world real leaders like China would get many of our companies and factories.
They would just move to China or other parts of the world. That’s the way the system works.
It’s not going to happen. Don’t worry, it’s not going to happen."
162
BOM should have to publicly release the computer algorithm they used to generate ACORN2 and an audit trail of any manual changes they made.
It’s a worldwide trend for temperature datasets –
Each update homogenization cools the past further,
when most of the reasons for homogenization seem temperature neutral,
except the biggest one – urban heat island,
which should cool the present recordings.
103
The methodology used to create the new ACORN 2 “dataset” reminds me of a comment I read a while back either here or at WUWT: paraphrasing, they said that their greatest fear was that if the climate scientists continue to make adjustments that cool the past, it will get so cold that their grandparents will freeze to death and their parents will never be born.
172
I’ve had conversations with friends and acquaintances about how a lot of BoM spokespeople we’ve heard on radio in recent years seem to be fly-ins. in other words, people who would have no idea about our climate history. are we imagining this or is it so? are we sending our BoM people to locations overseas? just wondering.
62
Pat
Where FIFO stands for “Flit In and Flit Out” IMO
40
I recall a mention some time ago that before Carnarvon’s temps were homogenised, they didn’t show any warming trend. But I believe that they are now influenced by Gasgoyne Junction’s temps, well inland and a lot, lot hotter. When this was done, lo and behold, Carnarvon suddenly showed a warming trend! Most probably this is where this unusual increase in Carnarvon’s temp has come from, not from Carnarvon itself.
111
They looked into this matter in 2017 and the government reckoned BoM is squeaky clean. It was an internal review.
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/frydenberg/media-releases/mr20170907a.html
70
A few days ago there was a blog that said six weeks ago the BOM predicted a dry month for Townsville.
In a comment on Jo’s blog about the Townsville floods, David Laloum said, among other things
“The trends are clear, the predictions were made some years back, and the outcomes are currently tracking to the predictions – it supports Climate Change. (without even considering the heat wave we just experienced right around the country)”
It appears that the climate believers are having an each way bet. Regardless of whether the BOM forecast was correct, or the prediction from some years back was correct, climate change was to blame.
132
The Klimatariat must maintain the big lie, that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, weather events can be adjusted to suit the meme.
90
“Thermometers in 1910 -1940 were reading far too high despite them being in Stevenson Screens at some of our best sites:” -> more fake data graphs…
Face it B O M your temperature readings are made up. Stop trying to prove fake theories that have been disproved over and over again, to serve your masters.
161
When will the weather start carrying the proviso that they cannot give an accurate daily temperature as the ‘true’ temperature can only be discovered 50 years later via homogenization.
182
The scientific method requires that all methodology be published. Why does the BOM refuse to publish their methodology for arriving at these results?
152
They have, and here is the link
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/ or were you being ironic?
312
Nonsense. They say they make “appropriate adjustments” but do not publish any details. If it was a scientific process you could follow their methodology to convert the original recorded data to the current data. This is not possible therefore the adjustments are a political and not scientific process.
141
Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
2. Data and metadata ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2.1 Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2.2 Metadata ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
3. Homogenisation methods ……………………………………………………………………….. 5
3.1 Detection of inhomogeneities – use of multiple detection methods in parallel ………. 5
3.2 The adjustment procedure in ACORN-SAT …………………………………………………….. 7
3.2.1 The percentile-matching (PM) algorithm – overlap case ………………………………… 8
3.2.2 The percentile-matching algorithm – non-overlap case ……………………………….. 10
3.2.3 Monthly adjustments ………………………………………………………………………………. 13
3.2.4 ‘Spike’ adjustments ………………………………………………………………………………… 13
3.2.5 Overall summary of adjustments ………………………………………………………………. 14
3.2.6 Second round of homogenisation …………………………………………………………….. 14
3.2.7 Observation time adjustments………………………………………………………………….. 15
3.3 Adjustment methodological changes in ACORN-SAT version 2 ………………………. 16
3.3.1 Removal of rounding biases ……………………………………………………………………. 16
3.3.2 Detection of date shifts …………………………………………………………………………… 16
3.3.3 Adjustment of negative diurnal ranges ………………………………………………………. 17
3.3.4 Transition from large to small thermometer screens ……………………………………. 17
4. Evaluation of other potential systematic issues …………………………………….. 19
4.1 The transition to automatic weather stations …………………………………………………. 19
4.2 Potential changes in response times with changes in automatic weather station
probes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
5. Sensitivity and uncertainty testing ………………………………………………………… 22
5.1 Parallel station sets used in uncertainty testing …………………………………………….. 22
5.2 Sensitivity of adjustments to choice of reference stations ……………………………….. 23
5.3 Sensitivity of adjustment to number of reference stations used ……………………….. 24
5.4 Sensitivity of adjustment to choice of reference period …………………………………… 25
5.5 Comparison of daily and monthly adjustments ………………………………………………. 27
6. Magnitude of adjustments …………………………………………………………………….. 27
7. Comparison of version 1, version 2 and AWAP………………………………………. 29
8. Case studies …………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
8.1 Unrepresentativeness of overlap periods ……………………………………………………… 33
8.2 Variable inter-site relationships during high-rainfall periods in arid regions ……….. 34
9. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
10. References …………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
Not only that
here is the publication record
ACORN-SAT version 1 was published in 2012. This page currently includes only version 1 information and data. It will be updated to include ACORN-SAT version 2 information and data early 2019.
ACORN-SAT version 2 data are now available.
What more could you ask for?
312
So show me how the original recorded data can be converted to the new data. Provide one worked example.
102
see page 33
210
“show me how the original recorded data can be converted to the new data”
Go to the link at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml, scroll down to “An example of the adjustment process” and click on it. This shows an example for Kerang in northern Victoria. If I read the graph correctly, their example adjustment cools the past temperatures.
104
It provides no actual scientific data for the amount of adjustment. They are making the numbers up.
What is the general formula for such site adjustments?
112
“What is the general formula for such site adjustments?”
I found a long discussion about how they go about making their adjustments, but no general formulas. Being a retired computer programmer, I’d love to see the code they used to make the adjustments, but I don’t see that on the site either.
142
there you go
Python computer source code implementing the inhomogeneity detection algorithm and the percentile-matching algorithm is available by request to: [email protected]
Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT), Station catalogue An in-depth comparison of the ACORN-SAT dataset against a range of alternative Australian temperature analyses over the last 100 years is available from the technical report On the sensitivity of Australian temperature trends and variability to analysis methods and observation networks.
This technical report explores Australian temperature trends and variability using the new ACORN-SAT dataset.
Full details on how the Bureau has prepared ACORN-SAT are available from the technical report Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset
happy reading
29
“Python computer source code implementing the inhomogeneity detection algorithm and the percentile-matching algorithm”
That code tells me how they detect inhomogeneities but does not tell me how they adjust for them.
152
Ric – since you want their code, and assuming that there are no legal or copyright issues, email the helpdesk
29
What Acorn2 does to Kerang is very carefully NOT mentioned!
41
3.2 The adjustment procedure in ACORN-SAT …………………………………………………….. 7
3.2.1 The percentile-matching (PM) algorithm – overlap case ………………………………… 8
3.2.2 The percentile-matching algorithm – non-overlap case ……………………………….. 10
3.2.3 Monthly adjustments ………………………………………………………………………………. 13
3.2.4 ‘Spike’ adjustments ………………………………………………………………………………… 13
3.2.5 Overall summary of adjustments ………………………………………………………………. 14
3.2.6 Second round of homogenisation …………………………………………………………….. 14
3.2.7 Observation time adjustments…………………
I think they have use the word adjustment enough to keep any ‘knob twiddler’ very happy!!!
How mush more ‘science’ gobbledy gook do you need to try to prove a false theory.
211
They can use whatever words they want. Show me at least one worked example as to how they get from a measured data point to the current adjusted data point. If the methodology has been published consistent with the scientific method this should be a trivial exercise for you.
132
You asked for the methodology, now you shift the goalposts and ask for something else. do your own research, I am not your lacky
416
Oops pike out alert. Won’t check eh, blind faith?
52
Long Discussion, but somewhat interesting.
I looked up the BOM page on adjustments and found this, in relation to the adjustments at Kerang, Vic;
In this particular case the observing site had been moved from near the post office in town to a more rural site. The actual methodology for making the adjustments was not revealed but the intention was. They wanted to make it more consistent with other sites in the region! OMG!
It looks like they adjust each site individually until they get what seems to be a consistent story.
Not what I would have done.
It would be better if the old and the new sites were run concurrently for several years if they want to make any adjustments and then adjust form the concurrent data.
As far as I know this was done for the Melbourne site move from Victoria Pde to Olympic park. The difference between the sites reflected the urban Heat Island effect at the Victoria Pde site. It was about 1C which accounts for all the warming attributed to the past 100 years.
71
RealUniverse and Peter Fitzroy, you don’t understand the scientific method, do you?
104
how so – this is not an experiment this is all about data quality.
