By Chris Gilham,
Did you know that Australia’s rate of temperature warming per decade since 1910 has increased by 23%?
No? Neither does the Australian public, despite the Bureau of Meteorology several weeks ago releasing a new ACORN dataset of daily temperatures over the past 109 years that significantly rewrites Australia’s climate history.
ACORN 1 (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature) was released in 2012. The bureau has released ACORN 2 dailies, a total revision that significantly increases the warming trend calculated from the average temperatures since 1910 at 112 weather stations across the country.
The BoM hasn’t yet issued a press release to announce ACORN 2 and there’s been no media coverage. However, the bureau has published a report explaining the differences between ACORN 2 and ACORN 1, the dataset that got it wrong.
In a nutshell, the rewritten dataset means the national “area averaged” maximum from 1910 to 2016 at the 112 stations increased by 0.116C per decade, up from the 0.090C per decade calculated by ACORN 1. The ACORN 2 minimum increased 0.130C per decade, compared to 0.109C in ACORN 1, and the mean temperature was up 0.123C per decade in ACORN 2 compared to 0.100C in ACORN 1.
That’s a 23% increase in the warming rate of Australia’s mean temperature since 1910 (28.9% for max and 19.3% for min). Compared to the per decade increase in unhomogenised Australian Water Availability Project (RAW) temperatures, it’s a 54% increase.
The bureau has been claiming for several years that Australia’s mean temperature has risen by 1C since 1910, and the 23% increase per decade will presumably mean it’s risen by about 1.3C. Don’t be surprised to see a slight increase in the southern hemisphere’s historic land area temperature trend.
But it gets worse. ACORN 2 estimates that from 1960 to 2016, maximums increased by 0.202C per decade (0.179C in ACORN 1), minimums increased by 0.219C per decade (0.148C in ACORN 1) and mean temperatures were up by 0.200C per decade (0.165C in ACORN 1).
So Australia’s mean temperature trend from 1960 to 2016 has had an extra 21% of heat written into it (26% compared to the original raw temperatures).
Nitty gritty
There are 112 ACORN stations, 57 of which have temperature observations since 1910 and daily datasets in ACORN 1, ACORN 2 and RAW.
Prior to and including 1980, ACORN 2 cools the original raw maximum at these 57 stations by an average 0.16C (25.02C > 24.86C), whereas ACORN 1 cooled raw by an average 0.03C (25.02C > 24.99C).
Prior to and including 1980, ACORN 2 cools the raw minimum by an average 0.45C (13.50C > 13.05C), whereas ACORN 1 cooled raw by an average 0.07C (13.50C > 13.43C).
Comparing annual maximums in the averaged first half of the record (1910-1963) with the averaged second half (1964-2017) at the 57 stations, ACORN 2 warmed 0.49C, ACORN 1 warmed 0.39C and raw maximum warmed 0.32C.
Comparing annual minimums in the averaged first half of the record (1910-1963) with the averaged second half (1964-2017), ACORN 2 warmed 0.71C, ACORN 1 warmed 0.51C and the unhomogenised raw warmed 0.39C.
According to the bureau report, there were 966 adjustments made in version 2 of ACORN (463 maximum, 503 minimum). This compares to a total 660 in ACORN 1. That’s not 966 days with their temperatures changed. That’s 966 sweeping changes that each affect consecutive days in different blocks of years among the 112 weather stations.
For example, ACORN 2 includes new metadata on weather station moves, particularly recent moves in eastern Australia, which cause a warming trend. The bureau found a coding error in ACORN 1 and the corrected data may cause a 0.1C difference in monthly temperatures for individual stations. Another ACORN 1 coding error was fixed, causing a 0.09C increase in maximum, minimum and mean temperature trends since 1910. Many stations had an ACORN 2 adjustment averaging -0.05C in maximum and +0.05C in minimum because of the shift from large to small Stevenson screens in the 1990s.
There were numerous other homogenised adjustments and it’s obvious that although plenty of the homogenisation in ACORN is justified, a substantial majority of new adjustments in ACORN 2 just happen to result in an increasingly warmer temperature trend since 1910 – as was the case in ACORN 1 when compared to RAW.
