Jennifer Marohasy has been very involved in looking at Australian temperature data this year. She is speaking in Sydney on Wednesday about what she’s found. She’s talking about the new temperature dataset the BOM uses called ACORN, which they built after we asked them for an independent audit of their High Quality set.
Modelling Global Temperatures – What’s Wrong. Bourke & Amberley – as Case Studies
From Jennifer’s site: “The most extreme example that Ken found of data corruption was at Amberley, near Brisbane, Queensland, where a cooling minima trend was effectively reversed, Figure 1.” Jennifer has also raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.
Venue: The Gallipoli Club, 12 Loftus Street (between Bridge Street & Alfred Street), Sydney Time: 5.30 for 6pm
Additional Information: **Bookings from 11 June only ** BAR OPENS AT 5 PM – LIGHT REFRESHMENTS
Click here for info on how to book
Might be an idea to look into this as well:
NOAA And NASA Data Alterations Are Global
240
…and the NOAA is working very hard as reported here:
Heat & Repeat: Globe breaks May temperature record
MSM business as usual, the ‘science’ uncritically and inextricably interwoven with the politics, with some memorable quotes.
Do people still seriously spout Mann?
40
You can guess the quality of the Berkley BEST record when they think that Amberly Airforce Base is on the outskirts of Brisbane and that Hamilton Island, Bourke, Longreach, etc., are in the same geographic zone. That level of stupid must hurt a lot.
260
They have absolutely no shame whatsoever.
The end justifies the means
130
And to think if it was not for the dilligent work of unpaid independant volunteers analysing the data no one would know how the much the books have been cooked.
We are forever in their debt.
Regards
Crakar24
433
That’s true but very little of this gets into the MSM. I, like most who post here, strongly suspect that the alterations are such that early warming is cooled and later cooling (or lack of warming) is warmed to exaggerate the warming trends of the late 20th century. But if Greg Hunt, who after all is Environment Minister, isn’t interested then who is? Of courser the questions are why isn’t he interested and can he be persuaded to be interested? But how? Via the PM?? Probably not via Mr Turnbull but surely there are those in the government who are not entirely convinced that dangerous global warming is happening right here right now, who might be a lot more interested than Mr Hunt appears to be and who would get the MSM interested.
140
We really need to thank people like Ken Stewart and Steven Goddard for bringing to light this travesty of science.
The whole AGW meme is just ONE GIANT FABRICATION !!!
It make a TOTAL NONSENSE of anyone using Giss or HadCrut pre-1979 to try to prove trends of any sort.
233
We need to jail those responsible for falsifying scientific data.
[Before we talk of that, we need proper independent audits. – Jo]
293
turnedoutnice
Jail yes, but it won’t happen. History is a good example. [SNIP. While what you said was true, its a bit extreme. Open to misinterpretation. -Jo]
51
Thy’d probably get NZ NIWA to do it. A bit like Hannibal Lector giving a character reference for Jack the Ripper.
00
We also really need to really thank Jennifer Marohasy for getting this farce out into the world.
Now if we can only get sensible politicians to recognise the farce. !
243
I might add that Wangaratta must be a pretty close tie for most adjustments !
103
People should also follow the link “raised her concern” to see that just like in the RSS temperature data, there has been a STRONG COOLING TREND since 2002 !.
164
Interestingly, there seem to be a couple of red thumbs who actually CONDONE this sort of data maleficence.
PS, WC…. Is that you?……. Its right up your alley. !
172
I confess to being a little lost. Data corruption? Both data sets,seem to be realistic and very similar but a sliding adjustment has been added to the original data from which the final data has been derived. The nett result is an increase, not the original decrease. That is not corruption but an adjustment made by someone for a reason. It better be a good one. Temperature is not so hard to measure. So is this use of the phrase data corruption facetious, sarcastic or accusative or all three?
30
None of the above! it is data corruption! The changing of a measurement. That original measurement, is the best and only measurement you will get at that time and place. It was the measurement of something, by some means, with no interpretation!
The series of measurements are called “data”, all else is a “calculation” intended to distort the “data”, for some reason.
At each presentatation of the “calculation”, must be the reason for the calculation, the basis of the calculation, the origional data, the calculated result, in that order. Presention the calculation only is “data coruption” or “fraud”! Both graphs were presented as “data” at different times. One is fraud!
230
Sorry, I understand data analysis, but this is temperature? There is no calculation, is there? I can understand the derivation of complex multivariate data analysed through models to derive significant data, but is surely just meteorological stations measuring temperature with thermometers or their equivalent? That has been accurate since the invention of beer.
So how can the data be ‘corrupt’? There is no noise. There is no reason to adjust temperatures, is there? Is it an average of many measurements and weightings changed for various stations, some of which go up and other go down? Corrupt is not a term you would use for this.
20
Even so, if stations are given different weightings and some are going up over time and some going down, allowing this adjustment to be made, it questions the validity of the measurements and any conclusions about temperature in the region being measurable. Of course there is the possibility of fraud, lying, deceit, make believe, but surely you could not adjust real data without a valid explanation. If this is done by someone in the public service, it is a serious fraud.
50
I guess I have never heard of data corruption before as used here. When you collect data, say electronically you can get corruption. Poor communication say. Data can be lost in storage or jumbled or the signal to noise ratio is high and you cannot extract meaningful data. If this is editing of data to get a desired result, by alteration, elimination or weighting without explanation, this is not data corruption in the scientific sense. It is, as you say, fraud.
40
OK, I understand your meaning of data corruption by loss of signal, loss of synchronization, or the whole thing caught on fire! Understandable!
Perhaps you have pristene data. After that, some may try to tamper, but do not destroy the data. Here we have deliberate modification of data, and deliberate “replacement” of data with the modification.
Your data corruption was but a technical “Aw Shit”, with no evil or political intent. In this blog the term “data corruption”, only means evil or political intent!
Here, My “aw shit”, is much better than your “aw shit”, giggle, your time to buy a round.
20
I would have understood it as being; corruption (of the person or process) causing this (desired) outcome. It’s probably not the correct phraseology for such things, but I think it captures the event, ie: corrupt data is the end product.
00
Andrew Bolt’s blog quotes an article with the right phrase, ‘data tampering’. The alleged corruption is in the people who presented the data. Corrupt data has quite a different and useful meaning.
40
Reading the Bolt blog, it is as I expected. No one actually changed measurements.
However the raw data was weighted according to the models and in some cases, this turned an obvious cooling trend into a warming one.
So while no one actually tampered with the data, no one corrupted the data, the lie is that this is raw data. What is wrong is weighting raw data with your models, building in your assumptions and adjusting the summary data accordingly so that, not surprisingly, the data reflects these assumptions. In this way the result can be quite invalid, but it is not identifiable as fraud or a lie or corruption, but done systematically has exactly the same effect, presenting models as raw data. If it can be established that this was the intention, it is the same thing. Alternatively you could say that the results are simply invalid. A bit like fake orange juice. Simply not the real thing but presented as such.
30
No TdeF.
Look at Streetcred’s link to Steve Goddard’s site with the “animated” graphs showing how the NOAA and NASA raw data for decades ago has been changed ( lowering the temps ) so the slope of the graphs go UP over the decades.
Yes, you could say it is “tampering with the data” and not “corruption of the data”
in a strict technical sense but the what is being done at an institutional level is corruption , fraud call it what you like.
110
Also understand that the so-called “adjustments” have a very high correlation with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level, almost as if that is exactly what they were designed to have.
The adjustments CAUSE the warming trend to coincide with the CO2 rise.
162
Which seems to raises a methodological issue of theory dependence of observation.
The point of taking an empirical measurement is surely to get something as free from theory as possible (and so make it a possible that observation that can disprove a theory).
If the data must be interpreted by a human observer before it can count as a valid measurement, what steps are taken to eradicate possible bias arising from theoretical presuppositions (presuppositions do not have to be conscious)?
What scientific testing has been done to confirm the /reliability/ of any adjustments to the measurements of temperature?
50
Lord Jim June 24, 2014 at 8:09 am
“The adjustments CAUSE the warming trend to coincide with the CO2 rise.”
Which seems to raises a methodological issue of theory dependence of observation
The point of taking an empirical measurement is surely to get something as free from theory as possible (and so make it a possible that observation that can disprove a theory).
If the data must be interpreted by a human observer before it can count as a valid measurement, what steps are taken to eradicate possible bias arising from theoretical presuppositions (presuppositions do not have to be conscious)?