314
You obviously have no scientific experience.
They have transformed one set of data into another set. Unless they have published the exact method of transformation of the data (and the reason for doing that) and it is repeatable by other people it is not science but in this case politics.
Now: Show me with one or more worked examples how the original measured data is transformed to the current published data.
You could choose to show how the original measurement for Carnarvon of 23rd Jan 1953 of 47.778C is now transformed into 51.0C.
122
There is no such thing as data quality. There is only the data.
131
As for transforming the data, I have never heard of that either. If you have a model it must fit the data, not the other way around.
141
The data is the data. And yes I do understand the scientific method. Which , of late (last decades) has gone to sh….t.
I was referring to the endless adjustments, which are done DELIBERATELY to make it look like significant warming when there is none.
111
But that makes no sense. On what basis do you judge the data to lack quality and need adjusting? That it doesn’t match other data in the way you think it should.
Well that is pure nonsense. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. You simply cannot know whether on any particular day a data point “should” have been nearer or farther from another data point. You can look at today but as we know, the climate has changed, right? Temperatures have changed, land use has changed, we everything has changed. So using today to interpolate the past is as likely to be wrong as to be right. So don’t try.
And how do you decide which data points are the right ones to use for interpolations? The ones that happen to match? Could be random and they are wrong just as easily – running a programme to pick up samples in data lacking quality – the entire claim – is utter bunkum, because either the ENTIRE data lacks quality Which makes it a nonsense or it does not but you don’t know what is good and what is bad, which makes it impossible.
61
Where does it say you can change the original thermometer reading by 3 degrees? Please find it and explain it in your own words.
161
“There is no such thing as data quality. There is only the data” – that should get today’s award for the most nonsensical comment. So if I create data, by putting a thermometer (purchased 10 years ago in a 2 dollar store) in the backyard, hanging from the clothes line – that measurement is the same as one supervised by th BOM.
216
Beijing hacked BoM a couple of years ago, presumably looking for the code, but they came away empty handed. Any suggestion that they saw BoM as the soft underbelly of the whole government system, is simply untrue.
92
I bet they made his clothes line too
23
While you’re there, do you think BoM needs an outside audit?
70
I think their operation is disorganised and demonstrates traits that suggest to me that the main thing an audit would reveal is insufficent funds to keep on top of the activities they are tasked with, probably in addition to the mismanagement and poor distribution of the funds they have at present.
35
No slurs on the clothes line, it was the best the chinese could supply, and uses both wind and solar in the drying of my clothes. Did have to buy some PEGs though.
/Scarc off (TommyFromOz is very literal minded and needs this flag)
37
‘…main thing an audit would reveal is insufficient funds …’
Funny, I see a blatant warm bias.
60
Peter Fitzroy,
that’s four times you’ve done that now.
If I can be courteous and refer to you by your correct screen name every time, then so can you.
Your snide comments in reference to my name could be forgiven perhaps once, but hey, it’s getting a little a bit rich now. It actually takes some forethought to do it as incorrectly as you have done.
Tony.
152
I apologise TonyfromOz.
56
Disorganised. Mismanagement. Poor distribution of the funds they have at present.
It seems bad policy to me to give them more money. Surely a change of management is required.
62
” that measurement is the same as one supervised by th BOM.”
BOM has admitted that they don’t calibrate their thermometers.
(I’m sure someone still has the quote.)
So YES. !!
62
Lies right there in plain sight. And while we addjust, might as well expunge the historical record. Worked in Oceania 1984, why not re Carnarvon 1953.
52
Peter Fitzroy.
Yes, that is the elephant in the room. The BOM has documented it’s climate reference method on a public website, it is there for everyone to read.
14
Yep, and its a well know method for making everything exactly the same and what they want it to be, regardless of the original data.
That is, afterall, the WHOLE POINT of the homogenisation routines.
Or are you too dumb to realise that ?
21
Here is the weather as reported in the newspaper for Carnarvon on 24th Jan 1953. It is 118F or 47.778C.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/49076369?searchTerm=Carnarvon%20AND%20%22Weather%22%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchLimits=exactPhrase=Weather%7C%7C%7CanyWords%7C%7C%7CnotWords%7C%7C%7CrequestHandler%7C%7C%7CdateFrom=1953-01-20%7C%7C%7CdateTo=1953-01-30%7C%7C%7Cl-advstate=National%7C%7C%7Cl-advstate=Western+Australia%7C%7C%7Csortby
61
I should note that the weather was reported on the 24th but it is weather for the 23rd.
42
It’s time for us all to recognise that BOM stands for :
THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
And we need to actually say that whenever we talk about it :
THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
153
Here may be an appropriate place to point to this interesting work being done analysing the GHCN data sources by Chiefio. Australia is partway down the page. There are other posts before and after this as well.
63
Yes, he has done excellent work.
Teasing out the effects of UHIE and the effect of deleting weather stations at higher altitudes
111
“the effect of deleting weather stations at higher altitudes”
Means nothing, because data from all stations are anomalised. The data from the station on top of a mountain has the same zero baseline as the data from the station at sea level.
The only way “deleting” (which is not what happened at all*) high altitude data could affect the global trends is if the high altitude trends all happened to be warmer or cooler than the global average.
That’s one of the useful things about anomalies. Whether the station data come from Antarctica or Malaysia, from a hot desert or cold mountain, anomalising the data on the same baseline means you don’t have to weight the averagesdepending on altitude and latitude. That’s already done by the anomalization process.
(* Chiefio has walked back the old claim that anyone deliberately deleted data. Because none was deleted. The chart showing the old “station drop-off” looks that way because the historical data was retrospectively added in the mid-90s, from old charts and books. Most of it was not part of the semi-automated stream GHCN gets monthly from less than 3000 weather stations. That’s why there’s a drop-off – not because recent data was deleted, but because old data was added. it’s amazing how long this furfy has lived. Here’s the prigina,l methods paper, which lays out what happened. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf You will see a very familiar chart in there, and now you know where Chiefio got the original from. Pity he didn’t read the paper carefully!)
)
26
Barry you are defending the corruption of weather science.
And you are doing it by trying to confuse us with weasel words that NO normal person uses or understands.
Mystification only promotes the interests of magical ‘scientists’ wanting to promote their own interests..
Are you employed to sprout this nonsence ?
If so clearly you deserve to be sacked.
It is COMMON sense that if you delete the records of some types of weather stations ( in mountains ) and emphasise the the records of other types of weather stations ( cities ) , you will end up with FAKE OR FALSE crap. Crap which brings the science of weather & climate into disrepute.
43
Please stop slandering me. In that posting, there is one reference to “deleting” a station, and that is about one that IS in the record for a long period stating that it was NOT deleted. Per Anatarctica:
“Means nothing, because data from all stations are anomalised” – No, they are not. They are presented AS temperatures in GHCN and USHCN. They are used AS temperatures through most of GIStemp (up to the point where 16,000 “grid / box” temperatures are fabricated from 2500 and a bit current temperatures THEN there is an anomaly step used. Now for any given fabricated data point in any given BOM temperature series, it may well have had an “anomaly process” used to do so. Where are the error bars? crickets…. The assertion that the Anomaly Process produces error free fabricated “data food product” is just an assertion. There is no evidence or proof for it. Even if only “asserted by omission of the error bars”, it is still waved around as perfection. It is not.
“The data from the station on top of a mountain has the same zero baseline as the data from the station at sea level.” This is just bafflegab. The stations that are only in the baseline have exactly and only the induced data making up the baseline. This, then, gets averaged in with all the other stations in the baseline interval to create the total baseline. There is no “zero baseline”, there is only “the baseline data”.
“The only way “deleting” (which is not what happened at all*) high altitude data could affect the global trends is if the high altitude trends all happened to be warmer or cooler than the global average.”
Nope, not at all. But first, a moment on “deleting”: A thief takes your stuff after you have it. An embezzler just never bothers to make the bank deposit. I’ve not said the data was IN GHCN and then stolen from it. The data ARE in the full station records at the local BOMs around the planet, they just were not “deposited” into GHCN. So no, the folks making GHCN are not taking out the data, deleting it from the existing GHCN. They ARE deleting it from the input supply (or just failing to include it) so more like embezzling. Hope that makes you feel better…
Now, what might make your assertion of perfection fail? Well, we happen to KNOW that when the Sun went into a funk the atmospheric hight shortened. (NASA data, satellites needing less boost, etc.) This, effectively, moves “high cold stations” to a higher density altitude. That tends to be colder. So, any “anomaly” calculated in one regime (solar spots high) will be WRONG and have ERROR in another solar regime (low to no sunspots). This matters. Then there is the issue of the Loopy Jet Stream. What happens when your anomaly is calculated during a time of zonal jet stream and then it goes meridional (loopy) now? Your anomaly will be WRONG and have ERROR.
It is a bald assertion that the Magic Anomaly Fixes All. It does not.
