Australian scientist calls for ‘heads to roll’ over adjusted temperature data

Yesterday we posted on BoM’s bomb on station temperature trend fiddling. where BoM claimed the trend difference was a result of a station move. Apparently, BoM can’t even keep track of their own station histories! Today, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy writes: Who’s going to be sacked for making-up global warming at Rutherglen?

She writes: HEADS need to start rolling at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The senior management have tried to cover-up serious tampering that has occurred with the temperatures at an experimental farm near Rutherglen in Victoria. Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved. Senior management at the Bureau are claiming the weather station could have been moved in 1966 and/or 1974 and that this could be a justification for artificially dropping the temperatures by 1.8 degree Celsius back in 1913.

rutherglen_station_plot_raw_homogenized

The temperature record at Rutherglen has been corrupted by managers at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Surely its time for heads to roll!


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

In the case of Rutherglen the Bureau has just let the algorithms keep jumping down the temperatures from 1973. To repeat the biggest change between the raw and the new values is in 1913 when the temperature has been jumped down a massive 1.8 degree C.In doing this homogenization a warming trend is created when none previously existed.

The Bureau has tried to justify all of this to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper by stating that there must have been a site move, its flagging the years 1966 and 1974. But the biggest adjustment was made in 1913! In fact as Bill Johnston explains in today’s newspaper, the site never has moved.

Surely someone should be sacked for this blatant corruption of what was a perfectly good temperature record.

more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/

About these ads

227 thoughts on “Australian scientist calls for ‘heads to roll’ over adjusted temperature data

  1. The hockey stick team should be getting very nervous…….

    As I keep stating to Mosher, Nick Stokes.

    Data is what it is. You shouldn’t adjust it at all.

    This is going to come back big style…..

    • I too have been making this comment.

      There should be no attempt to homogenise the raw data.

      The raw data comes with warts and all. The correct approach is to examine the data in order to assess the extent of the warts annd all so that one can assess an error margin.

      It may well be the case that old data is more unreliable than new data. If that is so, it merely means that the error bars are wider in the past than they are in the present.

      It may be acceptable (depending upon the evidence) to say for example that the 1913 temps are X +/- 1.5 deg C, whereas the temps in 1973 are Y +/- 0.8 degC and that temps in 2010 are Z +/- 0.4 degC. It may be that due to modern equipment and better quality conntol that the error bands of modern data is better, but that is all it is.

      The raw data should always remain as it is, and then through detailed analysis of the data, one ascribes a realistic margin of error, which error bands may not be uniform throughot the entire historical period, and may be narrowing.

      If one looks at the matter scientifically, it is clear that we simply do not know whether the world is warmer today than it was in the 1880s or in the 1930s, save that as far as the US is concerned, we can say that it is probably cooler today than it was in the 1930s. That is about all one can say about the temperature record.

      The land based temperature record is for the main part irrelevant. The energy is in the oceans, it is the oceans that drive the climate. What is needed is a good quality ocean temperature data set. The money should be transfered away from monitoring the land temperatures, and trying to create a temperature record from equipment that was never intended to be used for the purposes that it is now being put. I would suggest that BOM is disbanded.

      • I have always felt the honest answer is to talk about the aggregate of the record and about the average trend in stations unadjusted records, like this: we know that x number station are report warming of X degrees and y number of station are reporting y degrees and Z number are remain the same. As to why we think it is “this”. The trying to produce a global temperature to me has always been a fools errand, it funny to me how many fools are willing to do it.

    • I’ve always called this FRAUD. Fraud is a criminal crime in the UK but Hadley seem to get away with it.

      • I’ve always said that if these people were accountants they WOULD be behind bars with no drinks. GISS and others are all at it, adjusting to justify their continued generous funding.

        Can you trust a ‘scientist’ whose organizational funding extent DEPENDS on continued global warming?

  2. I certainly think it’s a pity this happened but am a bit queasy over the metaphor, given poor Mr Foley’s recent grisly fate.

  3. Naw. Foley knew he was doing something dangerous – don’t change the subject.
    Altering history is the first act of any regime that is attempting a violent overthrow – brainwashing is a standard tactic across all terrorist groups. While I don’t think the heads should roll, I think degrees should be burnt.

  4. Oh Goodie! We have at last caught up with New Zealand.They have been kooking the books for years too!

  5. It just dawned on me. How do you think the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) would react to a report, where a systematic data error was made, and the data was “adjusted”…and in being adjusted was brought into an “acceptable” range, for the purpose the entity supplying the data? How about the FDA, or the FAA? I can tell you how they would react: FINES AND IMPRISONMENT…

    So, yes, the result here (proper one: REJECT THE DATA ENTIRELY!)..should be…AH, you can figure it out.

  6. Why is it that all adjustments are warming adjustment. A real world move of a station could just as easily require cooling more recent data and warming older data. But we never see examples of this.

    In any case, a move should reflect as a step change, not as a trend change. So there should be a step correction, not a trend correction. If the homogenization algorithm is responsible for turning a step correction into a trend correction, the algorithm introduces more error than it removes.

    • Tilo, you are right about the trend issue.

      But I question your statement, “Why is it that all adjustments are warming adjustment”?

      Is this true? Has anyone got evidence that all adjustments are convenient for alarmists and BOM funding?

      If so then the news story is very much different. This is a systematic distortion of the record. That is not an accident – it would be noticed that everything went the same way.

      But it might just be that everything is distorted everyway. That is still bad. It vandalises a dataset. But it is not the same news story.

      • If not all, at least the vast majority of the trend adjustments have increased warming. If you are talking about individual data point adjustments, I’m sure you can find some that have decreased the trend.

      • I seem to recall a post on WUWT some time back that examined the adjustments and showed that the vast majority of them were in favor of a warming trend.

      • Of 104 sites in the dataset, adjustments at 66 cause warming, at 38 cause cooling. 63.5%. The effect on national trends is a warming of +0.3C or 47%. See my posts at kenskingdom.wordpress.com,

        Ken Stewart

  7. Heads will roll is a very very old saying indicating someone is in deep trouble and will be sacked.

  8. Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed

    Looking at the records for this site I note no data before
    1965.
    No break at 66 or 74.

    We split the station at 1980. The reason is a series of qc failures followed by a data gap.

    Either way including this station or dumping it or adjusting
    It changes nothing

    • Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm

      Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed.

      If you “fix” data, you must publish why you think it’s wrong and how you have adjusted it. This is part of science – transparency, openness, willingness to have your assertions challenged. From what I have read on this matter, those three traits seem to be woefully lacking.

      It changes nothing

      If that truly is the case, then there is absolutely no reason to do it. All that is achieved is an erosion of trust in the record keepers.

    • “Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed”

      Sounds like a good method for removing data that doesn’t support an assumption.

    • Since the site was in use from 1913 through 2013, and Marohassy has plots of both unadjusted and adjusted data spanning that period, AND you say that your data only extends back to 1965, it is plain that you don’t have all the data. Ergo, your data is wrong and should be dumped or fixed, nicht so? That, in case the irony tags aren’t visible, is a reductio ad absurdum.

      There is a profound absence of explicit or implicit methodological backing for the assertion that the data needs to be “dumped or fixed.” First you need to demonstrate that the data is “wrong” to begin with. In fact, before that, you absolutely need to define “wrongness” for a given data set in terms of the use to which you want it applied. You also repeatedly state that “adjustments” to the data do not change the analytical results significantly (“It changes nothing” – here). Logically that implies that there was no methodologically justified need to “correct,” “fix,” or “dump” the data to begin with. It isn’t wrong enough to make a difference.

      Actually, I can see a regionally-“homogenized” data set as a useful tool. Presuming that the “homogenization” uses a nearest-neighbor based system to select candidates defining a region, AND executes the homogenization in an honest manner, then the data could be linked to a centroid for a region defined by a convex hull linking the individual stations. The homogenized data should never, ever, be used to “correct” individual station data. That raw station data with all its warts and moth holes is the absolute closest you can get to the original natural condition. No correction can be proven to be closer reality, since, to mangle a couple of allusions, the event is history, the thermometer is beyond reach and the recorder is resting with the parrot(s).

  9. We can all cherry pick stations here and there. Jennifer Marohasy can do it and BOM can do it.

    Why can’t we see a simple comparison of the ‘raw’ and ‘adjusted’ trends for Australia as a whole? Surely this basic information is available to both sides of the argument.

    If there is no statistically significant trend difference between the raw and adjusted data on a national level then what’s the problem?

  10. Finally the Australian Newspaper has broken from the ranks of parrotting mass Media like Fairfax and the ABC and is publicising the hard work done by Jennifer Marohasy and Joanne Nova. Knees are trembling down at the BOM as the blowtorch being applied to their tender parts. At last the tide seems to be really tuning against the great Green Wall of CAGW..The general population is finally being exposed to the Truth of the fraud involved in the past Climate data manipulations.

