Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog
February 6, 2020 By jennifer
It is not disputed that Blair Trewin under the supervision of David Jones (both working at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology) remodel all the historical temperature data generating trends and statistics that look quite different from the actual measurements.
The remodelled series are then passed on to university and CSIRO climate scientists who base much of their climate research on these ‘second-hand’ statistics.
So, when Michael Mann and David Karoly tell you it’s getting hotter and hotter, this is their interpretation of Blair Trewin’s statistics, not their interpretation of the actual data.
When I say there needs to be more scrutiny of what Blair does to the actual measurements, I’m simply making a request.
As Andrew Bolt explains in his column yesterday harshly entitled ‘On the deceit of Paul Barry’:
Marohasy does not say the Bureau is “part of a huge conspiracy”. What she does say is undeniably true: the Bureau has repeatedly adjusted its data, with the result that the past looks cooler and therefore the warming greater.
The only dispute is over whether the Bureau has done this correctly, to make the data more accurate. It says yes, Marohasy says no.
What evidence does Barry offer that she’s wrong? None. No interest. All he has is mockery and an appeal to his mob.
Thanks Andrew, for explaining the situation so succinctly.
It is the case that none of the adjusting is denied by Blair at the Bureau.
To help Paul Barry and others explore what Blair has actually done, my colleague Jaco Vlok has created a table with an interactive drop-down menu for each of the 112 weather stations with remodelled data.
The adjusting is laid-out, and explained here:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/acorn-sat-v1-vs-v2/
Go and have a play!
For example, if you click on the link, and scroll down (the 112 stations are listed alphabetically) all the way to Wagga, and then across to TMax you will find a chart that shows the raw data, and then the Blair Trewin reconstructions for this weather station that is used to calculate national averages and global warming.
One of the charts from the drop-down table created for Paul Barry by my friend and colleague Jaco Vlok.
First Blair created ACORN V1, that was back in 2011.
ACORN V2 is the data reworked to further increase the rate of warming.
Thanks Jaco. Thanks Andrew.
Now, Paul … go and have a look, and play. It is not a conspiracy, nor is it rocket science. But understanding can take time, especially when it is not what you might expect Bureau employees to be doing to the historical temperature data.
****
The feature image shows Jaco Vlok (far left) backing me up in a dispute about the value of remodelling historical temperature data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny that BoM and other “climate scientists” feel that actual instrumental temps recordings prior to 1910 were not reliable, but the same people place unbounded confidence in the tree rings proxy temps constructs to 1/10 of a degree C that are the foundation of their AGW “Hockey Stick” propaganda.
I sometimes wonder if these people share a secret handshake or some-such.
Or maybe it’s just a knowing smirk.
Agreed
I,m lost.
As an ordinary bloke I can’t grasp that BOM can adjust station 100km apart, stations impacted by uhi and station that have unknown local moves.
But can then just delete all pre 1910 data. Can’t the adjust that?
I also note that GISTEMP have pre 1910 data ( where did they get that)
Additionally what with adjusting cloth buckets with wooden buckets with engine intake for ocean temp ( is that even more iffy than Stevenson screen or no screen)
Worse than that. The BOM uses locations well inland and up to 20 degrees C hotter than a coastal site to adjust the readings of the coastal site.
This is what happens when you take used lumber and tried to build a castle.
Is this happening in other countries too? I have read similar from USA but how about Russia, China, France etc?
Tony Heller does a great job of illustrating the same game that is played by the relevant US federal agencies.
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/the-superbowl-of-data-tampering-2/
Ah, measurement precision. A little off topic but a true refection on field measurements on my part.
Many years ago in the late 70’s, I was employed bu one of Australia’s largest telephone companies. Well the only one really. Part of my duties then were in electrolysis control. All the telephone cables were lead covered and subject to electrolysis from electric trains, trams etc. From time to time we had to measure electrical currents from the cable sheaths back to certain drainage points. For this we inserted a hand made shunt, in the drain cable and read the voltage across it, converted the voltage to amps recorded the result and so on. My boss at the time was highly suspicious of any round figures. A reading of 10 Amps raised his eyebrows so we quickly learned to insert a reading of 9.8A or 10.2A, to ease his suspicions. Now the absolute value of the reading was not too important. It fluctuated quite a lot from second to second but if we read 0A, there was a problem somewhere. If currents doubled from historical records we might also have a problem. So further investigations were necessary. The point is the level of precision was appropriate for the task.
