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/
An example of correcting wrong data here for HADCRUT3.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006548/full
24] The distribution of known adjustments is not symmetric; adjustments are more likely to be negative than positive. The most common reason for a station needing adjustment is a site move in the 1940–1960 period. The earlier site tends to have been warmer than the later one, as the move is often to an out of town airport. So the adjustments are mainly negative, because the earlier record (in the town/city) needs to be reduced [Jones et al., 1985, 1986]. Although a real effect, this asymmetry is small compared with the typical adjustment, and is difficult to quantify; so the homogenization adjustment uncertainties are treated as being symmetric about zero.
[25] The homogenization adjustment applied to a station is usually constant over long periods: The mean time over which an adjustment is applied is nearly 40 years [Jones et al., 1985, 1986; Vincent and Gullet, 1999]. The error in each adjustment will therefore be constant over the same period. This means that the adjustment uncertainty is highly correlated in time: The adjustment uncertainty on a station value will be the same for a decadal average as for an individual monthly value.
Who doesn’t see a major can of warms regarding especially 24}?
a) The distribution of known adjustments is not symmetric.
b) Adjustments are more likely to be negative than positive.
c) Earlier site trends to have been warmer than the later one, as the move is often to an out of town airport.
d) Although a real effect, this asymmetry is small compared with the typical adjustment, and is difficult to quantify; so the homogenization adjustment uncertainties are treated as being symmetric about zero.
e) This means that the adjustment uncertainty is highly correlated in time.
Why b) when d) have all adjustments symmetric about zero?
Why a) when adjustments seem symmetric?
Why c) when airports are as warm as cities/towns and they are usually close to the urban area and become part of it not long after?
Why d) when b) more likely to be positive after the 1940’s?
These single alterations implemented by human error have been adjusting temperatures in the 1930’s lower than recent temperatures. Evidence the 1930’s were warmer if not the same as about now because the science doesn’t back up these adjustments. What has been done the temperatures have been lowered to either new airport location and/or adjusted to urban one, Hence, circular warming because the cooling adjusted incorrectly before is increased further in future with adjustments correlated to urban warming which was hardly no different to the original location.
This is Nick Stojes’ response in his blog justifying the Amberley adjustments
”
AnonymousAugust 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM
There is NO RECORD of any site move at Amberley. You are adjusting the data using a whim and a fabrication.
The AGW way !
Reply
Nick StokesAugust 27, 2014 at 8:52 AM
There’s no record of a non-move either. The scientific way is to look at all the data and make the best estimate.”
So the adjustment is deemed to be valid because there is no record of a ” non move “. This is the kind of twisted, depraved and shameless level of behaviour exhibited byhte CAGW supporting crowd.
I was thinking of washing and polishing the car but I’ll definitely leave it for now-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dry-warmer-than-average-spring-on-the-way-for-south-australia-forecasters-say/story-fni6uo1m-1227040419338
Surely the Australian Government is cutting grants for this type of research by now?
Ahh Nick and Mosher, defenders of the faith, have they been knighted yet?.
Well boys, explain how adjusting the data alters a trend covering decades.
If there is a change in method of measurement or the instrument goes wrong at one point, I get a step change in the actual value at that point in time. I don’t get a change in trend. I don’t reverse reality either, if it was cooling at that place it still has been cooling, different start point that’s all.
Explain carefully how these adjustments can reverse long term reality and give an example of where this has been seen and verified.
Or are you saying that these changes or instrument failure were incremental and always in the one direction? You know the station was changed just a few yards every year on the way to a new site or the instrument broke just a little bit more every year for decades because I can’t see any other way of producing a long term incorrect trend that can be ‘adjusted’ to reverse itself.
If ‘adjustments’ to actual data reverse a long term measured trend, then it tells you for sure your ‘adjustments’ are wrong.
If not, explain how it can occur in the real world and give a verified example.
Alan
KNR
“Adjusting the past downward makes the present appear warmer…”
We have confirmation via the satellite record that Australia warmed around 0.6 C from 1979 to the present. Since 1979 at least, the ‘present’ has been getting warmer.
“…how else can you explain how homogenizing data ‘always ‘ work in their favour…”
BOM advise that there are ACORN stations where a raw positive trend has been lowered by adjustment. On a national scale they say the difference in trend between the adjusted and unadjusted data is negligible.
These silly nested comments mean you’ve probably missed this one from earlier:
It says
47%.
When the BOM first produced their high quaility ACORN temperature data, there were more than 1000 examples of days when thew minimum temperature was higher than the maximum.
Just how much confidence do you place in this tax payer funded organisation.
Haven’t you guys flogged this dead horse enough? You’re still looking for either a) mass incompetence b) mass fraud, or c) conspiracy by Climate Scientists. In which case, they’re ALL a, b, or c) since in addition to the IPCC’s summary of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, ALL 200 of the World’s National Science Academies and Professional Organizations conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ or similar.
Your claims don’t pass the smell test. Sorry.
Those T records adjusted themselves–naturally. –AGF
Where can I apply for one of those grants? Is it too late?
warrenlb
Global warming stopped about 17 years ago.
That is reality so you need to come to terms with it if you are going to cope with it.
Richard
Here is another voice on this subject…. William Kininmonth… the actual curator of the raw temperature data for Australia. He says basically the same thing, with his position of authority. http://t.co/2CR0h37Jyq