There is one paper (1987? Maybe earlier… From Hansen) that shows the Reference Station Method can give OK replacement values up to 1200 km away. This does NOT justify serial application. GISTemp does it up to 3 times in a row, so a station up to 3600 km away can influence the fabrication of a missing temperature value. (I’ve read, ported, and run GISTemp, BTW…) Now, what are the ERROR BARS? Are they 1/10 C or 1/2 C or 1 C or what? No error bars means your fabricated not-a-temperature value is useless and misleading.
“That’s one of the useful things about anomalies. Whether the station data come from Antarctica or Malaysia, from a hot desert or cold mountain, anomalising the data on the same baseline means you don’t have to weight the averagesdepending on altitude and latitude. That’s already done by the anomalization process.”
ONLY if you compare that thermometer to ITSELF at a different point in time in the anomaly series. IF you compare it to some other thermometer in a different period of time, for which baseline has no data, you are not comparing things from the same climate / weather regimen and are subject to the kinds of ERROR noted above. Comparing a Melbourne “anomaly” NOW to a Jakarta anomaly from a different period of time will not be helpful. The data must have overlap or changes of things like PDO, AMO, the 60 year weather cycle, Polar See-Saw, and Solar Grand Minimum will all disrupt your Reference Station Method anomaly relationship from one of those intervals to the other. Hansen’s paper rests on too short a time interval to cover those effects.
No, I have not “walked back” anything. The data were deleted. Just not from the GHCN, from the available input pool of data when turning it into the input to GHCN. This is a deliberate act (why else would about 4000 thermometers of data all cut off at the end of the Hadley Baseline period? It is not accidental.) Now I do NOT assert that is an evil thing. It could just be stupidity from believing the BS that “The Anomaly Will Fix EVERYTHING, and PERFECTLY!!”. If you prefer, you can substitute that “the data just failed to be deposited”…
Not a single BOM used then, eh? BTW, Turkey BOM complained that GHCN used their warming stations and left out the ones that are cooling… “old charts and books”: Are those accurate to 1/10 C? What are the error bars? Then why did this just end in 1990? Not interested after that? IF the anomaly makes it all irrelevant anyway, why include it at all? Just take it out.
“and now you know where Chiefio got the original from”: NOT AT ALL. I took the GHCN data and plotted it. Nothing more. I got no “original” from anyone else. Your “pity” is also just a propaganda slam.
Your assertions amounts to: “It is still 76 F in San Diego so not snowing more than usual in Tahoe. ” Patently false. OR “Atlanta is still warm so that Polar Express is not making record lows in Chicago”. We are in a different regime, so the anomaly relationship from 1980 is no longer accurate.
We KNOW the solar change made the atmosphere shorter. Mountain tops got colder. A Lot colder. They are now effectively at higher pressure altitudes. This is ignored by the “Anomaly perfection” mob. I think it is key factor.
83
Thanks Cheifio for taking the time to reply to the biased and misinformed comment from Barry.
Anything will be used to confuse ‘mug’ punters by these so called scientists..
Arcane jargon and misinformation, including slandering, is just par for the course.
41
Hi Chiefio, glad you have dropped by. I’ve been keen to talk about all this with you.
Regarding you ‘walking back’ your comments on thermometer “deletions”: you had used that term many times in your early postings on the issue, sufficient enough to give your readers the impression that this was a deliberate culling of the thermometer record. I’ll quote specific instances – your words.
“IMHO, only NOAA / NCDC can answer why they choose to delete the cold stations from the modern part of the GHCN data set” – https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
Isn’t your statement of deliberate intent here not crystal clear?
“…these are dropped by NOAA / NCDC and NOT by NASA GISS. GIStemp does toss out station records shorter than 20 years, but that happens to the combined GHCN / USHCN data sets and long AFTER NOAA / NCDC have “done the deed” of deletion of recent cold records in GHCN.” – https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/ushcn-vs-ushcn-version-2-more-induced-warmth/
“Don’t know what to make of this list yet, other than it directly ‘gives the lie’ to the assertion that thermometer ‘drops’ were / are entirely an artifact of GHCN being a creation at a historical moment in time” – https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/2010-thermometer-langoliers-hit-list/
That’s very clear. You state that the deletions were a deliberate choice in the first quote, and you wave away the notion of retrospective addition being the cause in the latter comment,” but you allow some possibility that there might be something to the idea of retrospective additions.
I’ve never seen you directly address the retrospective addition of huge amounts of data being responsible for the major part of the hump in station count – admitting that this is in fact the case. Have you done so somewhere, or have you continued to hedge about that?
Eventually you said this:
“While the “spin” put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any person’s intent, only the result […] I’m more interested in the FACT of the thermometer deletions (or drops) from the record and what that says about data bias; than about whether there has been a sin of omission or of commission. It’s a sin in either case. Was it murder or involuntary thermometer slaughter?”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/kusi-coleman-tv-show-discussion/
These are all your own words. I think my characterization is fair. By all means clarify anything I’ve misunderstood.
The reason for “station drop-out” is made quite clear in the GCHN v 2 paper I cited above. Less than half the total stations were part of the semi-automated update stream. The majority of station data were retrospectively added. That is why the station count drops fairly precipitously from the 90s. The irony is, that this is a consequence of ADDING data, not DELETING stations. ‘Skeptics’still disbelieve this 10 years later.
I will answer other points once this is sorted out, to keep the conversation from meandering. I’m interested in your thoughts on this particular matter, Chiefio – deliberate deletions, or retrospective addition? Looking for a clear response. Cheers.
13
Barry, If you want a reply from Cheifio, go post your questions on his blog post directly ….
21
Thanks, Bill. I posted in the latest thread where you drew attention to my post here. We’ll see if there is a reply.
21
To be doubly clear, I am talking about GHCN, per your comments I quoted above, and not downstream products. I’d like to get perfect clarity on this first.
12
Barry, I have just realised that you make no response at all as regards URBAN HEAT ISLAN EFFECT.
What are we to assume about that omission ?
My assumption is that you know that UHIE exists but you do not want to remind anyone about it as doing so would undermine your attempts to discredit Cheifio’s work.
More ‘climate science’ dopiness !
21
Bill,with a bunch of issues coming all at once, one has to pick and choose or the conversation gets stodgy. There is an urban heat island effect. Urbanization causes a place to have a warming bias from the urbanization. How much in terms of the global record is a matter of contention, no matter how many warmists want to tell you it is a settled item.
04
Ummmm.. I am rading an oldish book :Francis Wheen’s How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World” ( harpur Collins 2004.
I notice you how much you indulge in Mumbo Jumbo Barry….
And frangkly that is a major issue…
Your comment about Urban Heat Island Effects avoids the key issue :Most of the world’s weather stations are in urban areas where the readings provide false positives of ‘global’ warming.
Yes there is warming in almost mankind’s urban settlements. But expensive measures like eliminating fossil fuels will have zero impact on them. The simple fact is that humans modify the environment where ever we live. We collect store and USE energy. That extra energy resolves into extar heat. And We build buildings & roads that absorb more light which is radiated out as heat …
Global warming is a myth.
Human warming is the reality.
Human warming can only be dealt with, and should only be dealt with, on the local level.
23
Let’s see.
1) Most weather stations are urban
2) Eliminating fossil fuels will zero impact on warming in urban settlements
3) Urban areas inevitably have a lower albedo than the surface they replace
4) Global warming is a myth
5) Human warming is THE reality
6) Response to human warming (urbanization) should be dealt with at location (with air conditioning, perhaps?)
Well, as I said, with many items coming at once, one has to pick and choose, or end up with enormously long posts.
So, let’s deal with one contention you make.
What is the result if one only uses rural records? Does long-term global warming disappear?
On a computer that dies I had quite a few links to various analyses of subsets of RAW global data, as well as adjusted. Only rural stations -with various different attempts at defining rural- all showed long-term warming.
Do you have reference to a comprehensive global effort showing no long term global warming in rural-only stations?
There is, of course, also the SST record, which is unaffected by urbanization. It shows warming. So does the OHC record. Sealevel rise comports with global warming. So does global sea ice melt.
So I’m wondering why you think global warming is strictly a product of urban warming?
03
“Most of the world’s weather stations are in urban areas”
No they are not.
23
I guess if you don’t count airports as “urban” your comment might have a point, twotter.
Otherwise it was meaningless.
23
What is the result if one only uses rural records?
Been done, and shows that 1940s were slightly warmer than now
23
Hi Andy,
Though the methods are not spelled out in the paper as far as I can tell…
https://iowaclimate.org/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/
It seems that the results indicate long-term warming, though less than other data sets.
“Combining the OAS temperatures and OAA temperatures and using the century-scale trends for each identified in the paper (-0.03 K/century and +0.78 K/century, respectively), it may be concluded that instrumental temperature stations located in non-urban areas and not subjected to artificial urban heating bias produce an overall warming trend of just 0.375 K/century (0.038 K/decade) during 1900-2010.”
Which appears to confirm that long term global warming is not solely an artefact of urbanization.