Measuring the long-term weather stations
It’s not easy figuring out how the bureau includes stations such as Western Australia’s Learmonth, which opened in 1975, to calculate temperature trends since 1910. However, 57 of the 112 stations were open in 1910 and have temperatures available since then to 2017 in ACORN 1, ACORN 2 and RAW, so some averages can be figured out over the 108 years.
1910-1963 – v1 24.98C / v2 24.83C / raw 25.03C
1964-2017 – v1 25.37C / v2 25.32C / raw 25.35C
v1 warmed 0.39C / v2 warmed 0.49C / raw warmed 0.32C
57 Australian stations 2000-2017 – v1 25.79C / v2 25.76C / raw 25.78C
1961-90 – v1 25.09C / v2 25.02C / raw 25.08C
The first decade, 1910-1919, averaged 25.00C in v1, 24.87C in v2 and 25.06C in raw
The final decade, 2008-2017, averaged 25.84C in v1, 25.79C in v2 and 25.84C in raw
Prior to and including 1980, ACORN 2 cools raw maxima by an average 0.16C (25.02C > 24.86C), whereas ACORN 1 cooled raw by an average 0.03C (25.02C > 24.99C)
1910-1963 – v1 13.38C / v2 12.98C / CDO raw 13.48C
1964-2017 – v1 13.89C / v2 13.69C / CDO raw 13.87C
v1 warmed 0.51C / v2 warmed 0.71C / raw warmed 0.39C
57 Australian stations 2000-2017 – v1 14.12C / v2 14.03C / raw 14.05C
1961-90 – v1 13.67C / v2 13.39C / raw 13.70C
The first decade, 1910-1919, averaged 13.43C in v1, 13.01C in v2 and 13.56C in raw
The final decade, 2008-2017, averaged 14.21C in v1, 14.14C in v2 and 14.16C in raw
Prior to and including 1980, ACORN 2 cools raw min by an average 0.45C (13.50C > 13.05C), whereas ACORN 1 cooled raw by an average 0.07C (13.50C > 13.43C)
A detailed analysis with charts of all 57 weather stations spanning 1910-2017 can be viewed at http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/, including spreadsheet downloads with minimum and maximum calculations for each site.
Three wrongs don’t make a right
None of the three datasets, ACORN 1, ACORN 2 and RAW, is accurate because they all have various undocumented, unadjusted or questionably scaled influences such as surrounding infrastructure, rapid response times in Automatic Weather Stations, urban or airport heat islands, reduced smog, and a majority of Fahrenheit temperatures being rounded at x.0F before 1972 metrication.
For example, with AWS response times the bureau calculates these electronic thermometers, mostly introduced since 1996, only affected national average maxima by +0.01C and minima by between zero and -0.01C, but maximums by up to 0.08C in arid areas like Alice Springs. No adjustments for these artificial influences were made in ACORN 2.
About 60% of all temperatures recorded at the 57 long-term stations from 1910 to 1971 were rounded .0F without a decimal, an unknown proportion truncated rather than evenly rounded, and BoM testing confirmed a 0.1C artificial Australian mean temperature warming in 1972. ACORN 2 didn’t even consider a compensatory adjustment because ACORN 1 had already decided the warming may have been caused by major La Ninas and the heaviest rainfall and cloud cover in Australian history during the early to mid ’70s.
The bureau has suggested that the new ACORN 2 temperatures will replace the existing ACORN 1 data throughout its website early this year, and public announcements thereafter will presumably be based on the warmer revised dataset. The ACORN revision is sure to be promoted as a more detailed and accurate measure of Australia’s climate warming that confirms Australia is roasting more rapidly than thought, and the media will respond accordingly.
When the media and public learn about Australia’s new warmer climate history there are likely be interesting political repercussions, particularly with a Federal election due within months. The left wing should be licking its lips.
The ACORN 2 revision has been underway for several years but the question remains … if the world-class ACORN 1 temperature dataset has been self-evidently wrong for the past seven years, why should ACORN 2 be considered any more accurate or reliable?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Only the future is certain. The past can be changed.
Stalin. (?)
Only the future is certain. It is the past that is constantly changing.
-Polish saying from communist era-
It’s true. Every year the recent past gets hotter, and the distant past gets cooler.
To paraphrase the Russian joke: It gets hotter every year! Last year was hotter than this year, and this year will be hotter than next year!
