Australia's BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret

[IanC]

Alice Springs Automatic Weather Station Inflated Temperature By 4.5 C Producing False Record High NoTricksZone



A spurious 4.5C reading leads to another 'hottest evahhhh' claim. At least this time it was recinded. How many others just get accepted into the record book? Eg. will the Heathrow record stand? A minute long spike not found in the surrounding stations. Real, jet exhaust, or what?

I'm telling you --- GISS and East Anglia are hacking into the reporting systems on nights, weekends and holidays..

For agencies that say they are only making adjustments to protect the integrity of the data they sure seem to slip up on a lot of fly balls.

 

[flacaltenn]

Read the edit to my last post after you quoted. There ARE explanations for these problems that dont have to do with siting or conspiracy theories..

 

[flacaltenn]

I can almost believe that these new systems for instance get rid of hard cabling and use some cheapo Wireless variant for the lazy who don't want to run conduit. So that everytime the airport radar sweeps over or someone keys a mike on a departing plane, garbage and mayhem ensue in the data. More and more I believe mankind is never leaving this planet again outside of earth orbit.. Or at least never returning alive.. It's that bad...

 

[IanC]

God, I hope you're wrong. We need another Sputnik moment to reset our priorities.

Spencer has a non-science article up. About productivity. I went to Cuba in the 80's and couldn't believe how unproductive their system was. All rhetoric, no substance. We're not there yet but we are certainly trending that way. We used to laugh at the USSR, now we are becoming them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

e=mc^2 + .5C, after data adjustments

 

[IanC]

From Karl et al 2015

First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************

I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.

Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?

Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?

Lipstick on a pig.

Have you ever noticed when someone is trying to sell you something it sounds a lot better when described by the salesman than it does after some time for reflection?

Oh,and crick, if they didn't want to go back and adjust all that historical data why do they continuously readjust land station data? Even the hundreds of years long CET is constantly being changed. What is the explanation for changing a 200 year old measurement every few months?

 

[jc456]

From Karl et al 2015

First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************

I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.

Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?

Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?

Lipstick on a pig.

Have you ever noticed when someone is trying to sell you something it sounds a lot better when described by the salesman than it does after some time for reflection?

Oh,and crick, if they didn't want to go back and adjust all that historical data why do they continuously readjust land station data? Even the hundreds of years long CET is constantly being changed. What is the explanation for changing a 200 year old measurement every few months?

You'll never get any answers to that

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From Karl et al 2015

First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************

I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.

Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?

Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?

Lipstick on a pig.

Have you ever noticed when someone is trying to sell you something it sounds a lot better when described by the salesman than it does after some time for reflection?

Oh,and crick, if they didn't want to go back and adjust all that historical data why do they continuously readjust land station data? Even the hundreds of years long CET is constantly being changed. What is the explanation for changing a 200 year old measurement every few months?

The unaltered data was a "DENIER!!!"

 

[Crick]

Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.

 

[jc456]

Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.

Money. That's simple

 

[Crick]

So, we're back to the grand, global conspiracy fantasy once again.

It's amazing the way every denier route leads straight back here.

 

[IanC]

Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.

Nope, like I have told you before, there is no need to invoke some grand conspiracy when blaming groupthink and incompetence will suffice.

actually this quote from a piece riffing on Dante's levels of Hell adds a few other reasons-

First Circle: Limbo
According to Neuroskeptic:
“The uppermost circle is not a place of punishment, so much as regret. Those who have committed no scientific sins as such, but who turned a blind eye to it, and encouraged it by their awarding of grants and publications, spend eternity on top of this barren mountain, watching the carnage below and reflecting on how they are partially responsible…”

Reserved for those who observe the mess that climate science has become, subservient as it is to politics, and wonder whether redemption and a return to a true science-serving path is ever possible. Despite this they remain silent and do not speak out even in defense of others. This place could be full to bursting, such is the influence of the Hockey Team of reviewers and the carrot of climate-related funding.

Likely Denizens: hamstrung journal editors and others for whom keeping jobs has been more important than truth; reviewers who wanted to keep in with the Hockey Team; scientists fearful of having papers rejected; funding agencies (NSF, RCUK); many IPCC reviewers who quietly, but uncomfortably, toe the line (let’s hope more start to speak out). Also found here would be The Royal Society, AGU and the world’s various scientific bodies. They deserve to be castigated for following their own financial interests at the expense of science, or alternatively, simply being fooled. Scientific method anyone? What happened to insistence on testing and evidence?

from an interesting, humorous and informative article. Climate Scientists Road to Hell Digging in the Clay

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.

I've responded to it Crickham..

1) Scientists TRY not concern themselves with all the silly wrong and unreliable press releases that this temperature cooking spawns. It's done simply to be able to front statistics scary enough that any journal will put it on the front pages.

2) Since climate science biggest fan and donor and sponsor is Govt -- It's not likely to see any bite the hand that feeds them..

3) The adjustments don't make a great deal of difference to climate science since they are done as I stated for PR purposes to lie about the new "records" and "unprecendented" warmth of current years. Often by as little as 0.05Deg. Just enough to be able to make the news and pour gas on the fire. They CANNOT monkey with the records much after the start of the satellite era -- so it's ONLY use is to support GW propaganda..

4) As JC said -- It makes the "contract compliance" part of their funding easier because whatever valuable science they deliver under a grant has to give a nod to the "serious public implications" of Global Warming. And they can put that boilerplate into the Abstract and make the sponsor happy. Often repeating the same "cooked statistic" that is based on overally processed thermometer data from the 70s or 40s of the last century..

 

[flacaltenn]

So, we're back to the grand, global conspiracy fantasy once again.

It's amazing the way every denier route leads straight back here.

Are you addressing the OP evidence? Just a fantasy that the keepers of the data won't open up their methods for inspection and scientific critique?

 

[IanC]

Crick simply believes that the general statements of methodologies from the various agencies are not only true but comprehensive. The forum on Australia's BOM let it out that there is a level of executive decision making that would prevent recreating the final dataset. BEST algorithms for defining 'reliable' stations and the number of iterations of processing needed for final inclusion also appear to hinge on 'expert decision'. GISS has removed the intermediary steps from public access. Etc etc.

Perhaps everything is kosher. But making things inaccessible and impossible to replicate at the very time that more and more questions are being asked just doesn't seem to be the smartest plan if you have nothing to hide.

 

[flacaltenn]

Crick simply believes that the general statements of methodologies from the various agencies are not only true but comprehensive. The forum on Australia's BOM let it out that there is a level of executive decision making that would prevent recreating the final dataset. BEST algorithms for defining 'reliable' stations and the number of iterations of processing needed for final inclusion also appear to hinge on 'expert decision'. GISS has removed the intermediary steps from public access. Etc etc.

Perhaps everything is kosher. But making things inaccessible and impossible to replicate at the very time that more and more questions are being asked just doesn't seem to be the smartest plan if you have nothing to hide.

If you look at real conspiracy theories and how they start -- 80% of them start with the Govt locking up something valuable to the evidence.. Like the flight data recorder from Flight 93.. Or losing the big metal door to the Branch Davidian compound.

Largely because Govt wants to control the narrative and the press cycles. This ain't much different -- except instead of controlling legal evidence -- they seem to have branched out into scientific evidence.

Point is ---- as you said -- everything COULD BE kosher and innocent.
And all they are attempting to do is prevent VALID inspection, discussion, and critique.
Because we KNOW -- that govt keeps ALL it's RECORDS completely safe and accessible for when we need them..

 

[mamooth]

Last one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.

It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.

 

[jc456]

Last one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.

It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.

Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buried

 

[Crick]

Last one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.

It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.

Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buried

I can't even tell what you hoped that would say.

And while we're here, where's the quote you claim to have seen of me admitting I get paid to post here?

 

[jc456]

Last one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.

It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.

Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buried

I can't even tell what you hoped that would say.

And while we're here, where's the quote you claim to have seen of me admitting I get paid to post here?

Most likely deleted by now.