  11. Isn’t Australia also the country that produced the “climate psychologist” who wants to send all us skeptics to jail?

    That said, on balance Australia is doing the heavy lifting in terms of handling the CAGW crowd. It’s fun watching their their project and funding get canceled.

    • Actually Chip he learnt his trade in the US and Canada. Go check. Please don’t blame us for “producing” this dingbat!

  12. Computers are wonderful tools. But like any tool, they can be misused. A hammer can be used to build a house or to wreck one. How computers are used in the field of understanding “climate” depends on the goal. Is it to build a better understanding of what is really going on and has gone on in the past or is it to dismantle our understanding in favor of a virtual “reality” that supports some other goal?

  13. There should be no ‘homogenization’ of data for this purpose. If, in ‘fixing’ a dataset, the critical signal of that dataset is reversed or seriously altered, then either the dataset or the fix is not fit for purpose.

    We would be better of with ‘a few good men”. Find (and agree on, using objective criteria) the best 50 to 100 temperature stations spread around the world and use the raw data from them to to determine any trend. No doctoring, tampering or ‘homogenzation’. Using 2000 or 3000 stations just muddies the waters and contaminates any good data with hidden statistical tricks.

  14. “Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed”

    Translation: Real world observations and data that don’t fit the hypothesis are clearly wrong

    You have to laugh

  15. Heads will roll? In Australia, does that mean “everybody will keep their job and probably get promoted for this?”

  16. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed

    Looking at the records for this site I note no data before
    1965.
    No break at 66 or 74.

    We split the station at 1980. The reason is a series of qc failures followed by a data gap.

    Either way including this station or dumping it or adjusting
    It changes nothing
    ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

    Good to know at least Steven knows ALL the other data is good…or that other data will be fiddled to compensate…whatever.

    If fact, this is not just a “data problem” (which is bad enough), it is also a management process problem. At this point, the system has no credibility. Somebody needs to go back and re-do the entire analysis with “real” data, and provide a reconciliation of before and after results.

  17. This on a day where the USA Today website is carrying a banner headline – “Climate change worsening, dangerous, group says”.

    We are now in a position where we just cannot trust any historical data. It is being adjusted as fast as it is being taken.

    Since the AGW proponents know the real data is indicating no warming, they evidently have to create as much confusion as possible to continue on. My guess is the ice sheets will almost be on top of NYC before the NYT will run a headline on page 36 indicating some in the northern part of the city might think about relocating.

    BTW, I’m for the new look.

  18. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any such thing as “adjusted” data. Data are collected from instruments. Any changes made to the data change it from being data to being estimates of what the data would/might have been under the conditions envisioned by those “adjusting” the data.

    If the data are known or suspected to be inaccurate, correct the known or suspected problem, don’t try to “correct” the data. If important data are missing, install the instruments necessary to collect the data. Even when it is being done by GISS, collecting terrestrial temperature data ain’t rocket science.

    • Exactly.

      If there is insufficient confidence in the data as collected to report a correct conclusion, just admit “we don’t know what the answer is at this time”.

      • Yet, climate scientists continue to report anomalies in data, known to be in error in the digit to the left of the decimal point, to two decimal places to the right of the decimal point. Estimates to two decimal places could only be the product of insignificant digit generators.

  19. Abbot will eventually get ear of this don’t worry. Heads will not roll but be moved (we all know how the Australian Gov works)..Already comments in mainstream US are using this info http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/panel-global-warming-human-caused-dangerous-25133004 thank you again J. (My father was an atmospheric physicist studied with Einstein in 1935-37 at the Max Planck Institut Fur Physic in Leipzig and a WMO expert.and published 3 papers in Nature about evapotransporation? and particle physics cloud forming) He told me in 1997 it was a scam to get money he did not even bother to explain why.(The Science) as I was still very young and not very interested LOL

  20. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm says: Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed

    What if Steven Mosher is wrong, not data?

  21. A cooling trend of 0.35 degrees/century or 3.5 degrees/1000 years is worrying – not that any of us will have to deal with it. This interglacial may be coming to an end.

  22. These people should have taken Information Technology 101: data is what you collect and store, information is what you retrieve and use — you should never confuse the two. [Mosher: you can’t fix the data — it is what it is.]

    Also it is pretty clear why there is “global warming” if all the national agencies are applying the same, potentially broken, international standard processing to their data.

  23. The weather yesterday in Sydney Australia

    wind 10 mph from the SE
    Visibility 7 km
    Pressure 1025 mb
    Precipitation sprinkles. broken cloud
    Humidity 77%
    Dew Point 9c

    Temperature. not sure. check back in 60 years

  24. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed

    Sure, IF it’s wrong. But how do you know that? This station, if I understand correctly, is known to be good. Data is what it is, even if it’s inconvenient or doesn’t look right.
    You need very serious justification as why you can change it.
    Just putting data through automated data blender is not it.

  25. prjIndigo says:

    “While I don’t think the heads should roll, I think degrees should be burnt.”

    Would that make them “adjusted” degrees? They would certainly be hotter!

  26. Mike August 26, 2014 at 3:20 pm
    These people should have taken Information Technology 101: data is what you collect and store, information is what you retrieve and use — you should never confuse the two. [Mosher: you can’t fix the data — it is what it is.]

    Also it is pretty clear why there is “global warming” if all the national agencies are applying the same, potentially broken, international standard processing to their data.
    ============================================================

    I doubt all national agencies “are applying the same…standard processing…”. Unfortunately, I suspect most of them have invented their very own dishonest and unethical way to cook the books (so to speak).

  27. IMHO, also to be considered is that the stations were never designed or set up to provided any kind of “global” data. They were put in place to provide local data. The understanding of this layman is that the only truly “global” measurements we have are from the satellites and even they are limited to certain layers of the atmosphere. The oceans are largely unknown. If they weren’t, then how could “the missing heat” be hiding there?

  28. @mosher
    ahhh. at last I am beginning to understand.
    you think data can be wrong.

    the mists clear. all becomes clear. we are dealing with some serious fools here

  29. To help put things in perspective… following is a letter published today in The Australian newspaper by Bill Kininmonth who used to work at the weather bureau…

    DAVID Karoly’s ad hominem dismissal of a serious challenge to the official reconstruction of Australia’s temperature record is pathetic (“Amateurs challenging bureau climate figures’’, 26/8). Readers will appreciate that when observational data do not conform to theory, then some, without good reason, dismiss the data.

    There are few long homogeneous records of meteorological observations for Australian sites despite colonial governments having commenced systematic observations in many parts during the 1860s.

    For a variety of reasons, the original sites have been closed and others opened. Mathematical techniques have been developed in an attempt to reconstruct a representative climate history using the available records of limited length from the different sites.

    At issue, as Jennifer Marohasy identified, is that for a number of locations where long records are available, the long-term trends in the original observations are significantly different from the trends of the reconstructed data. Whether there are continental-wide or regional trends is an important component of the global warming debate.

    In challenging the validity of the BOM methodology, surely Dr Marohasy is entitled to respect from her peers; it is also behoven of the government to rationalise and publicly explain why the “official” reconstructed temperature trends depart so much from original observations available on the BOM website.

    William Kininmonth, Kew, Vic

    ****

    more here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/challengers-to-altered-climate-data-deserve-respect/story-fn558imw-1227037857843

    • Yes. And there were 6 others letters that also supported your stance Jennifer. I thought one of those letters that exposed Karoly’s support for the BOM to be among the best. Karoly stated that his article supporting the BOM had been accepted by the Australian Met. and Oceangraphic Journal (AMOJ). The letter’s contributor’s punch line: “However Karoly ommitted to mention he is the editor-in-chief of the AMOJ”.!

  30. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    “Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed”

    For those wondering, its easy to tell when Data is wrong — if it doesn’t match the models, then it must be wrong. If that’s the case, then it must either dumped or fixed. . . . . .

  31. I see an easy solution. Just “homogenize” all those “surrounding stations” to match Old Steady at Rutherglen.

    Might be possible if we can ‘gin up a cooling scare?

    When they homogenize those stations, why does it always turn out to be pasteurization?

  32. Well Mosh has tried handwaving…

    Next up Nick and the BoM choir with an acapella cover of “Yes! We have no bannanas! “

  33. If there is no statistically significant trend difference between the raw and adjusted data on a national level then what’s the problem?

    Well, that would mean there is a problem, then.

    • >i>If there is no statistically significant trend difference between the raw and adjusted data on a national level then what’s the problem?>i>

      You get an statistically insignificant reason to adjust the data?

