Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias
by Warwick Hughes
Jones et al 1986 looked at 86 Australian stations and rejected 46 (25 Short term – 21 long term). Of the 40 they used 27 were short term and 13 long term. Of the long term there were 5 large cities.
The 27 short term stations were mostly only quoted from 1951 onward – regardless of what data was available. It just so happens that the years just post WWII were not prominently warm in Australia so an “automatic” warming trend was reinforced into the CRU Australian component.
Here are 11 examples where Jones et al systematically truncated pre-1951 data or ignored more rural data around many small town Australian stations. These graphics and text have been extracted from a 1992 vintage Word doc that somehow survived the decades and how many HDD’s.
Port Hedland
The aerodrome records 1951-80 shows a clear warming trend. Marble Bar, 150 kms south east, shows a similar trend over that period but a flat trend over 80 odd years.
Longreach
For the period 1951-80 this trend is sharply upward, yet if the Longreach Post Office record is spliced to the aerodrome record (post 1940s) the trend becomes markedly flatter. When Longreach is compared to Isisford, a much smaller rural centre 80 kms south, the trend is closer to neutral over about 70 years.
Mackay
The A.M.O. record 1951-80 shows a clearly steeper warming trend for Mackay when compared with St Lawrence and Pine Islet Lighthouse.
Rockhampton
Compared to Bustard Head Lighthouse and St. Lawrence, Rockhampton shows a warming trend of about 0.5°C over 70 years. Rockhampton data was used only for the period 1951-1970. The two nearby more rural sites show a similar temperature pattern but a negligible temperature change over 70 years.
Meekathara
The Aerodrome record 1951-80 shows a clear strong warming trend. The small centre of Cue, 120 kms south west however has a flat trend over 90 years.
Charleville
The trend for this station 1951-80 also shows a strong warming trend. Cunnamulla, a smaller centre approximately 170 kms south, shows a much flatter trend over about 80 years.
Kalgoorlie
The aerodrome record 1941-80 shows a well defined warming. However, when Post Office records are spliced on, the trend is much closer to zero over 90 years. Looking at Southern Cross, a continuous Post Office record, approximately 200 kms west, the trend is very similar, flat over some 90 years.
www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/kalgoorlie.gif
Forrest
This station 1951-80, shows a steeper warming trend than the nearby Rawlinna, where records go back to 1926.
Ceduna
A warming trend is seen over the 1951-80 period, yet the longer term and more remote Streaky Bay, where records are available back to 1925, shows a flatter trend.
Woomera
Once again, this record shows the 1951-80 warming. Broken Hill, the nearest long term station in a similar climate, shows a cooling trend over a hundred year time span.
Mt. Gambier
From 1951-80 this aerodrome station shows a strong warming trend. When the Post Office records are spliced on the trend 1860s to 1990, it is close to neutral.
It gets better, in Warwick’s blog comments, Warwick points this out:
The situation for Jones 1986 Sth Hem compilation – is that Sydney and Melbourne aside, there is not one station, long or short term, between Brisbane and Mt. Gambier. This area includes all of NSW and Victoria and contains the greatest concentration of long term recording stations in Australia. Must be one of the great and complete exclusions in the history of science.
He adds in another comment:
I have never been able to discover which stations contribute to their gridded data.
Maybe that will change now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Patrick G (21:27:30) : Has any of this been adjusted for? Has anyone even attempted to model the effects of these changes?
It’s worse than that! The airports are used as “rural” to adjust other stations!
IMHO, that is why so many UHI adjustments “go the wrong way” in GIStemp.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/most-used-rural-airport-for-uhi-adj/
lookatthecode (09:58:36) : Maybe we should get a few profesional to seriously look at and audit the cdode/dataset, before billions are spent, world economies are changed.
Back to the code, and the harry_read_me.txt file. The code and datasets, will destroy this department, and AGW, if not their is truly no hope for real science
Some of us are kicking around bits of the code here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/crut-fromexcel-f90-program-listing/
Though the discussion started on this page:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
Which has in comments a mr “Steve” claiming to be a professional in “scientific programming” actually trying to defend the indefensible in a bit of the HADcrut code. I show how it could easily be made much more robust, and he wants to claim it’s (variously) a waste of time, not needed, fixed just fine by picking one roach off the top of the stew pot and not looking IN the stew, etc. …
(It would be amusing except I think the guy is A) real and B) serious. If this is the quality of attention to QA in “scientific programming” I’d rather get the guy who does billing systems for WalMart to write the code… FWIW, “Steve” looks to originate from near NCDC based on a casual look at the IP number. Haven’t cared enough to chase it down more than that, though, and could be ‘way off’ since it’s just a “from memory” of what “host” returned). The “ping pong” between him and me is somewhat amusing, though I’m getting a bit tired of giving 100 line exact responses to 10 line vague ‘sillyness’… It’s harder to shovel the “poo” out than for it to be deposited 😉
None of you guys get it do?