Another task we has was to regularly collect samples of ground water from underground cable jointing chambers. These chamber were made from concrete and it was of concern that chemicals leeching from the concrete may cause corrosion in the cable sheaths. For this we had to collect samples from top, middle and bottom of selected locations and send these off to the lab. This we did with as much care as we could until one day I went out on the job with a new (to me) partner. He had been doing this job for several years and I was the relatively new boy. Imaging my horror when opening the first chamber he immediately picked up a long stick and stirred the water vigorously before taking samples from top middle and bottom. When I protested he told me to shut up we always do it this way. Lord only knows what the boffins at the lab made of this.
Measurement precision is only as good as the operators and needs only to be as good as the task requires. To me, adjusting historical human read mercury thermometer readings with all their potential inaccuracies to conform to modern electronic readings is futile. Leave the records alone, have one chart and mark on it any change of instrument. If a site is moved, again combine the two charts on one page indicating the discontinuity.
Simple clear and unambiguous.
Having grown up in Wagga I was particularly interested in this article. Note that Wagga in the 1970s had a population of around 30,000 and today in 2020 the population is around 65,000
The Kooringal site (072151) was farmland that was redeveloped as a residential area in the mid 1960s. I know this because I lived in White Avenue, the last street in Kooringal in the mid 1960s, cows would come through our backyard before the back fence was put up. This recording site looks to have been discontinued in the 1950s.
The other site noted (072150) is located at the Wagga airport, and nearby RAAF airbase. The airplane infrastructure/buildings have steadily grown over the years, and as well the airport is now also a semi industrial area.
Google “bom stations wagga 072150” with bom being the bureau of meteorology. There is a nice little picture of the site that is still being used to record temperatures. You can’t see the whole site location as there is only a single picture marked as an ‘East’ view.
However the picture is dated 2006. The longitude and latitude are noted on the photo, perhaps someone could post a North South East West view of the site as it is today using google earth ?
Why the bureau can’t take 4 directional photos of all current recording stations every year or two and post them with their site information is something of a mystery.
Interesting point to note on the raw temperature data. The rural site 072151 when it was active was in a steady decline in temperature, as opposed to the airport site 072150 that was in a steady incline in the same period. Hmm.
Another point worth noting is that the google bom link will show the path as /climate/change/map/stations. When did all the nations temperature records get in a directory called /climate/change ? Apparently the public service in Australia has to politicise even it’s file directory structure.
There is extensive metadata for station 072150, including many location maps, here.
Having grown up in Wagga I was particularly interested in this article. Note that Wagga in the 1970s had a population of around 33,000 and today in 2020 the population is around 65,000
The Kooringal site (072151) was farmland that was redeveloped as a residential area in the mid 1960s. I know this because I lived in White Avenue, the last street in Kooringal in the mid 1960s, cows would come through our backyard before the back fence was put up. This recording site looks to have been discontinued in the 1950s.
The other site noted (072150) is located at the Wagga airport, and nearby RAAF airbase. The airplane infrastructure/buildings have steadily grown over the years, and as well the airport is now also a semi industrial area.
Google “bom stations wagga 072150” with bom being the bureau of meteorology. There is a nice little picture of the site that is still being used to record temperatures. You can’t see the whole site location as there is only a single picture marked as an ‘East’ view.
However the picture is dated 2006. The longitude and latitude are noted on the photo, perhaps someone could post a North South East West view of the site as it is today using google earth ?
Why the bureau can’t take 4 directional photos of all current recording stations every year or two and post them with their site information is something of a mystery.
POINT TO NOTE on the raw temperature data. The rural site 072151 when it was active was in a steady decline in temperature, as opposed to the airport site 072150 that was in a steady incline in the same period.
Another point worth noting is that the google bom link will show the path as /climate/change/map/stations. When did all the nations temperature records get in a directory called /climate/change ? Apparently the public service in Australia has to politicise even it’s file directory structures.
The following are examples of cooling of past temperatures at Adelaide, SA.
Bureau of Meteorology records for combined Kent Town and West Terrace Adelaide weather stations compared with Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book 1980:
Current BOM record of highest maximum temperature for a month.
BOM ABS Year Book 1980
February 44.7C (2/2/2014) 45.3C (12/2/1899)
March 42.2C (1/3/2019) 43.6C (9/3/1934)
April 36.9C (11/4/2018) 37.0C (5/4/1938)
October 39.0C (31/10/1987) 39.4C (21/10/1922)
November 43.0C 19/11/2019) 45.3C (21/11/1865)
December 45.2C (19/12/2019) 45.9C (29/12/1931)
Nick will be along later to explain how this historical fact is all wrong.
OK. Check the coordinates on the 1980 data. They don’t say where it is (other than the coords) but it is neither West Terrace nor Kent Town.
Nick, according to BOM web site weather observations for Adelaide were obtained from West Terrace (1871-1979), from Kent Town (1977-2017), before returning to West Terrace from 14 June 2017.