What scientific testing has been done to confirm the /reliability/ of any adjustments to the measurements of temperature?
Wow! this is even better than my attempt to understand what is earthling un-understandable!
00
It’s an interesting point, I note that in the US temp data it makes no difference to the trend lines of you include adjusted data or not, “dodgy” stations or not. In the end the quibbling over a site here or there wont make any discernible difference. After all even Nova doesn’t argue that the planet is not warming. That would be pretty silly given the melt downs occurring in the Arctic and West Antarctic. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
419
[SNIP]
73
Better get on that wagon, Fin, it’s leaving you behind … Arctic melt this season is way behind and Antarctic ice is way above normal.
Alarmists Making It Up As They Go Along.
June 22 – The North Pole Camera Is Still Frozen Over
Alarmists’ Worst Nightmare – They Have Already Lost 15% Of The Arctic Melt Season
140
So are you saying that there is no net ice loss of the West Antarctic or Arctic/Greenland? Interesting.
If there’s no global warming then why have David Evans and Jo Nova spent months trying to figure out what’s causing the non (in your opinion) existent warming?
417
You should explain to WC what a strawman argument is. Interesting.
If you have nothing to offer except cheap propaganda could you be so kind as to comment on The Conversation. They can’t keep up either.
There was some warming due to the climate oscillating. There is a clear 60-65 period and possibly a 1000 year period. How much of the warming last century is due to man’s use of fossil fuels is being argued.
It would be good to see if the warming other the oscillation with 60-65 year period is just warming up since the LIA or is CO2 a significant contributor, but man’s contribution to the warming through adjustments is not needed.
80
Whoa! Say what?
20
Climate didn’t just “warm up” from the LIA. All temperature changes have a cause. The LIA was probably part of a long-term natural cooling cycle that would end the Holocene in a few millennia. Instead it has been reversed.
29
Previous interglacial periods were not a smooth cooling after an initial warming. You have no evidence that the warming in the last few centuries isn’t natural. I don’t have the evidence that it wasn’t CO2 except that you are asking a lot from the little bugger. Either way, unadjusted data would help to clear it up.
30
You’re not terribly smart, Finnie. Antarctic has lost some ice on the west coast, currently considered the consequence of volcanic activity … and gained plenty around the rest of the coast. Now do yourself a favour and read those links that I provided for your edification before you make a fool of yourself again.
50
Just like the tiny amount of warming during the last 1/4 of last century was part of the NATURAL long term warming cycle out of the LIA.
40
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
Zwally.H.Jay et al 2012 , Antarctic ice sheet has a net gain of 49 gt/yr . And as an added bonus the lead author is the same Jay Zwally who predicted that the Arctic would be ice free in 2013 so He’s firmly in the alarmist camp
20
You have no evidence that the warming in the last few centuries isn’t natural.
Of course there is. When the influence of all natural forces is added up, they can’t explain modern warming. When human factors are included, they can.
The evidence is, after all, why nearly all scientists now accept AGW.
01
Just like the tiny amount of warming during the last 1/4 of last century was part of the NATURAL long term warming cycle out of the LIA.
Nope. Climate isn’t a bouncing ball, and it doesn’t “come out” of any period unless there are forcings that force it. Physics.
00
McMillan et al, GRL (June 2014):
Antarctic land ice decreasing by 159 Gt/yr
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
00
Year-to-date, Arctic sea ice extent has averaged 1.6% below last year’s.
27
And so it may but Antarctic sea ice is at record levels but lets not mention that, lets also not mention if you add up the losses and gains between the two we are in from by about 600,000 Square Kilometers.
Your task if you choose to accept it is to stop with the cheap shots and explain how the omni potent force of a trace gas can increase Antarctic sea ice whilst simultaneaously decrease Arctic sea ice……….choose carefully David.
Cheers
61
The Arctic is losing ice 10 times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it.
“Stronger Winds Explain Puzzling Growth of Sea Ice in Antarctica”
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/607789/?sc=swhr&xy=5004126
The planet is now losing over a trillion tonnes of ice a year.
213
David,
I will raise your opinion based evidence by a demigod blogger with this
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Also note that ice is formed due to cold weather not warm, and another point no where in your link does it state “a trillion tonnes of ice a year” is being lost.
Once again i ask you to stop with the cheap shots and explain how CO2 is causing what we are seeing.
80
I added up the numbers here:
“Earth Losing a Trillion Tons of Ice a Year,” 5/21/14
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-fast-is-planet-losing-ice.html
211
CO2 is causing the warming we are seeing because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths that are predominant in the IR emitted from the Earth.
213
So does water vapour and your point is?
110
Appell has no credibility, Crak, just a shill for BIG CLIMATE FUNDING.
50
David, do you understand how much the ice coverage changes per year? It also changes shape and sea ice extent is an estimate of how much area is at least 15% solid ice. There are large uncertainties there. 1.6% is very small.
An example of the estimate of the ice loss from West Antarctica is 160±50 Gt/year, that’s almost 1/3 of the measurement so you need to take estimates of volume with a big pinch of salt.
40
LOL.. but we aren’t seeing any warming..
we are seeing COOLING since 2001.
40
and ?
ESA’s CryoSat satellite shows
increasing arctic ice thickness
and
global sea ice area is above average
If global ice was increasing in extent and thickness at both ends at the same time I’d call that a necessary precursor to the end of the interglacial
00
So does water vapour and your point is?
Sure. But the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere only changes when the temperature changes, while the amount of CO2 is increasing independent of any temperature changes.
That’s why scientists say, “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”
00
global sea ice area is above average
Ice is measured by its volume or mass, not its area.
01
McMillan et al find −134 ± 27 Gt/yr for West Antarctica.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
Yes, all good scientific measurements have uncertainties. And this one (20%) can be used to calculate the significance of conclusions. In this case, the loss number is easily statistically significant.
00
From that abstract that you linked to, David.
Now I know you’re just here to drivel. Not to mention why do climate scientists do things so shoddily.
−130 ± 30, 0 ± 40, and −20 ± 20 Gt yr−1,
Climate scientists have not calculated the effect of all possible forcings. Examples like 90% of the heat is absorbed by the oceans are just wild guesses. Remember that ocean temperatures have only been recorded to 0.1°C precision for a little over a decade, and averaging results (at different times in different places) of such imprecise measurements does not make them more precise.
00
My apologies,David. I’m a bit cranky this morning (Worldcupitis). I did say West Antarctica rather than Antarctica.
You’re still annoying though because there is no good estimate of the volume if sea-ice so the comment “Ice is measured by its volume or mass, not its area.” is silly. If the volume was easily measured, nobody would have brought up the sea-ice extent.
00
And you insist on trends.
00
FIN says “I note” but provides not a wisp of evidence to support her comment.
Silly
71
FIN says:
The Antarctic has nearly all its volcanoes in the West with a concentration in the WAP. Since air and sea temperatures are going down in the Antarctic any melting in the WAP can’t be due to AGW. This tends to be verified by the rate of sea level rise declining and with movements in sea level correlated with the PDO not AGW.
Apart from that the WAP has been accumulating snow since 1850 and that estimates of ice loss in the WAP may be a mistake based on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment [GIA] where the extra ice compacts the ice level and causes people to think there is less ice.
You gotta love the drive by trolls like FIN.
70
TdeF June 24, 2014 at 5:22 am
Sorry, I understand data analysis, but this is temperature? There is no calculation, is there?
That is exactly what is being exposed as corrupt!
Your government replaces the temperature “data” with the over analysed multivariate bool shit! Then presents that as measured temperature. That is fraud.
“I can understand the derivation of complex multivariate data analysed through models to derive significant data, but is surely just meteorological stations measuring temperature with thermometers or their equivalent? That has been accurate since the invention of beer.”
The data are as measured, the derived significant “calculation”, while may be the bestus “calculation”, is now presented as measured data! This is the deliberate governmental fraud!
“So how can the data be ‘corrupt’? There is no noise. There is no reason to adjust temperatures, is there?” “Is it an average of many measurements and weightings changed for various stations, some of which go up and other go down?”
No! It is a calculation based on many data, with undisclosed coefficients, and many undisclosed political biases. This is then presented as measured “data” rather than the contrived “opinion” of some political party! There is no way to examine if even this nonsense has been calculated corectly! FRAUD.
Corrupt is exactly the term you must use for this.
