Another bureau rewrite warms Australia’s climate history

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?

 

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
147 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bengt Abelsson
February 11, 2019 10:15 pm

Only the future is certain. The past can be changed.
Stalin. (?)

Marko
Reply to  Bengt Abelsson
February 11, 2019 11:01 pm

Only the future is certain. It is the past that is constantly changing.
-Polish saying from communist era-

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bengt Abelsson
February 12, 2019 1:20 am

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!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bengt Abelsson
February 12, 2019 6:22 am

If anyone presents a graph with a single line for temperature for anything except one station at one location, they’re lying to you.

Curious George
Reply to  Bengt Abelsson
February 12, 2019 10:22 am

You’ve made my day, thanks.

crakar24
February 11, 2019 10:17 pm

Exactly how much is this costing me?

Jeff
February 11, 2019 10:26 pm

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.

WXcycles
Reply to  Jeff
February 11, 2019 10:30 pm

Homogenization which is based on effectively nothing, almost no data points.

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  WXcycles
February 12, 2019 2:00 am

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.

Ed Reid
Reply to  James A Schrumpf
February 12, 2019 5:16 am

If a temperature is important enough to be included in the analysis, it is important enough to be measured.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  James A Schrumpf
February 12, 2019 9:33 am

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.

Gb
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
February 14, 2019 8:20 am

…and the bounds of credulity.

LdB
Reply to  WXcycles
February 12, 2019 4:11 am

It is worse than that there is no basis to assume the temperatures should be homogenized due to local topography and conditions.

Reply to  Jeff
February 12, 2019 8:12 am

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…

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
February 13, 2019 3:04 am

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

Bill in Oz
Reply to  Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog)
February 13, 2019 5:30 am

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.

James Bull
Reply to  Jeff
February 12, 2019 10:22 pm

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

Wallaby Geoff
February 11, 2019 10:28 pm

The leftist press will love the 23% figure, as most people are statistically illiterate.

WXcycles
February 11, 2019 10:28 pm

What a disgusting organization.

There’s no reforming it, like the ABC, it has to go.

Krudd Gillard of
Reply to  WXcycles
February 12, 2019 12:27 am

Aye, verily.

C. Paul Barreira
Reply to  WXcycles
February 14, 2019 5:21 pm

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.

Warren
February 11, 2019 10:32 pm

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 . . .

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Warren
February 12, 2019 9:36 am

Well THAT explains the problem. His guiding principles are therefore not enshrined in the scientific method, but rather in Agenda 21

February 11, 2019 10:37 pm

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

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael
February 12, 2019 1:20 am

Because it shows it was warmer then.

DaveR
Reply to  Michael
February 12, 2019 11:42 pm

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.

RichardX
Reply to  Michael
February 15, 2019 10:11 pm

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.

Chris Hanley
February 11, 2019 11:06 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 12, 2019 7:32 am

“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.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 12, 2019 1:20 pm

“…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.

DaveS
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
February 13, 2019 5:02 am

“…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.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 11, 2019 11:08 pm

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..

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 11, 2019 11:21 pm

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.

4 Eyes
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 12, 2019 1:33 am

Versions 3 and 4 will be hotter. If they come in cooler they won’t be seen outside the BOM, they will be disappeared

February 11, 2019 11:33 pm

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,

WXcycles
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 12, 2019 6:56 am

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,

DaveR
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 12, 2019 11:48 pm

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.

Bill in Oz
February 11, 2019 11:35 pm

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

Dodgy Geezer
February 11, 2019 11:59 pm

“………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….

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
February 12, 2019 9:40 am

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.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
February 12, 2019 9:43 am

I need to constantly check what auto complete is changing what I write.

Rob_Dawg
February 12, 2019 12:07 am

> 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.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 12, 2019 12:38 am

Unless they do a Mann..

Bill in Oz
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 12, 2019 1:03 am

In the Bureau Of Misinformation they do !

John of Cloverdale, Western Australia
February 12, 2019 12:36 am

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.

griff
February 12, 2019 12:47 am

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.

Bill in Oz
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 6:35 am

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.

Reply to  Bill in Oz
February 12, 2019 8:20 am

Great rebuttal. Griff often posts the mainstream viewpoint, and it is good to see the factual counter point.

Thanks Bill

Editor
Reply to  Bill in Oz
February 12, 2019 1:26 pm

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.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bill in Oz
February 12, 2019 2:35 pm

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!

Mark from Oz
Reply to  Bill in Oz
February 13, 2019 5:53 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 7:09 am

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.

kevin a
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 9:15 am

Shutting down Australian coal power plants will fix it?
Australia emits 1% of the worlds CO2, reducing this will fix what exactly?

Bob Fernley-Jones
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 1:06 pm

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

sycomputing
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 4:38 pm

It is blindingly obvious Australia is seeing climate change…

It isn’t whether they are, it’s why.

GregK
Reply to  griff
February 12, 2019 4:40 pm

“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

February 12, 2019 12:49 am

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.

Bill in Oz
Reply to  Telehiv
February 12, 2019 1:01 am

Yes the North is freezing so warmist lies are easy to spot!

Admad
February 12, 2019 1:00 am

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?

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  Admad
February 12, 2019 2:33 am

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.

Admad
Reply to  James A Schrumpf
February 12, 2019 10:52 am

Thank you James, you reminded me of that great expression. Lols.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Admad
February 12, 2019 2:46 am

Nope. You’re not being paranoid. That was the plan and still is if needed.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Admad
February 12, 2019 1:27 pm

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.

Gary Pearse
February 12, 2019 1:04 am

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 12, 2019 4:44 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 12, 2019 7:11 am

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.

knr
February 12, 2019 1:07 am

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 ?

MattS
February 12, 2019 1:08 am

I always go to What The Stations Say. Alice Springs is an interesting one.

Raw data. Cant neat it.

Bill in Oz
Reply to  MattS
February 12, 2019 1:14 am

Is there a link ?

Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 1:11 am

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.

Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 1:14 am

“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?

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 2:30 am

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.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 2:45 am

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!

Ben Vorlich
February 12, 2019 1:22 am

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?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 12, 2019 1:42 am

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.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 13, 2019 12:27 am

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!

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 12, 2019 2:45 am

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.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  James A Schrumpf
February 12, 2019 5:22 am

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?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 12, 2019 8:03 pm

I don’t know. Why are they adjusting for time again?

Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 1:23 am

Oh I forgot, this is just in time for the federal election.

Bill in Oz
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 1:27 am

Yes BOM is part of that disinformation program

Rich Davis
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 2:49 am

Paranoid! Of course it is a pure councidence. The same coincidence that every adjustment increases the historical warming rate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 12, 2019 2:51 am

What the hell is up with my spellchecker. It sure can’t be my fault 🙂

Photios
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 12, 2019 9:14 am

countidence..?

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 12, 2019 9:43 am

Must be a coding error.

James Hein
Reply to  Tom van Leeuwen
February 12, 2019 2:23 pm

Thanks, this one made my day 🙂

David Stone
February 12, 2019 1:26 am

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!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  David Stone
February 12, 2019 2:00 am

No “weather” organisation downunder does any testing. Ask yourself, why would NIWA of NZ ask the BoM to vet their data etc?

LdB
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 4:44 am

Yes they actually admitted that in the report details, I was stunned they did not validate the changes with at least some testing.

Rich Davis
Reply to  LdB
February 12, 2019 3:28 pm

Well, the numbers seemed alarming enough, but who could predict that there would be a federal election that needed more alarming numbers?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  David Stone
February 12, 2019 9:00 am

Testing the code? Next, you’ll want them to verify and validate the GCMs.

Reply to  David Stone
February 12, 2019 9:51 am

Strange that those ‘coding errors’ always work in the same direction.

knr
Reply to  David Stone
February 12, 2019 1:24 pm

It should be easy to prove by showing the coding error and how it was corrected, have they do this?

