The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bureau caught in own tangled web of homogenisation > Comments

Bureau caught in own tangled web of homogenisation : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 15/9/2014

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledges that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
I'm not sure what you are saying here Jennifer?
If you are saying some districts seem to be getting hotter and some cooler; you could be right!
And hardly all that surprising due in many cases to changed locations, or wind chill factors, as city skylines grow, and funnel winds into some new areas, or block it at least partially from others/the chain whirlpool/vortex/Willie Willie effect, and so on. Moreover, as cities grow so does their heat signature, and the two way vortexes that creates!?
What goes up must be matched by what comes down; and demonstrated by the thermals that always precede storm cells are matched by much cooler descending air funnels! [Turbulence.]
Hit a few with a plane and it's like you've hit a series virtual holes (time on turbulence) in the air!
[And time to simply hurl the lunch into the vomit bag, if only to save time. Boom boom.]
However, if one is to establish a nation wide trend, for national ambient temperatures averages, and trend-line changes; then surely some critical homogenization is essential to that very endeavor; and ultimate accuracy!?
I would have thought someone of your knowledge, experience, background and intelligence, Jennifer, would have at least known that!
Unless intent on vexatious mischief?
Surely not? Or why?
Even if such vexatious mischief on the part of a "respected" scientist, seems to serve the denialist cause!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 15 September 2014 10:27:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boring.

If Jenifer thinks the "practice of homogenisation is indefensible" then she is no real scientist, rather - just a fog-horn for an ideological agenda.

The IPA comes to mind.
Posted by DavidK, Monday, 15 September 2014 10:45:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I see it Jennifer is accusing the Bureau of "changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline", and (by her choice of headline) of deception. What is her evidence? The Bureau's record of adjustments at two stations, Rutherglen and Bathurst, at one of which (Bathurst) changes have been "in different directions at different times". That's two stations out of hundreds (of which she admits "most, if not all" have been subject to this treatment).

If Jennifer is any sort of scientist she will have plenty of knowledge of experimental records, and, in particular, records of the the reasoning underlying decisions to take particular analytical or experimental approaches being inadequate. (And this isn't so much a criticism of those who make those records, but of the fact that it's hard to foresee the determination with which such decisions may be challenged decades later). Anyone who doubts this should look at legal cases depending on forensic evidence which have been overturned on appeal (and remember, forensic labs _are_ expecting their work to be challenged at every step).

So in this case, what's to distinguish "changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline" from inadequate record-keeping?

So Jennifer is making wild accusations on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence. If scientists generally operated like this the sceptics might have a point.

But in fact - who is being unethical?
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 15 September 2014 11:10:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have always been of the opinion that anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. But it seems that the first few to comment at this thread would have use think that fiddling with the received evidence is OK, especially if its only with a few records and the adjustments generally work to "improve" the record.

In fact, changing the magnitude and direction of a temperature trend can not be justified in science. Furthermore we are not dealing with a few isolated instances. Last week 28-pages of 'adjustments' were released by the BOM. They change the recorded values in almost all the temperatures series used to calculate the annual average trends.

I know why this is "necessary", because contrary to what you have been lead to believe, when the entire instrumental temperature record for Australia unhomogenised is considered… the hottest year was not 2013, but 1878.

Here is another example, to add to the many… http://tinyurl.com/nbm54ts
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 15 September 2014 12:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

Boring.

If you think ad hominem is defensible, then you are no real scientists, just a fog-horn for an ideological agenda.

Snouts in the public trough come to mind.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 15 September 2014 12:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More twaddle from the Queen of twaddle stick to writing for the IPA & the moron Murdoch papers
Posted by John Ryan, Monday, 15 September 2014 12:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline' is what the author of this article accuses the BoM of, but in fact it is her habitual game. Jennifer have you read the BoM's response to your allegations?
https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

The data is on their website for all to check but as most wouldn't have time to do that, this article summarizes BoM's response. It states:
'(BoM's) data on extreme temperature trends show that the warming trend across the whole of Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do"

It shows two maps of frequency of hot days using the homogenised and the original data that illustrate this clearly.

Masquerading behind a PHd makes your game the more reprehensible. I would defend your right to air your opinion, but opinion is all it is and more akin to prostitution than science.You are in league with deniers Lloyd and Murdoch's "The Australian" using the dark old trick of throwing manure (sowing doubt) and hoping some of it will stick. But I think most readers are awake to that by now.
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 15 September 2014 12:57:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a layman tax-payer, may I suggest that Ms Marohasy's et al accusations cannot remain unaddressed by Minister Greg Hunt. Independent investigators should not have had to 'read between the lines' to assess the BoM taxpayer-funded work: that work should have been completely transparent. Now, our BoM must candidly and completely show their hand and answer all responsible inquiries. In the name of universal scientific progress, what could our BoM have to hide from the world?
Posted by Gerry of Mentone, Monday, 15 September 2014 1:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nit-picking over miniscule statistical details is surely a sign of the denialists desperation, Blind Freddy can see the climate is changing and the harder they scrabble in the detritus the more ludicrous they reveal themselves to be.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Monday, 15 September 2014 1:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Data is also homogenised to remove the (warming) bias of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect - is anyone complaining about that?

Jardine, you obviously don't know what AdHom is, but I am not surprised given your history.
Posted by DavidK, Monday, 15 September 2014 1:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for an excellent post Jennifer. Any corruption of the data is a terrible reflection of the BOM. It is unfortunate that an institution such as this should become involved in tacky climate politics.
Posted by Wattle, Monday, 15 September 2014 1:22:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe anyone is too dumb to see that all the smoke from the continual "adjustment" of data by the global warming fraternity is not coming from a fire of lies. Any conclusion drawn from such bastardised data can be no better than a scam.

I guess the only question is which ones can see some personal benefit in the scam, & those who don't. Obviously those in favor of the lies believe they will be among the elite to profit from world government by the UN or similar cesspit.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 15 September 2014 1:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer’s telling of the truth about the fraud –backing BOM has attracted comments from the dishonest and the ignorant, who are enraged by the truth.

The fraud supporting assertions of the BOM have been obvious for a long time, and particularly since global warming stopped 17 years ago. They are desperate for a warming trend, so announce “hottest year on record” with monotonous regularity, every year. Jennifer says their assertions are based on faith or ignorance, but they are based on ignorance or dishonesty.
We need a Royal Commission to ascertain how the fraud-backers have infiltrated previously reputable bodies like BOM from which they assert lies about temperature and climate. Be grateful for Jennifer’s input and contemptuous of the dishonest input of fraud supporters like Gerry, David K, G’Day Bruce, John Ryan and Roses
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I have always been of the opinion that anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Do you want to revisit this statement Jennifer?

Perhaps after going through this article again? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15632

I am aware that you and your climate denialist budies, who for the most part have no expertise in the area, have been feeding Graham Lloyd information in an attempt to discredit the BOM. Personally, given Lloyd's continuing ability to get the science wrong, even when working from the paper itself http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/93207116242/mit-ocean-scientist-clarifies-findings-on-small I would have gone for someone else. But this whole exercise has been a monument to cherry picking, something that seems to be common to climate denial arguments.

But the reality is that the BOM is not widely manipulating the figures. There are good reasons for record homogenisation when you want to use the data for looking at changes over time http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009 and if you don't understand what they are, perhaps it is better not to call foul.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the comments it appears that one of the main points is the use of Homogenisation as a valid statistical tool. The assertion being that it IS valid and there is nothing 'wrong' with its use; hence the Article is baseless.

In my reading of the Article, it questions the extent and justification of the Homogenisation (and the selective use of data); hence those comments present Straw-man arguments and serve to muddy the waters.

Regardless of your political view, science must represent humanity's best attempt at modelling reality. This process must not be tarnished by politics. I expect all reasonable people would agree.

If BoM and CSIRO cannot undertake their primary missions without a political agenda then they require a systemic overhaul. (I include CSIRO here because as I see it BoM and CSIRO are 'joined at the hip' in regards Climate Science, for example, their joint publication of various 'State of the Climate' reports.)
Posted by Geoff.256, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a sorry thing to read the ad hominem (?ad feminam) comment of DavidK.