  34. This is beginning to look endemic. first Australain BOM, now the USA.
    What about the UK – about time some journalist there started to act like one and report news – not rhetorical ‘doom & gloom’.BS they have been swilling out for years..

    • Why not include New Zealand? The NZ Herald continues to print the most outrageous stories, which by now have been shown to be untrue. Anything to brainwash the proletariat, I suppose. And of course, they are owned by Fairfax, who have investments in AGW I hear.

  35. odd that every move is to a cooler location….so the past have to be adjusted down
    They could have just assumed the temps were adjusted down, just like they assumed the station had moved.

    “Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed”…..ROTFLMAO…..thank you for that!

  36. As I keep stating to Mosher, Nick Stokes.

    Data is what it is. You shouldn’t adjust it at all.

    You can’t ignore stuff like TOBS. You can’t. Well, you can, but it would be wrong.

    Having said that, I have split a dozen or so USHCN trends at TOBS shift and it appears they are overcorrecting big-time. TOBS bias varies from station to station. Homogenizing using poorly sited stations with shonky metadata is a Trenberth Travesty.

    In fact, Mosh does not go far enough — One mustn’t adjust for TOBS flip. One must split the trend.

    (It’s your fault, you know, Mosh. You said, “The data is out there. Go get it.” So I did.)

  37. What do you think would happen if your bank ‘adjusted’ your account balance

    How about adjusting for inflation?

  38. I am afraid that humanity’s understanding of climate on this planet has been set back because serious fools have been tampering with recorded data in an effort to confirm their own bias as to what “must be happening”. As I understand it, we are in a situation where these government funded fools have made it so we can not even get some raw data anymore.

    Heck, it looks like there is no damn way to tell what the climate has done over the last century or two since the “experts” are cooking the books. They are cooking the books using computer games and thinking they are “doing science”. What a major farce this “science” called climatology is.

  39. “This is beginning to look endemic. first Australain BOM, now the USA. What about the UK”

    The Met Office is as bent as a nine bob note

    You could call the way data is handled ‘Slingo bingo’

  40. Does the offence of Misfeasance in Public Office exist in Australian law? It’s highly likely, since their legal system is based on ours in the UK. This would seem like a nailed-on example.

  41. The historical temperature record manipulation is now so bad that most of us won’t live long enough to know what today’s temperature really is – it seems it takes around 60 years before the ‘correct’ figures can be calculated, often using the results from stations several hundred kilometres away.

    Yeah, it makes perfect sense to ……………………?

  42. Oatley
    August 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm Edit

    Truth is like ivory soap…in time it bobs to the surface…

  43. @evan

    What is happening here is that data is being replaced by information. The data is sacrosanct. it is what it is.
    It is being replaced by what it should be,( which is information)
    the two things are different, albeit associated.

    information is subjective, variable, vulnerable to pressure from vested interests. subject to spin.

    362436 is data
    36, 24, 36 is information. (and a very nice model she was as well)

  44. Mosher, Stokes and the crew always say it doesn’t make a difference. If all this adjusting doesn’t make a difference then why do you guys waste your time adjusting the temps. Seems like an enormous waste of time and oil/coal energy to run those computers to make adjustments that do not make a difference.

  45. nobody at the BOM will be sacked they will be promoted with a very large pay rise at taxpayers expense

  46. It is funny how so many of these adjusted stations are adjusted in the time period before satellite temperature series were in operation. It’s almost as though it is now more difficult to adjust current temperatures upward because there is an additional benchmark in place…

  47. … the station “must have” moved…
    These are weasel words that means no one will get sacked.
    He/she didn’t say that it “had” moved (that would be a misrepresentation of the truth – aka a lie) he/she just gave an off the cuff possible reason for the need to adjust the data. Nothing to see here: move along.

  48. This suggests that USHCNv2 data homogenization methods are erroneously adjusting pristine Tmin data from rural Class 1&2 stations to be similar to that of rural Class 3,4,5 stations, effectively eliminating the preferred station representivity defined by Leroy (2010) . [Lines 617-620]
    ….
    Our interpretation of these results is that the USCHNv2 adjustment method from Menne et al (2009) is over-homogenizing the data and, in the process, removing statistically significant and important information [Lines 696-698]
    -A. Watts et. al. 2012 Draft: An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station 1 exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and 2 temperature trends

    Do you have a publication date?

  49. Well one scientist stepped forward. That’s a lot in this day and age. Naturally he’s a retired one. There is a lot of overtime being worked at BOM this weed, I’d wager. The usual trick in this kind of situation is to throw a bone. Find some ‘inconsequential’ mistake and show that it doesn’t make any difference anyway. That’s the way it is done at NOAA, GISS and BEST. Gee, none of this matters anyway. GHI doesn’t matter. Wrenching the 1910 temp down 1.8C – its only 300% of the supposed increase in global in a hundred years. How could that matter??

  50. Data that are demonstrably wrong can only be dumped; but, it must be quite clear that the data are “wrong”, not merely “inconvenient”. Data cannot be “fixed”, though horse races and prize fights can be. ;-)

  51. Was the question of the weather observation station at RAAF Base Amberley ever resolved?

    If it was ever moved (which I some doubt about) I am sure that the distance would have been insignificant.

    But according to a post by Andrew Bolt in 2010 you would think that any adjustments should be downwards not upwards.

    I am all for records being truly representative of the area but surely the main point here is that before the BOM starts homogenising records they should be able to justify exactly WHY for each and every case. It seems that this is blatantly not the case in many of the BOM’s homogenised stations – which only leave us with a very sour taste.

  52. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    Evidence. The facts are that nothing is happening that hasn’t happened many times in the past. The facts are that some places are certainly warmer and other places are certainly cooler. Of course, the alarmist have been busy hiding the cool spots. Makes things look worse than they are. Mainly, look around. It is as it has always been. It was warmer in Oklahoma when my father was a child. It was warmer than that when when Granddad was born. Cycles. That’s climate. Always changing. Besides. Warmer is better. We used to call the warm spells climate optimums, rather than just warm periods. We called them optimums because the world was a better place during the warm periods.

  53. Mosh, how come BOM and Jennifer can find the data, but you can’t? Also if they have no data prior to 1965 then what business do they have making up homogenized data to 1913? You are not on your game today Mosh.

  54. Mosher writes,

    “Either way including this station or dumping it or adjusting It changes nothing”

    Maybe so, but thousands of similar ‘adjustments’ to thousands of stations just might change something!

  55. evanmjones
    August 26, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    “The day a cake of soap sank at Proctor & Gamble’s.”

    I remember that cartoon. Gluyas Williams. A classic.

  56. Not to be mean, but this is an Australian station and you blokes are checking a US govt site.

    It took me about 45 seconds to find it by Googling “australian temperature station data” and the BoM is the very first link.

    Choose your year.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

    • Use the “Monthly Observation” data selector, not the daily. When you “Get Data” page click on “Annual’ in the top right hand corner.

  57. It seems to me that this station’s records should be used to adjust the stations next to it and those stations next to them. After all that is the logic the warmers use.

    Maybe this is the station heard around the world.

  58. The issue is not that those responsible for adjusting temperature readings don’t have reasons for doing so. What is objectionable is that people like Mosher never acknowledge where their methods fail, or more obviously, where their overall claims fail to perform as promised. It doesn’t matter how many indisputable examples are offered showing failures, Mosher always has a justification for every example offered. All the errors “don’t matter”. But the onus is on people like him to fix these methods, so they stop failing, not hand wave them away. If you can’t get the relatively clear cut ones right, you’re very likely getting the whole adjustment process wrong.

  59. I have a friend, teaches math at a college, PhD and all that. The guy about hit me one time when I asked him if everybody knows that enviro-mental data collected by oil companies is biased then how is it that enviro-mental data collected by the government isn’t biased.

    Here in the US I believe that these folks, that Mann guy and all his friends ought to be tried under RICCO laws, I think that there is clear evidence of collusion and also clear that an act of fraud has been perpetrated. The trouble is that the government is in on it so all this will go away.

    The truth of the matter is that if a private sector, for profit business pulled this kind of stunt the tree hugging liberal left and their lap dog media would be howling for blood. They’d have to dart most of ‘em like they used to tranquilize rinos on “Wild Kingdom.” In the end these clowns will all hide behind “intellectual freedom” or some such nonsense till the next crusade comes along.

  60. What is happening here is that data is being replaced by information. The data is sacrosanct. it is what it is.

    Yes, it is critical that the raw data be preserved. The “information” that “replaces” it needs to be correct (it isn’t so far as I can tell), explained, and identified as such (also not).

    But you can’t use compromised raw data as “information”, either.

