From Jo Nova: BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations “might” have moved!
It’s the news you’ve been waiting years to hear! Finally we find out the exact details of why the BOM changed two of their best long term sites from cooling trends to warming trends. The massive inexplicable adjustments like these have been discussed on blogs for years. But it was only when Graham Lloyd advised the BOM he would be reporting on this that they finally found time to write three paragraphs on specific stations.
![875141-a5eda3f6-2a03-11e4-80fd-d0db9517e116[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/875141-a5eda3f6-2a03-11e4-80fd-d0db9517e1161.jpg?quality=83)
Who knew it would be so hard to get answers. We put in a Senate request for an audit of the BOM datasets in 2011. Ken Stewart, Geoff Sherrington, Des Moore, Bill Johnston, and Jennifer Marohasy have also separately been asking the BOM for details about adjustments on specific BOM sites. (I bet Warwick Hughes has too).
The BOM has ignored or circumvented all these, refusing to explain why individual stations were adjusted in detail. The two provocative articles Lloyd put together last week were Heat is on over weather bureau and Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures, which I covered here. This is the power of the press at its best.
more here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-finally-explains-cooling-changed-to-warming-trends-because-stations-might-have-moved/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anybody that is NOT a believer that pays attention to the weather will see things such as heavy down pours in one town and not a drop 15 miles north or south of that town. Mosher would say discarding that rain is correct because all the surrounding towns recieved no rain, therefore it must have been a sensor issue. The same thing happens with temps. Just use the raw data, stop fiddling with it, one gets thrown in jail for fiddling with cancer drug effectiveness data, yet gets grant money to do it with temps, IF they get those temps to rise.
I await detailed comments from Mosher, Zeke and their ilk explaining that these types of adjustments do not apply to USA institutions such as GISS and USHCN and furthermore Steven Goddard is totally wrong with his discoveries of “adjustments” made to US surface temperature records to “improve” on current global warming.
brilliant!!!
If the fiddles were not all to push a “Warming Agenda” you might give them some leeway – but this is plain old FOLLOW THE MONEY – FRAUD
Go get ’em Batman…
Mosher clearly has his BEST interests in mind…
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Fiddling on violin is one thing. Fiddling with facts such as correct temperatures an other.
5 years ago I downloaded data from BOM for my nearest weather station (Eagle Farm, Qld). Data is below. This also shows a cooling trend which has been “adjusted” into a warming trend (load it into excel and you’ll soon see). When I go back to the site now, I am unable to find an option to download both raw and homogenised data.
