THE famous Australian poet Henry Lawson wrote, “If you know Bourke you know Australia.” For me Henry Lawson was alluding to the vastness of the landscape, the extremes of climate, and also the can-do attitude of its people. 
But the technocrats would like to change some of this, and pretend that Australia’s climate was once benign.
So, as Graham Lloyd explains on page 5 of today’s Weekend Australian, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have discarded the first 40 years of the temperature record for Bourke. This includes the hottest ever temperature recorded in a Stevenson screen for, I think, anywhere in Australia. A rather hot 51.7 degree Celsius was recorded in a new Stevenson screen in the yard of the Bourke post office on 3rd January 1909.
Mr Lloyd writes:
THESE Bourke records have assumed a new significance in light of concerns about how historic data is being treated at many sites around the country. The records are also important in an ongoing row that frustrates Mr Cole. The Bourke cotton farmer may be managing director of the local radio station 2WEB but Mr Cole can only broadcast temperature records that date back to 2000 because the Bureau of Meteorology won’t supply historic records to service provider Weatherzone.
As a result “hottest day on record” doesn’t really mean what it seems. “We keep on being told about records that are not actually records and averages that are not quite right,” Mr Cole said.
Worse still there are concerns about what has happened to the precision of those handwritten records in the earlier years. Bourke now forms part of a network of weather stations used to make up the national record known as ACORN-SAT. The raw temperature records are “homogenised”, a method BOM says has been peer-reviewed as world’s best practice and is used by equivalent meteorological organisations across the world.
Independent research, the results of which have not been disputed by BOM, has shown that, after homogenisation, a 0.53C warming in the minimum temperature trend has been increased to a 1.64C warming trend. A 1.7C cooling trend in the maximum temperature series in the raw data for Bourke has been changed to a slight warming.
BOM has rejected any suggestion that it has tampered inappropriately with the numbers. It says the major adjustment to Bourke temperatures relate to “site moves in 1994, 1999 and 1938 as well as 1950s in homogeneities that were detected by neighbour comparison which, based on station photos before and after, may relate to changes in vegetation around the site”.
Queensland researcher Jennifer Marohasy, who has analysed the Bourke records, says BOM’s analysis is all very well but the largest adjustments, both to maximum temperature series, occurred in the period 1911 and 1915 with a step down of about 0.7C, followed by a step-up between 1951 and 1953 of about 0.45C. Of greater concern to Dr Marohasy is that historic high temperatures, such as the record 51.7C recorded on January 3, 1909, were removed from the record on the assumption it was a clerical error. In fact, all the data for Bourke for 40 years before 1910 has been discarded from the official record. If it were there, says Dr Marohasy, the record would show that temperatures were particularly hot during that period.
For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?”
_____________________
From another great story in The Weekend Australian newspaper, buy the paper and turn to page 5, or get an online subscription.
If you would like to hear about how old weather records are changed at other sites, here’s a 7 minute podcast from Melbourne radio station 3AW. I’m being interviewed by Tom Elliott.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good stuff! The Australian and Lloyd are doing a good job in keeping the issue on the burn-or so to speak.Any prospects of more sites subject to dubious homogeneity being released ? People are taking notice.
Hey Glen
Lots more sites. But it would be good to first get some answers from David Jones at the Bureau for the trashing of the records at…
Amberley
Rutherglen
and
Bourke.
Why homogenise the records for Amberley and Rutherglen. Why homogenise and truncate the record for Bourke?
Bourke’s long and interesting (and often alarming) climate record should be treated as a precious commodity. In 1909 they were reminiscing about how bad 1896 had been and wondering which heatwave was worse. Ultimately, the heat of 1939 killed fractionally more than 1896.
How do you prepare yourself for a 2009 if you want to be in ignorance of 1851, 1895-6, 1908-9, 1939, 1967 etc?
Same with floods and other big events. By constantly portraying new/recent disasters as unique and unprecedented climate authorities are not convincing us of AGW but they are leaving us under-informed and under-prepared. It’s dangerous and it’s irresponsible. Stupid pronouncements about poor future rainfall and indefinite drought have already cost Australia a motza. When the floods finally came…more stupid extrapolations and pronouncements.
We can’t afford these people who think it’s okay to junk the Jan 3 1909 reading at Bourke. More importantly, Australians really need to be informed just how bad all of January was in 1896, especially the three weeks from the 5th to the 25th. When a population centre gets that hot for that long, the events become essential knowledge for future generations.
Robert, Just to say you are one of my favourite people. You have a deep knowledge of Australia’s climate history and you care.
I dug up a lot of newspaper reports about temperatures around Bourke in January 1896 while finding info for this. Check the many hidden links on the page.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/
The temperatures from good private thermometers around Bourke were mostly higher than the official ones but were recorded using methods that were sometimes too shaded or cooled by solid verandah walls. Sir Charles Todd’s reports to the newspapers also often gave higher temps. I wonder if the clever old fellow thought that an upward correction was required at Bourke. He had been running tests of Stevenson Screen beside Glaisher stand beside thermometer house for many years by then and also commented in the papers about the effects of verandah type measurements. He would have had a far better idea than most.
FWIW, Warwick Hughes has this post:
The best reference I know to BoM station diaries is the 45 page summary by Simon Torok for his 1996 PhD thesis – “The development of a high quality historical temperature data base for Australia”
However the Appendix A1 containing the 45 page summary of all station diaries he accessed can be downloaded as an 8MB pdf at – p38/46 Rutherglen station histories – I note their is no entry for Amberley and the entry for Rutherglen is brief.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3218
Siliggy, I have lived and worked through 50c [~122 f] at a place called Planet Downs in the Sturt’s Stony Desert during the ’50s and for the BoM to write those temps out of history is criminal.
The annual race meeting is on this weekend about 40 miles away if you want to check it out. It wasn’t a ghost town in those days and had numerous attractive stone buildings:
http://betootaraces.com/localevent/betoota-races/
The thermometers at some of those stations were on verandahs that had spinifex thatching across the ceiling and down the outside walls that wicked up moisture from a water trough and cooled with evaporation. They provided liveable conditions in that heat and yes, they would have needed upward adjustment because they would have been cooler than any SS.
SMH 5 January 1909 Page 7
Bourke heat wave
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/15025008
Keep those records in a SECRET safe place as the BoM are very likely to claim they are their property and demand their return so they can destroy them
Sceptical Sam
Yes have seen that one. What you should also notice is that it has had two corrections. The second by “Anonymous”. who has changed the 15th to 120.5.
The text clearly says 119.5
‘Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.’
BoM
The BoM may have corrected the slope of the Amberley runway too.
There are two sites there not very far apart and we know they have the slope correct because they checked it recently.
“Metadata compiled: 27 JUL 2014”
“Latitude Decimal -27.6294 Hour Min Sec 27°37’46″S
Longitude Decimal 152.7114 Hour Min Sec 152°42’41″E
Station Height 27 m Barometer Height 31 m
Method of station geographic positioning Not available”
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.040910.SiteInfo.pdf
and
Latitude Decimal -27.6297 Hour Min Sec 27°37’47″S
Longitude Decimal 152.7111 Hour Min Sec 152°42’40″E
Station Height 24.2 m Barometer Height 24.9 m
Method of station geographic positioning GPS
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.040004.SiteInfo.pdf
Now rather than trust them on the height of the runway lets see what George Hatchman has here.
http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/21102/willowbank_amberley_history_2013.pdf
26M So perhaps what the BoM should do is declare the later to be 6 foot under.
Siliggy says:
Sceptical Sam
Yes have seen that one. What you should also notice is that it has had two corrections. The second by “Anonymous”. who has changed the 15th to 120.5.
The text clearly says 119.5
———————————————————-
You’ve got me Siliggy. Where did “Anonymous” do that?