Jennifer's approach is scientifically sound. I have not examined all the details, but I can say that the idea of "data homogenization" is fundamentally unsound. It may be that there are faults in some table of data that need correction on the basis of other data or metadata. But "homogenization" is a no-no. My best source for this is the masterwork 'Probability Theory: the Logic of Science', E.T. Jaynes, 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 0-521-59271-2, which explains why.
Posted by jjman, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses, the explanation of BOM’s homogenisation, to which you give a link, has flaws, being as dishonest as the original homogenisation. Go here for clarification:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

The conclusion is:
“ It is clear that the changes to the temperatures at Rutherglen do not “homogenise” them. They make the differences from the neighbours greater, and change a cooling trend into a warming one.
This is not unique to Rutherglen- adjustments warm the temperature trends at 66 of the 104 Australian sites, and warm the national mean temperature trend by around 47%.”
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

Jennifer didn't say that practice of homogenisation is indefensible, so you started with a misrepresentation, and then covered it with ad hom, and then when called on that, you reply to me with further ad hom, and just assume that you're right without ever showing reason.

All the warmists are arguing here is that the facts don't matter.

The point is, this constant slather of fallacies that we get every time we engage them, is all the warmists have got.

We have repeatedly asked the warmists on here to answer questions that will prove their case and disprove the objections to it, and *every single time*, they just go quiet and slink off.

So spare us your fog-horn of ideology, DavidK. Will you undertake to answer the questions that no warmist dares to answer? What will you give us if you can't and just slink off like the rest of them? Why should anyone be bothered with your proven dishonesty? Do you accept my challenge?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 15 September 2014 3:02:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, what is wrong with you? You have evidently read my post in its opposite sense to that I intended: The Minister must address the Marohasy et al accusations, and our BoM must be forced to "come clean", and stay clean, at any cost. Scientific inquiry, at least where publicly funded, must be restored. How did you mistake me?
Posted by Gerry of Mentone, Monday, 15 September 2014 3:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As has been noted this is just an exercise in cherry picking and mud throwing by the increasingly desperate deniers.
It will fail like all their other lies and distortions.
The BOM does a sterling job and is run by competent, smart people unlike the idiotic and deliberately stupid denialist parasites.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 15 September 2014 3:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Gerry, I must have confused you with Jeremy, when listing the offenders against sense and truth.
It would be nice if it were as simple as getting the Minister to enquire, but I think we need a Royal Commission, into the whole climate fraud..

Look at how confused mikk is. He is a fraud supporter, by his acceptance of BOM, despite the proven dishonesty of its process.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 15 September 2014 4:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have proven nothing Leo except that you are one of the deliberately stupid people.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 15 September 2014 5:01:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer says (2nd last paragraph of her opinion piece)

"it should be crystal clear that the practice of homogenisation is indefensible and widespread"

Jardine says;

"Jennifer didn't say that practice of homogenisation is indefensible" (sic)

Look Peter, this really is getting very boring.

I understand why you want to trot out the 'ad hom' guff all the time but geez mate, get over it - it REALLY IS BORING.

Challenge?

Do you have a problem with this:

Data is homogenised to take into account the urban heat island effect to remove the warming bias.

Or is it only a problem in one direction?

Marohasy has been trotting it out for a while now, suggesting even NASA is in on the conspiracy.

"The conspiracy theory is that BoM is using a technique to selectively tamper with its temperature data so that it better fits with the global warming narrative.

The people at NASA are in on it too.

Now the great thing about conspiracy theories is that, for believers, attempts to correct the record just serve to reinforce the conspiracy. Like a video clip of the moon landing on a constant loop, the whole thing feeds back on itself.

Correspondence posted on Marohasy’s blog shows she has been pushing her claims for months that BoM has “corrupted the official temperature record so it more closely accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming”, according to a letter she wrote to Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, whose parliamentary secretary portfolio includes responsibility for the agency.

Marohasy lays it on thick in the letter, accusing the bureau of engaging in “propaganda” and littering the text with claims of “corruption”.

Jardine, here's the challenge:

http://tinyurl.com/ForPeterHume

Homogenise that.
Posted by DavidK, Monday, 15 September 2014 5:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Instead of looking down on commentators, why not look at data for yourselves.

I'm the Bill Johnston Jennifer is referring to.

There are many issues with the primary data. For instance ACORN's homogenised Rutherglen minimum temperature series contains an abrupt step-change in 1965, which is indicative of an undocumented station move (fancy trend with that!).

Although trends each side of the shift are no different to zero trend; their quasi-trajectory are influenced by missing daily data, that you could, if you took the trouble, see for yourselves. Missing summer-values reduce average temperatures don't they?

Annual minimum temperature at Rutherglen, has a simple relationship with rainfall, but because of the location, which I know well, it is the opposite of what you would expect. You could check that out to.

These problems are by no means restricted to just a few ACORN stations; they are widespread.

Inhomogeneities are common. They arise from changes in observers; missing data; data rounding; undocumented infrastructure developments etc. Etc.

If the base data are widely and generally faulty, then no matter how they are massaged, the trends they produce will also be faulty.

It is simply not logical to create trends from data that are non-trending. Nor is it acceptable for people to claim trends are real when they are clearly not.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Monday, 15 September 2014 5:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Dr Bill... seems you've momentarily silenced the climate faithful with some scientific home truths. I feel a severe whirlwind of denier bashing is gathering.

"It is simply not logical to create trends from data that are non-trending. Nor is it acceptable for people to claim trends are real when they are clearly not." Reminds me of GIGO; garbage in garbage out

If there hasn't been any significant global warming since 1998, as admitted in the latest IPCC report on climate change... is it possible that rather than a 12 -15 year anomaly as the IPCC suggests, we might deduce the warming was the anomaly? I'm not saying the climate hasn't changed, only that so called global warming and especially man-made global warming are very questionable, regardless of how many 1000 climate scientist defend it.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Monday, 15 September 2014 6:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well , here are a few facts, that simply can't be denied!
The formerly permanently frozen Alaskan tundra is melting, releasing formerly frozen methane, in millions of tons, and from hundreds of new lakes, created by new melt water! [And one unit of methane is worth at least 21 units of Co2, as a greenhouse gas!]
In living memory, sea ice never used to disappear entirely from adjacent areas, but it does now every [progressively longer] summer, with consequent additional erosion.
The oceans are becoming more acidic, and warmer in some areas, by as much as a recorded comparative 2C!
And ice is melting at a faster rate than predicted by the warming theorists, none more evident than on the Tibetan plateau; where Glacial melt water, waters two thirds of the world's population! [For now!]
Or around Antarctica, where waters as warm as a reported entirely unpredictable 4C, are melting Antarctic ice at an unprecedented rate!
And with that melt, threatening to raise oceans levels almost overnight, by around 3 metres, if an ocean sized body of fresh water down there, only held back by a comparatively thin ice wall, is released!
And when not if it does, I challenge Jennifer and the whole crew of denialists to invest in some coastal property; [if they haven't already?]
And or, go and stand on our seashores and say, It's not real, it's not really happening, it's just a figment of warmists over active imaginations!
And no I'm not really drowning it's just glub, glub glub, Hellup gurgle choke!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 15 September 2014 6:21:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty you do realise don't you, that the current area covered by ice in the arctic is a record for the satellite era, the only measurement to difficult to spin, but you can bet the grant dependent warmists are trying.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 15 September 2014 7:00:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Rhrosty are you just quoting from the new testament of climate cleansing verse 135, or have you checked the data for yourself?

Have you checked historical newspapers for instance, against the "facts" you so firmly extol? Do you think ice is expected never to melt?; has never melted?

Do you know about the dynamics of methane? Where it comes from; where it goes to?

For another ACORN-SAT site, take Bridgetown Post Office in WA.

Did you know, there were undocumented influential infrastructure changes almost within touching-distance of its Stephenson Screen?

That rainfall (mm/year), combined with an abrupt and persistent downshift of 105mm/year from 1966, accounted for about 50% of the variation in observed minimum ACORN temperature?

Unsurprisingly; that data quality was inconsistent?

That up to 1944, data were of high quality. However, from 1945 to 1966, they were observed mainly in whole-degrees Fahrenheit; and that consistent rounding up or down can't be ruled out.

That after metrication in 1972; from 1973 to 1979; and 1996 to 2009; more than 40% of daily Celsius observations (vs. an expectation of 20%) were whole and half-degrees?

Instead of blabbering-on, you could have worked that out for yourself.

Don't you know that at no time during the Celsius-era were decimal fractions at Bridgetown distributed as expected. Data generally; and especially "records" and "extremes" are biased by such obvious data-faults.

Don't you think that's important?

Bridgetown's data is as it is. Polish as you might; call it homogenisation or peer-review; not even our Bureau-wizards can turn a sow's ear into a silky-smooth trend.

Allowing for externalities there is no trend in Bridgetown's data.

There are many other ACORN examples; in-fact just about all of them, just waiting for you to discover!

ACORN is an over-sold crock!

I took the trouble to check it for myself.

Why don't you?

