Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Jennifer has shown that nothing happened with these two sites that required homogenisation, but they were homogenised. You can deny it all you like, but until you can contradict that evidence, then her analysis stands.”

Well not quite. Jennifer has put a contrary position to the BOM. I accept their's not her's.

But be that as it may, Jennifer has claimed this to be part of a national and global conspiracy to falsely 'alarm' the world over temperature rises, for which she has furnished very little in the way of evidence.

Instead of cherry picking sites Jennifer needs to show us how the homogenisation process on the Australian data has steepened the trend line toward higher temperatures.

Yet the BOM say that the homogenisation conducted by the BOM resulted in sites where the max temps were adjusted upward and others where they were adjusted downward. They say that taken as a whole the pre-adjusted figures would have shown a steeper rise in temperatures than those forwarded on to ACORN.

If there were indeed a conspiracy within the BOM to steepen the trend then this would seem a rather strange act.

If Jennifer can show this to be incorrect then I'm happy to take another look.

Dear Jennifer,

Would you be so kind as to post a link to the two data sets for Rutherglen. One being the unhomogenised data and the other being the data submitted to ACORN-SAT, there is something I would like to show you.

Why post an article attacking Cox you might ask!

Sponsorship to OLO from the right nutters party must be drying up...hence the article and why else is GrahamY (who surely should abstain from joining the discussion on his forum) wading in so volubly on posters criticizing Marohasy?

Pitching Cox against Marohasy is a "no brainer"...he is an OBE, has numerous published works (admittedly in Physics) and works on the CERN Hadron Collider project.

Marohasy is what...oh yes a shrill paid advert for the fossil fuel industry.

Peter King, you asserted;

“She [Marohasy] of course claims that there is no evidence of the sites being moved but the BOM has documentary evidence. Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.”

That’s a very misleading claim Peter. Everyone knows that early weather stations were mostly in-town, commonly at Post Offices and more recently many sites were relocated out to regional airports.

You also asserted:

“Marohasy has been going on about the temperature "anomalies" in Rutherglen and Amberley since 2014”

The very reason for her study of Rutherglen (82039) and Amberley (40004) is that they are prime examples of IDEALLY LOCATED sites that have ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD OF CHANGE. In particular Rutherglen has been located in open arable land at an official research station since before homogenisation and the start-of-true-BoM-time in 1910. It is very puzzling that you condemn her several years of research wherein she has been unable to discover any site changes.

The in full ACORN site catalogue site histories are:

Rutherglen (82039): There have been no documented site moves during the site’s history. The automatic weather station began operations on 29 January 1998.

Amberley (40004): The site has been operating since August 1941. No significant moves are evident in documentation but the data indicate a substantial change of some kind at the site in or around 1980. An automatic weather station was installed on 3 July 1997. Manual observations continued under site number 040910 until September 1998.

In the latter case for “No significant moves are evident in documentation” a plain language translation is; we have no record of any change. But, the BoM can muster “corrections” without knowing WHERE they THINK there may have been a re-location from in maybe 1980 to where it is now?

I recommend that you actually read JM’s evidence with an open mind. Tip; digitally search ‘jennifer’ and click all of the links she advised.

So Bob,
what do you make of this from the BOM on that station?

"The Bureau is part way through a task of entering historical information held on paper file into the corporate database. Until this process is completed there will remain large gaps in the information contained in these metadata documents and considerable caution should be used when deriving conclusions from the metadata. As an example, two consecutive entries about a rain gauge dated 50 years apart may appear in the equipment metadata. This may either mean that nothing happened to that instrument over the 50 years, or that information for the intervening period has yet to be entered into the database. Similarly, if no information was available about instruments at a site when it was first established, fields which were required to have a value present may have used the earliest information available as a best-guess estimate. Sometimes this was the metadata current when the database was established in 1998. In some instances there may be gaps in metadata relevant to the post 1998 period.

For the above reasons it is recommended that all metadata prior to 1998 be considered as indicative only, and used with caution, unless it has been quality controlled. The Bureau of Meteorology should be contacted if further information or confirmation of the data is required. Depending on the nature of the inquiry there may be a fee associated with this request. Contact details are provided in the telephone book for each capital city or the Bureau's web site at:
http://www.bom.gov.au
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.082039.SiteInfo.pdf

My detailed thoughts and comments about the article "Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures" by Jennifer Marohasy - posted Thursday, 18 August 2016

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

I might also waste my time commenting on her letter to Media watch (and associated legal threats about "defamation" etc) and her referenced speech/article about all this 'homogenised' data business which I read over the weekend. <shaking my head> One day she might get her stuff published, but I doubt it will make a hill of beans difference to anyone. Sure won't help the environment none.

There but for the grace of god go I.

What's the point saying anything? If people cannot work it out for themselves already, there's nothing anyone else has to say that could or will likely make a difference. Still, it matters to this starfish, does ring true. The smallest things the simplest word that little nuance can sometimes make all the difference to another person that helps them forever. And we never know. Mmmm.

Regards

Siliggy & Tony Heller video: example of incompetence, unreliability and tricks by Tony Heller Climate Science Denier Career Activist. See Heller's reference to a supposedly "Hansen quote" https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU?t=19m14s

Very cute/funny.

See the original text here: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/
The interview is of a reporter for the Washington Post, Outside magazine and GQ, Bob Reiss ... NOT Hansen ... Reiss spoke to Salon from his home in New York.

REISS says: While doing research 12 or 13 years ago [circa 1988], I met Jim Hansen [...] Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” [end quote]

Tony Heller is relying upon the rendition of Salon.com reporting to correctly get the words right of another reporter Bob Reiss proposing his 'verbal memory' [ or made up / incorrect / misunderstood ] is correct about comments purported to come from James Hansen, sometime when he doesn't really know, but at least 12 years before the interview with Salon is correct. This 28 years ago. Is this really called 'evidence' 'proof' that it's a conjob wrong bad all the way down?

Siliggy then refers to Heller's lecture as: "It is a rock solid history presentation."?

If this is what passes for credible sources and "empirical evidence" for Roberts, Marohasy, Heller and Siliggy and others, then all I can say is: God help you!

This may help some http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay versus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Anyone know the difference? http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Tony Heller's very entertaining and yet unscientific unreliable and not credible video lecture is also here with background info:
http://www.desmogblog.com/doctors-disaster-preparedness