70
Temperature stations break and must be replaced by newer models. They sometimes need to be moved. There may be gaps in the record. The local environment near them can change. They may have been checked at dawn 50 years ago but are now checked electronically every 2 hours.
Etc etc.
All these reasons, and more, require that adjustments be made so like is compared to like. That’s the purpose of the data models — otherwise you don’t get a reliable temperature.
“With models, there are no data.”
– Paul N Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
311
Thats my point David, with all these adjustments to thermometers that can read to one decimal place we still somehow produce a result to three decimal places and declare the hottest year since whenever. On the other hand we could just use the sat data and the sat data shows us there has been virtually no temp rise in over 17 years.
100
No, only ONE satellite measure shows no warming (RSS) for 17 years. The other (UAH) shows 0.13 C of warming.
Have you noticed that in the 1980s and 1990s the trends were ABOVE projections? Should we call that the “anti-pause?” Or do you only pay attention to hiatuses, and not decades with rapid warming?
02
Models developed with hindsight, not projections.
00
Yes Will you have summed up the situation very well – it is indeed Government [ALP/Greens] fraud – BOM were simply in sink with the now defunct Climate Commission headed by Flim Flam. The good news is that the CT will be gone soon together with more govt funded “greenie” CAGW propaganda units. Has the Abbott Govt got the balls to take BOM to task over blatant data manipulation (“warming”) of vintage Australian temperature data?
80
By “warming” of vintage Australian temperature data I mean they have in fact “cooled” the vintage Australian temperature data so that more recent Australian temperature data looks like it has “warmed” significantly because of – you guessed it – carbon emissions. Such a blatant exercise by BOM – as if no one would notice – you didn’t fool Jennifer Marohasy and most of us CAGW skeptics.
90
Point I’ve made time and time and time again.
The reading is the reading. If it’s patently wrong then it needs to be corrected (if possible) or ignored. “Adjusting” temperatures that were recorded five days or five months or five decades ago is fraud!
Anomalies are slightly different. I see the point (though I don’t like it) that where stations open or close or move their readings will change and anomlaies are an attempt to compare like with like. But since they are not actual measured figures the opportunity for some “creative accounting” is even greater and less likely to be spotted than with true figures.
00
Anomalies aren’t used to correct temperature readings — they just remove the annual signal.
So how would YOU handle station moves, broken instruments, gaps in the data because the old codger who was reading the thermometers died and it took 3 years to get funding for a new person?
How would you account for the fact that some areas have several stations, while some areas have only one? Or none?
“Without models there are no data.”
– Paul N Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
00
Anomalies are used so that the change in position of stations (or number of stations) does not produce a trend because the average is different.
Read what has been said here, David. A one off change in position does not change the rate at which temperature changes at the site. The adjustments change the trend before and after any identified discontinuity. They are wrong. If they just created a different set of anomalies from a different average before and after, the adjustments would not be so big.
10
How would YOU handle data missing simply because it clearly shows that current warming is nothing unusual and that we have had heatwaves in the past far exceeding anything we see today?
10
If you look at the Amberley data, the trend before 1980 looks slightly positive, maybe, but definitely flat afterwards (don’t let Philip do the calculations of the slope). Offsetting the data might be justified but adjusting the trend?
If the rate of warming was calculated for each site and averaged, then sudden changes would be a spike that could be ignored in a plot of dT/dt. Large changes could be removed when looking at the cumulative change. That would be the equivalent of offsetting the data.
50
Looks like inverse UHI effect.
00
“She’s talking about the new temperature dataset the BOM uses called ACORN, which they built after we asked them for an independent audit of their High Quality set.”
They also developed ACORN after a new moon. That cinches it.
Another cherry pick stunt by Marohasy. Yes indeed “We absolutely cannot have… a rational conversation!”
329
Ah,
The old, “Quote, Non Sequitur, Puerile Remark, and False Conclusion” pattern of adolescent debate.
Don’t worry, and keep practicing, you will get better. I suggest you Google for “Fallacious Arguments”, and “How to Guarantee You Loose any Debate”.
Oh, and also Google, “Irony”, and “Sarcasm”. They are good things to know about.
212
“Yes indeed “We absolutely cannot have… a rational conversation!”
Yet here you are, putting your point across.
Typical of a doomsday climate cretin. Nothing but empty, snarky words.
150
What exactly is cherry picked?
60
That young female wonderful critter!
20
Yes Gross, it is relevant as they pointed out the flaws with the High Quality set. Even a dull teenager would pick up on that so you failed.
I also suspect that teenagers have realised what cherry picking is. Just in case, it is selecting only data that supports your hypothesis and ignoring the rest. Pointing out flaws is not cherry picking.
A rational conversationalist would not resort to stunts like that.
100
Looks like the paid help perimeter guards, recyclers and corporate immune response are on duty.
212
PAID! paid you say! well as cruel irony would have it I sit here with time to respond all day UNPAID due to imbeciles such as yourself propagating a cultish belief in demonizing the 6th element by any means available including other cult members inflicting a tax on this element, this of course has a flow on effect to many industries that rely on the production of this element to operate (steel production/construction) and financially make it unviable to operate in Australia.
I know what my duty to my country is and pandering to some bureaucratic, 6th element hating euro trash isn’t it, not by a long shot sunshine so my advice to you would be to choose carefully of what side your on and how you want to address people you know nothing about, the internet is one thing but reality is far more cruel and exciting, stick your stupid head out the window and LOOK.
120
Are you up set that your witty comment just came across as drivel? Enlighten me. What the hell is that? I’m my boss but not corporate immune (a few people between me and profit).
70
Gross a cherry pick from two sets of data?
When you have only two complete methods of collecting data that then are compiled into two separate graphs there is no cherry to pick, only a comparison to determine which method is correct and in this brave new age of politicized science the consensus followers will choose ACORN and the morally strong will choose the truth.
100
Gee a whole 2 eh? “When you have only two complete methods of collecting data that then are compiled into two separate graphs” uh no – indicating you are not even remotely on the page. Report back after doing a bare minimum of due diligence. Morals may follow.
011
Why do you seem so interested in my due diligence Selina?
60
I might add that Amberley is at an airforce base, on the outskirts of Ipswich, a reasonably large urban area, given it’s location, UHI and changes in aviation technology from 1950 to now has almost certainly affected it, so the adjustments should if anything be downward as Ipswich urban sprawl gradually encroaches on the base, and more and more powerful jet engines spew their waste heat over the airfield.
110
The UHI effect should have been there, it wasn’t so the data was corrected to show it. What’s the problem?
51
The only reason UHI is an issue is because they have to smear this data point over 1200km in each direction.
If they accepted each station as point data they’d not have half the issues they are having trying to average large areas, as though average temperatures have meaning anyway.
What I’m saying is; if a station is affected by UHI, then that is what the temperature is at that place and time. It’s a true measurement of temperature. Its only when you want to represent that place and time as though it was still in the same condition as when the initial station was installed, that you create disagreement about the adjustments.
10
I was just listening to Q&A and climate change claim up in the discussion. The whole panel seemed to think that carbon abatement was the answer. It just shows the depth of indoctrination of our society by the “warmistas”. There wasn’t a scientist among them and they were talking about the legacy for their grandchildren if they didn’t take some action. It is just not possible to debate the data and facts because of their beliefs, and that is the problem. No relationship between global temperatures and levels of CO2, no recognition of past cold and warm periods, little criticism of fallacious hockey sticks, invalid models, erroneous statistical procedures, smudging data and so on.
210
turnedoutnice -“We need to jail those responsible for falsifying scientific data.”
The NZ Climate Science Education Trust gallantly challenged committed alarmist department NIWA for obvious data rigging and got rolled in the High Court by a judge with emissions trading scheme investments. It was a message, and the message was – don’t even try cos we’ve got the courts sewn up.
150
I suggest that the real message from that particular episode, is to do due diligence on everybody involved.
If you know now, that the Judge had pecuniary interests, then that fact would have been discoverable, prior to the case being heard. Things would have evolved entirely differently, had that information had been raised in court, or in any pre-hearing.
Of course, the final outcome might have been the same, but we shall never know.
120
True , but an honest judge will disclose his interest to all parties , and ask if they have objection to him continuing to preside.
100
I suppose there are some.
30
Yes Kim Dotcom has recently encountered one of our best. He’s not liking it much. They don’t come much straighter than Nevin Dawson ; believe me!