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Monday, 15 September 2014 7:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

Okay, I admit I was wrong in saying this: "Jennifer didn't say that practice of homogenisation is indefensible".

But let's go further than that - very much in your favour - and suppose that all the homogenisation of data you could possibly want is conceded, in fact everything in the entire field of climatology is conceded. What could be fairer than that.

Okay. So what?

Can you see that that, of itself, won't prove anything about whether the resulting ecology will be worse rather than better or indifferent; nor that the benefits of any government policy will outweigh the downsides
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 15 September 2014 8:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no idea what you are talking about DavidK; not a clue.

In any sphere of endeavor; for anything you can possibly think of; the average of corrupted data is corruption.

As a retired scientist; I'm intensely amazed that any peer would project a corrupted world-view on the basis of faulty or contestable base-data. You are welcome to debate with me on that.

It is beyond ethics to base or market government policy on some warped-view, or manufactured hypotheses about to our climate history.

You are invited to get hold of all the ACORN data and show me where I am wrong. I'm willing to bear that brunt.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Monday, 15 September 2014 8:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bill, this quote by Jennifer Marohasy is about you?

"Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved."

Yet as I understand it, your knowledge of the Rutherglen site dates to a few years leading up to 2000? And you were not even based at Rutherglen. So your vouching for their being no move since 1912 is entirely erroneous? However, apparently on the basis of your say so Marohasy was writing letters to Government Ministers demanding heads roll at the BOM.

As to dealing with problem data, as a scientist you should be well aware that there are good statistical methods for dealing with missing or abnormal data. The confidence intervals will be greater, but that doesn't make data unusable. In the case of the BOM data, the adjustments made are well documented. There may be some issues around individual weather stations, but there are hundreds of thousands of data points that mean the overall picture will remain reasonably sound.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 15 September 2014 9:57:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer,
You are playing in the sand. No proofs there.

Look at NASA records. Satellites show about 1 watt of of heat per square meter warming, 24 hours a day - and that is billions of square meters.

Each of 3670 Argo buoys spend 9 days about a km below ocean surface, then descends to 2 km, then rises to the surface to report ocean temperature to a satellite, and then repeats...

And Prof Muller, funded by Koch brothers to gather surface temp data to disprove global warming, but found his analysis replicated that of climate change researchers. He did develop an excellent database of world surface temperatures. He even analyzed heat island records, finding they also verified the world is warming.

So, satellite, surface and deep ocean measurements all positively show global warming. You, on the other hand, seems perfectly qualified to be an orchardist, or cherry picker. Trying to pillory dedicated scientists in BoM and CSIRO - why? And pretending to have relevant qualifications for insightful comment on climate research is, umm, sad.
Tony
Posted by Tony153, Monday, 15 September 2014 10:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, I've been to many places eyes-wide-open; and I'm sure you have no idea when or how often or how recently I've been past the Ruthreglen met-lawn. People also know who I am because I rarely post anonymously.

Rutherglen is a lovely research centre. Great people work there and over the last 100-years they have made major contributions to the progress of agriculture within north-eastern Victoria and southern NSW. Many people have come and gone; and I don't have to have been stationed there know about its work.

Agronomist, you can't grow grass or crops without understanding the regional climate.

Did you work out why the relationship between annual minimum temperature and annual rainfall is the reverse of what you would normally expect?

I sense you are attacking the man here, not the issue. The issue is the soundness of the ACORN data for predicting long-term temperature trends.

I have looked at the same data you can access. You could analyse it in a variety of ways and we could usefully discuss our differences.

We could also agree just by looking at the data that there was a station move around 1965; and that the ACORN catalogue, on which the presumption of data being continuous was based, is wrong. Even BoM are conceding that. However, it is possibly one of numerous ACORN errors. You could also see from Rutherglen's data that around 8.6% of the daily data data are missing; and that missing data affects annual averages early in the record; and after 1965. They contribute to "trends" being spurious.

You could analyse the data each side of the shifts and work out for yourself, that there are no valid trends. That the data are uncorrelated with time; that they consist of random numbers, dancing along a time-line, with a break and step in the middle.

You could evolve to the next level and become an inquiring data analyst; then you won't have to depend on unsubstantiated false claims about data, that you possibly know about in more detail than I.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 5:07:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good morning Dr Bill,

Andy Pitman and Lisa Alexander from the ARC's Climate Change Research Centre best sum up the recent accusations that have been made against the BoM.

“Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. Cherry-picking weather stations where data have been corrected in a warming direction doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.

Data homogenisation is not aimed at producing a predetermined outcome, but rather is an essential process in improving weather data by spotting where temperature records need to be corrected, in either direction. If the Bureau didn’t do it, then we and our fellow climatologists wouldn’t use its data because it would be misleading. What we need are data from which spurious warming or cooling trends have been removed, so that we can see the actual trends.

Marshalling all of the data from the Bureau’s weather stations can be a complicated process, which is why it has been subjected to international peer-review. The Bureau has provided the details of how it is done, despite facing accusations that it has not been open enough.

Valid critiques of data homogenisation techniques are most welcome. But as in all areas of science, from medicine to astronomy, there is only one place that criticisms can legitimately be made. Anyone who thinks they have found fault with the Bureau’s methods should document them thoroughly and reproducibly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This allows others to test, evaluate, find errors or produce new methods.

This process has been the basis of all scientific advances in the past couple of centuries and has led to profoundly important advances in knowledge. Abandoning peer-reviewed journals in favour of newspaper articles when adjudicating on scientific methods would be profoundly misguided.”

Dr Dave
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 6:12:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Readfearn deconstructs this whole affair...

"The Australian Newspaper’s War On The Bureau of Meteorology"

http://www.readfearn.com/2014/09/the-australian-newspapers-war-on-the-bureau-of-meteorology/

"In the space of a two weeks, The Australian newspaper has published 10 stories attacking the Bureau of Meteorology with claims the government agency has been fiddling its temperature data to show more warming than actually exists.

BoM scientists have been doing this, according to the chief protagonist of the story climate sceptic Jennifer Marohasy, because it fits more neatly with the narrative that the world is warming.

It’s a conspiracy.

Now ten stories is a lot of reading, so allow me to summarise what’s been going on for you.

The Australian newspaper has published the claims of climate science sceptics that government scientists are fiddling temperature data with the express purpose of making things appear warmer than they are and that BoM is being secretive.

The Australian newspaper doesn’t tell readers that almost every single claim being made has been discussed at length in previous journal papers and technical reports, published or written by BoM, leaving only the thinly veiled suggestion of a conspiracy, which nobody has any evidence for because it’s not there.

As I’ve explained before, Marohasy is a former free market think tank researcher who is now at Central Queensland University with her work paid for by the foundation of a climate science sceptic.

None of the claims made by Marohasy have been published in a peer reviewed journal, despite the fact that since January she has found time to write repeatedly to government ministers, has spoken at the Sydney Institute and flown to a conference for climate sceptics in Las Vegas – all the while making the same accusations."

The Conversation article to which he refers:

http://theconversation.com/how-to-become-a-citizen-climate-sleuth-31100

"Bureau of Meteorology Media Statement #2 - Climate Records"

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20140905.shtml
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 7:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

The pattern we keep seeing here is that the warmists enter all full of bustle and presumptuousness - like you did - assuming your belief system is true, talking down to everyone else about the meaning of "science", and spraying ad hominem and appeal to absent authority when challenged.

Now I maintain that their belief system is irrational and therefore cannot be scientific. If one can prove the argument is fallacious, and you can't disprove it, that's the end of the matter as far as the science is concerned.

So what keeps happening is - once we have parried all their fallacious bluster - and ask critical questions that disprove either the skeptics or the warmists on the general issue, the warmists go quiet, slink off, and pretend they weren't ever on the scene. Then they pop up somewhere else later on re-running all the same presumptuous assertions they are unable to defend.

Tony153 and Poirot are fresh from having done just that here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16612&page=0#291546
running away after going quiet, and now here they appear again, re-running the same belief system which we - and they - have now just demonstrated to be baseless and dishonest.

And then in answer to my challenge, you didn't either accept, or admit you're wrong, did you?

You evaded, didn't you?

But I didn't, did I? I directly answered your challenge and admitted I was wrong on point.

So ... do you accept my challenge, or not?

If not, mere temperature measurements - or rather manipulations - cannot and do not establish the relevance of anything you have said on this topic to any topic of policy or society, and have just conceded the general issue.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 8:08:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

"Tony153 and Poirot are fresh from having done just that here....running away after going quiet, and now here they appear again, re-running the same belief system which we - and they - have now just demonstrated to be baseless and dishonest."