If anyone presents a graph with a single line for temperature for anything except one station at one location, they’re lying to you.
You’ve made my day, thanks.
Exactly how much is this costing me?
That is truly ridiculous, how could what the knew about the temperature records in 2012 (when ACORN 1 was released) change so much by 2019 that the warming is increased 23% ?
I think these guys look at the homogenized temperature of other countries and decide they have to at least match or increase the warming with their own homogenization dataset.
Homogenization which is based on effectively nothing, almost no data points.
Homogenization of temperature data is is a crime against science. There are only so many weather stations; that’s what you have. Making “adjustments” to the data is the wrong use of statistics.
Statistics are supposed to show the relationships among measurements and populations, and make predictions based on those relationships. That’s what all those Law of Large Number applications are for: to increase the probability that if the entire experiment/measurement was done again, you would be in the “error-in-the-meanth” distance of calculating the mean correctly.
Climate “scientists” seem to think nothing of taking data points 500 km apart, interpolating temperatures across that expanse, and then using that made-up data in the calculations as though it were real data.
When one does signal analysis, one is not supposed to create the signal.
If a temperature is important enough to be included in the analysis, it is important enough to be measured.
James
What I believe is even worse is that after they interpolate and adjust, they then attribute a precision to their post adjustment mess which defies the laws of Physics.
…and the bounds of credulity.
It is worse than that there is no basis to assume the temperatures should be homogenized due to local topography and conditions.
I have yet to hear of a rational reason for cooling the past records. I think it is a no-brainer that the current temperatures should be cooled to account for Urban Heat Island (especially nighttime and winter temperatures). However, each time a temperature series gets an update, they cool the past and/or warm up the present. It really makes one think that there is some sort of deception going on…
Some reason why past observation were artificially a bit higher than modern ones.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/04/raw-temperatures-show-too-little-global-warming.html
Not a very useful link. Victor Venema who runs that blog is an “Homogeniser” guru.
I read a couple of pages of that link. He statements do not match reality with one possible exception : the effect of irrigation on temperature. Increased water vapour in the air from irrigation can decrease maximum temperatures. And so in irrigated areas there might be a a bias towards lower maximum temperatures. But in Australia at least the Bureau of Misinformation has not responded to this issue by moving weather stations away from irrigated areas to non irrigated areas.
It’s like the song says “Anything you can do I can do better”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t37ekk-XNVA
I can make temp hotter than yours?
James Bull
The leftist press will love the 23% figure, as most people are statistically illiterate.
What a disgusting organization.
There’s no reforming it, like the ABC, it has to go.
Aye, verily.
Difficult to reform no doubt, but “has to go”—No. That would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. True the bureau gets a good deal wrong, but on a daily basis it’s pretty right most of the time.
Clearly, greater political oversight is required, not least by the parliament, but until and unless government generally disavows CAGW—what it, like the increasingly ghastly academy, calls “climate change” or some other euphemism—then any expectation of reform is unlikely to experience satisfaction. It just means we have to wait.
Like much else, the BOM is a product of government when it had some measure of integrity, of public service (historically, think, for example, of Sir James Stephen at the Colonial Office). Much of that has gone, and is perhaps incapable of resuscitation (having witless MPs doesn’t help). For the time being we should hope for reform, however long the wait.
BoM is headed by Dr Andrew Johnson who was appointed by alarmist PM Malcolm Turnbullcrap.
Andrew doesn’t answer to the Australian Government, he answers to the UN.
Beginning and end of story . . .
Well THAT explains the problem. His guiding principles are therefore not enshrined in the scientific method, but rather in Agenda 21
Why 1910 as the starting point ? What about the 1898 to 1903. The so called “Federation drought”, it got very hot, so the BOM did not want to include those figures.
Also there was good record keeping long before those dates, so lets use such “Facts”.
Sadly there is what amounts to a conspiracy among the Met people in the West. Its in their overall interest to keep the money, and with it employment going for as long as possible.
The politicians also mostly go along with it, each trying to outdo the rest in scaring us.
MJE
Because it shows it was warmer then.