    Having said that, I see nothing the matter with the Rutherglen data.

    Here in the US I believe that these folks, that Mann guy and all his friends ought to be tried under RICCO laws

    NO! [Insert sound of fist slamming table.] Talk about a sword that cuts both ways. Today we try them? Tomorrow they try us.

    And that goes for all other similar comments I see all too often (from both sides).

    • If private business did what the federal government does, the head do end up in jail. Social security is a Ponzi scheme no private insure would get away with it, Medicare rate of return is 20% below what a private insurance company could charge for administrate cost. Insurance must maintain pay back some where near 80% Medicated is in the 60s. Ditto for almost all government programs they are terribly inefficient and it private companies did this they would run afoul with regulation or simply go broke.

  61. The penultimate paragraph of the article reads …

    ‘For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.’ ..

    I do wish the Australians could be a little more careful in their choice of acronyms. I spent a minute wondering what caused the British Empire of the day to abandon its lead in Space Exploration?

    I’ve read too much steam punk SF. :)

  62. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed
    =========
    there is no “wrong” data. data is data. there is data that may pass or fail a specific test. but that doesn’t establish that it is wrong, only that it failed the test.

    • Regardless, if the data are not accurate and accuracy is important, fix or replace the bloody sensors; and, then, collect accurate data. (Mis)information is no substitute for accurate data.

      This is extremely important in climate science, because the “experiments” cannot be repeated. There are no “do overs”.

  63. Try us, me, for what, asking to see the data? Come now.

    Who decides?

    There are a lot of folks six feet under for a lot less.

    Don’t go there.

    but that doesn’t establish that it is wrong, only that it failed the test.

    Semantics. “Wrong” works for me.

    jorgekafkazar
    August 26, 2014 at 4:40 pm Edit

    #B^)

  64. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/australian-bom-neutral-adjustments-increase-minima-trends-up-60/

    I think there is a few here misunderstanding exactly what the Australian BOM has done.
    Rutherglen is one of hundreds that have been adjusted in the same way all over the country.
    Jo and her “team” have been on the BOM’s back for years to justify there “adjustments”.
    They’ve flatly refused……..till now.
    They’ve now ripped the lid off a can of worms and there will be no going back.
    The link is one of the more recent posts over at Nova.
    A search there gives many more about the BOM and there not so mysterious adjustments.

  65. Chip Javert August 26, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Isn’t Australia also the country that produced the “climate psychologist” who wants to send all us skeptics to jail?


    Nah, Chip, Lewandowsky is an American.

  66. Why is it that all adjustments are warming adjustment. A real world move of a station could just as easily require cooling more recent data and warming older data. But we never see examples of this.

    I have seen this.

    But for every station adjusted downward, three more are adjusted upward.

  67. Dr. David Jones, Manager of Climate Monitoring and Predictions, Australian Bureau of Meteorology probably uses the warmed homogenized data for his comments (below) and should get the sack.

    “Here’s the head of climate analysis at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, showing astonishing ignorance about what is happening in the climate:

    “The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record,” said World Meteorological Organisation secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

    Head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology Dr David Jones said the data should silence climate sceptics.

    “Clearly climate change hasn’t stopped, global warming hasn’t stopped,” he said. “The planet is continuing to warm – and it’s warming in our back yard.”

    http://australianclimatemadness.com/2009/12/10/idiotic-comment-of-the-day-david-jones-bom/

    Jennifer Marohasy’s open letter to Dr. Jones:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/01/open-letter-requesting-verification-of-2013-temperature-record/

  68. Most of the surrounding stations have also undergone BOM’s warming treatment.

    Quite.

    I remember the Marvel Comics self-parody: If this universe contains a Watcher watching all reality and every universe has a Watcher, then we have Watchers watching Watchers watching Watchers watching Watchers . . . (Be vewy, vewy quiet. I’m watching wabbits.)

  69. The adjusters have been getting away with this for a long, long time.

    Rather than having to face repercussions or being reprimanded for adding an unjustifiable global warming signal to a non-global warming signal, they have been rewarded with more funding, more power, more winter climate conferences in the tropics, more prestige, more great global warming parties etc.

    It is not going to stop until there is a “penalty” rather than a “reward” for unjustly adjusting the historical temperature records. Which means heads need to start rolling as an example.

    It is the only way forward to restore sanity in this field despite it being unappealing to have to sack people. And it might take many people. Otherwise, it will just go on and on and on.

  70. Lookit, this is easy. Get the US out of the UN. Then get the UN out of the US. That takes the funding away from a lot of this enviro-mental money laundering canard right away. The only function that the UN serves anyway is to employ otherwise unemployable people with political science (what an oxymoron) and foreign relation degrees. Next, lock these make-believe scientist folks up and hand their universities a bill for all their grant money acquired by fraud. While we’re at it let’s lock up algore too. Lastly let’s get the government out of the research funding business and abolish the NSF. It’s clear that the government can’t be trusted especially when there’s a whole new regulatory branch to be expanded into. Seems to me the only people that lose would be politicians, career bureaucrats and “researchers” that live off of the public tit.

  71. Braddles there is no objective tested validated criteria for
    A good station.
    Next there is no data that hasn’t been adjusted.
    In the USA the first thing an observer does is round the figures.

    Second. I bought a house in 1995 for 300k. If I were comparing prices then and now would you adjust for inflation?

    If you switched thermometers and the new one was. 6c
    Warmer than the old one would you argue that the actual temperature had increased? Careful check everything Anthony and Steve Mcintyre have written about this.

    Or if you switch satellites do you adjust your time series.
    Careful ask Roy Spencer.

    That said propose an objective standard of good site.
    Show where this criterion has been field tested.
    I will find stations that match your criteria.

    Then we will compare good stations to others

    Read the instructions carefully

    • Steven Mosher (August 26, 2014 at 5:56 pm): “Second. I bought a house in 1995 for 300k. If I were comparing prices then and now would you adjust for inflation?”

      Um, Mosh, your analogy only works if there has been “temperature inflation” since (in this case) 1913, i.e. a Celsius degree now measures a smaller actual temperature interval than it did then. So unless you’re claiming that water that boiled at 100 degrees C in 1913 now boils at, say, 101.8 degrees C, I’d suggest you drop the inflation analogy altogether. It’s just silly.

    • The point has been made repeatedly by others that if you are looking at a particular station in isolation then adjustments may be in place. When you are looking at a large series of stations such as in USA or Australia there is no need to carry out all these adjustments to individual stations as the larger the sample the greater the chance each “error” will be cancelled out by an “error” in the opposite direction. A bit like throwing five coins and by chance may get five heads, but throw 1000 and it is likely going to be close to 500/500 head and tail. It would appear that in Australia the adjustments to individual stations have been mostly reducing temperature in the distant past and thus generating a form of “man made warming” not caused by “man made CO2″.

    • “Second. I bought a house in 1995 for 300k. If I were comparing prices then and now would you adjust for inflation?”

      Oh the irony. I bought a house too. It’s physical dimensions haven’t changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the value of money, which is set by the government’s monetary policy. The government can change the scale but not the data.

  72. Once again, can I point out the cleverness, even deviousness, in reducing past temperatures.

    Everyone can verify current temperatures, but not those of 100 years ago. Therefore, this cooling of the past, with all current temperatures being “honest”, leads o a warming of the future.

    BINGO!

    • While it is possible to verify current temperatures at actual sites (for example, on the roof of a reinforced concrete parking structure), it is not possible to verify the current estimate of what that temperature would be if the UHI effects of the parking structure did not exist.

  73. NOAA spends maybe 5 billion a year, I don’t ask much for my money but you think a accurate temp could be had for that amount. Not sure what the Aussie’s spend or what the UK budget is, but for goodness sakes, they shouldn’t have to make up a program to adjust something that should be recorded correctly the first time. It is kind of sad to know out fathers and grand fathers couldn’t even read a thermometer correctly and now a model has to go back and get it right for them……

  74. They’ll most likely transfer the responsibility for the temperature records to the Ministry of Truth :-(

  75. Additional clarifications:

    1. Trends at adjacent stations do not suggest a need for homogenisation at Rutherglen.

    2. Ken Stewart has looked at homogenised versus raw nationally and found a large discrepancy. Check his blog… http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com

    Also, I’ve had a look at trends for the state of New South Wales.. unhomogenized… considering the entire instrumental record… recent warming has not been greater than the cooling evident in the record to 1960. More information here… http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf

    Very dramatic cooling in eastern inland Australia to about 1960… check figure 2 here… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/07/fewer-deaths-from-heat-events-but-reasons-obscured/

  76. Facts and fiction never ever is the same……

    Scented cathedral spire pointed down
    We pray for souls in Kentish Town
    A delicate hush the gods, floating by,
    Wishing us well, pie in the sky
    God of ages, Lord of Time, mine is the right to be wrong

    — Ian Anderson

  77. Steven Mosher, if you learned to write complete sentences in proper English, we could better determine whether you have any valuable information to impart. I think you do have some useful insights from time to time. As it is, your broken half baked sentences don’t do much to make me think your scientific thinking is solid.