Lol!...the only thing you have demonstrated is your ability to press your rhetoric button and deploy your generic spiel to any and every subject - no matter what is on discussion.

Exhibit 1:

"The pattern we keep seeing here is that the warmists enter all full of bustle and presumptuousness - like you did - assuming your belief system is true, talking down to everyone else about the meaning of "science", and spraying ad hominem and appeal to absent authority when challenged.

Now I maintain that their belief system is irrational and therefore cannot be scientific. If one can prove the argument is fallacious, and you can't disprove it, that's the end of the matter as far as the science is concerned.

So what keeps happening is - once we have parried all their fallacious bluster - and ask critical questions that disprove either the skeptics or the warmists on the general issue, the warmists go quiet, slink off, and pretend they weren't ever on the scene. Then they pop up somewhere else later on re-running all the same presumptuous assertions they are unable to defend."

We've all read it a million times...any subject...climate...govt...bread...cheese....out comes JKJ's ACME OLO spiel.

When you've got something to say that tallies up with nothing more than calling your opponents "dishonest", I might even deign to have a conversation with you.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 8:23:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You cant argue with deliberately stupid people Poirot.

http://www.wikkkard.net/articles/StupidPeople.html
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:06:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Manufactured history?
Paleontology scientists the world over, hang your heads in shame. You've all just been outed by Dr. Bill, who knows more on this subject than all of you put together!?
Otherwise, why would he question the validity of your research?
Age related Paranoia and or delusions of grandeur perhaps?
I love a good conspiracy theory, on the basis; there is always someone in charge, who know what result is required, and exactly what needs to be done to achieve it!
A bit like the tobacco industry conspiracy, which tried to buy time and many more billions, just by systematically denying or questioning the facts! Ditto the Asbestos industry!
And it seems some very well rewarded medical practitioners/experts were part and parcel of that very professional, decades long obfuscation/deceit!
And then only for very dirty, blood soaked money!
The only conspiracy on self evident display here, I believe, is that patently promulgated by the truly parasitic fossil fuel industry.
Yes sure, if all you were worried about was the always upward line on the profit graph, and how best to protect a 4 trillion dollar plus a year industry and maximized profits!?
Then you'd take the successful formula, of those aforementioned, and just keep casting aspersions and or doubt!

Slink off?
This site allows only so many posts per 24 hours, and therefore its hard to reply to every questionnaire.
To quote Robbie burns, facts are cheils tha dinna whing. And in my penultimate post, all I quoted was verifiable facts!

Dr. Bill, I suggest you try and refute my list of facts, and quote your sources.
If only to force you to actually look at the actual evidence, rather than rubbish it/question it; and it seems, only backed by an increasingly irrelevant reputation, and or, total loss of professional credibility!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(word and post limits got the better of me - this is my last post)

Postscript for Dr Bill:

Sounding the fog-horn (or blowing a dog-whistle) about the scientific method, from an ideological perspective, on an opinion site like this, doesn’t cut the mustard either (imho).

However, if that is what Jennifer wants to do, and you have a bee in your bonnet that needs to sting, so be it. Just remember that neither she, nor you, will get much kudos from the scientific community in ‘publishing’ stuff or having hissy-fits in ‘The Australian’ or on-line op-eds.

I’m sure you understand the metaphorical argument (despite some that would play the ad-hom card).

Cheers

.

Postscript for Jardine:

Your “challenge” is not at all clear.

Are you are asking me if I think there is a link between Australia’s temperature record (homogenised or not), the impact of greenhouse gases on the temperature record, the current government’s policies in response to climate change, and how it effects our society?

If so, this article may help:

http://tinyurl.com/q2v6khk

I agree with Tony Windsor.

If not, perhaps Poirot has a point.
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:46:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Researchers at the National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark had been storing the glass plates since explorer Knud Rasmussen's expedition to the southeast coast of Greenland in the early 1930s..... Taken together, the imagery shows that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, said Jason Box, associate professor of geography and researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2152004/Lost-photos-prove-Greenlands-ice-melting-FASTER-80-years-ago-today.html

We have examples like this all the time where there is undeniable proof of climate changes that occurred before, came back to what we call normal now, over a fairly short period of time, and then deteriorate again. Climate change never stops and its not reliably predictable.

We often see news reports like "the worst storm in 70 years", "the biggest rainfall in 100 years", the hottest day since 1902, coldest winter in 45 years, etc as examples that global warming is happening. What was causing those fluctuations and climate extremes back then? What was happening was the natural cycle and rhythms of nature, as it is today.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Just one other comment: Rhosty raised the challenge to 'denialists' to invest in coastal property in the hope they will all be washed away by a 3 metre tidal flash flood of melted ice. Did you know your Guru Tim Flannery bought a house on low lying coastal property around the same time he made his prediction Sydney Airport would be under water by 2010?
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 3:50:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

What’s the point of discussing it, if I can prove what I’m saying is right and what you’re saying is wrong, and if you can’t prove your own line of reasoning or disprove mine, but you still won’t accept it, won’t admit it, and will not accept a rational proof or disproof? How can the issue ever be brought to a rational standard?

If there is no question that can answer the issue one way or the other, then it’s not capable of rational determination.

But if anyone, including me, can ask you questions that will categorically decide the matter one way or the other, and you can’t answer them and ignore them, because you know if you do answer them you’ll lose the argument, then … what? What should be the consequence for you?

The problem in OLO AGW debates is that we keep bringing the warmists to the critical issue, and then, over and over again, faced with having to answer the critical questions that prove them wrong, they just decamp. They never admit what they can’t defend, and then just re-appear re-running all the same assumptions and arguments.

Do you think that’s acceptable?

Poirot has done this twice in the last fortnight, and repeatedly on different topics, where she can’t answer the critical questions without proving herself wrong either way. So she doesn’t answer them. She just ignores the question, and either goes quiet, or just keeps repeating her fallacious claims.

For example here - without answering the questions in issue- AGAIN! – note, she again retorts that the problem is my “rhetoric” calls her ‘dishonest’. But her dishonesty is not the premise of my argument, so it’s not ad hominem, which has been repeatedly explained to her, and which she repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands.

My *logic*, not rhetoric, proves, not assumes, that she’s being dishonest because after she is asked questions on the general issue that would either disprove me or her, she refuses to answer and just keeps repeating all the fallacious claims that the general issue would settle, and that the questions disprove.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 4:58:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)

Let’s have some consequences here. If it’s true that I can prove you categorically wrong and – like all the other warmists I have encountered - you either can’t or won’t answer questions that prove it, what negative consequence will you accept? Sign over your house? What consequence?

“Your 'challenge' is not at all clear.”

To repeat: Will you undertake to answer the questions that no warmist dares to answer? What will you give us if you can't and just slink off like the rest of them?

Surely if the future of the planet is at stake, and other people are to be expected to accept the infringements of their freedoms and property and livelihoods, your house must be a relatively small but worthy consideration?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 5:01:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is now pretty obvious that only those with complementary tickets on the global warming gravy train, those applying for those tickets, greenie ratbags, Barack Obama, & those genuine folk easily led astray are still promoting the fraud of Global warming.

Yes the elites are still hoping to use it to prize the peasants off the good life, which was never intended for them. Those elites are aghast that we managed to grab a share of the wealth we generated, & can't stand the thought at all the lowlife should have it so good.

It is obvious in the way they cannot disguise their disgust at having to converse with these upstarts, they were foolish enough to educate.

Roll on the western worlds cultural revolution.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 5:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that the truth is coming out, it is obvious that the BOM has been playing games to shore up the human-induced climate change ideology, rather than being serious about employing scientific method.

Regrettably, such unprofessional behaviour on the part of the BOM and other members of the AGW cheer squad, has influenced both Labor and Coalition governments into believing that AGW is dangerous, and consequently implementing policies that cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds. Implementation of bad policies can never be in the national interest
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 6:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bill, I choose to remain anonymous on this site, primarily because I have no axe to grind and no position to promote. My commentary has to live or die on the evidence I can bring to the discussion, not on my reputation (real or imagined).

It is clear that you have used your association with Rutherglen to argue from authority. It has also become clear from information provided elsewhere that this authority is somewhat less than you have made out, or has been made out on your behalf.

It is obvious that the relationship between average annual minimum and annual rainfall is a red herring. You just have to think about it for a few minutes. Annual rainfall is often dominated by a relatively small number of events, whereas average temperature is contributed to by every day of the year. In fact over most of Australia there is no relationship http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/AMM_1998.pdf

Of course, I would never rely on the data set from a single station to infer what the trend in temperatures is over a large region.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 8:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NASA and NOAA, lefty feral weirdo organisations if ever there were any are at it also, published earlier this year,

"America's two top scientific agencies have released separate reports on last year's climate, confirming the global warming trend is continuing.
The American space agency, NASA, releases a climate report each year - alongside a separate report from its sister agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The two agencies collect their data separately and their reports show slightly different results. But the trend is clear.
At least nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000."