Spot on MJE. The new ACORN 2 set now has even lower temperatures for the start of the series in 1910. The problem now is an even bigger discordance as you move back further to the record high *measured* temperatures of the Federation Drought of 1896-1903. I calculate the step-up to measured temperatures before 1910 will now be over 1 degC. No wonder they are trying to bury the Federation Drought, its actual temperatures, and the harm it caused, including a significant human death toll. Nothing to see here! BOM rotten to the core.
I have read suggestions from people defending the BoM’s manipulation of data from the early 20th century and before that the old temperatures were recorded by sloppy drunks. They also claim that the equipment was inaccurate. Apparently, nobody in the old days knew how to make a thermometer that was accurate to within 3 or 4 degrees C.
This belief that people didn’t know what they were doing just a hundred or so years ago is very insulting. The people that did the ground work that allowed modern science to exist were not ignorant fools. The current crop might be.
Under ‘temporal stability of global air temperature estimates’ Prof Humlum has some measured comments about the main surface series such as: “… for the older part of the temperature record numerical stability over time would be expected …” and “… a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct”.
The Climategate emails revealed lengthy discussions in 2003 between the BOM, CSIRO and UEA on their combined efforts to “raise awareness” of CC™, nothing these self-confessed activists have or will produce on the matter can be believed.
“The Climategate emails revealed lengthy discussions in 2003 between the BOM, CSIRO and UEA on their combined efforts to “raise awareness” of CC™, nothing these self-confessed activists have or will produce on the matter can be believed.”
That’s the bottom line.
“…numerical stability over time would be expected”
What? Since when? Why?
They truly do make it up, and believe whatever nonsense makes their neurons tingle.
“…numerical stability over time would be expected” and “… a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct”.
The way I read this, the second part of the quotation explains the meaning of the first.
It’s kind of like an archaeologist having already buried something digging it up again, but this time it’s shinier. I can’t wait for versions 3 and 4. They’ll ultimately be even betterer-er..
Also had they the money and impetus to do this during the ice age scare, I bet the temps would be going the other way. Somehow, even though they’re all desperately trying to avoid the term “global warming”, their Climate Change™ meme still seems to push the warming message.
Do they have the faintest of what they’re supposed to be doing? Put a bunch of these retards in a rowboat and none of them would be rowing in the same direction.
Versions 3 and 4 will be hotter. If they come in cooler they won’t be seen outside the BOM, they will be disappeared
the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia can no longer accurately predict temperatures or rainfall for tomorrow, the next season of the next year, but it is absolutely able to rewrite the history of climate in Australia to support the Climate change Alarmism that underwrites the huge flow of money into the Bureau and its associates and old mates,
Yup, that is the irony. They can’t ever seem to manage to get a seasonal forecast right, but they’re good enough to predict the past, via ignoring the actual WX records.
BOM are a bunch of crooks taking public money under false presences. it has never been more clear. The CSIRO were cleaned out, but did any Libs/Nats leaders ever go after the liars and fraudsters at BOM?
Not even a little bit. Thanks for nothing,
In the last 2 weeks there has just been a 1-in-100 year rain event on the north east cost, centered around Townsville, Queensland. In that event, a whole years rainfall fell in just a few days.
Our brave Bureau of Meteorology, so focused on Climate Change, couldnt even predict that event 10 days out.
BOM has no credibility any more.
It is an ideologically driven Bureau of Misinformation
I think we all need to learn a mantra and repeat it constantly until BOM is changed.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUREAU OF MISINFORMATION
“………The bureau found a coding error in ACORN 1 and the corrected data may cause a 0.1C difference in monthly temperatures for individual stations. Another ACORN 1 coding error was fixed, causing a 0.09C increase in maximum, minimum and mean temperature trends since 1910……….”
These are big jumps. Are we just taking the BOM’s word that these code changes are justified?
If so, they could keep on ‘finding coding errors’ and upping the temperature accordingly for as long as they like….
That’s odd. I was not aware that there code have coding errors before WWI. I wonder what computer language they were making the errors in.
I need to constantly check what auto complete is changing what I write.
> The bureau found a coding error in ACORN 1 and the corrected data may cause a 0.1C difference in monthly temperatures for individual stations. Another ACORN 1 coding error was fixed, causing a 0.09C increase in maximum, minimum and mean temperature trends since 1910.
Coding errors don’t change the temperature.