February 12, 2019 1:29 am

“Don’t be surprised to see a slight increase in the southern hemisphere’s historic land area temperature trend.”
I would be surprised. GISS and NOAA do not use ACORN adjustments, and many of the ACORN stations are not in GHCN V3 Monthly, still the basic data used.

I don’t know why no link to the BoM report was given. It is here. On pp 32 and 33, they list the reasons for the change in trend.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 2:31 am

lol, pity you don’t scrutinize the absolute fraud going on at the BOM for years.

As usual adjustments lead to cooling the past and warming thereafter.

Every time there is a correction it means more warming, be it NOAA NASA GISS BOM RSS

confirmation bias at best, in the case of BOM, they are self mandated to provide more warming. BOM are the worst of the lot, there is deep corruption there

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 2:55 am

You see people? I told you everything is on the up and up. Nick says so.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 3:28 am

Nick

Your credibility is reaching towards the ridiculous. After every update the past gets colder, even you with your blinders on have to see it.

Reply to  Bob boder
February 12, 2019 11:29 am

“reaching towards the ridiculous”
Really? So what did I say that strains credibility? I said the global indices do not use ACORN – do you think they do? And I gave a link to the report under discussion. Did it not work?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Bob boder
February 12, 2019 1:18 pm

“Your credibility is reaching towards the ridiculous. After every update the past gets colder, even you with your blinders on have to see it.”

Actually what is “ridiculous” is the reflexive attacks on Nick, merely for making a comment.
In this case a purely factual one, which, to boot, he enabled a method to check.
At odds with the numerous hand-waving cheers from the faithful.
The reason why it is so wearing to point out facts amongst the echoes here.
You really think this place is a paragon of factual reporting?
Heck, that’s blindingly obvious to anyone who comes here armed with more than the usual craving to vent anger via the confirmation on offer to denizens.
Oh, and (hopefully) one day this place will get properly moderated.
Charles has told me there are “plans afoot”.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 4:40 am

It is actually hillarious reading the BOM report they have even go int the background of the World Meteorological Organization establishing a Task Team for Homogenization .. worth a good laugh .. the fact they have a team to do this junk is priceless.

This is a total statistical adjustment based solely because a value “doesn’t look right” when tested against neighbour cells. What is more ironic is they admit they do no actual reference testing, it like much of climate science is just declared as okay to do. I saw Nick trying to blend temperature on coastal sites not remotely understanding the physics at play and this is right up there with that stupidity.

I actually wonder if any of these guys actually get there head out of their statistics and actually think about what they are doing … in theory they are supposedly trying to do book keeping on earth energy balance and what they are doing is butchering the very thing they are trying to measure.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  LdB
February 12, 2019 1:37 pm

I agree whole heartedly. They put all their efforts into smoothing data values over 1,000km distances, while not recognising prevailing winds, mountain ranges, rain shadows, and the complete lack of connection between those two sites.

Just statistical manipulation of unrelated values, bearing no correlation whatsoever with the world at large (which they are pretending to measure).

Gb
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
February 15, 2019 7:35 am

And which they are pretending to measure to a fantastical degree of precision.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 4:42 am

Nick,
What would be your recommendations if a researcher, not familiar with the BOM adjustment history, asked you how the treatment of overall errors in this temperature data should be expressed?
Should the error envelope now be constructed around ACORN-SAT version 2, or should it enclose Raw, AWAPS, Version 1, Version 2 and the earlier HQ sets?
Some are, after all, models of the single set of original observations and could be amenable to an ‘ensemble mean’ approach like the CMIP treatment.
Geoff

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 5:11 pm

“…I would be surprised. GISS and NOAA do not use ACORN adjustments…”

Not yet, at least.

WTF is the point of this dataset that is so fraught with issues and not good enough for GISS, HadCRUT, etc., to incorporate? Is the BoM that set on being a laughingstock?