Anyone with half a brain realises Jennifer Marohasy knows more than these two flimsy groups of no-ones.
Posted by markjohnconley, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 6:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, I don't understand axe-grinding in a data-context; and I stand by my comments.

What blew-up for Rutherglen, is, there was an unreported station move around 1965, which I detected in data; and which has been confirmed by BoM.

So the series was NOT strictly linear. Other ACORN data may also be mis-specified

Rutherglen's weather-experiment was shifted to a different paddock. Agronomists ought understand the significance of that. (Perhaps you are pinching the title).

It is also conundrum that for Rutherglen's minimum temperature, wet years are warm-years. You've not solved that yet!

I suspect you have no idea of how the climate there behaves.

(Not only do I know the site, but I've enjoyed an almost life-long association with a farming-family near Burrunbuttock; so I know the region and its climate well!)

At an annual scale many Australian temperature datasets show a relationship with rainfall and rainfall shifts.

At a station-level, variance explained simultaneously by those 2 variables (hint use dummy variables), can be as high as 60%. This applies particularly to Max temp; for Mins, R-sq varies on a station by station basis. You could check it out for yourself.

Not important you say; and you point to "authority". A red-herring you say; without even having a look.

You may not get-it; but it could be important, that when you look at temperature data, you could be measuring a rainfall-response.

Unfortunately authority did not consider the shift issue, however, other 'authority' has, and I'm sure if you are truly interested you could find that out; or analyse some data for yourself. (Use Rutherglen for example!)

It seems to me that anyone who looks even side-ways at data; and discovers something that conflicts with hard-held preacher views; is automatically vilified as some sort of unbelieving half-wit.

When you've sorted Ruthertglen, try a station that has moved lots, like Alice Springs or Eucla; or one with peculiar data, like Gabo Is. or, Bridgetown PO, where slabs of its data were measured in whole-degrees. Then work out what it all means for trend-detection!

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 8:59:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Jennifer, Dr Bill and other like minded contributors:

1. Lets assume Australia is not warming, that the temperature data has been "modified"
2. Also understand that the rest of the world is warming
3. So - what is the scientific rationale for Australia being different?
4. Option: all world temperature databases have been fraudulently modified
5. Query 1: how many people involved in these modifications?
6. Query 2: why isn't there at least one of those modifiers willing to tell all, to the media?

Jennifer, Dr Bill and other like minded contributors: please put brain into thinking mode before penning rubbish.
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:00:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist your position on climate change is obviously one of a card carrying member of the gravy train riders association, & as such is of little value.

You talk of evidence, but your only contribution is using the tortured, corrupted propaganda put out by the usual suspects, without ever producing any convincing reason for the torture of the data, & thus no reason why anyone would consider it had any truth behind it.

We continually see contrived bulldust given as explanation for the decades long increase in Antarctic ice, with every little loss of ice in confined areas promoted as a loss to the total.

We see the same garbage about the arctic, glaciers, Mt Kilimanjaro, & anything the fraudsters can spin for a headline, splashed far & wide, only to prove untrue with in weeks.

Your IPCC continually put out exaggerated garbage, only to retract or reduce it in their next report, but never in press releases.

When you continually get exaggeration, & contrived headline chasing from the warmist brigade, there is absolutely no reason anyone with a brain would believe anything they say. There is just too much smoke coming off the whole crowd for there not to be a large fraudulent fire going in the pits of the warmist camp.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:15:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of rubbish, tony153, lets assume that IPCC are right; and that warming (however it was calculated) stopped almost 2-decades ago.

That would mean the world is NOT warming now; wouldn't it? Or are there words in-there that you don't understand?

Perhaps you could grab some data and decide for yourself if they are useful or not for analysing for the warming you seem so steamed-up about.

Start with Rutherglen, for instance, then follow some dots around a map of Australia.

Then get in touch with your own brain; pen something intelligent that you have worked out for yourself; and tell us about it.

You can then experience for yourself, how many people pan you for looking outside their square.

Cheers,

Dr. Bil
Posted by Dr. Bill, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:41:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill

There are more things than Rutherglen and some dots around a map of Australia.

You should look outside your own square, more deeply.

It's been said before, take your research to the right scientific fora where it can peer reviewed, properly.

Tony 153, put a sock in it - there are far too many 'experts' from both sides here, including Dr Bill.
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 11:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a square Dr. David.

Not bound by institutional arrangements; policy-hush; climate-money or outside influence; like from WWF for example.

I don't work in an information or science "silo"; nor a hub or institute. Weaving around Australian datasets; a free spirit am I.

I can even use my real name without fear of institutional persecution.

Dr. David, why not look at ACORN Amberley, Min.

There is an undocumented move there; and the meteorological enclosure is not standard - its bare black soil. Poor sods didn't like seeds in their socks I dare say! I wonder what they think of thick, sticky black-mud?

The issue David, is that if the base data are no good; any conclusions relating to trends are likely to be spurious.

Scientifically that would be true, wouldn't it?

If we deduct the trend-line and the residuals still contain steps, then several underlying assumptions relating to OLS regression are violated aren't they?

Why is that permitted in climate science, but not in other sciences?

Because its a crock, Dr. David

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 12:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bill,
Regard the earth and its atmosphere as a system.

A very superficial understanding of thermodynamics would tell you that the earth would only warm if there were more energy coming into that system than is leaving.

Well, NASA satellites show incoming energy exceeds outgoing by approximately 1 watt per square meter of the earths surface. As you understand spreadsheets, to determine the total additional input, you could multiple 1 by the total number of square meters that constitutes the land and sea area of the earth (plus, you could add the area of the cryosphere as well). So, don't look to Rutherglen. Lift your head and gaze upwards.

Now, here comes a scientific term: the amount of additional energy inbound to us, each minute is, wait for it, humungous. To understand that precisely defined word, you might like to imagine a 1,000 watt radiator in each parcel of 33x33 square metres of our worlds surface, that is on, 24x7.

Even Alice's quarternian cat would understand that picture.

The world IS warming!

The IPCC does not "say". It is the organ through which thousands of scientists " say". And they say that warming continues but the rate of global warming has reduced. But, you need to understand that "global warming" refers just to that layer of air touching earths surface.

So, where is that heat going: not as much into the atmosphere, but much more into the oceans. As detected and measured by over 3600 buoys that measure ocean temperature profiles down to 2km beneath sea level, at 10 day intervals.

If you remain keen on Rutherglen, just concentrate on its wine.
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 12:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Dr Bill, Jennifer and like minded,

If you do not understand why the earth is blue,

You would not understand how greenhouse gases have prevented our earth being a giant snowball, or worse, a large lifeless moonlike planet.

Regards
Tony
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 12:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David K, let us bear in mind that your stance is supportive of AGW. There is no scientific basis for such a position, bearing in mind that the great effort of the IPCC to produce a scientific basis produced nothing but a waste of time and money and the science shows that the effect of human emissions is trivial, is not measurable, so cannot be scientifically noticed. In the face of the science, the IPCC resorted to dishonesty and continues to assert human caused warming.

Any support for AGW can only have its basis in dishonesty, as there is no scientific justification for it. So all the supporters of the AGW fraud will back the BOM, because it promotes dishonesty. Perhaps you have as good a response s Poirot, when she was cornered on her dishonesty on this topic. She said “Tee hee”. You will not be able to match that, but just do your best.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 1:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"lets assume that IPCC are right; and that warming (however it was calculated) stopped almost 2-decades ago."

I knew it would come eventually. Right out of the climate change denial playbook.

However, average global surface temperatures have increased by 0.06 to 0.08 C per decade since 1998.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 1:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist - you love playing games don't you. Presented with any facts you resort to a comment like "I knew it would come eventually. Right out of the climate change denial playbook." Followed by garbage stats with no reference - average global surface temperatures have increased by 0.06 to 0.08 C per decade since 1998

Have you read the latest IPCC report? The facts are there if you want to open your eyes. Or maybe if you have, you agree with the parts that don't suit your Belief. Doesn't that make you a denier also?

What I wonder is when down the track the natural cyclic climate changes swing back toward declining temperatures, are all you Believers going to try to claim the credit?
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 3:13:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All you faith-healers would know that rainfall is a good index for checking positional stability of a weather station. Mainly because there is lots of rainfall data; nobody thinks to homogenise it; and it is trendless. Its not fool-proof, but it's useful. Robust, comes to mind.

You'd also know the simplest visualisation is the cumulative sum of the difference between 2 sites.

The CuSum calculated between Sydney Airport and Sans Souci PS (1930-2013) shows the girls and boys from BoM spent a few years chasing their weather station around the airport, especially from 1945 to 1950. There were many developments happening then which you can read about in the newspaper archive: TROVE.

The comparison was stable from 1950 to about 1996 (~45 years). Then airport rain crept-ahead of Sans Souci rain.

In 1994 an automatic weather station was installed at the Airport. It it became the primary instrument after 1996.

They still measure thermometer-temperature but you can't get hold of data.

After November 2002, Sans Souci monthly rain was recorded as whole mm. So its character also changed, possibly because an automatic pluvio or accumulating rain-gauge was installed. Could be faulty.

So are all the Airport data affected or is it peculiar to rainfall?

Have both sites caught a recent infection, say an homogenisation bug?

If you get stuck in traffic at the southern entry to the General Holmes Drive tunnel, traveling into Sydney; through the heat-haze just to east (best out of a bus window), perhaps 50 metres away, you can look up at the Airport met lawn.

It has not been there forever; and its not a great spot for a met-lawn. No heating there; no increased frequency of hot days; no; no.

Just a met-lawn sampling natures temperature, I don't think.

Dr. DavidK and agronomist; the point I've been making all-along, is that it is not possible or credible to spin a silky-smooth trend out of 112 sows ears; whose individual trends are either non-existent or dubious.

Even Tony153 must get that.

Done my comments for today, so feel free to chatter amongst yourselves.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 3:39:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where have you been all these years Tony?

You say, 5. Query 1: how many people involved in these modifications?
6. Query 2: why isn't there at least one of those modifiers willing to tell all, to the media?

You must have missed the climate gate scandal, where dozens of climate scientists told us what they do, how they do it, [hide the decline], & why they think they have some right to do it.

It won't matter much soon, the planet is going to call their bluff over the next few years. It is a pity honest science will take decades to regain the public's confidence, just when a serious problem develops.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 5:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Bill, again.

I understand where you are coming from but this is neither the place, nor do I have the time or space, to burst your bubble.

You can huff and puff as much as you want here (your believers just love it).

However, there are more appropriate forums to make your case and for it to be reviewed and tested.

You knew that anyway, right. So why here on an opinion site?

It doesn't matter that you're retired - be a co-author with Stockwell if you like - Jennifer too, what a bonus!

Try here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9868/homepage/ForAuthors.html

or here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-842X/homepage/ForAuthors.html

Seriously, if you (or Jennifer, or David) really think you are on to something, have a go!

If they knock it back, try a few journals on climatology, meteorology or atmospheric physics - you might get lucky.

Seriously Bill, preaching to your acolytes here is one thing, but you have to get your stuff reviewed by real peers, not OLO believers.

It's not that hard, really. Think of African Love Grass and Fireweed.
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 6:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK

Do you concede that
1. relying on logical fallacies invalidates an argument?
2. appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy?

Yes? No?

Come on, don't run away when faced with total defeat. Please answer my question: If it’s true that I can prove you categorically wrong and you either can’t or won’t answer questions that prove it, what negative consequence will you accept? Sign over your house? What consequence? Surely if the planet is going to become uninhabitable it's got to be worth something if I can show your beliefs cannot be rationally justified? It would be a relief to you wouldn't it? - that is, if your beliefs are falsifiable?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 8:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the beginning.

Jennifer, in her original posting, said:
"The Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledges that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated."

and:
"But why even bother with the homogenisation when there was no good reason in the first place to apply it to Rutherglen?"

".. now acknowledges ...." Ridiculous, wrong, and presumably deliberately so. See this paper:

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/593/Trewin.pdf

Titled: "Exposure, instrumentation, and observing practice effects on land temperature measurements"

which details why and when homogenisation is required.

And it was published in 2010.

A couple of minutes googling found this. Perhaps Jennifer is not capable of such sustained research. If serious, Jennifer could prepare a rebuttal to that paper, and submit it to reputable journal.

Rutherglen now has an Automatic Weather Station, which has probably not been there for Jennifer's period of interest. At the switch to the AWS, there would most probably have been a step change in temperature records - ample reason for homogenisation
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 9:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ gets bonus points for using the term "logical fallacy" twice in succession.

(That's quite a feat even for JKJ who likes to stick to his script - and "logical fallacy" always has a starring role)

"Appealing to absent authority" is also a hackneyed favourite of his...

Nice to see it wasn't left out of his latest spiel.

"Come on, don't run away when faced with total defeat..."

He knows nothing about climate...but likes to trot out his usual - and then to crow triumphal.

Fascinating....
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot is not a climatologist and therefore according to her own standard lacks the competence to make any comment on the entire subject.

Note her last post:
1. openly ridicules the idea that demonstrated irrationality invalidates the warmist belief system, and
2. tells us nothing about climate
3. consists of nothing but back-bites unrelated to any substantive issue.

So we are still left with Tony and DavidK not having established any problem, and just assuming that pointing to temperature data establishes their argument for them.

Poirot, Tony, DavidK,
What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 11:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, another ignorant lefty loony posts an article on the 16.9.14
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm
Posted by markjohnconley, Thursday, 18 September 2014 7:00:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yesterday must have been the Climate Religion's equivalent of Easter as Tim Flannery and the faithful re-launched the myth our eastern shores are in eminent doom.

Dr Karl is a total idiot.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Thursday, 18 September 2014 7:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr DavidK, ever since I clogged my grandmother’s washing machine with my experimental blue-O-mud washing-powder ~60 years ago; I’ve been passionate about science.

Retired for 7 years; at my cost and inconvenience, just last week I hosted a drive from Canberra to our farm on the South Coast with weed specialists from NSW DPI; looking at the weed-corridor along the relentlessly-busy Monaro and Snowy-Mountains Highways; in a effort to convince them (and the Minister) of the stupidity of the LLS/NRC takeover of weed-enforcement; and the proposed NSW Biosecurity Act. The proposed changes trace-back to WWF.

With Bega Valley Shire weed-officers, we toured our farm. I outlined pragmatic aspects of biosecurity and weed management that the Minister, pressured by WWF’s Wentworth Group, doesn’t want to know about.

I’ve also written simple fact-sheets on the South Coast’s worst weeds; serrated tussock; fireweed and African lovegrass, from producer’s perspectives, and contributed to other’s advisory notes.

It’s true. I’ve done more research, including a Masters and PhD, on lovegrass than anyone else in Australia. Also, at more cost to me than MLA, I comprehensively reviewed fireweed.

I’ve also worked on native grasses with people from Rutherglen, Bendigo, Cowra, Yass, Canberra and Mt. Barker (SA.). For around 7-years, with funding partners, I ran a true team-effort and was regularly at Rutherglen.

Behind everything, has been an abiding and forensic understanding of climate. Agronomists should have climate-knowledge that works their reasoning for them.

I’ve observed climate; analysed it; used it for risk analysis and advised on that; modelled it, and published some of my understandings in peer-reviewed Journals.

The stuff I’ve seen of climate-science is inexcusable. Especially data manipulation. Its a can of worms that needs to be opened.

You may know that I submitted a paper to AMOJ, for which the editorial board would not organise unbiased peer-review. The paper was not rejected; it was faux-reviewed. So don’t lecture-on about peer-review; it can be a crock also.

I’m proud to put my name to my achievements. It’s shameful that you and your ilk have to hide behind pseudonyms, frightened of the light.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Thursday, 18 September 2014 9:31:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bill,

Seriously, I'll be glad to have a look at paper you can get published at any of the two below.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9868/homepage/ForAuthors.html

or here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-842X/homepage/ForAuthors.html

Or, do you think they are involved in some kind of world wide conspiracy too?
Posted by DavidK, Thursday, 18 September 2014 10:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last post; I have better things to do now; and this is bordering on ridiculous.

DavidK: Which Journal does not have a submission-paywall for people who don't have research grants?

I'm over conspiracy-theory. However, it is a reasonable expectation that contrary evidence could be reviewed defensively or with bias; or even refused review. That has been my experience.

Climate science has its own special club, and the obvious pass-the-parcel echo-box game between BoM; UNSW; CSIRO, ANU, Melbourne and Monash Uni's and other faux-institutes and 'councils' speaks for itself. It may not be conspiracy; but it is undeniably very-well organised!

I've asked repeatedly that instead of throwing brickbats, you DavidK, agronomist and others, grab ACORN data for the numerous sites I mentioned and analyse it for yourselves.

Nobody did that; so we have not had a contest about data or their interpretation.