And, I also note that the 1909 SMH article gives a monthly mean maximum of 110°F (43.3°C) for that period in 1896, a full 2.7°C higher than the highest on the current Bourke temperature record:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048245
It’s a war out there.
Here is some graphs, emails that might be of interest:
Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.
18th February 2014
Dear Professor Karoly,
We have been writing to you for a year requesting that you provide one credible study that supports your hypothesis of catastrophic, human caused global warming (CAGW). You have not been able to provide one. The letters and your responses are all on the public record https://www.facebook.com/DavidKarolyEmailThread?ref=hl
In March 2013 we issued you the opportunity to either renounce your alarmist claims on the ABC news, or publicly provide empirical data-based evidence, that is available for scientific scrutiny, to support them.
According to Malcolm Roberts author of the CSIROh! report http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh%21.html , you are prominently involved in many taxpayer-funded climate bodies fomenting unfounded climate alarm.
According to their website you also appear to be BOM’s principal author.
Graphs on the following pages were obtained or produced by various independents non-aligned examiners and auditors of BOM records.
Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?
Every graph shows that the raw data, which shows either a flat or downward (cooling) trend has been “adjusted” to a warming trend.
Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs?
We also think that it is very misleading of both you and BOM to omit to declare to the Australian people that you have “adjusted” the raw data. (graphs follow)
http://www.principia-scientific.org/aussie-alarmists-in-spin-as-government-climatologist-prof-karoly-is-cornered.html
You’ve done a great job exposing blatant malpractice by BOM. The same kind of ‘rewriting history’ has been going on at NOAA, NASA, GISS, and Hadley for many years. Climategate brought to light emails calling for getting rid of embarrassing high temps in the 1930/40s and erasing the 1945-1977 cooling. The problem is that the general public is really not aware of these practices. It would be wonderful to see your work and that of Steve Goddard published together where it could be easily referenced (perhaps the new open scientific society set up by Anthony.
All the best,
Don
“You’ve got me Siliggy. Where did “Anonymous” do that?”
Up in the top left you click on “Show corrections”.
That takes you here.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/correction/15025008
Read the correction dates with a suspisious mind.
I have checked many many newspapers for January 1896 Bourke temperatures. They contradict each other badly with multiple different temps given for the same day in different papers.
Most have 118F for that day. Examples
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/87304931?
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/53672190?zoomLevel=6
Far better to search old gov’t publications.
“And, I also note that the 1909 SMH article gives a monthly mean maximum of 110°F (43.3°C) for that period in 1896, a full 2.7°C higher than the highest on the current Bourke temperature record:”
What the minimums have done is the opposite. It seems that the temperature there is getting less extreme.
The BoM raw has 43.4 mean max for January 1896.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=1896&p_c=-461148447&p_stn_num=048013
They also have 48.6 degreec C for the 15th despite what the newspapers say.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/28255284?zoomLevel=5
Jen,
Great stuff!
And, on page 5 too….heading in the direction of page 1.
Here is my latest question from the open thread. It’s about the planet’s warming periods since 1860 and I’d like to ask someone to tell me where I’m wrong. Anyone?
Neville August 30, 2014 at 7:59 pm #
I’ve been playing around with the WFTs graphs and looking at Phil Jones warming trends mentioned in his 2010 BBC interview. If you look at 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998 you find similar trend lines. This is using HAD 3 and I’ve extended the middle trend from 1907 to 1947 because the trend remains the same for a period of 41 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1907/to:1947/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend
But the middle trend lines are definitely higher than the early and latest trend. So how does that work? The trend from 1975 to 1998 isn’t as high as 1910 to 1940 and 1907 to 1947, yet it is after 1950 when more co2 emissions are supposed to have the most impact. This just doesn’t make sense.