20
Good call J Cuttance. You clearly have a good understanding of the inner workings of the Dept. of Justice . A misnomer if ever there was one. 🙂
80
Perhaps enticing such, to voluntarily leap into the volcano, with all possible offsprouts would be better, than facing billions with sharpend pitchforks. May work!
20
Thanks for posting this Jo.
Ken Stewart, Dr Dennis Jensen MP and Prof John Abbot are also authors of the paper I will be presenting Wednesday evening. I will provide you with a copy (text and charts) once finalised.
Dr Jensen visited Bureau headquarters in Melbourne in April to clarify many of our questions about the homogenisation process, and specifically why the steps-up and steps-down as they have been applied to the temperature record for Bourke… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/04/rewriting-the-history-of-bourke-part-2-adjusting-maximum-temperatures-both-down-and-up-and-then-changing-them-altogether/
This and more will be discussed Wednesday evening.
PS I’ve been so busy with this and other things I still haven’t replied to Lubos regarding the comment he posted following my query at his blog concerning his summary of the short coming in your and David’s solar model… while I don’t have the expertise to make informed comment regarding his criticism of your model, what he wrote about neural networks (my rainfall model) and over-fitting in the same comment suggested a real ignorant of the detail. I will get back to this, and try and catchup with your most recent posts. I agree there are some pretty beautiful figures there. 🙂
230
Will someone be making a recording of the talk please? I would love to hear it but wont be making it to Sydney.
50
Jennifer, I thought that this might be of interest. Its an article in The Queenslander from trove, on page 887, 12 May 1894
Looks like Bourke had a Stevenson Screen since 1894 at least, with a trained operator.
60
One more doctored temperature record — I’m tempted to ask “What’s new?”
The fraud continues. Stay tuned to this station for more of the adventures of Dishonest Man, the nemesis of the truthful everywhere as he fearlessly fights the battle to save the Earth from… …from… …from exactly what? Well there must be something this guy in tights, a cape and the letters DM on his chest is fighting because I see him all over the place.
140
The BEST group was formed specifically to make their own data model with the temperature data. They got the same answer as everyone else.
010
It’s not hard to do if that’s your goal.
you may not remember, but their data results were hotly contested, and in the end largely ignored by everybody.
00
Some simple principles that have been left unstated for far too long.
1. A map is not the territory.
2. A name is not the object.
3. An equation is not the behavior.
4. A model is not the thing.
5. Only the thing is itself and behaves as it is.
This makes ALL models, at best, approximations of the thing modeled. They may be useful or not but they do not and cannot produce data about anything but themselves.
250
00
?
20
Lionell Griffith June 24, 2014 at 3:48 am
“Some simple principles that have been left unstated for far too long.”
Lionell is correct, the “is” is quite unforgiving!
30
I remember a particular court case arguing the meaning of “is”, (hint – Bill Clinton).
00
I’ve had quite enough of the meaning of “is”. I keep hoping they will soon be showing us the meaning of “was”.
I’ve become resigned to the fact that there are completely shameless people in this world. But regardless of anything, I don’t like it.
00
Who at BOM has been responsible for modifications to data? Surely with the what’s at stake ($billions spent on AGW etc) that a royal commission is necessary. I assume Dr. Jensen is across warmista Greg Hunt? If not he should be.
60
No and if he was it wouldn’t make any difference on how things will play out. Optics is important at this stage. Abbott indicated of late, in the USA that he believed man made a difference to the climate so he must be a warmist too?
This thing won’t be won by appeasing the hard core warmists or sceptics, it will be via the middle and extend outwards, both ways and action will be incrementally wound back.
50
I don’t believe Abbott is a warmista but he does make such statements for political reasons which probably means he thinks he needs to be a warmista.
70
But Greg Hunt does not get the same consideration? If Abbott is a sceptic then why did he give Hunt (alleged warmist) the environment portfolio???
These questions are answers within themselves.
20
because the emails he sends me in reply to my enquiries regarding renewable energy targets and renewable energy (sic) options like wind and solar tell me so that’s why …
20
Sounds like all you got was formed responses due to the amount of traffic Greg receives, especially from hard core sceptics or people masquerading as such to trip him up.
My input in all this is policy and strategy, I’m not scientifically trained and actually see it as minutiae at this late juncture.
The science will prevail when the political landscape is altered to allow such. A scaper attempting to create that environment.
30
no I didn’t get a standard response. In fact I initially started with an email regarding the first installment $500m Combet committed to pay the UN climate fund prior to the LNP winning the election.
00
Harry shows that the “adjustments” in the US are almost exactly correlated with CO2 level rise.
And of course the other adjustments worldwide have followed the same pattern
The warming trend was created to match the rise in CO2.
102
Harry has also shown that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
82
Harry’s calculation is junk, because he set all planetary albedoes to zero. A very basic and fundamental error.
012
So many times you make similar bold statements without any support.
10
You obviously have not understood a single thing he has said.
10
Hence Man Made Global Warming but not the way the warmists want you to believe.
130
As a Kiwi, all of this is dreadfully familiar and the point that REALLY annoys me is that our boffins at NIWA (NZ’s equivalent to BOM) asked the Oh-so-accurate-and-pure-BOM to back up their bent methadology for bodging and altering our national temp records. BOM became cautious and refused! So us Kiwis now have NO official temp series!!!
140
Temperatures are not the only area where the BOM has tampered with data. In 2013 record levels of solar radiation were recorded across the nation. The solar radiation chart produced by the BOM understated the radiation by approximately 2Mj/M^2 across the nation. When this anomaly was pointed out to the BOM, they corrected the discrepancy by systematically falsifying the records to bring them into alignment with the chart. Not satisfied with just falsifying 2013, I have evidence that in the case of one capital city, the fraud goes back to 1 Jul 2011.
61
Two million joules/square metre. Is that per year?
20
2 mega joules input per day!, not year. 2.365 mega joules per day outward to space. Why is it cold? Those that think they know, have been scaming you every day of your life
40
Note that a similar (same old) story – The scandal of fiddled global warming data – By Christopher Booker is closing in on 10,000 comments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
The Telegraph has had a purge of sceptics so such popular feedback will be sticking in someone’s craw.
70
J Cuttance: When I click on the article and then click on the comments, I just bounce to the bottom of the page. How does one make the comments appear?
Thanks
30
Not sure PeterK. They’re Discuss comments, if that helps.
20
Love the comment from Blue Screen of Death.
From a 1971 paper from S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider (a warmy)
Seriously, °K from a climate scientist?
30
Seriously, °K from a climate scientist?
giggle, Indeed what is a climate scientist?
“be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
Please demonstrate how any “climate scientist” can distinguish a trigger from a turtle?
50
You need one less parameter to model a trigger?
00
The wicked waste of resources on a left side of politics agenda based on blatant lies makes me feel sick.
41
Their lies even extend to claiming world heritage status for forests in Tasmania, declared national parks not long before Union Labor Green were voted from office. The forests were state government forests set aside for logging a long time ago and had been worked selectively by the timber industry ever since. The state Coalition government attempted to return the forests to their original designation but the extreme Greens successfully applied to UNESCO to reject the application based on Tasmanian Green counter claims. Tasmania’s economy has been a basket case for a long time because of Green influence and opposition to just about everything that provides jobs.
I trust that the Australian Government reminds the UN that Australia is a sovereign nation and foreigners have no say here unless the Australian Government agrees to cooperate.
70
A cursory examination of nearby Gatton and Cape Moreton stations would indicate different trends to Amberley. Page 4 of the ACORN catalogue shows the Amberley instrument enclosure – the unique ground surface treatment makes one wonder about this station. What’s wrong with black?
Bourke shows how growing trees affect temperature records. Don’t think they were cherry trees though. As usual this place drones on with much opinion, friendly uncle advice and zero facts. The Australian skeptic movement at full throttle heaven help us.
112
apparently USHCN has resolved the issue of being caught out by deleting the data ….
60
Willis Eschenbach wrote a post this back in 2009, Titled “A Smoking Gun at Darwin Airport”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
His comment;” When these guys adjust, they don’t muck around”. The adjustment seemed to be about 2C over the century.
I haven’t noticed if Ken Stewart has analysed Darwin yet or not.
41
Peter – 2Mj/M^2/day
20
I take it that BOM does not provide a blow by blow account of how the raw data is adjusted?
If so: Not disclosing method = not repeatable = not science and should not be used for a scientific purpose.
70
Note the amount of comments @jonova for the last few posts.
Just took a quick squiz @sks.
0 comments. 1 comment. 17 comments. 0 comments. 32 comments
Gross might wanna have it’s ‘rational debate’ in that echo chamber, where 97% consensus rules.
60
You are so nasty to the opposition! Jo would rather, suck them in, then stomp on with no survivors!
50
Even the ad hominem attacks are getting lame. From Andrew Bolts article on this.
60
How is any of that considered an ad hom ???
Sounds like a description of a very worthwhile individual to me. 🙂
110
I think the first statement is the ad hom, whereas the second is the reply.
00
how anyone would even understand these articles is beyond me, but give them a go:
10 hrs ago –
24 June: News Ltd: Australians will keep paying for a carbon tax from July 1 as its cost also rises
Under laws brought in by the former federal Labor government, the so-called “price on pollution” will rise by five per cent from next week to raise an estimated $11.8 million a day from electricity generation alone.
There is now no chance the Coalition’s legislation to axe the tax will pass Parliament prior to its preferred end date of July 1 because until then Labor and the Greens have blocking numbers in the Senate.
While some major electricity retailers have vowed to refund carbon tax collected from the start of the new financial year, not all have or will.
Origin Energy, which has 4.3 million customers Australia-wide, would not commit yesterday. It may ultimately decide to do so, but smaller retailers — which combined hold 20 per cent of the market — may not…
The risk that households will be left out of pocket appears to be being increased by Clive Palmer…
Minister Greg Hunt told Sky News yesterday that savings would have to be passed on. But legal experts said the repeal bill does not require returning to consumers tax paid from July 1.
“There is nothing that says (retailers) have to refund that,” Allens partner Grant Anderson said.
If the carbon tax is not repealed by July 18, refunding carbon tax is expected to become much more complicated.
The carbon price — currently $24.15 a tonne and rising 5 per cent to $25.40/t from next week — is added to wholesale electricity derivatives contracts through a “carbon benchmark addendum”….
Last night, Origin — which had earlier repeatedly refused to commit to refunding — told News Corp Australia it would do so and that this had been its position all along.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australians-will-keep-paying-for-a-carbon-tax-from-july-1-as-its-cost-also-rises/story-fn84fgcm-1226964091370
7 hours ago –
24 June: Australian: Damon Kitney: AGL ready to cut carbon impost from customer bills
AGL Energy has confirmed it will cut the carbon tax from the bills of residential and small business customers from July 1, but uncertainty remains for business as it grapples with the practicalities of removing the impost from complex supply chains and the possibility of a delay in parliament repealing the tax.
AGL said yesterday it would ensure the appropriate backdating of reductions to customer accounts from July 1, but business is stepping up the pressure for the tax to be repealed swiftly to reduce uncertainty for businesses across the economy…
“The unwinding of systems and data processes will be costly,’’ said Chi Mun Woo, partner, climate change and sustainability services at KPMG.
“There will be savings in the future but there will be costs to bear now.’’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/agl-ready-to-cut-carbon-impost-from-customer-bills/story-e6frg8zx-1226964261400
30
Isn’t it funny how the temperature data seems perfectly good enough to indicate a “hiatus,” then magically becomes not good when it shows warming.
Not a lot of consistency there.
012
David,
Once again you are being very loose with the truth, the only data set worth the paper it is written on is the sat data which shows a hiatus. All data sets show a hiatus however all the ground based data sets are not adequate to measure the “global” temp, the stations are too sparse, their locations have changed or simply the environment in which they are located have changed over the years. This leads to many adjustments of which most are not disclosed therefore the sat data is a much better metric for the measurement of “global” temps.
100
Only one satellite dataset (RSS) shows a pause. The other (UAH) does not.
And converting microwaves into temperature requires a lot of modeling. Here’s a description of what RSS does:
http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf
As you can see, it gets pretty involved.
01
the sat data is a much better metric for the measurement of “global” temps.
The satellite measurements are of the atmosphere, not the surface. And UAH’s, in particular, has required a lot of adjustments and corrections over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
01
Appell says at one post:
Soon after he says:.
Hmmm David Appell, You should be more skeptical.
20
You are wasting your time Mark. Appell is an aphorist. Consistency and logic are not their strong suits.
20
You should be more skeptical.
I am — of both RSS and UAH, and have said so many times. Until they get their discrepancy sorted out, it’s not clear which, if either, has accurate numbers.
11
I see, you don’t think either one is adjusted warm enough.
20
DA,
Over the last decade I must have analysed several hundred Australian sites for their temperature/time series, usually starting with the rawest data I can find, also starting with daily Tmax and Tmin as reported on BoM products sold to the public.
Your comment on consistency over time fails to recognise that methods have changed. The record goes back to the 1870s in some cases, when the device named the Stevenson screen was not invented. It is an engineered enclosure designed to assist standardisation of T readings from site to site.
When the Stevenson screen was adopted, generally before 1910, there was a measured need to ‘adjust’ temperatures that became apparent when pre-Stevenson was paired with post- over an overlap period. One of the present difficulties for analysts is that the literature contains very few actual data sets of such overlaps. There is an occasional paper for a few sites by BoM staff but nothing comprehensive. So we have a number of sites where pre-Stevenson screens were changed to Stevensons. We do not have a way to adjust, site by site, because the data are not public.
Note that this all happened before the hiatus, which thereby becomes irrelevant in this note.
So, how do you handle the adjustment?
In the fields where I have worked, you institute version numbers. Often it is appropriate to assign version one to the raw data, as written down with pen and paper way back in those days. Version 2 for the purposes of this note might attempt a reconciliation of old screen with new screen. Of course, the documentation of the adjustment requires description in adequate detail for other people to reproduce the answer anew. (It seldom is, in climate change reality). However, we face a problem. If version 2 is to be used for data input into new work, it has to be established that the steps taken to arrive at version 2 are compatible with the uses intended for version 2. It is not a case of both versions being correct, because they will be different. Can’t be both.
The problems compound as the scope for adjustments becomes wider. We get adjustments for the time of day that the thermometer was read. We should have adjustments when thermometers were rep[laced by electronic thermocouple style devices, also those no longer using Stevenson screens. We have adjustments for rounding errors when the change was made from F to C scales. We have adjustments for UHI, we have adjustments to make comparisons with other nearby sites more compatible, we have adjustments for weighting the area deemed to be representative of the coverage of the site. It goes on and on and somewhere in the mix, there is a disconnect from reality. That shows when people cease to believe that a valid reading was made at the time of observation. The disconnect happens when researchers don’t even consider that an original measurement was correct and that only adjusted temperatures can be accepted. That is an insult to those many careful people who made the original measurement to their best ability and with honourable conduct.
Most measurements used today for policy setting regarding global warming hypotheses are adjusted away from the original measurement.
The real harm is done when adjustments are changed from site-specific to generalised, with some stupid USA systems getting adjusted monthly, automatically, right back to their start dates, as the readings for the latest month come rolling into those super computers.
In short, you can make a clever quip about the hiatus and go off on a giggle, but we don’t need the giggle.
We simply need to accept that there is a great deal wrong with the present record and go about repairing the damage using the best science we can muster. We are not using best science now.
That is the core of the problem.
90
Either you think the data are good, or they are not.
If you think not, you can’t use the data to prove a “pause” in warming.
You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.
01
David Appell, all scientists have to work with the data available. Based on a host of reasons data can be interpreted both ways. As it stands, within error margins the same data could demonstrate warming or lack of warming or cooling.
The big problem for you is that you’ve decided to ignore the true science in favor of a predetermined political argument.
Wake up.
10
Some actual science:
“Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons”
MATTHEW J. MENNE AND CLAUDE N. WILLIAMS JR.
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 22 (2008)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1
Abstract:
An automated homogenization algorithm based on the pairwise comparison of monthly temperature series is described. The algorithm works by forming pairwise difference series between serial monthly temperature values from a network of observing stations. Each difference series is then evaluated for undocumented shifts, and the station series responsible for such breaks is identified automatically. The algorithm also makes use of station history information, when available, to improve the identification of artificial shifts in temperature data. In addition, an evaluation is carried out to distinguish trend inhomogeneities from abrupt shifts. When the magnitude of an apparent shift attributed to a particular station can be reliably estimated, an adjustment is made for the target series. The pairwise algorithm is shown to be robust and efficient at detecting undocumented step changes under a variety of simulated scenarios with step- and trend-type inhomogeneities. Moreover, the approach is shown to yield a lower false-alarm rate for undocumented changepoint detection relative to the more common use of a reference series. Results from the algorithm are used to assess evidence for trend inhomogeneities in U.S. monthly temperature data.
114
David,
“Some actual science:”
I am SO sick of people like you (and all your mates such as Flannery, Mann, Karoly etc) who want to stop climate change and believe in MMGW.
What UTTER C..P!!
Answer a question for me David (if you’re able – my bet is you’re not).
You want to stop climate change?
Tell me, and others here – what do you want to stop it at?
Winter in the southern hemisphere OR spring OR summer in the northern hemisphere OR whatever?
What choice would you make on behalf of all of us here (and the rest of humanity)?
You, and ALL the other BS artists, are nothing but FRAUDS – you can C..P on about all the science/maths/trends/charts/graphs and whatever you like from here to eternity BUT climate will ALWAYS change and always HAS – SO GET OVER YOURSELF/YOURSELVES and go somewhere else where they DON’T practice science (try SKS) – cause sure as night turns to day and spring turns to summer man will NEVER STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.
Absolute DIMWITS!!!!
Cheers,
111
Pop’, I think Appell has been allocated this blog by the Team to make ‘rapid responses’. Unfortunately we already know him as a blowhard wannabee. BEST to ignore him.
61
I don’t think the rapid response team has much to choose from.
The barrel obviously has a whopping big hole in the bottom. !
41
… and his cat.
21
I’m not a member of any “team.” Not a member of any “conspiracy.” Sorry, but you’ll have to address the science directly, instead of crying “conspiracy!” whenever you can’t.
03
You would first have to provide some valid science to be addressed wouldn’t you?
10
See my comment of June 24, 2014 at 3:53 pm.
02
Been wondering about that. Now admittedly I’ve been busy, work, a new dog, vehicle repairs, etc. and haven’t been lurking as much but…
What happened? Is there some junket coming up they’re afraid will get cancelled or are things just going so badly for them that they’re afraid we’ll forget about them?
Things had been rather quiet and now it seems like they’re all out seeking attention again.
10
holy s##t, hallelujah and amen.
11
My comment was about how temperature datasets are checked for internal consistency.
01
You know Dave, this is really complicated stuff, there should be a way to simplify things like this – they should invent something can be combined with the raw, unadulterated temperature data and used as a graphic representation for us plain, simple folk to actually see what the real temperatures have been doing for the last hundred years – they could call it graph paper.
30
Oops, someone did that and it produced a cooling trend.
Yes, let’s just stick with the complicated stuff that can be adjusted to tell them what we want them to hear.
40
Either you believe the data are good, or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.
If there is a grand conspiracy on temperatures, why did they “let” it “show” flat or cooling temperatures over the last “17” years??
02
And if there’s a “grand conspiracy,” are John Christy and Roy Spencer part of it too?
Their data for the lower troposphere show warming in the last “17” years shows the same trend as GISS does for the surface: 0.07 C/decade.
02
So what’s you suggestion for this invention?
Determining a reliable temperature time series is complicated. Anyone who sat down to do it would quickly recognize that there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with, because the life of temperature stations is comnplicated. And then they would make a model, just like GISS’s and NOAA’s and Hadley’s and BEST.
02
Oh really? I’ve been running a weather station for 10+ years now, and it’s not that complicated. Siting and shielding are the only “complicated” aspects of dealing with a temperature sensor.
20
I’m glad you agree that siting is an issue for temperature stations. Now imagine if you had a few thousand of them, in a growing world that wants your existing station plot for a new road or shopping mall.
What if your station breaks? How would you compare the new readings to the old readings?
01
Quit trying to bs your way through this. Now, that we’ve come to terms with the fact that siting is an issue, what do you do when your station reads hot compared to the stations in the rural areas surrounding it? Adjust it down or adjust them up?
Going to love to hear the answer to that, since it is after all part of the issue that falls under what we call “data fiddling” because the logical answer doesn’t seem to be the one being followed.
Now new readings to old readings? Well, if you knew what you were doing, which I suspect you don’t, your station would have been calibrated so your new readings with a new, calibrated rig shouldn’t need any fiddling with should they? If you lose some data in the interim tough, it happens, stations go down, servers crash.
Have to move? Well damn, I have a half dozen stations withing a 5 mile radius of me and if I expand that to a radius of 10 miles quite a few more. I’ve seen temperature readings vary by +/-5 to 10 degrees F between two stations within that 5 mile radius simply due to cloud cover and wind differences between the two spots.
Your trying to tell me I assume that if I need to move my station I should fiddle with the data so it represents what I think it would be reading if it was at the old location? Get real.
10
How do you calibrate a new station to an old station when the old station has broken?
02
Your trying to tell me I assume that if I need to move my station I should fiddle with the data so it represents what I think it would be reading if it was at the old location?
If you want to compare the pre-move and post-move stations, then yes, you must have some algorithm that does that.
So what is your algorithm?
If you want a continuous time series but some stations have gaps in them, you need an algorithm to do that.
So what is your algorithm?
There has been a ton of papers written about correcting for a UHI, mostly written back in the 1980s and 1990s. Go read them.
01
There has also been a ton written about just how dodgy this fiddled data is. Your point being?
20
Are you serious? You obviously don’t understand calibration do you? I don’t calibrate to the old station, the old station is calibrated to a standard, so is the new station, there should be no difference between the two unless you don’t know what the hell you’re doing.
20
Written where? (In the scientific literature — blogs don’t count as science.)
04
BTW David, no I don’t need an algorithm to compare the pre-move to post-move. All I need is the records over a time period from the old location to compare to the records from the new location over a similar time period. The new location may be hotter it may be cooler, as long as my sensor is calibrated it is what it is, I don’t adjust it to be closer to the old location.
It isn’t at the old location anymore so those adjustments would invalidate my data set.
10
Robert: If you aim is to create an accurate and precise temperature time series for a region or for the globe or even your neighborhood, then, yes, you need to account for the move and the resulting discontinuity in measured tempertures. And for the possibility that the new station has an offset from the old one.
So how would you do that?
01
Keyword there David, accurate. If I’ve moved the station I don’t need to account for the move and the change other than to make it know the station was moved. Because as long as the sensor is properly calibrated then it is accurate for the location it is now at no matter what calculations you perform to try and fiddle with the data to make it match the old location you are only guessing. There is no accuracy. You want accurate, you use the readings as they come off the sensor.
Now as to this:
I hope you realize this means that whenever you start going on about you’ve done the calculations, or by your experiments we can completely ignore you since it’s not in the scientific literature whatever you were doing doesn’t count as science.
Now for the rest of us who actually understand how science is done (keyword there) it doesn’t matter where it was done, or where it was reported. What matters is how it was done and how it was reported.
You want to try and make the rules as to what counts and what doesn’t don’t blame us because you shot yourself in the foot with that one.
I don’t like data fiddlers, I make my living off of being able to report accurate data in the testing I do, and if the data isn’t what we’re looking for indicating a potential issue with our software or hardware we run a test again. If it’s still not right we find out why, we don’t adjust it.
30
That’s like saying that much of what Albert Einstein (and many others) came up with, which was not in the scientific literature, was not science.
40
Backslider he has a very very small point. However, that point has nothing to do with scientific merit. The “literature” isn’t the science. Blogs have every opportunity to be scientific. Blogs are simply an alternative media.
We all know that Appell is just bending argument from authority to his personal use.
30
Sometimes there can be two stations operating in the same area which overlap. For instance, Casino manual w/s overlaps the Casino AWS from 1995-2011.
They are only 300m apart, same elevation and both situated at the airport.
The manual was near a tarred road with nearby buildings – the AWS is on a grassed oval.
The difference over those years amount to the manual having a max temp 0.55C warmer than the AWS but the min being 0.18C cooler than the AWS.
The siting is a problem in determining the exact difference and (since the BoM don’t really take UH effects into account) I’m not sure what sort of algorithm would sort the overall temp record out.
10
Hey Ian, with regards to what you mentioned that sounds like a newer station put into place, and better sited, while the old station continued to function. Reconciling the two would be an interesting exercise.
What it made me think of was something, for some reason I want to say I saw Tony mention it here many months ago, regarding runway temperature.
Generally when we refer to the temperature it would be from a sensor located in a Stevenson screen to prevent solar influences on the reading, over grass, and with good airflow to all sides of the enclosure. Good airflow meaning a good flow of ambient air.