ACORN v1 was widely-ridiculed and clearly lacking in QA/QC. 7 years later, and this is the best that they can do?

“…I don’t know why no link to the BoM report was given…”

If I were associated with the BoM, I wouldn’t want the link given, either.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 5:52 pm

There is a URL in the post to a page with all the analysis and data sources, including the bureau’s ACORN 2 research report, just beneath the second chart. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been linked.

http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/index.html is where you go for charts and data summaries of the ACORN 2 vs ACORN 1 vs RAW comparisons nationally and for each of the 57 weather stations that have a start year of 1910 through to 2017. The page dissects various different data trends and averages than in the post above, with further analysis and dataset comparisons yet to see the light of day.

There are also 116 weighty Excels on the page containing daily temps from all three datasets plus tabulated calculations of their seperate annual, weekday and monthly averages for each year. In the Excels, the final column AX in the second sheet has the annual temps calculated from dailies in accordance with ACORN protocols.

The page also notes that ACORN 2 has created a new hottest daytime maximum ever recorded in Australia … Carnarvon at 51C.

sycomputing
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 12, 2019 9:03 pm

Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 1:45 am

Well there is a surprise. Nick Stokes tries to defend the BAU BoM, what did Harry say, “making sh*t” up!

Another Ian
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 12, 2019 2:04 am

“Nickified?”

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Another Ian
February 12, 2019 3:33 am

None of you who have criticized nick have actually quoted his words and explained exactly what it is about them that you object to.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
February 12, 2019 8:32 am

Philip, no need to feign ignorance on the matter. Nick refuses to admit the glaring fraud, and always comes to the defense of adjustments, as they always reinforce his faith.

At this point, he has zero credibility because of his unyielding deference to the official narrative.

You know this very well so stop pretending, it’s unbecoming

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
February 12, 2019 2:15 pm

Well said!

E J Zuiderwijk
February 12, 2019 2:47 am

Data molesters. Pseuds.

Ve2
February 12, 2019 3:28 am

Following in the grand old traditions of Climate Science.

If the data doesn’t match the models, change the data.

Ve2
February 12, 2019 3:31 am

If the second model is correct is there any reason why everyone involved in the first model should not be sacked for incompetence?

David Chappell
Reply to  Ve2
February 12, 2019 6:16 am

Quite possibly the same people in both cases.

richard
February 12, 2019 3:31 am

This darn climate change has been making the world fatter-

“Obesity in North Africa and the Middle East is a notable health issue. In 2005, the World Health Organization measured that 1.6 billion people were overweight and 400 million were obese. It estimates that by the year 2015, 2.3 billion people will be overweight and 700 million will be obese.[1] The Middle East, including the Arabian Peninsula, Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey and Iran, and North Africa, are no exception to the worldwide increase in obesity. Subsequently, some call this trend the New World Syndrome.[2] The lifestyle changes associated with the discovery of oil and the subsequent increase in wealth is one contributing factor”

2017- “Almost 30% of People In the World Are Obese or Overweight”

The increase in C02 leads to weight increase.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  richard
February 12, 2019 8:42 am

The increase in CO2 leads to more vigorous plant growth which leads to more food which leads to obesity.

Imagine a world where obesity is the leading food problem, not famine.

Famine and constant fear of famine is the base line condition of humanity.

Famine is one of the four horsemen. Fossil fuels are bridling it, and leading it to the barn. Pestilence will soon follow. Can war be far behind?

This is wonderful news.

iflyjetzzz
February 12, 2019 4:03 am

This is why I say that the entire temperature history worldwide is worthless.

