77

Nicknamenick, the world temperature is made up of thousands of Rutherglens. Shouldn't we get them right?

Got it in one Ant! Cherry picked, strictly regional data proves little other than a willingness to obfuscate?

A sun in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies (NASA) simply does not produce a warming trend, back to back warmest years on record, and the recorded changes you've alluded to!
Alan B.

>But this is a travesty:

Only if you're an idiot, you're not, so what's your ulterior motive ? to sew FUD ?

>the adjusted values may be quite different from the actual recorded values – the real observations.

Of course they're different, tress grow, buildings are erected, stations are moved as land uses changes, times of the day when the weather was read will have changed. You're inferring that if a building goes up next to the weather station, they should not correct for this ? eg they might move a station 500m, run the two of them for a few days, see the difference is on average 3C, then correct all the previous records by 3C to compensate so they can use the combined readings, otherwise they'd not have a 'continual record'. Similarly, they might have had the old postmaster take the reading at midday, now with automated reading they would need to correct back to make sense of the combined readings, so they could produce an unbroken record.. None of this is nefarious, it makes sense !

fine Valley - but none of those apply to Rutherglen which has been in an open paddock since 1913. No trees, no buildings, no moves.

Congratulations, Jennifer, on rising to the challenge and writing an intelligent article about the temperature data homogenisation.

You could well have discovered an error made by the BOM. I suggest you ask them exactly what the past references say which is inconsistent with its current location.

Regarding the bushfire day reading, could it be that the higher unadjusted temperature was a direct result of the fire itself?