However airports also are concerned with the air temperature over the runway, roughly wing height for smaller aircraft so say approximately 4 ft/1 m. This leads me to wonder, do some airports due to economic reasons have a single station which is intentionally mounted over the tarmac in order to be able to provide that information to pilots? My suspicion is this is a very probable scenario.
This being the case we would have stations that are intentionally sited to measure hot in comparison to what would be the ambient field air.
In a case such as this these stations should not be part of the temperature record used to determine average ambient air temperature for a region as they will most definitely skew the data. One correction would be to adjust downward but it seems that adjustments to recent temperatures always go the other way, upwards. The optimal correction would be to have two stations such as you mentioned above, one which is sited over grass for providing the ambient field temp, and one over the tarmac for runway temp. The latter being excluded from regional temperature records.
It seems the more closely we look at how these temperature records are arrived at the more questions arise.
00
Thanks for that, Robert.
Just further to my post, Casino’s airport is used for small aircraft only now (used to have larger passenger planes). Both w/s were sited away from the tarmac. The person who did the manual recordings told me she thought it was the cement footings for the manual that caused the higher max temp average whereas the AWS cement footings were grass-covered. I still think there maybe a UH factor but I’m no expert.
00
read all the Cowley piece:
23 June: SMH: Ken Cowley carbon farm company collapsed owing $100m
by Rory Callinan and Matthew Cranston
A taxpayer-funded company part-owned by News Corp and chaired by prominent businessman Ken Cowley collapsed owing nearly $100 million following boardroom allegations of dishonesty and secret share trading.
RM Williams Agricultural Holdings, which was established to acquire prized agricultural land around Australia, failed after it decided to use more than $9 million in government grants to convert a cattle station into what would have been the world’s biggest carbon farm.
A Fairfax Media investigation has uncovered a bitter row that erupted between RM Williams Agricultural Holdings managing director David Pearse and other board members over special shares which hurt the company’s ability to attract investors and save the company from going into receivership.
Mr Pearse, a prominent carbon trading expert, was alleged to have been given the special A-class shares, worth 7 per cent of RM Williams Agricultural Holdings, without the knowledge of some directors and shareholders soon after the company was established in 2009…
***A who’s who of prominent companies, business figures and investment funds had money invested in RM Williams Agricultural Holdings, including News Corp, AustralianSuper, Papua New Guinea’s main pension fund, wealthy figures such as ACCC chairman Rod Sims and family companies such as that linked to Greens political donor Piers Dawson-Damer.
Earlier this month receivers finally contracted to sell the intended carbon farm known as Henbury Station for around half of the $13 million RM Williams Agricultural Holdings outlaid. They have declined to say what amount might be repaid to the Australian government…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/ken-cowley-carbon-farm-company-collapsed-owing-100m-20140623-zsj00.html
20 June: Reuters: INTERVIEW-Black Dragon: UK hacker comes clean on carbon
credit thefts
A British hacker, speaking out for the first time since he was jailed for
attempting to steal 8 million euros ($11 million) in carbon credits, said he
was easily able to break into online government and corporate registries.
Matthew Beddoes, known online as the Black Dragon, was arrested in November
2011 with two other men for hacking into carbon trading registries including
those of Spain and the United Nations, along with the websites of a
London-based commodity broker and an online carbon trading marketplace.
Permits stolen from the Spanish registry were sold to a third party, while
those taken from the UN were frozen…
Speaking by phone from his home in Liverpool, Beddoes, who was released from
prison last year, said in an interview that he had helped gain access to all
accounts on the UN registry, which contained more than 500 million carbon
credits worth around 10 euros each.
Through the Spanish registry the men acquired control over hundreds of
millions of European Union credits, at the time valued at around 15 euros
each.
Beddoes’ disclosures shed fresh light on security breaches that helped
prompt regulators to make sweeping reforms and EU lawmakers to call into
question their flagship 36 billion-euro ($49 billion) market. The EU wants
countries to replicate its scheme and link into it as a way of tackling
climate change.
Previously a self-proclaimed ‘hacker for hire’, Beddoes said he had little
knowledge of emissions trading before he was contracted in February 2011 by
an unnamed man seeking to access carbon registries – online hubs through
which account holders can trade carbon credits with each other.
“It was totally anonymous. He was the client and the target was carbon
credits. He told me he wanted access to government registries, brokers and
anything else I could get, so I went on the warpath and got whatever I
could,” Beddoes said.
Beddoes said he was also able to hack into government carbon trading
registries in Africa and Asia.
“I was paid around 3,000 pounds ($5,100) for every access that I gave them
and they used,” he added…
The EU and the UN run the world’s two largest carbon trading markets by
tonnage traded, helping to put a price on emitting greenhouse gases in an
effort to stop runaway climate change…
ZEUS THE TROJAN
For the job, Beddoes told Reuters that he used a trojan – a malicious
computer program that when installed can provide remote access to a system
or network – called Zeus…
“Half of these companies didn’t even know they got penetrated until they
were contracted by SOCA,” he added…
In separate incidents in 2010 and 2011, cyber thieves made off with more
than 3 million emissions units from registry accounts in Germany, Italy,
Romania and the Czech Republic.
Cement maker Holcim is still pursuing a legal battle to recoup the costs of
around 15 million-euros worth of permits stolen in late 2010.
***While little is known about these cases, including whether there have
been any arrests, they prompted the EU to beef up security at its new
bloc-wide trading registry, which was launched in 2012 to replace individual
national registries…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/20/carbon-hacker-idUKL6N0OZ2NC20140620
00
unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!
24 June: NYT: Justin Gillis: Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy From Global Warming
More than a million homes and businesses along the nation’s coasts could flood repeatedly before ultimately being destroyed. Entire states in the Southeast and the Corn Belt may lose much of their agriculture as farming shifts northward in a warming world. Heat and humidity will probably grow so intense that spending time outside will become physically dangerous, throwing industries like construction and tourism into turmoil.
That is the picture of what may happen to the United States economy in a world of unchecked global warming, according to a major new report being put forward Tuesday by a coalition of senior political and economic figures from the left, right and center, including three Treasury secretaries stretching back to the Nixon administration….
“The big ice sheets are melting; something’s happening,” George P. Shultz, who was Treasury secretary under President Richard M. Nixon and secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, said in an interview. He noted that he had grown concerned enough about global warming to put solar panels on his own California roof and to buy an electric car. “I say we should take out an insurance policy.”
The former Treasury secretaries — including Henry M. Paulson Jr., a Republican who served under President George W. Bush, and Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat in the Clinton administration — promised to help sound the alarm. All endorse putting a price on greenhouse gases, most likely by taxing emissions….
“Here we have this existential threat that I really do think has the possibility of being catastrophic, and I don’t think people have any sense of that,” Mr. Rubin said…
The campaign behind the new report, called Risky Business, is funded largely by three wealthy financiers who are strong advocates of action on global warming: Mr. Paulson, who with his wife, Wendy, has helped finance conservation efforts for decades; Thomas F. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund executive and Democrat who is pushing to make global warming a central issue in political races around the country; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, who now urges cities to confront the threat of climate change.
They commissioned an economic modeling firm that often does work for the oil and gas industry, the Rhodium Group, to assemble a team of experts who carried out the risk analysis. Trevor Houser, a Rhodium partner who led the study, sought to insulate the findings from the political opinions of the sponsors, in part by setting up a committee of leading climate scientists and environmental economists who reviewed the work…
***Still, it is unclear whether the new report, or the voices of the former Treasury secretaries, will have an effect on companies or investors, given that many decisions on Wall Street are driven by short-term considerations of profit and loss…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/science/report-tallies-toll-on-economy-from-global-warming.html?_r=0
40
re the Rhodium/Risky Business report:
24 June: Rhodium Group: American Climate Prospectus: Economic Risks in the United States
Report will be available at 7:00am EST, June 24, 2014 ((9pm 24 June,in Australia).
http://rhg.com/reports/climate-prospectus
Rhodium Group: Trevor Houser
He is also a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, where he writes on energy, commodity and environmental market and policy issues. Trevor is an adjunct lecturer at the City College of New York, and a visiting fellow at the school’s Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Committee on US-China Relations and serves on the Advisory Board of Asia Society’s Center on US-China Relations…
During 2009, Trevor left RHG temporarily to serve as senior advisor to the US State Department, where he worked on a broad range of international energy, natural resource and environmental policy issues. While in government, Trevor negotiated seven bilateral US-China energy agreements, including the US-China Shale Gas Initiative and the establishment of the US-China Clean Energy Research Center. Trevor also served as a US climate change negotiator through the Copenhagen conference in 2009…
http://rhg.com/people/trevor-houser
trustworthy? LOL.
20
23 June: Reuters: EU sets energy security as priority for next 5 years of policy-making
By Francesco Guarascio and Barbara Lewis
Eurosceptics likely to oppose closer integration
Europe’s best chance of standing up to the supply insecurity caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a close-knit energy union to thwart Moscow’s divide and rule strategy, a draft document laying out the next five years of EU energy policy says…
“Geopolitical events, the worldwide energy competition and the impact of climate change are triggering a rethink of our energy and climate strategy,” a draft document on the “strategic agenda” for the next five years.
“We must avoid Europe relying to such a high extent on fuel and gas imports. To ensure our energy future is under full control, we want to build an Energy Union aiming at affordable, secure and green energy.”.
The document is expected to be published after a meeting of EU heads of state and government on Thursday and Friday…
Ahead of next year’s 2015 climate conference in Paris, which is meant to agree a new binding agreement on climate change, the draft also says Europe needs to continue to lead the fight against global warming.
It will be signed by the next Commission president, possibly Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker, although Britain is opposing his candidacy…
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0P438V20140623
10
Ritholtz doesn’t feel the need to mention Paulson’s connections to Risky Business & Bloomberg, but he’s big on the insults:
23 June: Bloomberg: Barry Ritholtz: The Losing Bet on Climate Change
The first, from former Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Hank Paulson, was headlined “The Coming Climate Crash.” …
That posture comes from the rational wing of the Republican Party, an ever-decreasing niche. Despite the best efforts of the extremists, there are still some Republicans who believe in science. Many of these folks (regardless of their faith) do not think that the Bible was the literal word of God, and that humans were given a brain for a reason, namely, to think, to reason, to make judgments based on scientific evidence…
Global warming and climate change are misnomers. What we are witnessing is rising global weather volatility. As I suggested a decade ago, “Global Weather Volatility was a Strong Buy…
But what we really need is a Volatility Index for Climate (VXG is my idea for the symbol)…
Regardless, this isn’t going to be a political discussion. I am not remotely a “green,” and you won’t hear me lecturing people to drive a Prius or recycle or any other such environmental admonitions. My own household fleet of cars ands boats numbers many more than the number of people in our home, with no vehicle having any less than 300 horsepower.
This isn’t about politics, this is about investing…
That is something that the 2,000-plus people who commented on our first such discussion missed. In “Global Warming Battle Is Over Market Share, Not Science,” we looked at the market competition driven by climate change. The science is settled, with the debate left to the trolls, conspiracy theorists, and corporate shills who much prefer to repeat thoroughly discredited memes than to discuss market share or investment-related issues. As I am fond of pointing out, someone has to be on the money-losing side of the trade, and it might as well be the anti-science crowd. Call it Darwin’s revenge: Ignorance as an evolutionary adaptive failure…
I have but two goals: The ability to bet on global weather volatility, and a way to express the trade I like to call “short unscience.” As soon as I figure out how to do this, I am going to make a killing.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-23/the-losing-bet-on-climate-change
10
The College Fix: Physicist Promises $10K to Anyone Who Disproves Man-Made Global Warming
by Andrew Desiderio – George Washington University on June 22, 2014
Dr. Christopher Keating posted “The $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!” on his blog earlier this month, and confirmed in an email to The College Fix on Friday that the contest is 100 percent legit.
Keating, an ardent believer in man-made global warming, said he’s not worried that he’ll be out ten grand, because he doesn’t believe anyone can disprove humans are not the cause of global warming.
“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” he told The College Fix in his email. But he called the science proving his beliefs “overwhelming.”
“You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it,” he said, adding there’s nothing so far because “it can’t be done.”…
Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, is no fan of people who do not believe climate change is caused by humans. He compares them to tobacco executives of the past who denied a link between lung cancer and smoking…
As for his contest, no entry fee is required, and entrants must be 18 or older to enter. In terms of disproving man-made global warming, he said he’ll take just about any scrap of evidence someone wants to provide.
“They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said, adding “you don’t have to be a scientist and you don’t have to submit an original proof.”…
Comments on his blog so far are cynical about the contest.
***“You can’t prove a negative,” stated one…
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18076/
20
I’m very suspicious of data manipulation by the BOM, but I’m not sure that the Amberley data is an example of such tampering.
If you look at the 1980 point on the graph, there is a step change down, and if you remove this step and join the two graphs back together, then you get the adjusted data. It’s possible that in 1980 there was a site or hardware change, such as a new stevensen screen. Personally, I’m more suspicious of the homogenisation process.
10
stats are not my strong suit but just looking at this graph i would say it is not accurate, can a stats guru look at the graph and confirm it is correct.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-ideas/best-snowfalls-in-a-decade-forecast-for-eastern-australia-strap-yourselves-in-for-the-megablizzard/story-e6frfqdr-1226963855196
Graph is about about half way down the page
cheers
10
I should add i believe it is a bit disingenious by extending the trend line out to 2070 which gives a false impression.
20
the full 202 page(?) Rhodium report for Risky Business’s unholy CAGW trio – Hank Paulson, Tom Steyer & Michael Bloomberg – is now available. according to the gillis article, Rhodium “sought to insulate the findings from the political opinions of the sponsors, in part by setting up a committee of leading climate scientists and environmental economists who reviewed the work”!
“.pdf: (202 pages) June 2014: Rhodium Group: American Climate Prospectus
Economic Risks in the United States
Acknowledgements: Members of our Expert Review Panel– Kerry Emanuel, Karen Fisher-Vanden, Michael Greenstone, Katharine Hayhoe, Geoffrey Heal, Douglas Holt-Eakin, Michael Spence, Larry Linden, Linda Mearns, Michael Oppenheimer, Sean Ringstead, Tom Rutherford, Jonathan Samet, and Gary Yohe – provided invaluable critiques during the development of this report. We also thank Sir Nicholas Stern, who provided excellent input and guidance, and William Nordhaus, for his pioneering work in on climate economics and scoping suggestions early in the project
http://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RHG_AmericanClimateProspectus_June2014_LowRes1.pdf
00
sorry, but this doesn’t surprise me at all:
Andrew Bolt Blog: Al Gore advises Clive Palmer. We’re in strife
A statement from Mr Palmer’s office says …: “Mr Palmer said it is apparent that climate change is a global issue and in the meeting he will discuss this with Vice President Gore”.
Yesterday, Mr Palmer told the ABC the announcement would “offer hope to mankind” and “a solution for Australia and the world”…
Reports that Palmer wants an emissions trading scheme…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/al_gore_advises_clive/#commentsmore
00
this is the reason Gore is in Australia:
Australian Conservation Foundation: The Climate Reality Project
The Climate Reality Project Australia is a program of the Australian Conservation Foundation and a branch of The Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit organisation founded and chaired by Nobel Laureate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore…
Train with Al Gore and become a climate leader
At this defining moment on climate change, we need a community of inspiring and connected people to champion lasting solutions.
On 25-27 June in Melbourne, Climate Reality Chairman and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, will train a select group of leaders from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
During the training, you’ll learn from Al Gore and a group of world-class scientists, strategists, communicators, and technical specialists about the science of climate change and how to connect with people across the region at the most personal level…
And you’ll also develop skills to engage those around you and bring about lasting change using storytelling, public speaking, social media networking, and media engagement.
Over the course of the training, you’ll have the opportunity to meet and learn from trained Climate Reality Leaders from a range of professional and cultural backgrounds with years of experience in educating and engaging their networks and communities…
http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/climate-change/climate-reality-project
00
About Jennifer having also raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt. Waste of time!
Greg Hunt should be removed from his portfolio. Last year, on national TV following the election, he would not answer a simple question about whether he considered CO2 to be pollution.
This is a man who presumably drinks beer and soft drinks heavily laced with CO2, and whose lungs and blood system definitely always contains CO2, yet he is very healthy. He could have easily pointed this out and simply answered “Well, of course CO2 in not pollution. It is not harmful to animals or plants.” But he wouldn’t say that.
Many suspect Greg Hunt to be a ‘closet’ catastrophic man-made global warming alarmist who believes CO2 is a danger to Earth’s climate.
00