The lower warming from ocean sheltered stations is a counter-intuitive result. Global land warms faster than global ocean surface, even in the satellite temp records (I post regularly at Roy Spencer’s blog, and am most familiar with the UAH data). I’m curious about the methods in this paper. Can’t tell if they went looking for weather stations sheltered from ocean breezes and found lower trends, or if they searched for stations with lower trends, and then demarked them as ocean-sheltered…?
12
1940s probably warmer than current in places unaffected by direct ocean and urban heating.
“The lower warming from ocean sheltered stations is a counter-intuitive result”
No, only the oceans absorb and RETAIN solar energy.
31
The result is counter-intuitive because all records – including satellite lower tropospheric, which are unaffected by UHI, show land warming faster than ocean.
Sidebar: There is no doubt in my mind that there is overall warming of the system. Too many factors converge: global sea level, ocean heat content, global sea ice etc. If long-term (centennial) warming is heat transferring out of the oceans (and referring also to the non-urban ocean affected stations from the paper), then global sea levels should correspondingly drop with thermal contraction.
Have you read the paper in full? Do you have a link to a full version? The authors have decided to paywall it, rather than be transparent.
11
Forgot to add, the result is also counter-intuitive because water has 1000 times the heat capacity of air. It takes much more energy to warm water than it does the same volume of air, and the oceans have a much larger mass than the atmosphere, by several orders of magnitude. Can’t think why oceans should warm faster than land.
12
The UHE gets smeared over huge areas it doesn’t apply to.
That and the adjustments make up for basically all the so-called calculated global surface warming.
Reality is that the oceans warmed a bit from the Grand Solar Maximum last century. Release a bunch of it at the 1998 and recent El Ninos
That energy is gradually working its way through the system, and is probably just about all used up. With the Sun in a sort of slumber, and the AMO starting to turn downwards, cooling can be expected.
It really is a pity that the continued emissions of human CO2 don’t have any effect on temperature or climate, because cooling is the very last thing the world needs at the moment.
42
AndyG55 doing his ol’ tap dance routine again. You should ask him for his proof and references, it seems to trigger him 🙂 If he thinks the globe stopped warming around 1998 for, well, reasons, ask him to explain why the GMT has continued to increase since then (over 20 years). Also ask AndyG55 to explain how the 2016 El Nino created a bigger pulse than the 1997 El Nino if it was “the sun” since “the sun”‘s activity has declined slightly. It will be entertaining to be sure. Even Dr Roy Spencer’s synthesized data shows warming, and he is a Creationist!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2019_v6.jpg
14
Poor twotter,
STILL cannot produce one piece of scientific evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Its really eating at you isn’t it, little child ! 🙂
No warming even in RSSv$ between the end of the 1998 El Nino step and the start of the next El Nino.
Again, why is twotter using the step and the transient to manufacture a trend. Give a monkey a straight edge !!!
Haven’t you got ANYTHING apart from those El Ninos, twotter?
Also seems to think the huge bulk of the oceans is going to immediately respond to a drop in solar activity.
Maybe he doesn’t realise than an El Nino is a release of energy from the oceans.
No accounting for his unawaremess.
31
Barry I get the feeling you have been hiding under a rock for a while – in the vast bureaucratic fiefdom of the Bureau of Misinformation perhaps ?
You will find a slew of articles on UHIE here on WUWT :https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Urban+Heat+Island+effect
The top article by Geoff Sherrington has an extensive discussion and in the discussion are listed the BOM websites for a number of rural locations with no climate warming. One comment posts a link to the weather station records for MacQuarie Island deep in the Southern ocean which also has NO climate warming. You will also find my own study of Mt Barker in the Adelaide Hills BOM weather records for the past 157 years. And the BOM Murray Bridge weather records since the 1960’s. Here is a link : https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Urban+Heat+Island+effect
NB MacQuaries Islands very different to Heard Island also in the Southern Ocean. Heard Island has seen a warming trend in recent decades and warming watres – due to the intense volcanic/ tectonic activity. Which brings me to sea surface temperatures which you mention are ‘rising’.
I wonder if you have ever wondered about the curious fact that the oceans & seas cover 70% of the planet’s surface.. And that there are tens of thousands of kilometers ( or miles ) of volcanic sub surface tectonic rift valleys where magma and super heated water & gases are heating the waters of the oceans. In fact of all the tectonic rift valleys on the planet only one ( in East Africa ) is on land. All the rest are in the oceans & seas.
And of course there is absolutely nothing that us humans can do about that oceanic warming.
Does CO2 do anything to the global tempeature ? No bugger all !
fundamentally the sun is the major influence. And it is not pumping out quite as much energy in recent days.. Which might be why some folk observing the last 2-3 deeo freezing Winters of the Northern hemisphere, think the planet is cooling.
12
It is very interesting to see the graph of global seismic activity lagged against UAH LT temperatures.
12
And let’s have a look at the so-called “ocean warming” in perspective.
See the little red squiggle at the end…
… we apparently caused that.. lol !!
12
Thanks Peter,
Quoting from Chiefio,
81
This is a snippet from the posting here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/ghcnv3-3-by-continent-scatter-graphs/
Where I simply plot the raw data and look at it. The top ends generally do not rise. The cold ends are more ‘ragged’. Were there a “general warming from a well mixed gas” you would expect to see the data “slew” over time with both high and low sides tilting.
Then from this mess of data they think they can tease out 1/10 C precision and accuracy, from data recorded in whole degrees…
42
o/t apologies, but this also concerns a massive hoax. have just read the complete transcript – it’s extraordinary. will listen to the podcast as well, just to see the expressions on ABC America faces:
12 Feb: ConservativeTreehouse: sundance: Dowd Nails It – Former Trump Attorney Outlines Insufferable Behavior of Mueller and Rosenstein in Perpetrating Political Russia Hoax…
ABC (America) conducted an extremely interesting interview (LINK) with former Trump Attorney John Dowd that the media outlet will likely keep far away from their mainstream broadcast and print reporting…
The entire transcript is HERE. I would strongly suggest listening to the podcast. I’m pulling some excerpts…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/12/dowd-nails-it-former-trump-attorney-outlines-insufferable-behavior-of-mueller-and-rosenstein-in-perpetrating-political-russia-hoax/
above links to:
AUDIO: 40min26sec: 12 Feb: ABC: TRANSCRIPT: Former Trump attorney John Dowd’s interview on ABC News’ ‘The Investigation’ podcast
A transcript of John Dowd’s interview as it appears in episode 1 of the podcast.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948
81
oops just realised it’s an audio podcast, so won’t see the faces, but the voices should tell a story.
30
I am still wondering why Rod Rosenstein has not been re-examined by the Senate enquiry.
Also how long can Mueller go on without making a report?
40
As long as the Democrats want .
10
Why I am so totally unsurprised?
30
11 Feb: GWPF: “Hyper-Alarming” Study Was Hype
Calls for withdrawal of “insect collapse” paper
The scientific paper behind newspaper claims that insect populations were threatened with extinction was based on data known to be unreliable. That’s according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which today called for the paper to be withdrawn.
The paper, by US scientists Bradford C Lister and Andres Garcia, claimed that a rapid decline in insect populations in a rainforest in Puerto Rico was the result of rising temperatures. The Washington Post called the study “hyperalarming”, while the Guardian discussed climate change causing “insect collapse”.
However, the authors’ evidence that temperatures had, in fact, risen turns out to be based on a single weather station, which was known to be unreliable because of undocumented changes to equipment and location resulting in a substantial and abrupt increase in recorded temperatures in September 1992.
Since 1992, temperatures at this station have actually declined.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has issued a formal complaint to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the journal that published the article, asking that the paper be withdrawn.
Letter to the editor of PNAS (PDF) (LINK)
https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/
71
All these made up data sets are junk. This fact needs to told loudly to the public over and over again.
141
Dave, you have Trump. We don’t. Our case is hopeless.
80
Totally agree ….just WHO is going to “tell the truth” in Australia ??
This Country has been “handcuffed” and “gagged” !
90
Made up data sets are not data. The original raw readings are the only ones that can be called data…end of story.
71
Extrapolations and infills and models are not data either.
60
Thermometer says 47.7C
BOM says 51C
What a ridiculous farce.
151
The problem with the Left, including the institutional Left such as the BOM is that they treat “1984” as an operations manual.
202
Before we go too far, it should be noted that BOM shows a trend of about 0.19ºC/decade from 1980 to 2010
UAH Australia also shows a trend from 1979 – 2018 of 0.19ºC/decade.
What UAH does show up is the distinct step change at the 1998 El Nino.
92
the BOM estimated trend was taken using the 10 year mean trend from the graph on this page (line looks reasonably linear from 1980-2010))
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/
Have a sinus “bug”, so someone please check my estimate.
51
Can you be more precise, AndyG55 – your link goes to the Acorm-sat home page – I found a reference to 1960-1990 for the average, but that might not be what your are referring to.
