With respect, ;-) Nudge nudge wink wink.

So you haven't bothered with the peer-reviewed circuit, and would rather spam it all over opinion pieces like this. I wonder why? Attracting the armchair climate crowd? ;-)

I've been looking for a reference back to this for a week now. Looks like it is much easier to wipe out all STDs on earth than it is to kill myths in the conspiracy theory world.

And people keep on talking and talking and talking about the absence of 'empirical evidence' and 'credible data'? Yeah right. :-)

Some readers will enjoy and understand this, some other readers will keep on ignoring it so will never read it, and the few who do will never believe it. Maybe I'm psychic! :-)

1934 and all that
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — gavin @ 10 August 2007

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that

I await the next OLO revelation...

"Malcolm Roberts Proves Climate Change is a Conspiracy using Empirical Data"

This used to be a great forum for intelligent debate on a range of topics but is now the haunt of denialists and their sycophants.

The real problem is that no matter how much information from credible sources you can produce they don't want to be convinced; whether it is religiosity, fear of the truth or just the love and titillation of intrigue offered by conspiracy theories or perhaps all of these that closes their minds to rational argument.

Replying Peter King and Max Green,

I see you have again changed the subject after your “Gotcha” claims failed. That is to say that when I provided corrective information for you, you evaded the facts and instead raised new questions or unsupportable claims.

Answers to the latest question can be found by actually reading JM’s work, for which it is evident that you have not done, (or maybe you did not understand it because it was technically too challenging for you?). For instance, see her submission here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pdf

Notice for instance that the BOM declared usage of Beechworth to homogenise Rutherglen even though they have no record of any change at Rutherglen. Furthermore, statistical control charts (not employed by BoM) show no need for “corrections”. Conflictingly, Beechworth did actually have a site change in 1977 that was not homogenised and yet that “uncorrected data” was employed to “correct” Rutherglen. A further absurdity of using Beechworth is that Rutherglen is in flat arable country near the Murray whereas Beechworth is in the foothills of the Alps with different geology, vegetation and weather systems etcetera. (Marohasy had no need to mention that).

See also important issues over Wilcannia, Oodnadatta, Bourke and Cape Otway.

You also gesticulated at me:

“Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.”

For a start it is preposterous that you can make that assertion when you have either not read OR have not understood her work.
Secondly, is ‘theory’ some colloquialization of yours? Please indicate where she has proposed a scientific theory in this matter. (Analysis of archived data is not theory)
Thirdly, I’ve downloaded masses of BoM data into MS EXCEL and used its software to sort and isolate problematic data. (Including Rutherglen, Amberley, Bourke, Cape Otway, Beechworth in her review and many more) On the other hand, judging from the unscientific quality of your opinions I doubt that you even know what EXCEL is. My life-long-matured scientific and data handling experienced totally rejects your slander “that I probably know” Marohasy’s analysis to be false.

Yup, it's all a conspiracy. Those temperature stations and the BOM are involved in a co-ordinated conspiracy that goes right back to Joseph Fourier's discovery of Greenhouse gases in the 1820's.

Said conspiracy involves the top 4 temperature databases on the planet, from multiple 'reputable' scientific organisations. Said conspiracy involves the terrible intent of weaning us off finite and polluting fossil fuels early, so that there's enough energy left to build out the post-carbon infrastructure. Said conspiracy also values human life, and aims to prevent 7 million deaths to dirty energy each year, 4 million of those to poverty related wood-fires and wood-smoke, 3 million of those to fossil fuels including coal and oil and gas particulates.

Said conspiracy happens to measure changes in the world that correspond with said physics of said CO2 particle, but that's just co-incidence. It's actually NASA out there with flamethrowers to burn back the ice sheets and glaciers... and changing the seaons... and messing up ecosystems... all at about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second retained heat. With NASA flamethrowers!

Saint Marohasy is the only objective voice, given her sponsorship. We should all trust her, and get on board with the program of remaining addicted to finite fossil fuels that leave us dangerously exposed to energy insecurity, pollution, and geopolitics. It's just the truth! And my tinfoil hat is polished to protect my brain from them thar brain waves.

Having used Lotus Notes and its predecessor, Visicalc, both in use in science circles long before MS Excel, I am unfazed by your sarcasm nor impressed by your ability to download screeds of data and sort columns.

I have read JM's submission and I well understand her submission. It is as I have said on OLO before "just noise" and is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate...not for the BOM but for the general public who can then be informed that a:) the science is not settled or b) there is disagreement in the scientific community on the veracity of climate change. etc etc etc

Take your masterclass Excel spreadsheets and publish the data for peer review and allow actual scientists to evaluate your findings. If you and she are able to demonstrate that there is no warming then good on you and/or convince your peer groups that the data has been deliberately distorted to "hide" the fact that the world is cooling we will all be most appreciative.

Until that time I repeat you know as well as Marohasy that you are just creating mischief