Yes. But the 1980 data cited here does not say that it came from either site. It does not say where, but gives coordinates that are not those of either site, but about 30 km away.
Nick with every post like this you make you make yourself to be even more alarmist and fake. Keep it up!
And you think that really matters?
Take long-term epidemiological surveys studying the effects of lifestyle or habits on health in later life or longevity, if the data collected decades ago from subjects long dead by persons themselves retired or dead were ‘adjusted’ post hoc, the results would be utterly useless and the adjusters thrown out of the profession.
I watched Paul Barry with his ignorant ridiculing of Jennifer Marohasy and I’m glad WUWT is spreading the word that he hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about.
Mind you, all indications are that journalists at the ABC, the broader Australian media and most self-proclaimed climate experts in the country have never even heard of ACORN, let alone know that it does indeed cool the past.
The official ACORN technical report released with the secret launch of ACORN 2 early last year detailed how the revision had increased Australia’s per decade mean temperature warming rate since 1910 by 23%. Only one Australian media outlet has reported that … The Australian newspaper on p1 a few days after WUWT broke the story globally.
The BoM has never issued a media release or public statement announcing ACORN 2 …
The ACORN 2 influence on Australian temperature trends was first detailed at http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/index.html
http://www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days.html shows how the frequency of 40C+ days at Australia’s 60 oldest ACORN weather stations has declined since 1910 in original RAW observations, but increased in ACORN 2.
Similar for 35C+ days … http://www.waclimate.net/hot-days-60.html
And http://www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days-marble-bar.html shows how Marble Bar in Australia’s north-west has lost its world record of 160 consecutive days above 100F in 1923/24, with the US now having the world heatwave record – because ACORN has cooled the past.
The hot day v rainfall correlations suggest Australia’s shifting rainfall/cloud patterns have more to do with warming than does CO2. ACORN locates every artificial influence it can find in the history books that will cause an overall cooling of the early 20th century climate, but its area averaging algorithms create illogical changes to daily temperatures that ignore the most potent natural influence – cloud cover associated with rainfall.
The moderator seems to have blocked my comment with links to analysis of how ACORN has turned a decrease in Australia’s 35C+ hot day frequency into an increase, so I’ll try with just one link that shows how ACORN has robbed Marble Bar of its 1923/24 heatwave world record … http://www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days-marble-bar.html
Let’s argue basic logic. If there are random errors in the data, then a long run of data will have approximately equal overs and unders. Adjusting the data should therefore produce approximate equal upward and downward adjustments. That’s why averages work, and why adjusting random erros will produce a result that is very similar to the original result.
If your adjustments produce far more of one than the other, then you don’t have random errors. You have systemic errors. So what systemic errors has BOM identified?
This is simple stuff, the sort of test statisticians apply to data to see if it has been manipulated – teachers cheating on pupil’s test scores for example. I don’t see adjustments that look random, but adjustments that look directed. So what’s the explanation for that?
“I don’t see adjustments that look random, but adjustments that look directed. So what’s the explanation for that?”
It’s fraud. The people doing these adjustments have a political/religious agenda and the facts don’t favor their agenda (CAGW) so they change the facts, and so far, they have gotten away with it. So far.
The good news is the fraudsters were not able to erase the actual temperature data so we have that to compare with what they turned the temperature record into, with their computer tricks.
Actual temperature readings say it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. This means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s climate and is nothing humans have to worry about or spend money on.
The promoters of Human-caused climate change catastrophy have to hide the actual temperature readings in order to promote their “hotter and hotter” meme, so they put the actual temperatures through a computer and change the temperature profile into a fraudulent “Hockey Stick” chart to scare the unknowing public into taking actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. it’s all a Big Lie! And the actual temperature readings tell the story.
It is interesting that Australia like all of the other countries involved feel that averaging the temperature for a country or continent (even by using nifty system of area weighting factors and homogenisation) gives a more accurate answer than using one site which has a long record, no changes to hardware, no changes of land use near by.
When you have widely differing temperatures from areas such as desert regions, coastal regions, rocky regions, forrest regions, how can it be sensible to try and develop a system that ‘averages’ all of these different temperatures together and come up with an answer that can have any claim to be sensible, reasonable and inany way useful?
Would chosing the best single station per country give a far more accurate answer (or have less false accuracy) than the current mess which does use some very suspect methods.
It is shameful that the BOM still refuse to document what they do. Preventing others from checking their work and avoids the embarassement of having flaws exposed.
“The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public. It would be useful for the Bureau to provide advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis). ”
From :
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf
You have an out of control public agency keeping secret how that tamper with temperature records.
Sound like many developed nations…
But surely, the AGW theory proves that the adjusted data are correct.
Oh, okay…