  78. Patrick B
    August 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm Edit

    The more I do this, the more I sound like Mosh.

    The only material difference is that I think he is barking up the wrong tree.

  79. That said propose an objective standard of good site.
    Show where this criterion has been field tested.
    I will find stations that match your criteria.

    Then we will compare good stations to others

    Been there.

    Done that.

  80. @Steven Mosher

    Yes data needs to be cleaned up/adjusted or whatever you want to call it. That’s not the issue here.

    People are objecting to the fact that the evidence presented shows that your methods don’t work and may actually make the data worse. You never address this criticism, only a straw man.

  81. how convenient that, in the midst of all these revelations, ABC & others are carrying Seth Borenstein’s AP report, link posted by Eliza, which states:

    “The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report”

    while the CAGW-infested Bloomberg has Alex Morales stating:

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

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html

  82. If the real data didn’t show a lot of warming, homogenization adjustments would not be able to lead to such trend up-adjustments at unresponsive adjacent stations that are outliers. Critical thinking skills are severely lacking in this lynch mob of skeptics, I’m afraid. If there’s fraud and bias, you only hurt your cause in exposing it by cherry picking only up-adjusted station trends instead of demanding whether there is really a bias overall. Here you almost all of you feed the impression that you are merely partisan hacks. Where is the fraud in these adjustments?! I don’t see any so far since it’s mainly time of day measurement (TOBS) that leads to raw vs. final overall country wide trend differences, not homogenization, and both adjustments are meant to correct data to better show reality in change and trend. No claim is being made here that the adjustments have slipped into absurdity and bias, only the idiotic PR disaster of claiming only raw data is any good and all else is fraudulent. That view is simply juvenile, knee jerk, and ignorant of how measurements are normally calibrated for known physical errors.

    • “If the real data didn’t show a lot of warming, homogenization adjustments would not be able to lead to such trend up-adjustments at unresponsive adjacent stations that are outliers.”
      Well, you may be interested to know that’s exactly what happened! And see my links above- it has not been cherry picked, but a system wide bias. Rutherglen is merely one of 6 very obvious examples with a change in trend of more than 2C per 100 years due to adjustments.

  83. Future examination of these same tendencies, the rewriting of historical data to match the belief, by our North American Bureaucracies will produce the same results.
    The Weather bureaus have been under political management for decades.
    “Our Experts assure..”
    The systemic adjustments seem to trace back to that UN organization, set up by Maurice Strong.
    Can’t remember the acronym but strikes me the similarity to the Weathermen of Bill Ayres infamy can not go unremarked.
    As the credibility of world weather records has been blown.
    CAGW created, promoted and protected from scrutiny by our bureaus.

  84. Steven Mosher,

    Either way including this station or dumping it or adjusting
    It changes nothing

    I know. Won’t it be ironic if AGW is actually occurring and yet those among the adherents who don’t actually believe that it is occurring but wish to motivate action regardless are caught misbehaving often enough to discredit the whole thing?

    I’d chuckle some.

    You’re right, it changes nothing. The guys who did this probably want to motivate action and probably don’t really think AGW is happening, but with respect to the scientific truth it changes absolutely nothing.

  85. For those complaining about Steven Mosher not seeing data before 1965, the Australian BOM site has daily temperature records online. That data shows a break of a few years at that point. I suspect that BEST has picked up the data after the break (from 1965) only, or has the data before the break (upto 1960) under a different station code.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/?ref=ftr

    Select Temperature (max or min), select Rutherglen for the location, and then select the Rutherglen Research station (Station 082039). The graph at the bottom shows the data completeness for each year, and there’s a definite break of about five years in what’s available online.

  86. Steven Mosher August 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    “Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed”

    Not when you’re measuring something that only happens once, even if the occurrence is daily or in a pattern. Source data is something that is measured or observed by a tool, instrument, or scale. The data can’t be “wrong.” The tool, instrument, or scale can only be faulty or broken. And you can only know that contemporaneously. You can’t intuit it 100 years later, otherwise you’re trying to pass off the menu as the meal.

  87. Anyone who believes these temperature “adjustments” in multiple databases are legitimate is seriously naive. The ‘environmentalists’ have already stated that lies are more important than truth when it comes to supporting the “cause” so no one should be surprised. But everyone should be mad.

  88. Hate to burst your bubble Mosher, but yet again you suffer from analogy fail: interest/inflation today does not change that your house was $300k in the past, it changes what it will be worth tomorrow.

    What do we call a Racehorse sidekick?

    Mark

  89. If you break the data into 3 sections, with the break points where the assumed changes were, do any of the 3 series show a distinct warming/cooling trend?

  90. NikFromNYC…August 26, 2014 at 6:37 pm…. Where is the fraud in these adjustments?!

    So you’re playing ‘find the pea under the cup’ again. You don’t seem to realize that changing historical reference data is taboo. If you don’t like past data start your own.

    • Nobody is changing standard reference data, you blind baffoon. The raw data is still published as raw data. Everybody knows this. So do you!

      And Mosher’s inflation analogy is perfectly apt if you define temperature as how many grams of gold or of diamonds you had to pay for a house versus today when inflating dollar amounts skew the real comparison. You guys are just playing word games in order to avoid cold hard logic and reason, with such flippancy that no wonder skepticism is so successfully ridiculed by activists! I have a sneaking suspicion about a false flag operation being coordinated lately along with how Steve Goddard hosts as his top commenters a few utter lunatics and even a convicted child rapist. Nary a word from skeptics about this! Ugh.

  91. So where is Tweedledee ?? His Mom’s going to be jealous that Tweedledum got some pseudo-intellectual sounding sh!t in for HIS Mom:

  92. Wouldn’t one expect the residuals on the homogenized data to have a lower variance than the residuals of the raw data? It sure doesn’t look that way to me though. Can anyone confirm if they should be lower?

    -Scott

  93. If an act is indistinguishable from a crime then for a time it does not matter if a crime has occurred – it is bad enough that it looks like a crime has occurred. If an act remains indistinguishable from a crime then for all practical purposes a crime has been committed and even a court of law cannot reverse public opinion. Or as the imperial president might say, don’t do stupid stuff.

    One word reminder: Chappaquiddick.

    Further – if an act remains indistinguishable from a crime then the precautionary principle says treat it as a crime in your personal life.

  94. Steve Mosher @ 5.56pm
    “… no objective tested validated criteria for a good station.”
    “… there is no data that hasn’t been adjusted.
    “I bought a house in 1995 for 300k.” etc., etc.

    This is all distraction.
    There are two simple and related issues: credibility and methodology.
    Steve has not in any way addressed the credibility issue because the only way to do that is to provide a simple, easily accessible database that compares the raw data (as recorded) with the current ‘adjusted’ number for EVERY station. The second part he has also not addressed which is to describe exactly what ‘adjustments’ were then made to get from raw to adjusted and for what data points. That also needs to be done for every station.
    “Trust me” (or “trust others”) protestations don’t work once credibility is eroded and especially when it appears data is being hidden.

  95. Nik says:
    Where is the fraud in these adjustments?

    There’s fraud in claiming the station near Rutherglen had moved when it hadn’t, and in presuming that other stations had moved without doing a little digging to see if that was really the case.
    These instances of thumbs on the scale indicate bias and underhandedness at the BOM.
    It’s therefore unlikely that these sore-thumb instances are the only ones.
    How much further that underhandedness has gone needs to be audited in full, ideally by an official inquiry.

  96. What can the readers, commenters, and contributors to WUWT do, individually and/or collectively, to apply pressures sufficiently vigorous and effective to guarantee that this data crime is thoroughly vetted and the perpetrators sacked at the least and incarcerated if possible?

  97. A.nthony, I have notices the importance shift weighted to a closer look at the adjustments that are so evident and I for one sincerely appreciate it, most important.

    I’m having a hard time with people believing what has happened, they just won’t believe that scientists, many with doctorates, would just sit by idle with a graph of the upward adjustments mirroring the upward trend in the temperature records since the temperature records have so many up and down wiggles it is hard to see until you have viewed many hundreds of local graphs which most will not take the time to do or on a spreadsheet roughly remove the global adjustments from one of the public global temperature graphs. It is going to be hard to get the average Joe to visualize this, how they did it, but once they do, there is no turning back… they have become skeptical of what is going on in the climate fiasco.