I could give you a longer list and set some homework!

I posed to you that if the base-data are faulty or questionable; conclusions based on them are spurious. You've ignored that as well.

I enjoyed being associated with Rutherglen, and there is nobody that I was associated with there, whose efforts I don't respect.
Despite people trying to turn it into a personal attack; my having been there was never the issue; the data and its published metadata was. You've all ignored that.

Agronomist has avoided Rutherglen's minimum temperature conundrum, which is a regionally important phenomenon.

Probabilistically speaking, some modelling would be needed to sort it out. However, if he/she is an agronomist, understood its significance, and did that; they may find it to be a predictive agronomic climate diagnostic. They may not as well; but it's still worth a go.

Unfortunately instead of looking at data; she/he is too busy defending a position by squabbling childishly.

Good luck!

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Thursday, 18 September 2014 12:51:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Bill, I am guessing you mean Burrumbuttock? But you are still trying to argue from authority. Frankly, I am not impressed. My own connection, for what it is worth, is a suite of relatives in the Chiltern and Rutherglen districts. But I would never argue that made me an expert on the BOM weather data.

What I am far more interested in is the strength of the evidence. I have already pointed out why rainfall is not a good proxy for average minimum temperature. It is also not going to be a good proxy for whether stations have moved. Rainfall amount can vary pretty widely over a small area and annual rainfall is so dependent on a small number of events, that what looks like significant changes can boil down to chance.

As an example, looking at Rutherglen rainfall this year http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=082039 to the end of August, rainfall total was 390.6 mm. More than 45% of this was made up from just 6 days (2% of days) that contributed 20 mm or above.

ConservativeHippie, I am guessing you haven’t properly read the IPCC report, and are relying on what you read from others. The bit I am guessing you are referring to is this bit:

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nińo, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Strangely, lots of people quote the number for 1998-2012 (and some add an extra year or two for good measure), but leave out the context.

The world is a year and a half on from 2012 and you can get the numbers I quoted re surface temperatures from the data here http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 18 September 2014 1:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Last post; I have better things to do now; and this is bordering on ridiculous.”

I agree.

“Which Journal does not have a submission-paywall for people who don't have research grants?”

Fee is $3000, a small sum to prove the “corruption” – ask Jennifer, Stockwell, the IPA, Heartland, Carter, Bolt, Jones, anyone that would support your cause.

“I'm over conspiracy-theory. However, it is a reasonable expectation that contrary evidence could be reviewed defensively or with bias; or even refused review. That has been my experience.”

Sour grapes. You know how science works - it just takes one sound and robust argument to knock a hole in the wall. It will be tested and critiqued. All else will follow (or not).

“Climate science has its own special club, and the obvious pass-the-parcel echo-box game between BoM; UNSW; CSIRO, ANU, Melbourne and Monash Uni's and other faux-institutes and 'councils' speaks for itself. It may not be conspiracy; but it is undeniably very-well organised!”

You would say that. That is why I recommend you go via another route - statistics! Hell, even David Stockwell should be able to help you - he is a member of the Statistical Society of Australia, isn't he? He could even get you past the pay-wall.

“I've asked repeatedly that instead of throwing brickbats, you DavidK, agronomist and others, grab ACORN data for the numerous sites I mentioned and analyse it for yourselves.”

I have. But you just don’t want to accept that ‘debating’ the technical nuances, on an opinion site (often frequented by fruit-cakes), word and post limited, is a foolish exercise.

“Nobody did that; so we have not had a contest about data or their interpretation.”

See above.

“I could give you a longer list and set some homework!”

Very childish, Bill.

“I posed to you that if the base-data are faulty or questionable; conclusions based on them are spurious. You've ignored that as well.”

You posed it, you certainly haven’t proved it. Write your paper Bill – Stockwell will help!
Posted by DavidK, Thursday, 18 September 2014 3:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bill,
The following abstract from the 2010 paper I referenced earlier explains the need for data adjustment. Do you find fault in that paper?

"To monitor climate change adequately and determine the extent to which anthropogenic influences are contributing to observed climate change, it is critical to have land temperature data of a high standard. In particular, it is important to have temperature data whose changes reflect changes in the climate and not changes in other circumstances under which the temperatures were taken. There are numerous factors that can affect land temperature records. Among the most common are changes in instrumentation, changes in local site condition in situ (through urbanization or for other reasons), site relocations, and changes in observing practices. All have the potential, if uncorrected, to have impacts on temperature records at individual locations similar to or greater than the observed century-scale global warming trend. A number of techniques exist to identify these influences and correct data to take them into account. These have been applied in various ways in climate change analyses and in major data sets used for the assessment of long-term climate change. These techniques are not perfect and numerous uncertainties remain, especially with respect to daily and sub-daily temperature data."
Posted by Tony153, Thursday, 18 September 2014 8:16:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony153... you've scored an own goal.

You've pointed out exactly why Dr Bill has reason to criticise the process. If you adjust the data, and let's face it anyone doing the adjusting is going to adjust their preferred direction, the data has been corrupted.

The final sentence sums it up "These techniques are not perfect and numerous uncertainties remain, especially with respect to daily and sub-daily temperature data."
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 19 September 2014 6:54:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony, you can’t be serious!

Dr Bill said: “Last post; I have better things to do now; and this is bordering on ridiculous.” I agree!

Yet you persist in asking him to comment on a paper by Blair Trewin (his arch nemesis at BoM) and in the process haul in the most stupid comment I have yet seen on this thread – from someone who obviously hasn’t the attention span to read Trewin’s paper, let alone have the capacity to understand or follow what is in it!

Look mate, I understand your good intentions, but Bill has good intentions too (although I would say you are both misaligned).

Nevertheless, OLO is NOT the place to debate the nuances of scientific argument. A forum like this attracts all sorts of fruit-cakes. They not only detract from rational dialogue, they stifle it - that's what forums like this do.

If you really think you can cross swords with Bill Johnston, why don’t you take up his challenge and do the homework he has set – investigate the ACORN-SAT and get back to him?

You won’t because you can’t, at least not here.

Let me put it this way - Bill has an ‘issue’ with not only Blair Trewin but also; BoM; UNSW; CSIRO, ANU, Melbourne and Monash Uni's and other faux-institutes and 'councils' – he neglected to mention CAWCR specifically but it probably is a moot point anyway.

It seems Bill also has ‘pricing’ issues with institutions and journals that would give him an avenue to properly argue his case e.g. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, or the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. A shame that Bill’s ‘followers’ can’t bank-roll him – perhaps a case of where are your supporters when you need them?

His arguments won’t really stack up when put under real scrutiny, that’s why. But they sure sound good to conservative hippies, lions, hasbeens and other ideological followers in denial.
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 19 September 2014 9:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ConservativeHippie

Which part of the following can’t you comprehend?

“Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. Cherry-picking weather stations where data have been corrected in a warming direction doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.

Data homogenisation is not aimed at producing a predetermined outcome, but rather is an essential process in improving weather data by spotting where temperature records need to be corrected, in either direction. If the Bureau didn’t do it, then we and our fellow climatologists wouldn’t use its data because it would be misleading. What we need are data from which spurious warming or cooling trends have been removed, so that we can see the actual trends.

Marshalling all of the data from the Bureau’s weather stations can be a complicated process, which is why it has been subjected to international peer-review. The Bureau has provided the details of how it is done, despite facing accusations that it has not been open enough.

Valid critiques of data homogenisation techniques are most welcome. But as in all areas of science, from medicine to astronomy, there is only one place that criticisms can legitimately be made. Anyone who thinks they have found fault with the Bureau’s methods should document them thoroughly and reproducibly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This allows others to test, evaluate, find errors or produce new methods.

This process has been the basis of all scientific advances in the past couple of centuries and has led to profoundly important advances in knowledge. Abandoning peer-reviewed journals in favour of newspaper articles when adjudicating on scientific methods would be profoundly misguided.”

Just asking.
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 19 September 2014 9:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bill,

"....It’s shameful that you and your ilk have to hide behind pseudonyms, frightened of the light."

I agree!

So much so that I'm going to comb my magnificent moustaches, use my little grey cells, and dash off to read something by someone who has the training and expertise to explain methods of analysis.

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/593/Trewin.pdf
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 19 September 2014 9:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or, under availability:

"Click for full-text PDF" for Online Access:

http://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/ocn793132060
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 19 September 2014 11:12:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, Tony, DavidK,
What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't, but just supposing):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 19 September 2014 7:33:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill does not have an issue with anything.

It is just a fact that $3000 for a retired someone without a research grant, to publish something that ought be in the public-domain; is a lot of money.

It is also just a fact that the peer review process for ACORN was shallow.

BoM have now scurried out to their archives, and dedicated a whole web-page saying I was right in the first place.

As my analysis has shown, Rutherglen's met-lawn DID move; ACORN was wrong; and the referees did not look thoroughly at any data; just at the process involved in polishing it. And yes I have looked at many of CAWCR glossies, and I am aware of Blair Trewin's publication record.

Its also true that as soon as someone as much coughs about BoM, out pops a professor from Melbourne Uni; then someone from UNSW; then from BoM; then more; like the deluge of dataless opinion expressed here; then .... It's so predictable.

At the bottom of the vegie patch, still sits the Rutherglen conundrum.

If you also accept BoM's recent revelations, and analyse Rutherglen's ACORN minimum temperature each side of the data-break; you will find no valid trend. It is of course INVALID to analyse for trend in data that contains an inhomogeneity.

Instead of checking my spelling, which I did get wrong, perhaps agronomist needs to go back to agronomy-kinder and learn about data analysis and climate. Some others clearly need to go out to the archives more often.

If there was no need to change the site data for Rutherglen, it should have been left alone. The same is true for a growing list of ACORN stations.

If Rutherglen caused all the fuss it did after it hit; I guess BoM and the professors may eventually need to save-up and buy a huge new fan. I saw the blade for one on a truck near Cooma today that'ed do nicely.

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Monday, 22 September 2014 5:30:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read the Bureau's statement at the following location.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

The report states that earlier during homogenization of Rutherglen data, the statistical processes detected an artificial jump in temperature records prior to 1966. Statistical processes then adjusted for that jump. The output of that process remains in the ACORN data base. The bureau's report then details the search for records showing a movement of the recording equipment. They indicate possible movement, but no definitive statement was found.

The main "take" from my reading of the report was that the Bureau's statistical processes successfully found and corrected for a station move. The data for Ruthergen still remains in the ACORN set. No fault in the data has been found. The only problem is that categoric documentation on the time and reason for the move has not been found. The absence of such documentation does not, in my mind, affect the legitimacy of the homogenised Rutherglen data.

But, I must record a potential conflict of interest. I worked at the Bureau for 12 years during the 70's and early 80's, working in IT with meteorologists and scientists. Such a great bunch of colleagues, all committed to providing a great service to the public. That climate change deniers should push and push and push to denigrate a great staff, for political reasons, is reprehensible.

PS: and I enjoyed going to a Stevenson screen and doing an occasional midnight (or there abouts) temperature reading, often in the minus 20s and 30s and howling blizzard, while working as an auroral physicist at Mawson for a year
Posted by Tony153, Monday, 22 September 2014 8:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scanning through all of this I can see a lot of back slapping and justifications.

I see that Tony, an ex-BOM employee, and others, feels that the BOM are justified in homogenising Rutherglen.

And I think its great that DavidK and Blair and others can bring themselves to almost discuss the data for Rutherglen at this thread… even if Blair can't quite bring himself to post under his real name.

But still in the end, can anyone of you in plain english sum-up in a paragraph or less why you feel a paddock move justified changing what was a cooling trend in the minimum temperature series of 0.35 degree C per century into a warming tend of 1.73 degree C per century at Rutherglen.

Because after all the handwaving and back slapping this is what has been done: a warming bias has been created in a temperature series where none previously existed.
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 22 September 2014 9:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admire all data-collectors; even myself.

This debate has has become a farce, well beyond data per se.

It never was about homogenisation; it was about changing data for a particular site.

ACORN said the site, out in the open, never moved. Read: a perfect long-term site. They are wrong.

By their own description it should have been a perfect reference site. But it's data got changed.

The change showed warming, whereas the data did not. (Which words do you not understand?)

Irrespective of measuring the weather at Wagga Wagga or Mawson; the complexity of homogenisation is a crock.

If individual datasets do, or do-not, statistically indicate the need for adjustment, they should remain unadjusted.

Alternatively, 'homogenisation' should only be applied to data known to be faulty. It seems there are no un-faulty datasets.

Agronomist should get in-touch with his/her brain and think about that!

Like the monster is to Loch Ness; existent still, is the Rutherglen conundrum!

Cheers,

Dr Bil
Posted by Dr. Bill, Monday, 22 September 2014 9:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer,

It would be helpful if you, Stockwell and Bill wrote a paper citing the "corruption" and try to get it published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, for starters.

Surely you can find the $3000 fee, even if Bill can't.

I doubt Blair has your online opinion on his radar screen, Jennifer.
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 8:52:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK,

"I doubt Blair has your online opinion on his radar screen, Jennifer."

Which is such a shame....he sounds like an experienced, knowledgeable guy who seeks to share his expertise to promote understanding.

We're sorely in need of that sort of expertise and articulation on our climate threads.

Thanks to those here who do their best to offer some real scientific explanation of climate to those of us who aren't trained in the disciplines.

(You know who you are)

: )
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 9:08:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer,
A very short paragraph will do. The jump in the temperature records, caused by a probable station move, caused a real real gradual temperature rise to appear as a fictitious temperature decrease. Scientists prefer measurements that reflect reality.

By the way, across all of the ACORN database, homogenisation actually reduced the extent of temperature rise. Why aren't you applauding that outcome? Oh, I understand. Politics prevents you
Posted by Tony153, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 9:46:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Tony153 what are the real data here. The homogenised data are modelled.

The alleged-to-be real Rutherglen annual minimum temperature data shows an abrupt shift in 1924; probably a station move to somewhere slightly cooler (-0.77 deg.C); another from 1958 to 1965; probably bad data (ACORN deleted from 1960 to 1964). The step between the 34 years, prior to 1959, and data after 1965 was 0.06 deg.C. This I believe reflected a station move also.

ACORN's step (which was actually timed for 1968 (there are time-wise CI's of course), was an upstep of 1.1degC; which was too high. It was that step that created the ACORN trend. I've used a visualisation plus 3 statistical tests to examine the data.

Whichever annual dataset you look at; naive trends each side of the 1965 break are not different to zero-trend. If the step-changes are deducted from either dataset, the resulting residuals are statistically untrending also.

I've not looked closely; but the temperature decrease may be due to higher values near the start of the record. Acorn daily data-counts show missing data from 1928-1932; 1944-1951; 1955-1959 and 1965 to 1973. These could have a bearing on variation, but less on trends.

None of this changes the issues raised by Jennifer; it simply adds a layer of explanation to the differences between the datasets, which you could have all worked-out for yourselves.

All that is left is for Agronomist to work out the Rutherglen conundrum!

Cheers,

Dr. Bill
Posted by Dr. Bill, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 1:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony, David, Poirot

What we've just established, is that even if all you allege about temperature data were conceded,
a) you wouldn't have established any problem whatsoever, and
b) even if you had, you wouldn't have established that any policy can do better rather than worse.

You're worse than clowns; you're dishonest evasive clowns.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 27 September 2014 11:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

Yup.....it stands to reason that because trilobites flourished all those millions of years ago when sea temperatures were higher - that human civilisation will just take such a rapid rise in its stride.

On a geological timescale we've managed this civilistation in a tiny niche where climate favours us.

"You're worse than clowns; you're dishonest evasive clowns."

(Much easier to stick with the general "skeptic" consensus - "It's all a scam":)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 28 September 2014 8:32:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look at Tony, David and Poirot, all desperately trying to pretend as if their belief system hasn't been totally demolished.

Why don't you all just have a bit of intellectual honesty, and either answer the questions which will prove you or me wrong; or concede the general issue and admit that what you believe is demonstrably untrue?

Do you think it's not obvious? You're not answering my questions because you know perfectly they prove you wrong.

What is irrational cannot be scientific. You're just making fools of yourself.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 28 September 2014 8:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

"Look at Tony, David and Poirot, all desperately trying to pretend as if their belief system hasn't been totally demolished."

As far as I can see, Tony and David aren't bothering with your twaddle at all...and even Poirot only dropped by to save you the ignominy of talking to yourself.

But, by all means, carry on.....
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 28 September 2014 10:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the IPCC announced some time back that they would produce science to show the “hot spot” which would be the “signature” for human caused global warming, a huge effort with an outlay of at least a billion dollarswas made to produce the promised science. The result was that it was demonstrated that the human effect is so trivial that it is not measurable, and does not have the significance necessary for scientific notice. The IPCC now baselessly asserts human caused warming.

Any-one who supportst AGW is ignorant or dishonest. There is no other basis. None of the group here, even Poirot can claim ignorance, so their dishonesty is proven. They are not fools, they are knowingly supporters of a fraud.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 28 September 2014 11:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 3 October 2014 7:36:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy