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

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.

"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.

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?

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

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.