Unless they do a Mann..
In the Bureau Of Misinformation they do !
So what happened to the El Nino conditions of 1997/1998 which show quite prominently on the satellite global temperature graphs? The effect seems to be delayed on the average annual minimum top graph presented here.
It is blindingly obvious Australia is seeing climate change…
this year’s drought and fish kills, this year’s record and extreme temperatures (again), the bush fires in Tasmania… Tasmania has no history of bush fires…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/05/tasmania-is-burning-the-climate-disaster-future-has-arrived-while-those-in-power-laugh-at-us
and now the 200 year monsoon flood in Queensland.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/11/up-to-500000-drought-stressed-cattle-killed-in-queensland-floods
Half a million cattle dead…
Really, trying to explain all this away is not going to work any more.
Griff, That crap mate. And it is only your ideological blinders that stop you seeing that it is crap.
If you studied our ast you will very quickly see that Australia has had droughts and floods and fires ever since first settlement in 1788. In fact the first settlers arrived in January 1788 at a time of drought in the Sydney area.
BOM tries to scare us with chatter about the hottest this extreme temperatures. But frankly personal experien=ce trumps their made up crap. In the Adelaide Hills of South Australia where I am, apart from 5-6 very hot days it has been a mild Summer. So no early tomatoes this year Griff in my organic gardens. And today it was cold with some rain. So much for the hotter Summer we are warned about by BOM – the Bureau Of Misinformation.
But of course you rely on the ‘wonderful’Guardian who’s few Australian staff never leave their air conditioned offices and homes in Sydney or Melbourne. So of course they have no real experience in Australia. And of course they make far more money by preaching Greenist alarmist nonsense to the converted. Reality is far more boring and would not sell brass razoo.
You mention ‘fish kills’. That would be the ones in Menindie Lake in NSW. The Menindie lakes are artifical Griff ! Created in the 1950-60’s by building a series of dams & weirs. And NSW Water decided to drain them in 2018 to flush he lower lakes of the Murray including here in SA. where you live. The fish died as a result of that draining.
And you say ” Tasmania has no history of bush fires” You are a dishonest lying bastard Griff.
Go read some Australian history of Bush Fires. The Guardian is bloody useless on this as well. mTasmanians know all about bush fires and do not need your bloody lies. The dry sclerophyl trees of Tasmania, ( Eucalyptus Regnans for example ) like in the rest of Australia, need fire to have seed germinate and grow. Fire has even burned into Hobart’s suburbs.
You mention the ‘ 200 year monsoon flood in Queensland’ I assume you mean the recent floods in Townsville..Well 5 weeks ago the Bureau of Misinformation was predicting continued drought for North Queensland. And even a week out from the arrival of the Monsoon it did not know about it. Such is professional capacity of the Australian Bureau of Misinformation.
But was this flood unusual ? No it was not Townsville has a significant history of major floods. For an accurate presentation of the story of floods in Townsville read Jo Nova http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/townsville-floods-again-1881-1892-1946-and-1953-itd-be-climate-change-if-it-stopped-flooding/
As Jo so accurately states “If it stopped flooding in Townsville, that would be climate change”.
I doubt that you will read it. You much prefer reading the propaganda and lies sprouted by the Guardian. But just remember we know that it is crap and so will not be taken in by it.
Great rebuttal. Griff often posts the mainstream viewpoint, and it is good to see the factual counter point.
Thanks Bill
Bill in Oz says to Griff “And you say ” Tasmania has no history of bush fires” You are a dishonest lying bastard Griff.”. May I suggest that Bill’s statement can be tested against the evidence:
1851: “Black Thursday” bush fires in Tasmania.
1854: Bush fires hit Hobart.
1897: Serious bushfires start on New Year’s Eve, end with six lives lost.
1915: Serious bush fires.
1951: Serious bushfires.
1967: Black Tuesday bushfires claim 62 lives—53 in Hobart area—and destroy more than 1300 homes.
1981: Bushfires destroy 40 Zeehan homes.
Those dates are all from Wikipedia (check them out before Mr Connolley removes them), and they all precede any global warming that could conceivably been caused by man-made CO2.
So yes, Griff lied.
Maybe Griff can tell us why houses in Queensland are called Queenslanders and what about them makes them different to houses in NSW?
Hint for Griff: Queenslanders are build on stilts BECAUSE it floods a lot!
Keep it coming Bill in Oz.
Our ABC seems almost gleeful in reporting the latest climate disaster, and have been at their best in reporting the recent floods in NW Queensland. It’s as if they actually enjoy the misery of others, ’cause these terrible events are proof of manmade climate change. Just wait for the mind numbering over use of the word “unprecedented” after each cyclone, fire or storm… then you’ll know you are listening to the ABC.
Maybe this flood actually justifies that word, as the scale seems almost beyond belief. It is just the utter lack of context or analysis of historical records for similar events, that makes me think the ABC is presenting a distinctly partisan view dressed up as fact.
In the mind of the trolls, climate never changed until man came along and mucked things up.
If there’s a drought, it was caused by CO2. Were there bigger droughts in the past? Doesn’t matter, this one was caused by CO2, because that’s what the models tell us.
Shutting down Australian coal power plants will fix it?
Australia emits 1% of the worlds CO2, reducing this will fix what exactly?
Griff you wrote:
…the bush fires in Tasmania… Tasmania has no history of bush fires…
Did the fake news Guardian mention Black Tuesday? (62 people dead, 900 injured and over seven thousand homeless)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Tasmanian_fires
It is blindingly obvious Australia is seeing climate change…
It isn’t whether they are, it’s why.
“Tasmania has no history of bushfires ”
Oh really ?
In order to survive, the eucalypts in wet forests require fire to complete their regeneration cycle.
from …http://www.forest-education.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/fire_in_forests.pdf
There’s no more to go on with respect to cooking the northern hemisphere statistics.
They must move their guns to the southern hemisphere or perish.
Yes the North is freezing so warmist lies are easy to spot!
It will be interesting to watch the wriggling, squirming and outright denialism if and when temperatures show a consistent long-term decline resulting from the current solar minimum. I suspect the game-plan is/was to keep the “corrected” temperatures rising as long as possible while “carbon taxes” were being sneaked in, then proudly announce that the taxation of “carbon pollution” has succeeded in levelling temperatures off, but “we need to keep taxing to ensure the temperatures go down”.
Or am I being paranoid?
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.
Thank you James, you reminded me of that great expression. Lols.
Nope. You’re not being paranoid. That was the plan and still is if needed.
The whole point of their repeated lies is to sow the seeds of doubt. You need to wake up and accept that they are lies as told by liars. The lies don’t change just because they believe in them. The whole world is sitting on a mountain of lies.
Isnt there a sceptic left in Oz with a few dollars that could set up a competing network in a couple of dozen sites? Doesnt UAH get any mention in Oz?
Several months ago a response to my comment from a prominent establishment Oz scientist advised, “Yeah, but there was a station move”. I’ve come to suspect that some station moves have been done as another strategy in the warming toolbox to erase “uncooperative” sites. I remember when many were showing cooling.
in some 13yrs of living in Vic, our local bom stations has reported ONE time for a brief period only the barometric pressure
we had rain over 3 dys last yr in dec and NO rainfall was reported
I wasnt the only one that mentioned that.
bom did repond to the papers query with a statement that said nothing in a lot of verbiage
promised to fix it
zip!
another curious thing is our local area being listed as Kanagulk(its not its at the town airport of course )
Ive asked many older locals where that is and looked on maps
no ones found it
Every moves means the site needs to be statistically adjusted to account for the move.
Every adjustment means another opportunity to fix the record so that it agrees with what the models indicate.
Very 1984’s style of re-writing history, which is odd has you would think there would be no need to pull this ‘trick ‘ in ‘settled sceince ‘
But you have to ask if they where really ‘this lucky’ to always need adjustment which favoured climate doom ,why are they not on the tables on Las Vegas where with that type of ‘luck’ they could make millions , could it be you can’t ‘model’ you way to win there ?
I always go to What The Stations Say. Alice Springs is an interesting one.
Raw data. Cant neat it.
Is there a link ?
Making stuff up? I am not surprised. An article recently stating that the 15 hottest places on Earth were in Australia. Upon closer examination 10 of them were either at an airport, airfield or aerodrome. No bias there BoM?
And the article about polar bears raiding a town in Russia has hit the Aussie MSM.
