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
=========
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”.
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^)
That is about 3.25 degrees Fahrenheit! Ouch! Any pools on the excuse to not roll heads?
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.
Chip Javert August 26, 2014 at 3:03 pm
…
Nah, Chip, Lewandowsky is an American.
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.
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/
And Jones’ response to Jennifer Marohasy’s letter is where?
Ghengis.. Most of the surrounding stations have also undergone BOM’s warming treatment.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/the-australian-temperature-record-part-6-victoria/
Wangaratta is a doosey !!!
It would be nice to get rid of the pre-1974 Rutherglen blip.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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……
They’ll most likely transfer the responsibility for the temperature records to the Ministry of Truth 🙁
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/
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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.