46
click on “climate trends” down the bottom of the page
60
I guess about .56C over 30 years, plus or minus a bit, using the 10 year average line.
approx. 0.19C/decade
60
Thanks AndyG55, I see what you mean. The interesting item for me is that UAH uses a 30 mean stretching back from 2010, and BOM are using a 10 year mean, yet the results are similar.
35
OMG .. WAKE UP, pfutz.
BOM are the using a 10 year running mean only on that graph, purely as a smoothing curve.. It just happens to be reasonably linear over that period
If I could be bothered putting a 10 year running mean on the UAH data, you would see is NOT linear, it would smooths out at the top end as the pause takes effect.
The temperatures stated by BOM are still an anomaly to a set 30 year period (whatever BOM are currently using)
I know maths is difficult for you, but do at least try to understand. Its getting tiresome.
92
Check your medicine, you are not making sense
27
Oh by the way, how is your career as a rap artist going? Had any gigs yet? Did Mr/Ms Keith (Kinky is gender neutral), help with the name. Very close to that excellent AliG from a while back.
28
Your continued doubling down on your own IGNORANCE does not help your cause, pfutz.
22
is one a centred mean and the other an end point?
21
Gee Aye – UAH uses the standard 30 year mean going from 1981-2010, The mean is updated every 10 years, so we would see a new one next year. Other sources can use a running 30 year mean, which is more reactive, but is not endorsed by the IPCC.
BOM use a mean from 1961-1990, but in this case it appears that they are using a rolling 10 year mean, so we are looking at weather, and not climate. As AndyG55 found out, either method seems to yield the same result
42
well in that case, it matters little about the method of smoothing on the graphs. That is mostly presentational and does not impact the trend lines greatly.
If they come up with close to the same trends using separate instruments and methods of collection then that is what we call corroboration.
53
BoM use 1961-1991 as the 30 year mean.
Why is there an increase in Australia’s precipitation?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/rainfall/australian-rainfall-bom-1900-2010.png
50
I don’t Know el gordo (which i assume is spanish for dumb gordon), here we are talking about temperature, (and its 1961 to 1990).
Why don’t you dazzle me with your logic about how rainfall is heat, but wet.
212
El Gordo means ‘the fat one’.
You are talking about temperature because it allows the splitting of hairs, when we should be focussed on the largest greenhouse gas.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
The authorities should be informed that a big long wet is on the way, global cooling has begun.
91
Mr Peter Fitzroy,
You have just displayed your rudeness and your ignorance.
‘El Gordo” ( EG ) is a Spanish language affectionate nick name for someone who is a bit overweight.
It never means ‘dumb’.
I think it’s time for you to issue an apology.
Or of you cannot do that, delete your self from the Jo Nova blog.
72
Bill in Oz, how are the munchkins? See the Good Witch lately.? the Tin Man? You all have these handles, and you expect me to take you seriously? As far as I know, English is the language, Australian is the culture. Not Spanish, and certainly not a fairy tale land.
210
EG that is an interesting chart.
But what does the vertical axis measure ? Saltiness or what ?
50
Honestly, Peter Fitzroy,
How little you really know.
Some of us here use that Oz as part of our names, not for the mindless sneering appropriation you give it.
As I mentioned at the site I contribute at in my bio, written way back in March of 2008, and let me quote:
You really do speak down to everyone here at this site, just mindlessly assuming that we all know nothing, and that you are the font of all wisdom.
Do give us ‘some’ credit for at least knowing some of the things we claim as our field of expertise.
This seems to be the day for apologies for you eh!
Tony.
133
Bill this is on topic.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1
El Gordo is a Spanish lottery, the fat one. Being slim I don’t require an apology.
50
EG, my knowledge of Spanish ( Castilano )is via Argentina and the world of Tango.
In Buenos Aires El Gordo is a nickname affectionately used by friends…
I did not know of the Spanish lottery ‘El Gordo’. (= the big one ? )
As for the apology it is necessary as Peter Fitzroy referred to you as “Dumb Gordon”.
Re the link I will check it out
thanks !
40
“and you expect me to take you seriously”
Now why would anyone care if a mental non-entity like you takes them seriously.
You are a NOTHING.. a sad, empty, intelligence-bereft trollette.
When it comes to science, maths, anything to do with climate, you are empty and are nothing but a bad joke that keeps repeating on itself.
43
FWIW, on the Oz and Gordo things:
IIRC, Australia was also called Oz due to the strange variety of animal life. Kind of a pun on AUS / Land Of Oz. It is widely used to mean Australian as the Australians have a sense of humor…
“Gordo” means “fat one” in California Mexican Spanish. (I grew up with it from about age 5). Gordito is “little fat one” and is a kind of tortilla made less wide but thicker. I used to make them with Celerina & Miguel at Miguel’s house. BTW, I was “Miguel Grande” and his nephew was “Little Miquel” as we all shared a name, even if across 2 languages. I was thankful they chose “Big Mike” instead of “Miguel Gordo”!
I’ve known several folks with “Gordo” in their name, all “rotund” Mexicans (and proud of it!). One of the things I liked about immersion in the Mexican sub-culture – a willingness to embrace their reality.
I’d not take offense at being called “Miguel Gordo” now, nor would I be bothered were I “Miguel In Oz”…
I, too, have a sense of humor 😉 and accept reality…
31
Andy, I get BoM and UAH AUS as having about the same trends since 1979 (40 years exact – makes a slightly easier per decade calc).
31
So AndyG55 finally posts a chart that actually shows the warming in the Australian region, even from something as dodgy as the synthesised troposphere data (which is now up to around version 6 I think, no need to be frightened of new versions of data sets). Well done, it is a reasonable graph.
23
Do you have ANY empirical evidence that the warming is anything but natural, twotter?
Any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2?
Heck ,even blind willy could see that the warming came almost totally from the step change at the 1998 El Nino, hence absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
If we take a closer look at UAH Australia this century, guess what we see.
Glad you accept UAH as an arbiter, Its FAR more representative of REALITY than anything BOM could ever fabricate.
No warming this century in Autralia, twotter.
And absolutely no evidence of any warming by atmospheric CO2.Get over it.
42
Some things never change, like thinking anyone can ever discuss science with AndyG55. Every time a bit of science is pointed to AndyG55 uses his magical powers to claim that it is false without ever having to provide a shred of evidence that it is false. Followed by the usual tirade of insults of course.
“Heck ,even blind willy could see that the warming came almost totally from the step change at the 1998 El Nino, hence absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.”
You first, what is your “empirical” evidence that what YOU claim is correct? If you can draw scientific conclusions from a wiggly curve, then so can I… at least I get my science from scientists, I don’t make it up. “Step change” indeed…
I think you are the only CO2 denier that I have seen on a blog. If you can show the scientists have it wrong, a Nobel Prize is yours for the taking.
23
You have no science to discuss, twotter,
You have not pointed to any science, you never do.
Note YET AGAIN that you are totally incapable of providing any empirical evidence to back up the CO2 warming claims..
Why is that?
We are waiting.
All you have is just more of your mindless blather, attempted distraction, and LAME appeals to authority.
You are as EMPTY as you have always been.
22
UAH Australia before El Nino
UAH post El Nino
Use the El Ninos to show a trend, twotter,
All you do is PROVE the warming IS NOT from atmospheric CO2.
22
If you can’t see the step change…..
22
Well if anyone else on this blog knows what a “step change” is, explain it to me. Also explain why AndyG55’s data looks different to UAH, and why he keeps leaving years off the ends.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2019_v6.jpg
22
Poor twotter…
Blind is as blind does.
No trend before, no trend after
Do you DENY that there was just another El Nino “transient”
Use those El Ninos for all you got, twotter.
It ALL you have.
22
“Also explain why AndyG55′s data looks different to UAH”
Because we are talking about UAH Australian data, bonehead !!
I know you find it incredibly difficult, but do at least try to keep up !
Even in the world data you show, there is no warming before the 1998 El Nino
and no warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.
32
Pulling teeth is easier than this. Anyone else care to comment about the data, AndyG55 won’t.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2019_v6.jpg
12
Twotter, we are looking at UAH Australian data.. Stay on topic. !!!!
As for global UAH data
twotter again proves me correct by using the 1998 El Nino step and 2015/16 transient to create a trend
In the post above I show there is no warming before the 1998 El Nino
and no warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.
Stop ignoring the data, twotter
The ONLY warming has come from those two events.
It cannot be from atmospheric CO2
There is no empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming
None of the four stooges, (twotter, pfitz, phlip or gg) have ever been able to produce any.
22
“Pulling teeth is easier than this”
You have no teeth.. you never have had.
Sort of like a gummy bear… with very little brain.
Any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet, twotter?
22
“Anyone else care to comment about the data, AndyG55 won’t.”
And yet I had, in the post directly above your. DOH !!
11
The ACORN chart actually shows yearly data points which are anomalies from the standard 30 year baseline of 1961-1990. The 10 year rolling average by itself means nothing, it is just a visualization aid.