But using HAD 4 does make the trend appear to be similar to 1975 to 1998. That’s for 1907 to 1947. 1910 to 1940 in HAD 4 reduces the trend slightly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1907/to:1947/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend
Just another look at the PDO index and temp trends from 1910 to 1940 , 1940 to 1975 and 1975 to 1998. Here’s HAD 4——
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2013/trend
Here’s HAD 3——–
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2013/trend
But it couldn’t be this simple could it? Roy Spencer had a post on this many years ago and it still looks interesting.
Neville
Yes there you have solid proof that CO2 is NOT the main cause of warming.
And never forget those climategate emails.
Read the whole thing at the link below but notice how they seem to be attempting to delete your proof.
“but the adjustments won’t reduce the 1940s
blip but enhance it. It won’t change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug 45.”
“From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: 1940s”
“At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately……………………………………
“So … why was the SH so cold around 1910?”
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
More info from Jean S and McIntyre about the Mann HS study. This infamous temp graph was featured and promoted by the IPCC all around the globe and the MSM used it to show/prove unprecedented AGW.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/29/mannomatic-smoothing-technical-details/
In the paper, Modelling Australia’s Global Temperatures -Bourke Amberley
Case Studies, Jennifer Marohasy et al, Jennifer writes, ‘Dr Jensen asked
for justification for these specific changes, the difference between the
unhomogenized annual mean maximum temperatures for Bourke and the ACORN-SAT Series when visited Dr Jones in Melbourne. None provided,’
Well I guess he wouldn’t want to put it in word would he? ‘Political machinations’
sounds a bit confronting when you see it in print.
… put it in ‘words’
Congratulations for what you’ve achieved so far Jennifer and hear hear to what you said about Robert.
I think we should bombard the media and our politicians with demands for an inquiry into BOM’s corruption of the recorded temperature data. The head of BOM and those involved in data corruption should be stood aside pending such an inquiry.
Fear of a rapidly warming climate is the foundation stone for many very burdensome policies. If the warming has been exaggerated then surely the basis for such policies is destroyed.
More strength to your arm Jennifer,
Dave
Many thanks for your hard work and principles Jennifer. I have just posted this at Jo Nova’s and thought it might be useful here too, as background material.
Slightly off-topic but from the Climategate emails the following quotes might perhaps provide some background to BOM thinking, given that homogenisation has occurred in the BOM as well as the many other national temperature databases used in modelling:
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [sea surface temperatures] to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer – Email 1254147614]
Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Email 636]
In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the ‘derivation’ of the GSIC formula) — but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous. [Tom Wigley Email 5175]
I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a ‘fudge factor’ along with the poorer modelling for winter. [Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007 Email 5054]
With GCMs the issue is different. Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics. For example, understanding of clouds or aerosols is far from complete – so (ideally) researchers build the “best” model they can within the constraints of physical understanding and computational capacity. Then they tweak parameters to provide a good approximation to observations. It is this context that all the talk about “detuning” is confusing. How does one speak of “detuning” using the same physical models as before? A “detuned” model merely uses a different set of parameters that match observations – it not hard to find multiple combinations of parameters that give the similar model outputs (in complex models with many parameters/degrees of freedom) So how useful is a detuned model that uses old physics? Why is this being seen as some sort of a breakthrough? [Milind Kanliker, 2004 Email 1461]
We had to remove the reference to “700 years in France” as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used. [Biffra, 2005 Email 1047]
Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures… [Elaine Barrow, UEA 1997 Email 723]
My notes: as far as I can tell while the above quotes pertain to modelling I suspect that this might be a two-way street. Furthermore I think, from memory, that the Tom Wigley mentioned above was involved, in part, in the homogenisation and adjustments across a number of national temperature databases but I stand to be corrected.
In modelling these alterations are called , in part, flux adjustments. From the IPCC’s Third Assessment we have this admission: The Third Assessment Report frankly admits that “flux adjustments” have been inserted in the Global Climate Models to make their results agree more closely with observations. Science labels such techniques as flux adjustments and inter-network calibrations disparagingly as fudge factors. Flux adjustments: AR3, Technical Summary, p. 49, (Box 3) & AR4p117
Spangled Drongo
“Siliggy, I have lived and worked through 50c [~122 f] at a place called Planet Downs in the Sturt’s Stony Desert during the ’50s and for the BoM to write those temps out of history is criminal.”
