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.
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.
…
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/
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.
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.
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
Good one!
Hilarious 🙂
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.
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!
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).
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?
@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
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”.!
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. . . . . .
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?
You may be interested to know that most of the surrounding stations agree with Rutherglen. The whole region is cooling.
Well Mosh has tried handwaving…
Next up Nick and the BoM choir with an acapella cover of “Yes! We have no bannanas! “
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?
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.
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!
What do you think would happen if your bank ‘adjusted’ your account balance or your mortgage company would adjust your loan rate? 😉
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.)
What do you think would happen if your bank ‘adjusted’ your account balance
How about adjusting for inflation?
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.
“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’
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.
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 ……………………?
Oatley
August 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm Edit
Truth is like ivory soap…in time it bobs to the surface…
http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/61/6128/S3RF100Z/posters/gluyas-williams-industrial-crisis-the-day-a-cake-of-soap-sank-at-procter-gamble-s-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
“Data that is wrong must be dumped or fixed” ~ Ptolemy 150 AD, Mosher 2014
@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)