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/
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.
==========================================
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:ASN00082039/detail
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.
nobody at the BOM will be sacked they will be promoted with a very large pay rise at taxpayers expense
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…
… 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.
Do you have a publication date?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:ASN00082039/detail
Upon further review, it claims to have 99% coverage for temperatures, but when you go to view it, there are, as Mosher stated, no records before 1965.
There are however, complete precipitation records dating all the way back to 1913.
Curious. The temperature records clearly exist, so why are they choosing not to use them?
Here’s the Rutherglen data from BoM:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=082039&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
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??
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. 😉
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.
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.
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.
Here’s the Rutherglen data from BoM:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=082039&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
It goes back to 1913
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!
They should do this to NOAA & NASA!
Sounds very like the NZ debacle,
http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/435
When NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) was asked to produce the record of the calculations for each adjustment at each station, strangely enough these documents couldn’t be found. Eventually they back engineered some calculations for the court. I can’t believe these guys never went to gaol!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
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.
@fretslider August 26, 2014 at 3:48 pm
You could call the way data is handled ‘Slingo bingo’
you mean like this?
Source:http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/place-your-bets/
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.
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.
Perhaps it should be renamed “Ice Station Butterfly”. 😉
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.
They’re just using Mann’s “Nature” trick and hiding the decline.
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.
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.
Try us, me, for what, asking to see the data? Come now.
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. 🙂
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/
Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature.