I met Ken while on my Australian tour, he’s been doing some fine work.
Via Andrew Bolt
Retired school principal Kenskingdom was alarmed by this Bureau of Meteorology graph, showing a strong warming trend for Victoria, Australia:
He checked the data from which the trend, and found it had first been adjusted and turned into “high quality” data. As a BOM spokesman assured him:
On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).
Actually, no, though. You see, Kenskingdom discovered that the adjustments served to exaggerate Victoria’s warming remarkably:
Kenskingdom goes through the individual stations for you and concludes:
There is a distinct warming trend in Victoria since the 1960s, which has been especially marked in the last 15 years.
The first half of the record shows a cooling trend. BOM’s adjustments have attempted to remove this.
2007, not 2009, was the warmest year in the past 100 years.
Three stations identified as urban in 1996 have been included.
Many stations’ data have been arbitrarily adjusted to cool earlier years
Only one station has had its trend reduced. Two are essentially unchanged.
Ten of Victoria’s 13 stations have been adjusted to increase the warming trend, to the extent that there is a warming bias of at least 133%, more likely 143%.
These adjustments, and the Australian temperature record to which they contribute, are plainly not to be trusted.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is someone collating all the sites that show questionable adjustment/corrections like Victoria, including countries/regions as a whole? I know one of the blogs has shown analyses of regions – essentially that is what the site does, review the IPCC regional sites and provide alternate views.
Plus, is there work that details and audits why the IPCC “natural” cycle (i.e. without CO2 forcing) is a cooling trend?
*sigh* what else is new? We know that global warming has been “man made” for quite some time and he is just discovered (again) how man makes it.
I got your “quality data” right here.
That looks like it could be a single station move around 1960. Station histories for Australian stations are available somewhere from the BoM, why not just look at them to see what prompted the BoM to do that, before you decide what is to be trusted or not?
In any case, it’s the period since the 1960s that we’re really looking at, when we’re talking about the AGW period… before that, greenhouse gas forcing was not dominant.
I get the feeling from reading about all the warm bias that has gone into the global average temperature calculations that if it were an honest calculation it would come out to just about what to expect (from simple physics) from the increased CO2 minus absent positive feedbacks. Given the exponentially decreasing capacity of additional CO2 to cause surface warming it would appear that we’re looking at maybe 1.5C of global average temperature increase over the next 100 years and this is disproportionately occurring in the night time low temperatures in the winter in high northern latitudes where it, in fact, is a welcome happenstance that merely serves to lengthen growing seasons and extend northward the boundaries of arable land and possibly even reliably open up a northwest summertime passage in the arctic which would be a boon to intercontinental shipping. Add on the benefits to plant growth rates from increased atmospheric CO2 and reduction in water requirements for same(which are global benefits) and it looks like a pretty solid conclusion that we should be thankful for rather than fearful of anthropogenic global warming.
That’s standard M.O. They always adjust and always downward in earlier times and/or upward in later times. So, yep, it is probably as many adjustments up and down,(I bet you’d find nearby stations with more recent temps adjusted upwards) but always in the same manner as it relates to time.
Down under and in the USA, how are these “adjustments” justified?
In science (and I have 30 years in science and engineering), adjusting old data is considered cheating unless some instrument malfunction can be proven.
Great work by Ken Stewart here. The Vic region is my home turf- finally a nice detailed look at the BOM temperature adjustments.
As far as I know, New Zealands’ NIWA still refuses to release information regarding the reasons for their own warming adjustments (update?). Looking at these graphs, I wonder now how the BOM is going to react.
Thanks Anthony, it was great to meet you in Emerald. I’m going away for a few days and won’t be able to post comments, but thanks.
carrot eater :
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts. I have looked at the raw data and adjusted data for 93 out of the 100 High Quality stations, and the vast majority have been warmed. The average for those 93 is approximately 33%. BOM says they have adjusted to correct for discontinuities so the adjustments should be random and average to neutral. Only a few of the stations’ metadata is available in digital form yet.
Ken
Sorry, that should have been “The average for those 93 is approximately 33% extra warming above the raw trend.”
Ken
James Sexton,
I can’t speak to Australia itself, but when you use unadjusted data from around the globe, you get pretty much the same results as what GISS, CRU and NOAA get using their adjusted figures.
So it’s actually quite true that taken globally, the adjustments cancel out, and have no real bearing on the global trend. This has been painstakingly shown by Zeke at Lucia’s, among several others in recent months. That’s what you have to do when you want to see what effect adjustments have on the overall result – instead of picking out stations one by one and looking at their graphs, you have to actually recalculate the overall result using the adjusted and unadjusted data sets, and see what difference it makes.