    Thanks again.

  98. Mac the Knife…..August 26, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    What can the readers, commenters, and contributors to WUWT do, individually and/or collectively, to apply pressures sufficiently vigorous and effective to guarantee that this data crime is thoroughly vetted and the perpetrators sacked at the least and incarcerated if possible?

    I wrote my house representative. I vote. Australia has already let their votes count.

    • mark l,
      I do similarly. And contribute to a number of conservative candidates campaigns (labor and $$$) in each election cycle, as well as some tip jar support to this site and others. I was curious to find out how many others here at WUWT take any action beyond this site. This query generated very few responses over several days so I tentatively conclude that most here are content with commenting on a blog.
      Mac

  99. I’m afraid that the only heads that are going roll are the skeptics (deniers) that point out the truth – raw data or whatever they you want to call it. Just ask your local Main Stream Media reporter…

  100. Mark T
    August 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm.

    I was going to give a similar reply to Steven Mosher’s inflation analogy but you’ve beaten me to it. It might have been a Freudian slip on his part.

    Inflation components are adjusted in such a way as to keep inflation lower than it would be otherwise. This allows the government to reduce their expenditures through inflation indexing.

    Temperatures are adjusted in such a way as to keep current temperatures higher than in the past then it would be otherwise. This will allow them to increase their income through carbon taxes

    So adjustments to lower their expenses and adjustments to raise their income. It’s nothing more than theft from the people..

    I’m now waiting for the official government statement “Let them eat cake”.

  101. rogerknights August 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm
    “There’s frαud in claiming the station near Rutherglen had moved when it hadn’t, and in presuming that other stations had moved without doing a little digging to see if that was really the case.”

    Do we really know that? Bill J has told us that there were indeed two Stevenson Screens, one up, one down. He says that he worked there at times (what years?), and knows (how?) that only one ever supplied figures to the record. This all remembered 45 years later. That’s sketchy evidence to be claiming frαud.

    • I agree with Nick. The metadata is crappy just about everywhere (which is partly why it has taken us so long to get out a new paper, getting the metadata right is a huge job) though BoM should have known better before trying to pass off homogenization bias as a station move.

      Homogenization is where the real issue is at.

    • “That’s sketchy evidence to be claiming frαud.” ~ Stokes

      Perhaps it is, but there is no evidence to justify changing the raw data now is there?

      The fact that a longtime good station was showing cooling and the BOM changed that to alarming warming by looking at chicken entrails would be enough evidence to convince me to vote guilty if I were on the jury.

    • You’re right–I learned that only after I made my comment. Still, it was a reckless thing for the BOM to do, and the recklessness was motivated by bias. The underhandedness is proved by the BOM’s stonewalling on this topic for years.

    • Its still better evidence then that which claims they had moved which seems to consist of ‘we think so ‘
      I have no issues with demanding a high standard of evidence, especially when great claims are being based on it , but if you go down that route what would be left of climate ‘science’ ?

  102. Can anyone confirm if they should be lower?

    Yes. In my travels, homogenized data has always showed lower error bars than non-homogenized. Confirmed.

    It would, wouldn’t it? You have reeducated all your outliers, haven’t you? They are all Good Citizens, now. Everybody loves Big Brother. The little boxes on the hillside have all come out the same. See my error bar. See how teeny-weeny it is. Cocktails, all ’round, boyz.

    The only problem arises when you discover that the majority of Good Citizens turned out to be Bad Citizens . . .

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

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

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-reveal-how-they-feel-about-climate-change-in-handwritten-letters-and-photos/story-fn5fsgyc-1227038781108

  104. Has any technical reason been suggested as to why temperatures in the past need to be adjusted downward to be validly compared with modern measurements? Thermometer housing allowing excessive direct sunlight exposure? Thermometer construction then versus now producing a consistent positive bias in measurements in the past? etc. In the absence of any reasonable theory backed by some concrete evidence that past temperatures were reading consistently too high then I believe that, as many have said here, the adjustments should as often be to raise past temperatures as lower them. Locational adjustments alone should not produce a consistent lowering of raw data unless a specific reason is shown that could justify it. In the absence of such reasons the consistent lowering of past temperatures must be indicative of bias of the scientist kind which is all too well known about in science and has been battled against for centuries sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

    • Adjusting the past downward makes the present appear warmer which if your looking to promote AGW as an ideology or ride the gravy train of funding it has created is a ‘good idea’ which needs no technical reason .
      But it remains a good and unanswered , expect by the catch all term homogenized.

      But I remain amazed these people work in climate ‘science’ in the first place with the luck they have , and how else can you explain how homogenizing data ‘always ‘ work in their favour, you would have thought they been spending their time in Las Vegas where they could be making their fortune.

      • The only thing we KNOW about the temperature at a particular location, on a particular date, at a particular time is the temperature recorded at that location, date and time. That is true whether the date is today or multiple years ago. We could estimate what that temperature would be (or would have been) at some other location, or on some other date, or at some other time; however, we do not KNOW that estimate is correct.

        If we check the calibration of an instrument and discover that it is inaccurate, we know only that it is inaccurate now. If the instrument had been calibrated previously, we KNOW the extent of the measurement error at the time of the recalibration. However, we do not KNOW how or when the measurement error began, or how it progressed, though we can estimate it based on the characteristics of the instrument. In such circumstances, we certainly do not KNOW the anomaly to 2 decimal places.

  105. I hope the reporters don’t let go of this story and keep it in the public eye. Heads should roll, jobs should go, exposure should happen – and the whole should spread to other fraudulent practises and organizations.

    Re recent changes to this site. I like the format, but please get rid of the comment nesting. The discussion that follows an article is more important and informative to me than the article itself. When there are a hundred or more comments, I simply cannot find the added nested ones every day or every hour. It spoils the dialogue for me and forces me to abandon reading ANY article for days or weeks until all comments are done! Replies can be given as they always have, with reference to the comment or a copy and paste.

    I’m in here hourly and been with you for years, please don’t force me to read only the old news discussions.

  106. Mosher says djustments make little difference to the overall trend, yet Mosher spends enormous amounts of time adjusting them. Sound logic.

  107. Tilo says: In any case, a move should reflect as a step change, not as a trend change. So there should be a step correction, not a trend correction. If the homogenization algorithm is responsible for turning a step correction into a trend correction, the algorithm introduces more error than it removes.”

    This is what I can’t understand either.

    Maybe something in the account is not being clearly explained but I don’t see any correction for a supposed step change. This is just the latest excuse that BOM have produced, hoping to blag the journalist who raised the question, who probably is not very informed about the details of what is going on.

    Clearly the AlGoreithm is NOT adjusting for a one or two step changes. In fact it’s totally unclear what it is doing since AFAIK (despite claims that this is “peer reviewed”) they have not published there methods nor thier code.

    They claim it is a “peer revewed” process but this appears to be chat with “peers” over coffee at BOM rather than the method having been published in PR literature in sufficient detail to reproduce the results.

    • Peer review was by a panel of three: NOAA, NZ and Canada
      scientistshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/

  108. question

    Does the Austrian data change daily like the American data sets? If you looked at a station’s records for a date in, say, 1965 would you see the same thing next week?

  109. I sent yesterday to a mate in Tasmania
    heres HIS reply to me..

    Oh yes I know where one of their “new” weather station locations was.
    Think I mentioned it to you some time ago.
    They place a temp/weather recording unit against a cutting right next to a four lane highway called the eastern outlet from hobart. They even put up a sign saying what it was.
    It was right at the top of the hill where all the passing vehicles engines would be at their greatest temperature.
    Pretty obvious.

    • Recently travelled down from Orleans ( just south of Paris ) to Millau in the south of France. I noticed several weather stations within a few metres of the four lane ‘autoroute’.

      These are presumably for information on traffic safety conditions but it got me wondering whether they were part of the french reporting network.

  110. I’m working on adjusting the outlier NBA stats of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We all know some of those stats are wrong because the stats around them do not agree. I found a major outlier in 1962 as some guy named Wilt Chamberlain is credited with averaging 50 points per game over the course of an entire 82 game schedule. That is downright laughable so I homogenized his data with players around him and his new adjusted total is 23 points per game.

    And as Nick Stokes so clearly pointed out with his August 26, 2014 at 10:55 pm post. 1962 was a long time ago so eye witnesses can not claim Wilt averaged 50 ppg. Also it’s doubtful anyone that claims they remember the 50 ppg average went to all 82 games so there again they are sketchy witnesses. That means my adjusted 23 ppg is correct and anyone saying I’m wrong is deceitful.