YEAR,JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC,Avg,D-J-F,M-A-M,J-J-A,S-O-N,Raw,Homogenised 1950,24.9,24,23.9,21.3,18.3,16.2,16.9,15.8,18,20.2,21,23.2,20.30833333,24.1,21.2,16.3,19.7,20.33,19.73 1951,22.8,23.7,23.5,20,16.9,16.4,14.2,14.7,17.6,19.8,22.6,24.1,19.69166667,23.2,20.1,15.1,20,19.62,19.02 1952,25.8,24.4,23.4,21.8,17.9,15.7,15.2,16.8,18.2,20.9,23.9,25,20.75,24.8,21,15.9,21,20.68,20.07 1953,24.2,24.2,23.6,22.6,18.4,15.8,15.1,15.7,18.6,21.3,23.6,25.7,20.73333333,24.5,21.5,15.5,21.2,20.68,20.07 1954,24.4,25.2,25.3,22.4,18.6,16.1,16.4,16.4,18,20.4,23.1,24.2,20.875,25.1,22.1,16.3,20.5,21,20.5 1955,25.1,25.7,24.8,22.4,18.3,16.2,14.6,16.2,18.5,21.7,22.9,24.1,20.875,25,21.8,15.7,21,20.88,20.38 1956,25.3,25.1,24.7,22.3,18,15.2,14.4,14.8,17,20.5,22.4,24.7,20.36666667,24.8,21.7,14.8,20,20.32,19.82 1957,24.9,25.4,23.5,22.9,18.5,17.3,14.1,16.4,18.2,21.6,24.3,25.5,21.05,25,21.6,15.9,21.4,20.98,20.48 1958,25.1,25.4,24.8,22.1,20.3,17.5,15.5,17,17.7,21.6,22.9,24.4,21.19166667,25.3,22.4,16.7,20.7,21.28,20.78 1959,24.5,24.5,23.7,21.4,18.2,16,15.7,16.1,18.4,19.5,22,25,20.41666667,24.5,21.1,15.9,20,20.37,19.87 1960,25.3,25.1,22.8,21.6,17.6,15.5,15,15,18.5,20.7,22.2,23,20.19166667,25.1,20.7,15.2,20.5,20.36,19.86 1961,23.4,24.1,23.1,21.7,18.1,16.3,14.8,15.9,18.4,21.5,22.7,24.4,20.36666667,23.5,21,15.7,20.9,20.25,19.85 1962,24.9,25.5,23,20.8,18,17,15.9,15.6,18.6,21.1,23.4,23.2,20.58333333,24.9,20.6,16.2,21,20.68,20.28 1963,24.7,25.6,24.3,21.6,19.2,16.3,14.4,16.7,18.6,19.9,21.6,22.9,20.48333333,24.5,21.7,15.8,20,20.51,20.12 1964,26,25.1,24.1,21.8,18.9,15.7,15.6,16.1,19.1,20.4,22.7,24.2,20.80833333,24.7,21.6,15.8,20.7,20.7,20.32 1965,24.7,24.7,24.4,22.1,19.2,16.9,14.3,16.4,19.7,21,23.2,23.9,20.875,24.5,21.9,15.9,21.3,20.9,20.51 1966,24,25.9,24,21.9,18.3,16.6,15,16.6,18.5,20,22.7,23.8,20.60833333,24.6,21.4,16.1,20.4,20.62,20.22 1967,24.9,24.4,23.1,21.1,18.6,18,15.2,15.6,18.7,21.8,23.1,23.4,20.65833333,24.4,20.9,16.3,21.2,20.69,20.29 1968,24.8,25.1,24.5,23.4,18.2,16.3,15.1,15.9,18.2,21.6,24.6,24.4,21.00833333,24.4,22,15.8,21.5,20.93,20.61 1969,26.3,25.4,24.3,22.2,19.4,16.5,16.7,17.9,17.3,20.5,22.4,25.1,21.16666667,25.4,22,17,20.1,21.11,20.77 1970,25.8,25,23.6,21.6,17.1,15.6,13.9,15.8,17.7,20.4,22.2,24.4,20.25833333,25.3,20.8,15.1,20.1,20.32,20.06 1971,25.1,24.8,23.3,20.8,17.8,15.5,14.3,15.9,18.3,21.6,22.3,23.8,20.29166667,24.8,20.6,15.2,20.7,20.34,20.04 1972,24.5,23.4,23,21,18.3,16.3,14,16.1,18,20.6,22.8,24.6,20.21666667,23.9,20.8,15.5,20.5,20.15,19.86 1973,26.1,25.5,24.9,22.5,20.4,16.7,16.7,16.9,19.2,21.4,23.5,24.8,21.55,25.4,22.6,16.8,21.4,21.53,21.23 1974,24.9,24.6,23.7,21.9,18.5,15.7,14.4,15.1,17,19.5,21.3,24.4,20.08333333,24.8,21.4,15.1,19.3,20.12,19.81 1975,24.6,24.7,24.7,21.5,18.6,15.7,15.8,15.9,18.5,20.3,22.6,24.1,20.58333333,24.6,21.6,15.8,20.5,20.61,20.41 1976,24.8,24,24.2,21.3,19.1,16.6,16,14.7,17.5,19.6,23.3,25.4,20.54166667,24.3,21.5,15.8,20.1,20.43,20.23 1977,25.3,25.7,24.4,22.3,18.7,15.3,14.6,16.2,17.9,21.3,23.5,24.5,20.80833333,25.5,21.8,15.4,20.9,20.88,20.7 1978,25.9,25.7,24.3,21.9,18.3,15.1,14.6,15.4,17.6,19.7,22.2,24.1,20.4,25.4,21.5,15,19.8,20.43,20.25 1979,25.1,24.4,23.8,21.9,18.1,17.5,14.9,16,18.4,20.7,23.5,26.2,20.875,24.5,21.3,16.1,20.9,20.7,20.51 1980,26.2,25.4,24,22.2,19.8,16.5,14.7,17,19.5,21.6,23.4,23.7,21.16666667,25.9,22,16.1,21.5,21.38,21.18 1981,25,26.1,24.7,22.1,18.6,15.1,15.1,15.3,18.8,19.8,22,25.2,20.65,24.9,21.8,15.2,20.2,20.53,20.3 1982,25.8,25.3,24.6,21.2,18.8,14.4,14.1,16.6,18,19.2,22.1,24.2,20.35833333,25.4,21.5,15,19.8,20.44,20.36 1983,24.8,25.5,24.5,21.4,19.7,15.9,15.4,16.1,19.7,21,22.4,22.9,20.775,24.8,21.9,15.8,21,20.88,20.73 1984,24.7,24.5,23.8,21,18.2,16.9,14.6,15.6,17.4,19.6,22.4,24.8,20.29166667,24,21,15.7,19.8,20.13,20.03 1985,25.8,24.9,23.7,21.6,19.1,15.1,15.1,15.7,18,20.4,22.7,25.6,20.64166667,25.2,21.5,15.3,20.4,20.58,20.42 1986,25.4,25.4,23.9,22.6,19.8,16.5,16,15.9,19,21.3,22,23.9,20.975,25.5,22.1,16.1,20.8,21.12,21 1987,26.7,25.5,23.8,21.8,19.4,17,14.8,17,18.6,20.8,22.2,24.4,21,25.4,21.7,16.3,20.5,20.96,20.88 1988,24.9,23.9,22.2,21.7,18.9,16.4,16.3,16.2,18.8,22.6,23.1,24.4,20.78333333,24.4,20.9,16.3,21.5,20.78,20.68 1989,24.3,23.3,23.5,22.1,19.7,15.8,14.1,14.1,17.6,21.3,21.7,23.4,20.075,24,21.8,14.7,20.2,20.16,20.16 1990,24.7,25.2,23.1,21.4,18.7,15.3,14.6,14.5,17,20.7,22.9,25.7,20.31666667,24.4,21.1,14.8,20.2,20.12,20.12 1991,25.7,25.3,23.5,21.4,19.6,17,14.1,16,18.3,20.8,23.1,23.9,20.725,25.6,21.5,15.7,20.7,20.88,20.87 1992,25.9,24.9,23.4,21.2,18.5,14.9,14.9,15.8,17.6,19.8,22.5,23.5,20.24166667,24.9,21,15.2,20,20.28,20.27 1993,25.1,25.3,23.2,21.1,19.1,15.9,17.7,16.6,17.8,20.1,21.6,23.2,20.55833333,24.6,21.1,16.7,19.8,20.58,20.58 1994,25.7,23.9,22.5,20.5,17.4,,14.7,15.1,17.3,19.7,23.4,23.3,20.31818182,24.3,20.1,15.1,20.1,19.91,19.91 1995,24.7,23.9,23.2,20.3,18.3,15.1,14.1,15.8,18.1,19.7,23.3,23.2,19.975,24,20.6,15,20.4,19.98,19.98 1996,24.9,24.1,,20.7,18.6,16.2,14,14.6,17.5,19.7,22.1,23.4,19.61818182,24.1,20.9,14.9,19.8,19.92,19.92 1997,23.3,24.9,23.2,20.4,17.7,14.9,14.5,14.8,18.1,19.6,22.5,25.1,19.91666667,23.9,20.4,14.7,20.1,19.78,19.77 1998,25.3,25.7,24.4,21.1,18.3,15.6,15.3,16.7,18.9,20.6,21.1,23.9,20.575,25.4,21.3,15.9,20.2,20.68,20.68 1999,24.8,24,23.4,19.7,18.4,,15.7,,,,,22.1,21.15714286,24.2,20.5,,,, 2000,23.9,,,21.4,18.5,14.9,14.3,,18.7,20.8,21.5,24.2,19.8,23.1,21.2,14.7,20.3,19.84,19.83 2001,25,24,24.7,21.3,17.7,16.7,15.2,,,20.9,22,25,21.25,24.4,21.2,16.1,20.3,20.51,20.51 2002,25.6,25.7,23.7,21.5,17.9,16,13.9,15.6,19,20.7,22.5,24.1,20.51666667,25.4,21,15.2,20.7,20.59,20.59 2003,24.1,24.6,22.7,20.9,18.1,16.3,14.8,15.8,19.3,20,21.5,24.1,20.18333333,24.3,20.6,15.6,20.3,20.18,20.18 2004,26.1,26.3,23.9,21.6,17.4,15.8,15.2,15.6,17.7,21.6,22.5,23.9,20.63333333,25.5,21,15.5,20.6,20.65,20.65 2005,25.1,25.5,23,21.7,18.1,16.5,15.8,15.5,18.2,22,23.2,25.7,20.85833333,24.8,20.9,15.9,21.1,20.71,20.71 2006,25.9,25.7,23.2,21.3,17.2,15.4,15.3,16,18.3,20.3,21.9,22.5,20.25,25.8,20.6,15.6,20.2,20.52,20.52 2007,24.9,24.3,24.3,21.4,19.9,15.1,13.3,16.2,18.3,21.6,22,23.8,20.425,23.9,21.9,14.9,20.6,20.32,20.32 2008,24.8,24.4,22,19.7,17.4,17,14.8,14.1,18.9,20.2,23.1,24.5,20.075,24.3,19.7,15.3,20.7,20.02,20.02 2009,25.2,24.9,23.9,21.8,18.1,15.8,14.8,17.6,19.1,20.7,23.7,25.2,20.9,24.9,21.3,16.1,21.2,20.84,20.84
Unless a warm bias is proven to be introduced overall, this sort of implication of fraud is counterproductive since it makes popular exposure of proven cases of fraud much more difficult. The usual suspects of the Hockey Stick Team and the Tree House Club will use it against skepticism by merely calling the plots cherry picking, since they lack inclusion of a statistical breakdown of actual impact on the final country wide trend. Chance alone offers a slight bias in either direction, overall. Homogenization itself is here being criticized for exactly what in most science circles justifies its use: lack of data about instrument changes. Twisting this alone into innuendo about fraud or extreme bias amounts to mere motivated and paranoid sounding word games.
Steven Goddard at least has a warm bias to report, but he too simply mixes in widely accepted (to the likes of Steve McIntyre and nearly every scientist you could find) measurement time of day adjustments to his overall stark claims of outright fraud, again subjecting skeptics to ridicule by seasoned and PR firm coached activists many of whom have great technical savvy too.
All of these type of mere smoking gun claims stop the real message of fraud from being successfully exposed, namely fake hockey sticks. Now that the latest one was exposed as having no blade in *any* of the input data thrusting suddenly upwards out of noise, the gig should be up, the Enron nature of peer reviewed climate “science” in top journals having been proven finally outside of black box confusion.
You don’t even have a missing person here yet you are loudly claiming an organization to be murderers, essentially crying wolf as far as that crucial demographic is concerned, the one that still figures skepticism is indeed just another right wing attack on science.
” ….. the power of the press at its best ….. .”
Unfortunately the MSM here in GB seems to have ignored this.
No change there, then.
“Nero fiddles while Rome burns”
Dear Moderators,
From the post:
Without the links in the original piece, this section looks messed up.
Here is the original as it appeared:
Please restore the excerpt to as it was in the original.
Nik, you are one track obsessed, reposting without following. TOB is not a part of the BOM explanation. Weasel worded might haves are, and they equate to poor science. The post is accurate. There are many logical reasons to conclude the adjustments are FUBAR. One thing is recognizable however, the adjustments outside of TOB, also cool the past and warm the present.
This, in combination with dozens of other climate science scandals, amounts to quack science. In pursuit of an explanation from the curious, many times the BOM ducked like a quack.
The effect of some fiddling is only transient.
Future readings will then show a ‘decline’ from the artificial high.
But won’t enable recouperation of unnecessary spending.
That can’t be true!!……………………… can it?
What do the initials BOM stand for?
@John from Au……….How do I load your data into Excel?
@Nick Phillips
……….How do I load your data into Excel?
Answer>Copy data into a text file and save it with a csv extension in windows. You can then normally just double click on the file and Excel will open it.
Julian, BOM = Bureau of Meteorology. See http://www.bom.gov.au/.
Much easier for a public servant to enter a few dodgy numbers into a computer, and log a semi-plausible excuse, than to get off their lazy butt and do some fieldwork.
If you were a work shy public servant, what would be easier – nudging the data conform to the prevailing confirmation bias, or fighting to have your controversial interpretation prevail?
Err, can nobody be found at those station who can remember if the thermometer locations were changed? Its not that long ago.
Has anyone written to the Aircrew Association to find out?
http://www.airmanaircrew.com
Jo Nova’s site seems to be down. Anyone else having trouble ?
OK, so the data was adjusted because the station was moved… but no-one knows if the station actually was moved.
So why do they think it was moved?
Because nearby (50km away) stations show different trends? No, the nearby trends are “consistent with” the unadjusted measurements.
So what really is the reason to think the station was moved? It seems to be that the trend at the station was downwards and so that must mean it had a fault. Thus the trend is adjusted upwards and that shows the station was warming after all.
Circular reasoning?
At least these are the best stations in Australia. The second-rate stations must be worthless.
What has the BOM been doing on quality control, all these years?
What do other Met Offices (like the UK’s) make of this practise? The Aussie BOM claims justification by comparing with international practise so let’s get the words from the horses’ mouths.
“It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.”
Isn’t it great that there really does appear to be some interest on the part of the scientists to have an understanding of the process that goes beyond just the interest of revising history/data to suit their narrative?
And yet another way to make a hockeystick-movements of stations.
I say this is BS – Surely if there had been a sudden change such as a station move or a change in the surrounding area then that would show up as a sudden change in the raw data – even a large scale change of one year vs the next. One word, rhymes with rollocks.
The site has suddenly become harder to read. Then it hit me. Has the font of the main text been changed? Legibility has gone down.