Incidentally, for whatever it’s worth, the exact adjustments made here by the BoM are not adopted by either NOAA or GISS. CRU may or may not; they sometimes adopt the adjustments suggested by the providing countries, I think.
I was wondering what Climate Science students use for textbooks. I think I found the answer here:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278009721&sr=1-1
It is now called helping the data, smoothing or cleaning the info.
Who doesn’t want a refurbished data set?
Funny how Gavin last year predicted 2010 would be the warmest year yet and it turns out that GISS is churning out warmest months after warmest months. Either Gavin is truly an amazing oracle when it comes to season’s weather and the Met Office should grab him PDQ, or he had advanced knowledge of GISS strategy…
This is IMO no luck that all AGW supporting weather offices are relaying the GISS stuff.
Sounds to me like “The Sting”: you never can lose when you already know the answer…
Notice how the “adjustments” always seem to be matching the same pattern of correction.
This will not stop until there is a planet wide movement to jail all of the “fraudulent adjusters’ who attempt to call themselves ‘scientists’.
The sooner we jail the perps…the sooner we can get back to doing real science!
Or is ‘science’ all a facade? and may have been a super scam all along?
It just amazes me how the obviously cyclical variations in temperature are so frequently smoothed out to produce a more straightforward warming trend.
The graphs shown have a different y-axis. The Bureau of Meteorology graph uses a mean temperature anomaly based on a 1961-1990 base and the “comparison” graph is unlabeled. From 1960 to the present time both graphs are in agreement and cover the period of time showing the most dramatic increase in global temperature known by many to be the “blade of the hockey stick”.
Prior to 1960 the graphs start to diverge and the Bureau’s temperatures are noticeably cooler back to 1915. Whether the cooler adjustments were correctly applied or done in error would be best judged by reading the Bureau of Meteorology article (peer reviewed?) accompanying the graph. Who can tell, maybe all those old thermometers were poorly placed.
You’re half right. It’s the period since the 1960’s when we’re talking about the AGW period. Where you’re wrong is the lack of interest in the prior period. If it was as warm 100 years ago as it is today then there we could conclude that there is no such thing as AGW. The temperature trends before 1960 are what’s called “control data” i.e. data where the variable of interest is isolated. Without being able to isolate the CO2 variable we we’re simply not doing any valid science.
carrot eater says
Missed the point again rabbet.
No wonder climate science has lost the trust of most informed people. The Victoria ‘warmed period’ is just one of a series of published blunders, or worse, and is perhaps an indication of how many people have a vested interest in CAGW being true.
We need some real scientists doing real science so that we can start on the long and complex road to understanding our chaotic climate and how it is affected by changes in solar activity. What we have at the moment is cargo cult climate science where belief, rather than evidence, drives the agenda.
Jay: The justification seems to be: The ends justify the means.
Carrot Eater says:
“In any case, it’s the period since the 1960s that we’re really looking at, when we’re talking about the AGW period… before that, greenhouse gas forcing was not dominant.
Uhhmmmm – no.
We don’t cherry pick the data that suits our particular beliefs and preferences.
We don’t cherry pick the starting points or the ending points to suit our desires.
We don’t adjust the data to suit our particular perspectives.
We don’t make unsupported declarations about “green house gas forcings”.
We don’t make unsupported declarations about when the unsupported “green house gas forcings” were or were not “dominant”.
We record the raw data. We plot the raw data. We examine the results for trends. We risk hypothesis, based on the data. If it stands against all challenges, it might become theory.
“Funny how Gavin last year predicted 2010 would be the warmest year yet and it turns out that GISS is churning out warmest months after warmest months.”
Or it’s as simple as knowing there was an El Nino coming on.
If the adjustments cancel out globally, then what is the justification for adjusting?
One can easily go cherry-pick stations to manufacture a chilling plunge into a cold period.
In fact, that is what I expect will happen by the alarmists when their warming scares go belly up.
Jay Cech says:
July 1, 2010 at 11:12 am
Down under and in the USA, how are these “adjustments” justified?
In science (and I have 30 years in science and engineering), adjusting old data is considered cheating unless some instrument malfunction can be proven.
____________________________________________________________________
Yes and that is why all the “Climate Scientists” are fighting against FOI requests and having their data looked at. Why data and methods are not included with submission of articles to “peer reviewed journals” Why within “Climate Science” publishing articles without the data and methods is considered the “norm” to quote Mr. Jones at the Parliamentary inquiry.