    I heard some guy named Michael Jordan has some outlier stats. He’s my next target for getting correct data for. Witnesses, who needs witnesses when I can brush them off like Nick Stokes did. His algorithm is more powerful than a eye witness. So long Michael Jordan you were a fabrication of incorrect data that my algorithm will correct.

    I’m still amazed that Stokes discredited someone that worked there.

  111. Steven Mosher analogies,

    I would be mighty surprised to find my house measured in feet back in the early part of the century had suddenly become smaller when now measured in meters.

  112. NikFromNYC
    August 26, 2014

    “If the real data didn’t show a lot of warming, homogenization adjustments would not be able to lead to such trend up-adjustments at unresponsive adjacent stations that are outliers.”

    Actually that is untrue. It depends on the algorithms used, how selectively they are used, how consistent they are with each other, how selectively they are applied, the periods for which they are deemed necessary and several other factors.

    Set the right target and provided with sufficient raw data a skilled operative could, on request, construct a rising or a falling trend from “homogenised” data.

  113. Just looked at the UAH satellite data for Australia, available in the last column here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

    The trend for Australia from 1979 to the present in the satellite data is 0.16 C/decade warming (see bottom cell in the AUST column). That’s a total warming of around 0.6 C in Australia since late 1978.

    That seems fairly consistent with the BOM estimated warming of around 0.9 C since 1950. It looks like the BOM adjusted data are in pretty good agreement with the satellite record.

    • True. Except that we’re talking trends since 1910 (1913 in this case) which is when the BOM arbitrarily starts its climate analysis. Most adjustments in Acorn were well before 1978.

    • DavidR, essentially you are saying that BOM claims 0.3 degrees warming between 1950 and 1979, when the period in question was a time of cooling in the general temperature record.

      That suggests the adjustments during that time were significant, greater than 0.1 degrees per decade, not that there is “pretty good” agreement at all. In fact, that the data is consistent with the satellite record but significantly adjusted prior to this is in agreement with the claims of Dr Marohasy.

  114. If we take the Raw temperatures from all Australian stations, why would there need to be homogenization? Wouldn’t all the station moves just average out.

    What is the theoretical maximum change as a result of the TOBs issue. My understanding is that it is a very small number. It certainly does not provide for a 1.5C gradual change going back to 1900. The systematic nature through time of these adjustments shows they are untrustworthy.

    Let’s just go back to the Raw records and throw out ALL these adjustments. Sack the adjustments since it is clear they have gone way too far.

    • Bill, TOBS only applied to USHCN data, since the rest of the world obviously read their thermometers precisely at midnight every night for over a century!

      TOBS is a necessary correction – that can be easily shown using available hourly data for a given location. But one of the problems is that we really don’t know the magnitude of the correction since we don’t have reliable records of what the real weather was for a given USHCN location on a given date, so a model is used to get TOBS estimates (yes, the TOBS correction is a model…).

  115. Bill Illis August 27, 2014 at 5:11 am
    “If we take the Raw temperatures from all Australian stations, why would there need to be homogenization? Wouldn’t all the station moves just average out.”

    Probably. I run a program called TempLS, which uses GHCN unadjusted for a global temp index. Using adjusted makes very little difference.

    But you don’t know. Station moves could have a bias; there is no way of knowing without identifying them. Whereas homogenisation can introduce false positives, but the scheme can be tested to be free of bias.

    “What is the theoretical maximum change as a result of the TOBs issue.”
    It’s shown here. It can be 1°C. There’s no pure theoretical value; it depends on the temp cycle. But TOBS probably isn’t the issue at Amberley. Maybe Rutherglen.

  116. mosher and zeke would do well to listen to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f9r4k

    Every day the newspapers carry stories of new scientific findings. There are 15 million scientists worldwide all trying to get their research published. But a disturbing fact appears if you look closely: as time goes by, many scientific findings seem to become less true than we thought. It’s called the “decline effect” – and some findings even dwindle away to zero.

    A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called “Why most published research findings are false” argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed, and that the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. He even showed that of the 49 most highly cited medical papers, only 34 had been retested and of them 41 per cent had been convincingly shown to be wrong. And yet they were still being cited.

    Again and again, researchers are finding the same things, whether it’s with observational studies, or even the “gold standard” Randomised Controlled Studies, whether it’s medicine or economics. Nobody bothers to try to replicate most studies, and when they do try, the majority of findings don’t stack up. The awkward truth is that, taken as a whole, the scientific literature is full of falsehoods.

    Jolyon Jenkins reports on the factors that lie behind this. How researchers who are obliged for career reasons to produce studies that have “impact”; of small teams who produce headline-grabbing studies that are too statistically underpowered to produce meaningful results; of the way that scientists are under pressure to spin their findings and pretend that things they discovered by chance are what they were looking for in the first place. It’s not exactly fraud, but it’s not completely honest either. And he reports on new initiatives to go through the literature systematically trying to reproduce published findings, and of the bitter and personalised battles that can occur as a result.

    at the moment sceptics think they are wrong, in years to come we will know they were wrong.

    • Suggestion:

      Sack all scientists who are Gen X, Y or Z and thus contaminated by a post modernist college education thus inducing an ‘Ioannidis Effect’ – or is that the Jenkins Effect?

      Retain all scientists who are Gen VW or earlier (regardless of whether they confess to having inhaled). Hey, it worked for the Apollo Mission and the Mars Rovers!

  117. “What can we do…..?”
    It is frustrating to see the scope of the forces supporting CAGW, and all of the regulatory apparatus, and fund siphoning that has followed it. If you are among those who believe that the proponents of CAGW are well-meaning but mistaken, you are frustrated. If, however, you believe fraud is involved, you are likely an order of magnitude more frustrated. Arming up to shoot a zealot during one of this winter’s power interruptions is, however, a bit anti social even if justified based on the damage done.

    Seriously, though, what can one do?

    Well, here we are at WUWT. There is a tip jar (for surfacestations). AW is discrete about tooting his own horn too loudly — BUT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!.

    Other sites where the arguments are clear, and HONESTLY MODERATED allowing both sides to debate are also fundworthy.

    And, beyond the web….how about “each one teach one”. A Young person came to my door recently in campaign mode, “saving the polar bears” (an oversimplification). On a very hot day, a glass of iced tea in exchange for a few minutes of listening rocked his world. Some of the cult members are too far gone to reprogram easily, but we can at least sow doubt and try to convince them the everything they know is wrong.

    I find Jo Nova’s sceptics guide very useful for conversions and deprogramming. It is simple, and reduces the clutter of a brain that has a thousand factoids and no data.

    Another technique that is fun if you catch someone who has avoided the new math and thus can actually do their sums, is to imaginarially but numerically build a wind industry ( or solar). At the point of maximum enthusiasm ask what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. The argument deteriorates. Then reason by analogy. Say they want a car. We’re going to make them buy a car with a lot of operating restrictions, and a backup. The argument continues. I’ve actually had a light turn on in perhaps one of ten Sierra clubbers, though I’m not yet claiming any true conversions.

    We know that the fantasy will fail on a number of fronts, perhaps catastrophically. Reality is in harmony with itself, not the faculty lounge. What we can do is have the truth available as an alternative when people see their dreams die…..so then come home to a system that function well rather than flitting from one cult to another.

    Some people are capable of great things. Most of us, I think, just plod along doing the best we can. But think of an avalanche and its power, even though each snowflake doesn’t carry much weight. But our opinion carry no weight at all if we only talk to ourselves.

    • Richard,
      No need to SHOUT….
      I contribute to a number of conservative (USA) candidates campaigns (labor and $$$) in each election cycle, as well as some tip jar support to this site and others. I was curious to find out how many others here at WUWT take any action beyond this site. This query generated very few responses over several days so I tentatively conclude that most here are content with commenting on a blog.

      I also take opportunities to teach, point out logical fallacies, and challenge people to think for themselves rather than accepting the spoon fed ‘science’. Thanks for your thoughts and response,
      Mac

  118. Thinking of this, there must be methodology papers out there, and some sort of consensus approach, or two, for homogenization.

    I am familiar with such consensus strategies being discussed and developed in other areas of research, such as developing bootstrap estimates, doing probability-matching between two data sets where there is no one data element to link a person in one set to the other set, and so on.

    There should be a general method for identifying a station that needs to be homogenized, then for deciding its neighbors that will homogenize it, and so on.

    If a site reading is bad, homogenization corrects it by adjusting the bad reading; why adjust the bad reading by some amount determined by the good local stations? Why not just use the good nearby local stations to fabricate a temp for the bad site? If the adjacent local sites can indicate what the temp was at the bad site, then just do that. What role should the bad-site temp play?

    If I could read some methodology paper or papers, I could see the logic and then see how the logic translates into how to select bad station, how to select the good stations to correct it, and how the actual correction will be done.

  119. Bill Illis

    “Sack the adjustments since it is clear they have gone way too far.”

    Should we also sack the satellite data, which since 1979 appears to be in much better agreement with the adjusted than the unadjusted surface data in Australia?

    • It is curious that the big adjustments occur before the satellite records began.

      A most curious algorithm indeed.

    • You are only looking at satellite data for the proper latitudes in the SH, right? No? Try again.

    • As I recall, according to theory accepted by both CAGW alarmists and CAGW skeptics, the satellite data should not agree.with the surface data. If there has been warming, it should be “amplified” in the upper troposphere, should it not? I’m straining my memory again, but isn’t the amplification factor supposed be about 1.2?

  120. Is there any comprehensive record of all adjustments to data? Is there a trend in the adjustments?

  121. M Courtney

    “It is curious that the big adjustments occur before the satellite records began.”

    Irrespective of adjustments prior to the satellite era, satellite observations of temperature trends in the lower troposphere over Australia appear to be in good agreement with the adjusted surface temperature record: around 0.16 C/dec warming since 1979. Australia has warmed by about 0.6 C in total since 1979.

    • DavidR

      OK, so there were small “adjustments” in the satellite era and surface data and satellite data agree.

      Does that suggest there should have been only small “adjustments” prior to the satellite era and if not then why not?

      Richard

      • richardscourtney

        The adjustments made by BOM are guided by a set methodology, as published in the peer reviewed literature, which is applied to the ‘whole’ data set.

        Raw data are available online; anyone can download it, apply the published BOM methodology, and uncover any discrepancy between adjustments post and pre 1979.

        I’m not aware of any such discrepancy having been identified.

      • DavidR

        Your reply to me is a good body swerve. It answers two questions I did not ask and ignores the question I asked.

        What has been identified is not relevant to my question. I refer you to a post of rgbatduke at August 27, 2014 at 10:50 am on the other thread addressing this issue. You can use this link to jump to it.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney

        Your question was:

        “Does that suggest there should have been only small “adjustments” prior to the satellite era and if not then why not?”

        My answer was that BOM claim the same adjustment process is applied to the entire data set; both pre and post the satellite era (1979). There is not a separate process applied to data from different eras. That ‘does’ answer your question.

      • A C Osborn

        The sources you mention focus on a small number of stations. BOM state (my emphasis):

        “… from 1950 to present… homogeneity adjustments have little impact on *national trends* and changes in temperature extremes.”

        This statement could easily be disproved, since raw and adjusted data for ACORN stations are available online. So far, no one has suggested BOM is wrong about the effect of adjustments on the national trend.

  122. I do hope that there are original unaltered copies of the data ready to be restored once humankind casts away its current foolishness.

  123. @jared 8/26 3:56 pm, 8/27 12:48 am, 8/27 4:11 am
    All good comments.
    On the issue of adjusting outliers, perhaps we should adjust their grant monies. After all, adjustments won’t make a difference.

  124. Any raw station temperature data that uses the reliable instruments for measuring temperature recommended by the WMO, should never be adjusted. Any other means is FRAUD and is changing data to suit confirmation bias for maybe financial gain. The only idea I get that not changing one or two station makes little difference apparently because most of the rural stations have already been changed to match the urban ones? It is now the recent trick in temperature data, if the present doesn’t warm, slowly cool history over time hoping people won’t notice. I also believe satellites are keeping them more honest recently or further adjusted warming would have been implemented. Raw data should never be homogenized because it hides secrets that may become noticeable many years in future.

    HADCRUT4 and GISS don’t support the required evidence for need for recent changes and neither does the raw data. Historic data of many decades ago have no scientific support for changing them all the time, only thing i see is FRAUD.

  125. What’s the difference between correcting “wrong” data and just making up your own facts?

  126. An example of correcting wrong data here for HADCRUT3.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006548/full

    24] The distribution of known adjustments is not symmetric; adjustments are more likely to be negative than positive. The most common reason for a station needing adjustment is a site move in the 1940–1960 period. The earlier site tends to have been warmer than the later one, as the move is often to an out of town airport. So the adjustments are mainly negative, because the earlier record (in the town/city) needs to be reduced [Jones et al., 1985, 1986]. Although a real effect, this asymmetry is small compared with the typical adjustment, and is difficult to quantify; so the homogenization adjustment uncertainties are treated as being symmetric about zero.

    [25] The homogenization adjustment applied to a station is usually constant over long periods: The mean time over which an adjustment is applied is nearly 40 years [Jones et al., 1985, 1986; Vincent and Gullet, 1999]. The error in each adjustment will therefore be constant over the same period. This means that the adjustment uncertainty is highly correlated in time: The adjustment uncertainty on a station value will be the same for a decadal average as for an individual monthly value.

    Who doesn’t see a major can of warms regarding especially 24}?

    a) The distribution of known adjustments is not symmetric.

    b) Adjustments are more likely to be negative than positive.

    c) Earlier site trends to have been warmer than the later one, as the move is often to an out of town airport.

    d) Although a real effect, this asymmetry is small compared with the typical adjustment, and is difficult to quantify; so the homogenization adjustment uncertainties are treated as being symmetric about zero.

    e) This means that the adjustment uncertainty is highly correlated in time.

    Why b) when d) have all adjustments symmetric about zero?
    Why a) when adjustments seem symmetric?
    Why c) when airports are as warm as cities/towns and they are usually close to the urban area and become part of it not long after?
    Why d) when b) more likely to be positive after the 1940’s?

    These single alterations implemented by human error have been adjusting temperatures in the 1930’s lower than recent temperatures. Evidence the 1930’s were warmer if not the same as about now because the science doesn’t back up these adjustments. What has been done the temperatures have been lowered to either new airport location and/or adjusted to urban one, Hence, circular warming because the cooling adjusted incorrectly before is increased further in future with adjustments correlated to urban warming which was hardly no different to the original location.

  127. This is Nick Stojes’ response in his blog justifying the Amberley adjustments

    AnonymousAugust 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM

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

    The AGW way !
    Reply

    Nick StokesAugust 27, 2014 at 8:52 AM

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

    So the adjustment is deemed to be valid because there is no record of a ” non move “. This is the kind of twisted, depraved and shameless level of behaviour exhibited byhte CAGW supporting crowd.

  128. Ahh Nick and Mosher, defenders of the faith, have they been knighted yet?.

    Well boys, explain how adjusting the data alters a trend covering decades.

    If there is a change in method of measurement or the instrument goes wrong at one point, I get a step change in the actual value at that point in time. I don’t get a change in trend. I don’t reverse reality either, if it was cooling at that place it still has been cooling, different start point that’s all.

    Explain carefully how these adjustments can reverse long term reality and give an example of where this has been seen and verified.

    Or are you saying that these changes or instrument failure were incremental and always in the one direction? You know the station was changed just a few yards every year on the way to a new site or the instrument broke just a little bit more every year for decades because I can’t see any other way of producing a long term incorrect trend that can be ‘adjusted’ to reverse itself.

    If ‘adjustments’ to actual data reverse a long term measured trend, then it tells you for sure your ‘adjustments’ are wrong.

    If not, explain how it can occur in the real world and give a verified example.

    Alan

  129. KNR

    “Adjusting the past downward makes the present appear warmer…”

    We have confirmation via the satellite record that Australia warmed around 0.6 C from 1979 to the present. Since 1979 at least, the ‘present’ has been getting warmer.

    “…how else can you explain how homogenizing data ‘always ‘ work in their favour…”

    BOM advise that there are ACORN stations where a raw positive trend has been lowered by adjustment. On a national scale they say the difference in trend between the adjusted and unadjusted data is negligible.

    • These silly nested comments mean you’ve probably missed this one from earlier:
      It says

      kenskingdom August 27, 2014 at 8:51 pm
      Of 104 sites in the dataset, adjustments at 66 cause warming, at 38 cause cooling. 63.5%. The effect on national trends is a warming of +0.3C or 47%. See my posts at kenskingdom.wordpress.com, Ken Stewart

      47%.

  130. When the BOM first produced their high quaility ACORN temperature data, there were more than 1000 examples of days when thew minimum temperature was higher than the maximum.

    Just how much confidence do you place in this tax payer funded organisation.

  131. Haven’t you guys flogged this dead horse enough? You’re still looking for either a) mass incompetence b) mass fraud, or c) conspiracy by Climate Scientists. In which case, they’re ALL a, b, or c) since in addition to the IPCC’s summary of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, ALL 200 of the World’s National Science Academies and Professional Organizations conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ or similar.

    Your claims don’t pass the smell test. Sorry.

Comments are closed.