“The bureau found a coding error in ACORN 1 and the corrected data may cause a 0.1C difference in monthly temperatures for individual stations.”
A coding error or a previous adjustment error? They “corrected” the data?
Yes. In the film “Key Largo”, “Johnny Rocco” (Edward G. Robinson) says to “Frank McCloud” (Humphrey Bogart), regarding elections and the gangster’s picked candidate: “We’d count the votes over and over again until we got it right and he was elected.”
I fear it’s the same with the temperature data, they adjust it over and over again until it says what they think it should say.
Obviously the real crime here is the climate denying mole in BoM who tried the hide the rise! Thank Gaia that they uncovered the scoundrel and restored the accuracy of the daraset!
Imagine the brazenness of that crime, trying to hide 23% of the broiling heat by falsifying the calculations! A return to the death penalty certainly seems warranted.
Haven’t The Poor Suffered Enough? More Socialism Now—for The Children!
Amongst these adjustments and homogenised data are therr any to compensate for daylight saving time? I think only parts of Australia change their clocks twice a year. If you need adjustments for TOBs then it will have to be different for summertime and wintertime in the different states in Australia?
IIRC Queensland is the only state that does not adjust clocks for daylight savings. It’s a shame really and QLD shares the same side of the continent as NSW. VIC shares the same time as NSW, SA is 30 minutes behind and, depending on the year, WA is either 2 or 3 hours behind NSW/VIC.
Daylight saving is not observed in Queensland, Western Australia or the Northern Territory (your ultimate sentence implies that you know about WA).
This is because these are the states closest to the equator, and DS is pretty much irrelevant in the tropics since daylight hours don’t change much winter to summer. The only outlier is WA, where the state extends all the way south as well, so it must be odd in southern WA.
I also believe Australia has 9 time zones including dependencies.
Irrelevant but also odd, about half of Australia shares one regional dial code. 08 is used by WA, SA and NT. Probably the largest area dial code in the world, along with the longest national highway in the world, Highway 1 at 14.5k km (9k miles).
I love my country!
If time were a factor in the average temperature of a day, I could see the concern over the time of observation. Since it isn’t, I fail to see what the concern is all about. Consider how DST works:
When we “Spring Forward,” the clocks are set ahead an hour at 2AM. When we “Fall Back,” the clocks are set back one hour at 3AM.
At the worst, you MIGHT get a daily low (or high; it’s possible, I suppose) in that one hour of movement, when what would have been 11:01 PM that day becomes 12:01 AM the next day, or when an observation that would have been at 12:59 PM the next day becomes 11:59 AM of the previous. But that’s one observation out of 31 in March and October; it’s hardly going to make a difference in the average for the month.
I don’t think it’s an issue either, but if you’re going to afjust for time then you slso need to adjust for changes in time due to switching between daylight saving time and standard time, don’t you?
I don’t know. Why are they adjusting for time again?
Oh I forgot, this is just in time for the federal election.
Yes BOM is part of that disinformation program
Paranoid! Of course it is a pure councidence. The same coincidence that every adjustment increases the historical warming rate.
What the hell is up with my spellchecker. It sure can’t be my fault 🙂
countidence..?
Must be a coding error.
Thanks, this one made my day 🙂
This claim of a coding error is interesting in that it cannot be true if the original coding was properly tested! It also clearly means that the original data has a number of “fudge factors” applied before it is used to make the overall temperature record. This kind of error is simply not believable as a reason to change the data without a great deal of backing of how they made the error, and this kind of mistake is simply not made by properly verified and tested programs. One tests “code” by hand processing a known dataset and checking that the program produces exactly the same answer. It is boring and time consuming but part of the testing process. Total incompetence can be the only conclusion!
No “weather” organisation downunder does any testing. Ask yourself, why would NIWA of NZ ask the BoM to vet their data etc?
Yes they actually admitted that in the report details, I was stunned they did not validate the changes with at least some testing.
Well, the numbers seemed alarming enough, but who could predict that there would be a federal election that needed more alarming numbers?
Testing the code? Next, you’ll want them to verify and validate the GCMs.
Strange that those ‘coding errors’ always work in the same direction.
It should be easy to prove by showing the coding error and how it was corrected, have they do this?