The entire data set (starting in 1910) trend is 0.13C per decade. But really the warming trend starts around 1950 which is consistent with what the global record shows. The bump around 1940 (in both the Australian and world record) is a genuine mystery, I have never heard a good explanation for it, but it is also irrelevant. My guess is each new peak roughly corresponds to an El Nino event.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3DT
22
You mean the DISAPPEARENCE of most of the bump in the 1940s?
(especially in the northern hemisphere)
We know that is not a mystery. Pre-ordained by the AGW priests.
Why no BOM data before 1910, even though Stevenson screens existed well before then?
Are BOM “scared” it will destroy their little homogenised story ?
42
finally the plug is being pulled on California’s cap & trade bullet train:
12 Feb: Fox News: California to pull plug on billion-dollar bullet train, cites ballooning costs
By Barnini Chakraborty
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Tuesday he is pulling the plug on the state’s massive high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco that was more than a decade behind schedule and billions in the red.
“Let’s be real,” Newsom said in his first State of the State address. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.”…
The embattled $77-billion bullet train has been an embarrassment for the Golden State and has been plagued by problems almost from the start…
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-to-pull-plug-on-billion-dollar-bullet-train-cites-ballooning-costs
12 Feb: Fox News: George Soros says Europe faces ‘oblivion’ as right-wing parties set to win big in European election
by Adam Shaw
Left-wing billionaire George Soros, in a rare op-ed, has fired a warning shot to what he describes as the “sleeping pro-European majority” ahead of the European Parliament elections in May — saying Europe needs to “wake up before it is too late” and before nationalist parties take control.
“Europe is sleepwalking into oblivion, and the people of Europe need to wake up before it is too late,” the Hungarian-American financier, known for his promotion of left-wing policies, he wrote for Project Syndicate (LINK)…
Last year, British media reported that Soros had delivered $560,000 to an anti-Brexit campaign, leading to accusations from Brexiteers that he was part of an international plot to stop Brexit and bring down the government.
But with nationalist and right-wing parties on the rise in Europe, Soros is setting off alarm bells of his own. In his op-ed, he claims that “anti-European forces” will have a competitive advantage in May, when lawmakers to the European Parliament will be elected. He blames the “outdated party system” and “the lack of legal tools for disciplining member states that violate the principles on which the European Union was founded.”…
Describing the current E.U. leadership as “reminiscent of the Politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed” Soros says it is hard to see how pro-E.U. parties can win in May “unless they put Europe’s interests ahead of their own.”….
https://www.foxnews.com/world/george-soros-says-europe-is-on-cusp-of-a-nightmare-as-right-wing-parties-set-to-win-big-in-european-election
101
Soros has the most infernal cheek. How come he knows best for everyone around the planet?
111
Simply: he has much more money than they have. That makes a moral imperative which is linearly proportional …
40
12 Feb: ConservativeTreehouse: The Beginning of The End – MSNBC Reporting Senate Democrats Agree No Russian Collusion…
by sundance
Mark the calendars; today is an important date. CTH has noted, repeatedly, how extremely difficult it would be for the media to walk-back over three years of false reporting on the insufferable and manufactured “Muh Russia” collusion narrative.
However, remarkably, today that process actually begins. WATCH – VIDEO 3min58sec
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/12/the-beginning-of-the-end-msnbc-reporting-senate-democrats-agree-no-russian-collusion/
Bloomingdales apologises/pulls “Fake News” t-shirt after a “journalist” complains!
12 Feb: Townhall: Katie Pavlich: So-Called Protector of the First Amendment Gets a T-Shirt Banned Because It’s ‘Offensive’ to Journalists
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/02/12/socalled-protector-of-the-first-amendment-gets-a-tshirt-banned-because-its-offensive-n2541347
61
Following info from another poster here I got a copy of “The Weather Watchers” – the book of the BOM’s first 100 years.
Can’t be much demand as the library system got it pretty quickly.
By their progress to Acorn 2 the next volume might well be called (IMO)
“The Weather Makers”
(Repeated from a previous thread)
81
A good start to explaining the BOM secret sauce (/s)
“Larry Ledwick says:
12 February 2019 at 11:52 pm
Do the climate scientists run a special secret course in how to arrange things ?
I think it more likely that they use a lot of super computer time, answering the following question:
What happens if I do this?
Oh good the average changes.
Is the change in the preferred direction
No = do over with different options
Yes = add to adjustments used
I think what we are seeing is 1000 people making 1000+ small tweaks which each move the average in the direction they want. Almost impossible to document, since the abhor telling us exactly what they changed and why they just make unexplained poorly documented adjustments to “fix errors” yet we know by examination that trivial errors like the -999 codes could very easily be corrected or dropped but are left in the data set.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/ghcn-v3-3-stations-by-altitude-by-years-or-mountains-what-mountains/#comment-107702
100
And subsequent comments too
30
BOM’s secret sauce adds an interesting flavour to the cooked results.
62
The temperature at any one point on the continents surface DOESNT MATTER. It doesnt prove anything. Heat flow obeys thermodynamic laws, heatwaves are trapped area of high pressure. Heat transfer is lateral.
There is no record in pre-human or colonisation period to know WHAT the temperatures were. It is very likely that there were heatwaves during the ice ages.
52
Well… no.
25
Well… yes.
A heat wave is defined as a given departure from the normal climate.
Do try to keep up with modern definitions, twotter. !!
Or are you saying there are no high pressure systems during an ice age.
42
The BOM is a ratings agency to sell collaterised climate obligations. Same incentives, same results.
81
For you USians ,I feel sorry if that lunatic woman Cortez EVER gets any power!
New Green Deal IS ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIANISM against any industrial development at any cost.
icecap.us
“CALGARY, Canada – The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation – and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”
The Green New Deal isn’t just un-American, it’s also completely bonkers.
By David Harsanyi
71
It took awhile, but even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to realize that the Green New Deal as originally conceived is crazy and she deleted the FAQ sheet about it from her web site and is now pretending that it was posted by mistake. Meanwhile, the senate leader is talking about scheduling a vote on it to see how many Democrats are willing to hitch their wagon to it by voting for it. I may have get a new supply of popcorn, this could get interesting.
80
🙂 Watch that space! 🙂
30
Jo, how about organising some crowdsourcing? Volunteers each take one of the 57 locations and document all changes from raw to adjusted temperatures and all reported changes to the site and screen. As an example, here is a sample of BoM data for Cape Otway Lighthouse daily maximum temperatures back to 1865. Unclear whether this is raw or adjusted data.
It would be useful for someone experienced in this type of analysis to provide a template so there will be consistency when the results come in.
Then perhaps someone like Chris Gillam or Jennifer Marohasy could present some conclusions from the findings as Chris has done for 32 WA stations.
61
Aussie Unions – where are you?
12 Feb: Reuters: Labor unions fear Democrats’ Green New Deal poses job threat
by Valerie Volcovici
The cool response from unions underscores the challenge facing Democratic presidential hopefuls who support aggressive action on climate change but must also win back the blue-collar voters that swept President Donald Trump to victory in 2016…
“We will never settle for ‘just transition’ language as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the policies in the resolution,” said Yvette Pena O’Sullivan, executive director of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), whose members work in construction and other industries.
Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers (UMWA), which represents workers in the coal industry, echoed the concerns.
“We’ve heard words like ‘just transition’ before, but what does that really mean? Our members are worried about putting food on the table,” he said…
Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Unions, representing construction workers across all sectors including energy, said his staff had been contacted by Markey’s office about the Green New Deal, but said his members are skeptical of “green job” promises.
Members “working in the oil and gas sector can make a middle-class living, whereas renewable energy firms have been less generous,” he said at a pipeline safety event last week…
The Sunrise Movement, a youth organization backing the Green New Deal, plans to launch a multi-state campaign in March to drum up support, featuring stops in Michigan, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
“A lot of places struggling with joblessness are fossil fuel dependent places that suffer from poor air and water quality. Guaranteeing the right of clean air, water and jobs is something we think a lot of people can get behind,” said Stephen O’Hanlon, a spokesman for the group…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-greennewdeal-coal/labor-unions-fear-democrats-green-new-deal-poses-job-threat-idUSKCN1Q11D2
Youtube: 4min04sec: 11 Feb: Students Love Green New Deal… Until Hearing What’s In It
posted by Campus Reform
Students at The University of Miami loved the idea of the Green New Deal… But they seemed to change their mind after hearing what was actually in it.
Comments – 13,039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoziALuwbtg
61
James Cook Uni at it again:
11 Feb: ScienceDaily: Climate change may destroy tiger’s home
Source: James Cook University
Summary: A scientist says the last coastal stronghold of an iconic predator, the endangered Bengal tiger, could be destroyed by climate change and rising sea levels over the next 50 years.
“Fewer than 4,000 Bengal tigers are alive today,” said JCU’s Professor Bill Laurance, a co-author of the study…
“What is most terrifying is that our analyses suggest tiger habitats in the Sundarbans will vanish entirely by 2070,” said (lead-author Dr Sharif Mukul, an assistant professor at Independent University Bangladesh…
The researchers used computer simulations to assess the future suitability of the low-lying Sundarban region for tigers and their prey species, using mainstream estimates of climatic trends from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their analyses included factors such as extreme weather events and sea-level rise…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190211105400.htm
Sydney Uni always at it:
13 Feb: ABC: If sea levels rise and Pacific nations go under water — what happens to maritime boundaries?
Pacific Beat By foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic
Rising seas, devastating cyclones, ferocious storm surges.
Scientists have long predicted climate change could pose an existential threat to the tiny island nations which dot the Pacific.
But it’s not just the region’s natural geography in peril — its political geography could be endangered as well.
Pacific leaders are worried rising seas could wreak havoc with maritime boundaries throughout the region…
Most Pacific Islands might only be tiny specks of land, but they’re the custodians of vast oceans.
The nation of Tuvalu, for example, is made up of a string of tiny atolls which are only 26 square kilometres in total.
But its ocean territories cover more than 900,000 square kilometres — slightly larger than the state of New South Wales.
The Cook Islands add up to 600 square kilometres of dry land, but it oversees a vast ocean territory of about 2 million square kilometres…
Maritime boundaries determine who has the right to Pacific fisheries worth more than $1 billion — a huge sum for a region with few sources of income…
Mr Mitchell is one of 63 officials and experts from around the Pacific who have gathered at Sydney University this week to discuss the issue.
It’s a modest meeting, but it could mark a seminal moment in the Pacific…
The talks at Sydney University have been organised by the Pacific Community, which provides technical and scientific advice to countries across the region.
Its deputy director-general, Dr Audrey Aumua, says she hopes Pacific leaders will prize collaboration over contestation…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/what-happens-to-maritime-boundaries-after-sea-level-rise/10804478
AUDIO: 2min55sec: ABC AM Adelaide: Rising sea levels could cause mayhem with marine boundaries
By Stephen Dziedzic on AM
BELOW: Related stories:
Rising seas will displace millions of people — and Australia must be ready
Rising sea levels could shrink Australia and spark a coastal exodus
Here’s what 4,000 floating thermometers tell us about the future
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/adelaide/programs/am/rising-sea-levels-could-cause-mayhem-with-marine-boundaries/10805868
31
SLR over the next fifty years will be similar to the rise over the last fifty years, negligible, and you can take that to the bank JCU researchers.
71
If all of that is not crazy enough, the Sydney Morning Hamas now tells us that the dust over Sydney at present is not only hazardous, it is also VECTORED!!!
What is “vectored dust” please?
80
What is “vectored dust” please?
dust travelling in a given direction.
ie. with the wind. 🙂
104
Decoded ‘vectored dust’ = Wind blown dust !
Any sort of garbage high tech sounding crap is used to confuse rather than enlighten.
More Bureau of Misinformation !
93
Manipulating the angle of the dust stream?
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/vecthrst.html
All powerful BOM at work?
11
They meant or intended to convey that it was a ‘dust vortex’. Clearly a typo and nothing to worry about.
10
They meant or intended to convey that it was a ‘dust vortex’. Clearly a typo and nothing to worry about.
10
Thank you.
It must be the new language, such as polar vortex (used to be cold northerly’s) and Pineapple Express (used to be SE onshore trough).
Has anyone ever seen dust moving in any direction other than the direction of the wind? I haven’t.
50
Thanks tooright. Good observation IMO.
From Google…
“People also ask
“What does the vortex do?
“In fluid dynamics, a vortex (plural vortices/vortexes) is a region in a fluid in which the flow revolves around an axis line, which may be straight “or curved.” [my bolding]
So we can allready see here that for a vortex to form, it needs a central axis to spin/orbit around.
A vortex can spin air, water, or other fluid or gas, and particularly cold air.
Very cold air and dust can spin around a straight line axis including a curved axis line to revolve/spin around.
To travel vast distances over land, a polar vortex needs to spin horizontally, not like a tornado vortex axis that spins vertically around a straight/curved axis up into the sky.
🙂
It is easy to imagine a tornado spinning sideways
20
12 Feb: USA Today: There’s ‘no place on the planet’ — not even Hawaii — to escape climate change, experts say
by Kristin Lam
“There’s no place on the planet where (people) can expect to see conditions as they have been in the past,” said Chip Fletcher, an earth sciences professor at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa and vice chair of the Honolulu Climate Change Commission…
On Sunday, for example, the Hawaii Tourism Authority advised visitors not to go hiking, swimming, snorkeling and surfing because of dangerous conditions.
This weekend’s damaging storm, Fletcher said, is a good example of an extreme weather event that is more likely to occur in a warmer world. Climate change set up the conditions for the extreme waves, ***as well as what officials said could be the lowest-elevation snowfall ever recorded in the state…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/11/hawaii-extreme-weather-example-climate-change-experts/2843281002/
11 Feb: CNN: Fact checking Trump’s snowstorm tweet
By Holmes Lybrand
The President has used this sort of rhetoric many, many times during his time in office, suggesting that cold weather somehow disproves the scientific evidence that the planet is warming. But it doesn’t quite work that way.
Weather does not equal climate
First of all, Trump is conflating two things: weather and global climate…
Global climate refers to the planet’s entire climate averaged out over time. It’s that second piece that has scientists alarmed…
It’s important to note that regional weather on a specific day can’t tell you that much about the global climate— i.e., a February snowstorm in Minnesota. “People also tend to confuse what is happening where they live as an indication of what is happening globally,” Marshall Shepherd, director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia and a former president of the American Meteorological Society previously noted to CNN. “It is not ‘Where You Live Warming,’ it is ‘Global Warming.'”…
Global warming may lead to cold snaps
While a snowstorm in Minneapolis in early February is pretty unremarkable, the President has previously pointed to record colds in certain regions as evidence against global warming.
Some scientists, however, believe that it’s because of warming that we see more extreme colds as well.
An article from NOAA notes that some scientists think the increased temperature in the Arctic, which reduces the difference between the Arctic and the tropics, creates a “pattern [causing] storms to stall and intensify, rather than move away as they normally used to do.” This may lead to more extreme weather, including droughts, floods, cold spells, and heat waves.”
A national climate science special report from the government’s US Global Change Research Program has low confidence in this premise, noting that “the influence of arctic changes on U.S. weather over the coming decades remains an open question.”
So while we need more research to determine if global warming is causing colder temperatures in some areas in the US, what is clear is that the mere presence of a Minnesota snowstorm in February is not evidence that global warming doesn’t exist.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/fact-checking-trump-snowstorm-tweet/index.html
21
It’s disappointing to see the term “climate scientists” morph into “scientists” much like “global warming” became “climate change”. It’s either because almost everyone knows climate scientists don’t know what they are doing but the general scientific community still has a good reputation that can be used, or the warmists are trying to claim (erroneously) that all scientists think climate change is an issue that can be addressed by mankind. Well I, as a scientist, don’t appreciate being lumped in with climate scientists. It will give us all a bad name.
83
Last I saw they, the ludericks, had advanced to “climate crisis”.
30
“Minnesota snowstorm in February is not evidence that global warming doesn’t exist.” NO it means it doesnt exist period. Because the (real, un-adjusted) data SAYS it doesnt exist.
51
““There’s no place on the planet where (people) can expect to see conditions as they have been in the past,” “
Thank goodness, By all accounts, the LIA was a time of bleak and extreme weather..
…. unlike the benign conditions we currently have.
52
Yes be quite good to live in the late 17th century, LIA , black plague, smallpox, lack of food….
40
South of UK frozen,
crops unable to grow because it was too cold and there wasn’t enough atmospheric CO2.
Wonderful times !
22
Yes, raise CO2 back to 7% levels when the plants evolved!!!
32
Mt Baw Baw has got snow today …
https://twitter.com/MountBawBaw
I wonder how BOM explains this?
52
Temperature record so far for Mt Baw Baw …
https://weather.news.com.au/vic/w-and-s-gippsland/mt-baw-baw/monthly-weather-summary
32
“I wonder how BOM explains this?”
It’s a mountain.
23
Its mid summer, twotter. !!
13
I need to ask a question.
Why not simply use checked raw data instead of homogenised.
There are flaws with each approach but raw data is what is actually recorded.
72
The idea with homogenisation is to make all temperature data go the same way (increasing)
I suspect that if you looked at pre “h” data, you would see coastal, airport and urban sites mostly with a positive trend, while un-UHI affected rural sites would probably have a zero of slightly negative trend.. eg Deniliquin.
“H” takes all that warming from urban and coastal sites and smears it all over the country where those temperatures really don’t belong.
But at the same time , it would probably decrease the trends in some urban centres.
It really is a VERY STUPID procedure, because it hides all the original trends and doesn’t allow you to see what is actually happening.
104
And also allows dopey confusion about how to deal with the extra heat in cities, towns & airports which is a local phenomena rather than a global one.
73
Andy,
This is what you find.
The more remote and untouched a site, the poorer the data quality. Missing values, obviously wrong values, rounded values, etc. So as you go deeper into data to find a credible signal untouched by the Hand of Man, you find instead that there is more and more noise, to the extent that you should not even try to look for trends in it.
It is not hard to propose that all temperature data before about 1990-2000 should not be used for any serious purpose. You will be misled if you try to correlate these earlier temperatures with other physical events, whether you use raw or adjusted data. In particular, the errors are simply too large to allow use of much data before 1990-2000 to demonstrate global warming. There might be some, but it is easy to argue that it is not confidently above 1 deg C per century 1910-2010.
It is not proper science to adjust raw data to an extent greater than the signal you seek. Geoff.
92
Amish climate scientists are still allowed to have raw unhomogenised data.
21
Peter.
Check out the BOM website ACORN Q&A. They give some reasons why climate reference temperatures are homogenized. Bottom line is you don’t homogenize, the data is less accurate wrt climate trends.
23
roflmao.
make them all the same trend so they are more accurate ????
ROFLMAO !!!
twotter fails maths, yet again.
23
“the data is less accurate wrt climate trends.”
That is truly moronic statement, twotter.
Are you saying that without homogenisation, it wouldn’t have much trend, and wouldn’t match the model (which it doesn’t anyway.
Homogenisation CREATES the trend.
32
Sigh. AndyG55 is off his meds again. Why the Moderators of this blog put up with him I have no idea. He is bad for business, even for a CT blog.
24
Seems Harry cannot respond with actual facts.
Changing “data” does NOT make it more accurate.
Your statement was truly an idiotic comment.. Live with it.
Do you DENY that homogenisation tries to create all trends equal… even if they weren’t?
12
When did the clock get fixed Jo?
30
I just noticed it’s set to AEST.
30
Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time.
20
Indeed it is, I stand corrected.
20
To Fitzroy et al.
They are ALL data fiddling for the AGENDA. Meaning this: “evil UN-EU-Agenda 21 “sustainability” pack of CO2 “ClimateChange” Lies #FakeScience #FuelPoverty +#SocialCleansing” (copied from Weatheraction) Please take note, it is NOTHING to do with whether it is hot or cold THEY dont care if it is right or wrong.
The ‘fiddlers in chief’:
Australian BOM.
British MET service.
NASA
NOAA
NZ MET service
Canadian MET service.
Others in the EU as per usual.
Basically the whole Anglo-American system of Big GOV. (minus Trump)
92
Yes, a contemptible mendacious crew completely undeserving of the courtesy we afford them; what societal benefit can possibly be achieved by systematically lying and fabricating false data which is fed to policy makers?
The activity of knuckleheaded vandals generally produces immediate gratification for the miscreants but this mischief is from a different psychological realm and baffles me.
62
IIRC, the homogenisation routines were devised by a guy with last name “Stott” original at CRU, then did a stint somewhere in Australia, BOM and/or one of the universities,
Visited several other countries, spreading the procedure like a sort of virus.
63
tRU, you left out NZ’s NIWA, once the home of a certain Jim-jam Salinger PhD, a willing and crucial party to the Climategate Cooking Shoah of yesteryear, which has now polluted NZ’s once-exceptional record keeping to the point of jabberwocky-like gibberish. Even last month he scored air-time claiming 2 warm days were now a ‘heat wave’ ffs.
22
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Temperature and Population by Country . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
How many people will die, if we reach the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit?
Does anybody know?
Even an approximate number?
It is difficult to give an accurate number, because it is a totally new situation.
But I have found a way to estimate the number of deaths.
It took quite a bit of work. But in the end, the answer was obvious.
The answer is so obvious, that I am not going to tell you the answer.
I have done all of the work so far. It is about time that you pulled your weight.
Don’t worry. I am only asking you to look at a graph. Do you think that you could manage that?
====================
This is the only graph that you need to look at, to fully understand global warming.
It even comes with a money back guarantee.
So what are you waiting for, click the following link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/temperature-and-population-by-country
30
Re Bachus Marsh, it’s down in a valley with a river running through it.
I do not understand how it is the hottest place in Victoria.
What ever happened to Mildure ? Was it frozen out ?
52
well first..is the a will to intentionally make the temperature trend higher?
hard to prove a will…
then from my point of view ..errors bars!!!!
to fill some gap or correct measurmnents, you have to make assumptions..
the very idea of uncertainty is the actual value is between this value and this one…
so ..when you make assumptions and you are not able to be absolutly certain they are Valid, you got out the science territory.
62
what a joke. The BOM is a farce
53
In response to the comment from Robber above … the link in the post to http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/ takes you to my analysis of the 57 ACORN sites with a start year before or since 1910. The 32 WA stations on my home page are raw, not associated with ACORN, and are simply a rolling average of their min and max over the previous 12 months (which is an interesting exercise in itself if you look into it – WA has been significantly cooler for the past two and a half years than from 2011 to 2016).
Home page aside, the linked ACORN 2 page has 120 Excel files containing all the daily, average weekday, average monthly, average annual temps, annual rounding percentages, etc, for A1, A2 and RAW, both national and at each of the 57 ACORN stations.
i.e. the daily and averaged data is already available in one spreadsheet file for all the 1910-2017 sites. The linked page provides some info re site and screen changes at each of the 57. Plenty of the ACORN adjustments are justified but there are also plenty of undocumented and/or unadjusted artificial influences not mentioned in the ACORN catalogue.
62
Behold, the Emperor’s new clothes.
21
RIP a western Australian legend .
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/prince-leonard-who-founded-hutt-river-province-dies-aged-93/10808236
This guy was a genius and a true gentleman, although failing in health when we visited nearly five years ago his mind was as sharp as a tack .
30
Just looking up the BOM Budget!
Staff alone cost nearly $176,000,000 per year!
And they have nearly 1,560 staff?
That’s an average of over $110,000 PA with lots of benefits!
Wonder how much the Big Digital Disturbers get Paid?
Info here!
52
Don’t they also mine bitcoin at work ? A much better use of their computer power surely!
42
A highly relevant piece of the picture Dave and points to the much bigger monster hiding in the wings.
Government employment is huge and most likely used to reward and encourage help, support and silence as needed.
No doubt there are good people in all arms of government but there are also those whose employment is based on a “merit” system that reeks of vote buying or influence buying.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/yassmin-abdelmagied-on-becoming-australias-most-publicly-hated-muslim-20170816-gxxb7d.html
KK
22
It won’t be too long before history will need to be re-written in line with the adjustments, showing the first fleet arriving at a frozen harbour and walking across the Parramatta river glacier to shore wearing full Eskimo kit.
72
What a great argument.
But “too long”. Wouldn’t it already be too cold back then for the long term locals to be standing around nearly naked with spears, Woomera and Boomerangs etc.
They can’t be in some sort of vertical hibernation trance.
Is it also too cold for some plants and animals?
12
E G I took a look at that link you provided about salt levels in the Ice cores of Law Dome in Antarctica.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
this statement from the conclusion is interesting : “The LDSSS record suggests periods of below-average rainfall similar to the declines currently experienced in some parts of Australia are unusual but not unknown over the past 1010 yr and are associated with more El Niño–like regimes. The LDSSS record currently spans 1000–2009 ad. Future work may be able to extend the record beyond ~2 kya, allowing further insight into past changes in ENSO and eastern Australian rainfall.”
Not a hint of any CO2 warming !
🙂
30
Australian BOM temperature records are not derived from the ACORN data set.
24
Yes, we know that ACORN does not represent climate history.
Your point is ????
52
He does not agree that ACORN1 + ACORN2 = 2 (plural).
01
Siliggy.
You did not acknowledge my point either – the article is just plain wrong. When the BOM talks about a record high temp at a particular weather station, they do not use ACORN as a source.
You can also ask AndyG55 why he likes the UAH VERSION 6 data set so much…
This is why I don’t bother having these “discussions” often. People are either lying or just stupid, it’s boring.
21
OK Harry I agree they don’t trust the ACORNs enough to use them.
02
“When the BOM talks about a record high temp at a particular weather station, they do not use ACORN as a source.”
Why not? Acorn is meant to be the “bee’s knee”
Are you saying it can’t be trusted.
This why I laugh at your comments, twotter. 🙂
They are nearly always just plain stupid.
12
UAH is the only data set not controlled by rabid AGW activists.
02
In 1953 no less. But that’s too early to count for anything since there’s now a long record of colder days since then, 65 years in which the much dreaded global warming (calling it what they did for so many years) did nothing. You might almost believe that the climate is cooling.
Shows you the futility of looking at temperatures at only one place or averaging them to get an even more rotten stew of useless numbers.
42
“Climate is cooling” – data please.
13
“data please.”
from you, that’s hilarious, twotter…..
Have you found any data showing that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming yet?
Important parts of the world’s oceans have been cooling for a while..
Do at least try to keep up. !!
And of course, the AMO is starting to head downwards
31