The can never write the temperatures from Sturt himself out of history.
I had a really good time riding through places near there when I took these photos.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/
One day we may also get to see the raw data from the Stevenson Screen record from Eucla Telegraph station. Another cooling trend I expect!
http://siliggy.wordpress.com/western-australia/eucla/
Have purchased the Australian today.
Well done Jen and well done Graham Lloyd.
I have also noted that the usual suspects, such as Deltoid and Hotwhopper are going full hog trying to discredit you personally.
I find it very concerning that BoM is still dodging the actual questions that have been raised. . .
” BOM has rejected any suggestion that it has tampered inappropriately with the numbers. It says the major adjustment to Bourke temperatures relate to “site moves in 1994, 1999 and 1938 as well as 1950s in homogeneities that were detected by neighbour comparison which, based on station photos before and after, may relate to changes in vegetation around the site”.
As Mr Koala and Jen have already pointed out. . . no one anywhere is claiming that homogenisation does not serve a useful purpose . . . including in the current research that Jen and Abbot are undertaking. BoM should not be finding it so difficult to clear this matter up. The more they dodge the very simple questions they are being asked, the more likely it is that they have made an error when applying their algorithms to the raw data.
If they have made an error, they need to correct it, otherwise it is entirely valid for Jen to comment that the data has been corrupted. If it isn’t correct, it can also corrupt the outcome of any other related research such as the research that Jen is conducting into seasonal forecasting at Queensland University.
I’m doubly concerned because BoM has now been granted authority over data related to water resources in the MBD via the Water Act 2007. Their involvement so far has not demonstrated any improvement in skill and the information that us producers in the MDB would like to access has become harder and harder to find.
The meticulously recorded historical data is now all merged into bar graphs and line graphs which has made it very difficult for us to compare seasons in terms of inflows, outflows, storage levels, allocation announcements, environmental watering events etc etc etc.
We need to do some of our own compare and contrast of seasons. . . which BoM perhaps may not like . . . but we need to do in order to assess our risks associated with irrigated agriculture.
A new study has found that a simple mathematical model of fractals can be used to understand global temp anomalies for the last 162 years. Way beyond my understanding, but if rainfall can be modelled using neural networks perhaps in time this may be plausible? Who knows?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/new-paper-finds-climate-change-is.html
sceptical sam.
Found out who “anonymous” is…Duh
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/hiding-something-bom-throws-out-bourkes-hot-historic-data-changes-long-cooling-trend-to-warming/#comment-1552827
Oh and this link works better for the BoM raw back to 1871 http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048013
‘Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.’ BoM
============
We are altering them BECAUSE we know global warming is real, thus the historical records must be wrong.
the notion that we can predict future climate starting from today’s climate is inherently wrong. toss a coin 100 times. add 1 for every head,subtract 1 for every tail. that is your temperature record for every year for the next 100 years. If you think you will end up with 0 change at the end of 100 years, think again. give it a try. plot the result on a graph and see how much it looks like past temperatures.
Jen,
The question isn’t, Why did they adjust Rutherglen to fit nearby stations?
The real question is, Why didn’t they adjust the nearby stations to fit Rutherglen?
Sadly for Bourke 125 degrees F may not be the Australian Stevenson Screen record.
This one claims another multi time runner for the Australian record. 126.5 Degrees F!!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37935738?zoomLevel=6
Regarding the records for Deniliquin the original station which commenced records in 1858, [Wilkinson St.], ceased recording in June 2003.
There have been two weather stations at the airport.
The first operated during the war years from 1942 to 1945.
The second commenced operation in 1997 and is now the “Official BOM site”.