There is no scientific discipline that allows one to change the raw data because it introduces bias. And that bias can clearly be seen in this adjustment.

knr
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
February 12, 2019 1:20 pm

Not worthless but like it was before ‘settled science ‘ was claimed in no shape to support the claims of accuracy placed upon it. For despite how ‘important ‘ its os claimed to be and how there is ‘no time to waste’ our ability to take accurate and meaningful mesurements of such issue as sea levels has not improve a great deal over the last 50 years and ‘better than nothing ‘ is still very much the rule for much of the data .

climanrecon
February 12, 2019 4:17 am

The BoM seem to be a bit out on a limb with ACORN-SAT, probably because of one man, Blair Trewin, who is head of climatology. Since hundreds of PhDs are created in climatology each year it is a major problem to find something original for all these theses, and Blair Trewin ended up with the obscure topic of homogenisation of daily temperatures, which nobody else is much interested in. He then ended up as boss at the BoM, and made them create a dataset based on his thesis.

The DAILY part of ACORN-SAT stretches credulity, since its impossible to figure out how stations differ in temperature on every day, something that would require detailed input from weather forecasting models and reanalysis, which is not done.

Another problem with ACORN-SAT is its excessive focus on a very small number of stations, making it very sensitive to errors in their data, a set of regional averages would be better IMHO, in which all data is weighted equally.

The BoM now employs Linden Ashcroft, who looked at instrumental data before 1910 in her thesis, so they have no excuse for not extending the start date of ACORN SAT version 2, except of course for the silly insistence on daily data, which is probably difficult to obtain for the 19th century.

Steve O
February 12, 2019 4:26 am

It strikes me as a fairly large adjustment given the level of precision (accuracy?) previously claimed.

WXcycles
Reply to  Steve O
February 12, 2019 7:01 am

Yes, but the error margins were was erroneous, now the error is waaay better.

Geoff Sherrington
February 12, 2019 4:46 am

Nick,
What would be your recommendations if a researcher, not familiar with the BOM adjustment history, asked you how the treatment of overall errors in this temperature data should be expressed?
Should the error envelope now be constructed around ACORN-SAT version 2, or should it enclose Raw, AWAPS, Version 1, Version 2 and the earlier HQ sets?
Some are, after all, models of the single set of original observations and could be amenable to an ‘ensemble mean’ approach like the CMIP treatment.
Geoff

ozspeaksup
February 12, 2019 4:51 am

I just found the place our weather is suposed to be from https://www.whereis.com/vic/kanagulk-3401
its over 50k away in farmland not a soul there
but our stevenson setup is IN the town half a mile from my home
I really MUST go have a look

Pamela Gray
February 12, 2019 5:58 am

The common person, no matter their stated beliefs about human sourced CO2 being or not being the driver, admit bold faced that artificial heat islands make it hotter in town. Every time they go find a cool spot outside city limits they are admitting temperature data fiddled with or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with human sourced CO2.

AGW is not Science
February 12, 2019 6:11 am

Maybe it’s best to let the BOM keep at it. Then when they get the overall temperature rise “since” fill-in-the-blank to the dreaded 1.5(+) degrees Celsius, we’ll have proof of how meaningless it is. ::grin::

William Astley
February 12, 2019 6:58 am

There is a pattern of inappropriate temperature adjustments. Of course all ‘adjustments’ made to push CAGW.

Inappropriate temperature data adjustments, climategate type climate ‘science’, record sea ice in the Antarctic during the period, the fact that there is no tropical tropospheric warming at 8km, the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years, and so on, can and is hand waved away as either a plot to discredit the good work of the IPCC and/or as weather.

Temperature when it was going up kept the scam going.

It appears, the scam is over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/australian-scientist-calls-for-heads-to-roll-over-adjusted-temperature-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

Alasdair
February 12, 2019 7:06 am

Climate Change should henceforth be called Data Change. The two are so closely linked that no one can tell the difference.

Dan
February 12, 2019 7:06 am

Can someone explain how pre-1974 temperature readings which were rounded down to .0 at the time of the measurement (i.e. in the raw data), need to lowered even more by Acorn1 and Acorn2? That’s bas-akwards to me.