to quote: (and I’m really pleased for you)
‘Some of us are kicking around bits of the code here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/crut-fromexcel-f90-program-listing/
Though the discussion started on this page:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
Which has in comments a mr “Steve” claiming to be a professional in “scientific programming” actually trying to defend the indefensible in a bit of the HADcrut code’
————————————————–
You don’t get it, AGW have the MEDIA, POLITICIANS as true believers of the save the planet mantra, we here are all DENIERS, to be discussed and dismissed in the same vein as ‘holocaust deniers’
mr ‘steve’ is a believer, he is trying to confuse, spin, suck you into trivial (as far as the public see) techy, nerdy geeky debate.
The AGW crowd, control the media, global warming is a religion to them, mere fact, the truth and real science doesn’t stop, then (whilst is needed in court, IF it ever gets that far)
This is a watergate moment, without anyone in the real ie mainstream media running with it… there are no investigative journalists, explaining what is being done to the masses.
in the UK, ‘mann’ has been rolled out on the bbc, to explain, ‘we’ve just worked out why it is cooling a bit at the moment, it’s the oceans’
‘it’s a very complex field, we are learning all the time’
so everthing is ok again’ no mention of the scandal, data emails code…
No one is saying (THAT MATTERS, ie famous) –
Hang about, wasn’t everyone saying last week, the science is settled, 2500 ippcc scientists – SAY SO . now you are saying you just learnt something new, does that mean your previous models are bull, and your computer models are wrong?
NOONE IS ASKING that question in the UK, I’m sure no one in Europe has even heard of the hack.
IT is SETTLED, MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, you ARE A DENIAR, DENIAR, DENIAR, DENIAR you eat babies, etc,etc
So stop getting sweaty over petty techy arguments in forums, blogs no one (famous, important) cares about has ever heard about. talk to real people. people of influence.
Talk to the union cheif who’s thousand of workers who are going due to CO2 legislation.
Talk to the airline Bosses, unions, about why the con, is going to tax ruin them.
Talk to the auto unions, about CO2 is a total scam , by huge commercial vested interest, that allow aL gore to fly around the world in luxury, becoming a billionaire, why happily buyin carbon offset credits, with his vast new found wealth.
talk to your boss, talk to a ‘real’ person not in an internet chatroom, forum, blog..
AGW, have the media, they have the ‘polar bears, orlando bloom, bono, hollywood, ‘melting icecaps, Hollywood glossy special effects…
what does science have, bunch of techies, bitching about error bars, artificial correction factors, fortran, and emails about scietists beeing rude to each other…
How many comments does this web page have 200 maybe.
6 billion on this planet, less than probably a 1000th% of the planet have even HEARD about the data theft (whistle blowing) and that is probably a huge overestimate…
And all that that tiny, tiny fraction have heards since is spin, lies and media sleight of hand.
tell someone ‘important’ in China, India, Russia third world,
AGW have won.
Apolgies for the rant, I do not mean to offend. I’m off to start saving up to pay for my carbon taxes.
E.M.Smith (10:46:03) : NCDC seems to be Number Three (and I’ve not looked at it yet, but given the various affiliations it is most likely just a trivial GHCN variant.)
NCDC seems to be a synonym for GHCN.
A light slowly dawns…
Starting from a google of NCDC I drilled down their web site and then the ftp links until I ended up in a VERY familiar place… the directory where GIStemp downloads the GHCN data.
So I’ve answered my own question: GHCN is the same as NCDC data set. And I’m already investigating it and finding it bogus.
NCDC, GIStemp, and HadCRUt all agree because they are all GHCN with minor post processing variations… And GHCN has strong biases introduced from deleting thermometers at altitude and in cold latitudes.
Letting you know that The Australian National Library has an on going program of digitising historic newspapers from 1803 to 1954 at this link http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home
A quick search of the word temperature will give you over 92000 hits. Our old newspaper writers were quite interested in land and sea temps.