So we have a direct comparison between Wilkinson St and the Airport sites, from 1942 to 1945 and from 1997 to 2003.
For the 1997 to 2003 comparison, there would be some UHI effect at Wilkinson St. [the site is now completely built around with houses] but this was not so for the earlier war period when the site was still unaffected by housing.
Here we go!
It’s Monday morning at the conversation:
No, the Bureau of Meteorology is not fiddling its weather data
https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009
Could the temp be dropping in Germany and other parts of Europe ? The record shows that temp has been dropping in Germany for the last 17 years.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/31/europes-wintry-2014-august-sees-one-of-the-chilliest-in-decades-forecasts-of-snow/
More proof that the Arctic ice and temps follow the AMO. Perhaps there is an AGW component in the mix but there seems a good chance of Arctic ice recovery and lower temps in the next few decades. Time will tell.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-and-the-amo/
Jennifer this is yet another of your strategies to cherry pick data that you think adequately illustrates your contrary view rather than analysing the whole of the data presented in a scientific papers and and the authors’ conclusions in relation to it. That is not good scientific critique, as well you should know if you have a PhD as you claim!
You appear to me to be in collusion with Graham Lloyd and ‘The Australian’ in wickedly promulgating misleading propaganda denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming. You can be assured that I know very few people who trust that newspaper anymore.
The trends of global temps from the 5 main databases since 1979 show GISS highest followed by HAD 4, HAD 3 ,RSS and lowest UAH.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend
Ben I can assure you that I know very few people who trust the Fairfax press or the ABC anymore. So what’s your point?
And please show us where AGW impacts can be found from observations since 1950.
Ben.
You may need to define what you think ‘cherry pick’ means in this particular context?
I’m not inclined to blindly trust any newspaper, most of the people I know don’t and I’m glad that you know lots of people who don’t too.
I would also suggest that your use of the words ‘collusion’ and ‘wickedly promulgating’ and ‘misleading propaganda’ is perhaps over the top and suffering from grossly emotional hyperbole.
In what way is this any different to the numerous PR and opinion pieces that all media (including the ABC) merrily reproduce every day on just about any topic you could care to name?
Jennifer has provided Graham Lloyd with the information she has and Graham Lloyd has done what he’s done with it.
He’s a big boy and is obviously prepared to follow through and report this information and Jennifer is of course perfectly entitled to ask the questions she has asked based on the evidence she has.
None of this is rocket science you know.
It is based on the justification for homogenising data.
‘The Australian in wickedly promulgating misleading propaganda denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming.’
I agree with Neville, Aunty and Fairfax are a disgrace.
Ben, you mean there are newspapers you trust? I think that could be a big part of your problem.
It’s no use snorting indignantly at the Australian and then eating up the juvenile tripe retailed daily by the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC. (I bet you do!)
Like Deb said, Jen is entitled to ask the questions and so is Graham. The BoM is entitled to respond. This is not Democratic Kampuchea 1976. This is democratic Australia.
O Yamal O …
such an in
significant stand
of trees, sub – set
of ten,
delivering such
hokey – schtick
significance, the
required warming
signal. Not Birch
trees but rather
a Cherry Orchard
much reduced,
well three trees
in actuality.
Cherry Pie … mmmm …
Vhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/
A suggestion for analysis, for both sceptics and for BoM quality control:
Plot the time series of the data OFFSETS, i.e. the differences between raw and homogenised data.
The mark 1 eyeball is a great tool for spotting what is going on, and whether something has gone wrong. For example a station move should should up as a step change between periods of constant offsets. A linear slope in the offset would reveal a lot, is there one of these “peer-reviewed” algorithms that involves a time varying offset? If not then something else (undocumented) is being done.
Hi Jennifer,
I read some of the articles in The Australian last week, and my interest in Australia’s temperature record was piqued for the first time. So, I’ve spent a few hours looking at things. From my perspective, I’m not at all convinced so far that there’s a strong argument that BOM has fraudulently manipulated the temperature record for the purposes of artificially inflating regional and national temperatures.
To begin with – a couple of observations about your graph for Bourke above. The homogenised data match the raw data pretty well in most places. The major reason the slopes of the two lines you’ve drawn are so different is because of the different timespans of the red and blue lines. So the issue for you here is simply why BOM have chosen to discard pre-1910 data. Your answer is that it’s too inconvenient for a global warming agenda, my answer is we don’t have an answer as yet.
It’s interesting that the “warmist” NOAA appear to use all this data back to 1871 in their analysis at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5/50194703000.gif
and that the “lukewarmist” Berkeley Earth also use this data as well, in a slightly different way, at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5/50194703000.gif
Interestingly it’s the “lukewarmist” site that gives Bourke the highest temperature uplift through their analysis. (An analysis which suggests they’ve indentified major systematic errors in the measurements in the first 25 years of operation of the site.) The differences in their analyses suggest that it could be a site with systematic difficulties in the 19th century. This is of course not to besmirch the reputation of Mr Cole’s dad, who probably did a great job diligently collating the data (presumably in the 20th century). Most systematic errors don’t reflect on the abilities of the observer. So Mr Lloyd can tell Mr Cole that his Dad is safe from the wrath of everyone, and it wasn’t due to incompetence. (And he can also tell Mr Cole that if his radio station wants to look at the raw data back to 1871 it appears to be readily available on the BOM website at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048013
(Mind you – I haven’t had the time to relate Bourke to Bourke Post Office and Bourke Airport, and I’m sure you’ll know if there are gaps in some of them … I’m not pretending to be an expert!)
I’ve got four questions for you:
[1] Do you believe that raw or re-analysed data should be used for properly calculating Australia’s regional and national temperature variations over long time periods?
[2] Do you believe that some sort of homogenisation technique (like the ones used by meteorological agencies throughout the world) should be used to analyse temperature trends?
[3] If the answer to [2] is no – can you point me to what you consider to be the most authoritative published paper/arxiv paper/website entry/blog entry that addresses this issue?
[4] What’s your ‘killer’ fact/point that shows there’s been a conspiracy? Just one would be nice. A million disputable or contentious observations aren’t worth one knock-out punch.
Thanks,
David
Ben Rose says on:
September 1, 2014 at 10:37 am #
“Jennifer this is yet another of your strategies to cherry pick data that you think adequately illustrates your contrary view rather than analysing the whole of the data presented in a scientific papers and and the authors’ conclusions in relation to it. That is not good scientific critique, as well you should know if you have a PhD as you claim! ”
—————————————————
A couple of things here, Ben.
Firstly, the BoM needs to release its algorithm and its “so-called” peer reviewed documentation so that true scientists – as opposed to climate “scientists’ can apply the proper practice of the scientific method and see if they can replicate the results that the BoM says it’s obtained. Until it does that it credibility is shot – irrespective of what newspaper you might read.
Secondly, your snide (ABC like) remark about Dr Marohasy’s PhD says more about you than you should care to show. Are you alleging that Dr Marohasy is fraudulently claiming to have a PhD? If so, where’s your evidence? Without presenting your evidence you are just smearing – which is a standard strategy from those hold the same CAGW views as you seem to hold. Do you normally go around libelling people Ben? Is your business successful? Or do you find that clients are hard to find? Have you ever stopped to think that your bias might be the reason for your poor business results?
Finally you need to reject your post-modernist learning and refresh your science education. perhaps you could start by reading a bit more Feynman. Especially this:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Time to start your scientific re-education.
Ben says:
“You can be assured that I know very few people who trust that newspaper anymore.”
The choice is stark Ben: you must meet new people!
Hey Ben Cooper.
Nice carbon(sic) calculator.
I tried to calculate how many less extreme climate events I had caused since I began walking instead of driving to the shops.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the whole idea of lowering emissions to stop climate change and unprecedented weather events?