Steve Goddard has documented these shenanigans in the US temperature record as well, and has found that in the US, record, NOAA’s temperature adjustments have a very, very, very high correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels. Coincidence?

https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/

Hoyt Clagwell
February 12, 2019 7:16 am

I’m confident that after another 30 years has passed , the BOM will acknowledge that temps in the first 20 years of this century were inflated by overzealous ecowarriors. They will then lower the temp records from today back to what they really were as a means of of lowering past temps to artificially show an increase in the rise of temperatures in the future. It is a wave that can be kept going forever without ever actually being measured.

steve case
February 12, 2019 8:29 am

Hoyt Clagwell –
I’m confident that after another 30 years has passed , the BOM will acknowledge that temps in the first 20 years of this century were inflated by overzealous ecowarriors. They will then lower the temp records from today back to what they really were as a means of of lowering past temps to artificially show an increase in the rise of temperatures in the future. It is a wave that can be kept going forever without ever actually being measured.

That was good. And probably pretty close to the truth.

Walter Sobchak
February 12, 2019 8:43 am

Welcome to the Adjustocene.

steve case
February 12, 2019 8:59 am

Another bureau rewrite warms Australia’s climate history

NASA’s GISSTEMP rewrites their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) every month.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The current December 2018 issue consisting of 1668 monthly entries when compared to the November 2018 release changed 789 (47%) of them. Of 347 changes made to entries since 1972 all were increases except for December 2004. and of the 442 entries prior of 1972 90% were decreases. And 47 changes were made to entries from the 19th century. They are doing it in broad daylight and getting away with it.

All those changes are minuscule 1 or 2 hundredths of a degree, but over time they add up. The earliest LOTI from the Internet WayBack Machine is from 1997 with data only back to 1950. When compared to a recent LOTI it can be shown that the rate of warming over the last century has been bumped up. Here’s what that looks like.

comment image

We used to be able to post images here.
Now only a selected few can do it

DMacKenzie
February 12, 2019 2:23 pm

It should be required to publish the unadjusted data, side by side with adjusted data, and a legend with the reasons for adjustment. It is just too easy to draw sweeping false conclusions otherwise. Homogenization would be revealed as no data point versus an educated guess for most data points, thereby revealing its deficiencies.

JohnB
February 12, 2019 3:21 pm

Of course, the other conclusion that can be drawn from this is that BoM scientists are not only wrong, but are increasingly wrong as time goes by. That the records in the 1980s (or whenever the adjustments move from cooling down to warming up) don’t require adjustments shows that those scientists were competent and could do their jobs. As more recent records require even more adjustments, then it follows that modern BoM scientists are incompetent and becoming increasingly more so.

thingadonta
February 12, 2019 3:28 pm

Each time there is a review, those reviewing it have an incentive to cook the books, which they duly do.

In the GFC the rating agencies got more fees for cooking the books in one direction; with each statistical review of BOM data those doing the review can enhance their careers and cater to their masters/organisation’s wishes in exactly the same way. Those who don’t statistically oblige aren’t invited back.

There has to be a way of doing all this without an incentive to make bad adjustments, just like the incentive to make bad bets and false loan ratings. Until the system is fixed, nothing will change, the system incentivises false adjustments, despite the best efforts of Alan Greenspan’s false hope- that institutions will look after the interests of shareholder or , in this context, community-based values. They don’t.

Ian MacCulloch
February 12, 2019 3:58 pm

It is always the selection of the start year that is the main issue. Had the start date been 1890 then a totally different series of trends will emerge. For a start the 100 year cycle will be picked up for both maxima and minima. The very high temperatures recorded during the ‘Federation’ drought will affect all.

Reply to  Ian MacCulloch
February 13, 2019 2:43 am

Ian … if you go to my ACORN 2 analysis page at http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/ and look into the data summaries below the trend charts for each of the 57 long-term weather stations, you’ll see that I’ve averaged all available pre-1910 annual raw temps at that site for min and for max.