At this point you are most probably muttering to yourself that I am insane, and the request is ridiculous, but, you must remember it is you with a calculator to to help calculate lower emissions to supposedly stop apocalyptic climate change and environmental damage in a future that only you see in your head.
Finland introduced the world’s first carbon(sic) tax in 1990.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
What evidence. or graph can you produce that shows we have less hurricanes, or cyclones because of 25 years of carbon(sic) taxes.
How long does it take before you can offer evidence reducing emissions does anything?
For the smaller footprint, your calculator doesn’t do that.
June 2014:
Fall in Australian GHG emissions biggest in 24 years
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-biggest-in-24-years-20140613-zs7be.html
How many less extreme climate events have been averted in Australia once emissions fell?
25 years of world taxes, lowest Aust. emissions in 24 years.
Yet who can join the dots?
Not you.
Again, it is you and the ‘97% consensus settled science’ you represent that makes the claim of being able to see a catastrophic climate future unless carbon(sic) emissions are cut (hence your calculator and carbon(sic) tax, or the expensive & pointless “Direct Action”.
Surely you can see all results, not just cherry-picked “it’s worse than we thought” more warming, fires and droughts?
Until then, you, your 97% consensus and your hokey calculator are a fraud.
Oops. Ben Rose- not Cooper.
Oops – typo in my comment above.
The Berkeley website address is at:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/4465
I mistakenly copied the NOAA information twice.
Apologies,
David
“What’s your ‘killer’ fact/point that shows there’s been a conspiracy?”
Can someone locate where Jen mentions, implies or points to a conspiracy? She says that certain things have been done or omitted, and that the matter is grave. But conspiracy?
Not speaking for Jen or Graham, I would certainly be happy to talk of bias. Most of us who know how bias works would be happy with that word. The ABC, for example, is the Ben Hur of bias and Empire State of groupthink. However, it’s not a conspiracy.
Btw, prompting someone to prove an accusation they have not made – particularly when the accusation may be actionable – comes across as a STUNT.
Hi Robert,
Sorry, Jennifer’s headline for a blog a few days ago was:
Who’s going to be sacked for making-up global warming at Rutherglen?
If that aint implied conspiracy – tell me what it means?
David
Hi Kev,
People are sacked for countless reasons. Bias and incompetence etc etc. Sacking for conspiracy? Pretty exotic. I imagine that conspiracy would be an offence, and it wouldn’t surprise me if an accusation of such was actionable.
You were wrong to ask Jen to prove an accusation she did not make, and which, I’m guessing, she would be careful not to make. If I’m wrong, Jen won’t be slow to point it out.
For me, the data is part of an important picture, to be added to other info and contemporary descriptions. The important thing is keeping the memory of 1896, 1939, 2009 etc vivid. 1909, like 1960, may not have been the worst for sustained heat overall, but records in those years show how high the thermometer can go on this continent. There’s no reason to believe it hasn’t been hotter (early 1790s?) or that it won’t get hotter.
We need to be ready for lethal heat not because the climate’s changed – but because it always changes. Those three extraordinary weeks of heat in January 1896 may well be the worst we know about. But if it happened once it can happen again, I want better preparation and warning…not a homily about my naughty emissions.
A rose by any other name, handjive. )
Apologies for not finding the time to contribute to this discussion. Its 1.30am local time and I think I’ve just about got all the jobs that had to be got done completed for yesterday day. I also apologise to those who are waiting on replies to emails.
Cheers,
Hi Robert,
I’m certainly not trying to play semantic games in order to make Jennifer commit some actionable offence. Blogs should be places where people can have a feisty discussion without coming to blows! I’m quite happy to remove the word conspiracy (which as far as I know in common modern usage doesn’t have to imply illegal activity) – and replace with anything suitable. Something like “deliberate manipulation of the records to make it appear as if Australia is warming” – or whatever Jennifer feels gets across the broad sweep of what appeared last week.