Your comment has prompted me to add a few lines to my ACORN 2 analysis page. I’ll be lazy and just paste them …

45 of the 57 ACORN stations below have RAW temperatures for different periods before 1910, and these are contained within data summaries below the charts.

When all pre-1910 averaged years of dailies (only years with all months including at least 15 days of observation) are collectively averaged, the maximum was 25.50C. This compares with the 1910-1963 collective average at those same 45 stations of 25.50C. There is no change to the average maximum.

When all pre-1910 averaged years of dailies are collectively averaged, the minimum was 13.08C. This compares with the 1910-1963 collective average at those same 45 stations of 13.46C. The averaged minimum increased 0.38C.

These averages comprise several hundreds years of daily temperature when totalled among the different locations but are in no way an accurate representation of pre-1910 averages across Australia, nor of themselves as there are widely differing timescales from one year to several decades before 1910, pre-Stevenson thermometer screens, etc.

If taken at face value as indicative of pre-1910 temperatures, the minimum warming might be due to the beginning of the urban heat island effect, climatic recovery from the Little Ice Age which ended in the late 1800s, or increased artificial warming of the 1910-1963 timescale. As climate warming is said to have begun in the 1970s, it is unlikely to be due to carbon dioxide.

Michael Jankowski
February 12, 2019 5:17 pm

I got to page i … the ISBN is listed as all X’s. If it’s not published requiring an ISBN, why even list it?

On page ii, the author’s email is, “b.trewin@bom.gov.au:” – whose email ends with a colon?

For the record, the previous report had an actual ISBN number to include and was able to avoid the colon http://cawcr.gov.au/technical-reports/CTR_049.pdf , so this isn’t some sort of Aussie standard.

Is that the sort of professionalism and QA/QC that can be expected of the rest of the publication, let alone the data processing?

Chrisinoz
February 12, 2019 5:42 pm

Should there not be error range bars? (Non-scientist asking)

Mike
Reply to  Chrisinoz
February 12, 2019 6:52 pm

Sorry Chris,
We must have been typing at the same time!

Mike
February 12, 2019 6:50 pm

What’s wrong with leaving the raw data as is and adding error bars. You can give any reason you like for the supposed errors, but in my opinion, raw data should never ever be adjusted. Even if for the simple reason that it might be ”misplaced”.
Outrageous stuff from BOM!

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Mike
February 12, 2019 7:00 pm

Because these are variations modelled from a single original data base, it is appropriate that the error bars should enclose all of these Versions 1 & 2 of ACORN-SAT, plus AWAPS, plus the withdrawn HQ exercise. To a 95% level, using original daily data from even poor sites, as one must, this would give an envelope of about +/- 1.1 deg C about the centre.
That is a pretty wide error to consider when a hottest day evah! is claimed for a 0.02 deg C difference from the former record hottest day.

tom0mason
February 13, 2019 12:49 am

And currently at Mt Baw Baw Australia it’s been snowing …
https://twitter.com/MountBawBaw

How does Australia’s BOM explain that while loudly trumpeting supposedly record high temperatures?

DWR54
Reply to  tom0mason
February 13, 2019 2:19 am

According to NSIDC snow can fall and form on ground at 4C or lower. Temperatures at Mt Baw Baw, which summits at over 5,000ft, are currently around 2C. I would have thought that snow falling at this location in summer wouldn’t be that unusual. Re the record high temperatures in Australia, these were mostly in January, were they not?

Paul Rossiter
February 13, 2019 1:33 am

Isn’t it curious how “coding errors and measurement errors” always give rise to adjustments in just one direction, no matter where they arise: a colder past and warmer present? I would have expected them to have been more random in effect, but then I don’t subscribe to the AGW crap.

Peter K
February 13, 2019 2:17 am

BOM rounds off daily maximums at the City that I live . It’s always rounded up, not down and sometimes by as much as 0.5C . The official maximum temperature declared for the day, is always higher than any of the 10 minute readings over the 24 hours from the same weather station. Junk in junk out.

%d bloggers like this: