Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Absolutely Politically Incorrect: Maximum Temperatures at Bourke and Bathurst

By

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. Who said that? What does it mean?

Of course, for the educated climate scientist this chart that shows the mean annual maximum temperatures for Bathurst gaol and Bourke post office should be homogenised. But what beauty and intrigue in raw data that throws up an identical cooling trend when the entire record, unhomogenised is plotted for these two locations in New South Wales, both with exceptionally long records.

Bourke n Bathurst MaxT

I shall not be posting so much for the next little while, as I’ve technical papers to write on rainfall forecasting, diatoms, frogs and also temperatures.

Open Thread

By

“The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness.

In a state of collective possession they are the adapted ones and consequently they feel quite at home in it. C.G. Jung 1957, page 5
In a state of collective possession they are the adapted ones and consequently they feel quite at home in it. C.G. Jung 1957, page 5

“Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the effective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason’s having any effect ceases and its place is take by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies. That is to say, a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic.”

The Undiscovered Self by C.G. Jung. 1957. Pages 4-5.

Who’s going to be sacked for making-up global warming at Rutherglen? Part 2.

By

THE Bureau of Meteorology has spent several weeks looking for documentation to support its recent claim that, contrary to what is written in its published station catalogue, the weather station at Rutherglen was once moved. Station Catalogue

The Bureau hasn’t been able to find any actual documentation to verify this move. But this hasn’t stopped it nevertheless concluding that there was a station move and publishing a document, not in the peer-reviewed literature, but on the Internet to conclude that the weather station was once moved between paddocks.

Furthermore, but not even published on the Internet, this move between paddocks, that could have occurred in 1966 or even 1974 apparently justifies a drop down in minimum temperatures, with the largest change a 1.8 degree Celsius difference between recorded and homogenised temperatures for Rutherglen in 1913. The net effect on the temperature trend is the creation of a 1.73 degree Celsius per century warming, where previously there was a 0.35 degree C per century cooling in the minimum temperature series.

It makes no sense!

But it hasn’t stopped the alarmists on Twitter and at HotWhopper claiming the Bureau was right all along: the weather station had moved, there are maps and photographs and conclusions, just no actual documented evidence. Indeed it doesn’t seem to have occurred to Lotharsson and the rest of the HotWhopper cheer squad, that if the Bureau was able to find inspection reports, requests for replacement equipment and more, that there should also be documentation if the station had actually been moved!

Of course it may have been moved, and the documentation may have been lost, but that still doesn’t justify the change in magnitude and direction of the temperature trend for Rutherglen that the Bureau has made.

My colleague, Bill Johnston, has forensically examined the temperature data generated by the weather station at Rutherglen. Dr Johnston is of the opinion that it is possible that there was a site move in 1965. He can find a break in the data at this time. But even accounting for this, there is no overall warming trend in the data either side of this break. So, Dr Johnston has concluded after running three independent statistical tests over the data, that it is the Bureau that has changed the data, resulting in a bias in the data series where none previously existed.

HotWhopper haven’t actually examined the data, or thought about whether moving a weather station between paddocks in a relatively flat rural terrain could cause a change in the direction and magnitude of the temperature trend. They are just celebrating that the Bureau could publish on the Internet claiming a site move.

According to HotWhopper, quoting the Bureau, the need for an adjustment to the Rutherglen data was made through the application of, “an objective statistical test that showed an artificial jump in the data during this period” prior to 1966.

In fact statistical tests cannot show “artificial jumps”. What empty heads they are at HotWhopper and the Bureau!

Statistical tests can detect breakpoints in temperature series. These may be attributable to climatic or non-climatic factors.

The Bureau claims that, 1966 and 1974 dates match the two breakpoints in minimum temperatures through a “statistical comparison of its [Rutherglen] data with other site data in the region.”

So, the Bureau is suggesting the “jump” is non-climatic and due to the weather station being moved because, while there is “no firm documentation” for a site move, 12 documents have been located that together, they claim, provide some circumstantial evidence for the weather station having been moved between paddocks.

Importantly, the Bureau is not claiming any breakpoints in the Rutherglen data per se, but rather that the trend at Rutherglen is not consistent with its neighbours at about the times for which there is circumstantial evidence the station was moved from one paddock to another.

It is in fact disingenuous and illogical for the Bureau to suggest that what could only be considered an insignificant move, if indeed it did occur, that is a move between paddocks in a relatively flat rural terrain could create a change in the direction and magnitude of the temperature trend.

But there is more. While the BOM claim a discontinuity based on neighbouring stations the algorithms and/or test that might show such a result are not disclosed. We are expected to believe this is the case, but this is not science because no methodology has been provided. In fact, when one of my colleagues, Ken Stewart, tested this proposition. He found that the raw data for Rutherglen has a virtually identical trend to its neighbouring comparison sites, while the homogenised ACORN-SAT data for Rutherglen is strongly biased towards warming relative to those neighbouring sites.

So, I ask again, who is going to be sacked for making up global warming at Rutherglen?

Homogenisation of Williamtown temperatures, draws attention to hot Newcastle in 1878

By

WINSTON Churchill famously said that, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Indeed when everyone has the opportunity to have a say it can be difficult to keep everyone marching together in the same direction, at the same speed, repeating the same mantra.

Of course, getting to the truth often requires alternative opinions to be heard, and perhaps now, finally, the mainstream media will start to allow those sceptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming to have their say. Indeed just today the Newcastle Herald published the opinion of Anthony Cox explaining how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology homogenise the data. It’s a good article, but was not published in full, and published without a key chart showing the affect of homogenisation on the temperature trend.

Williamtown

What the chart actually shows is that for the Williamtown RAAF, near Newcastle, the minimum temperature series that begins in 1951 has been homogenised. That is, in the creation of the official temperature series temperatures have been changed from what was originally recorded. Like for Rutherglen in Victoria, and Amberley in Queensland, the temperatures are dropped down starting in about 1971. This has an affect on the overall trend, changing what was a mild warming of 0.4 degree C per century from 1951 to 2012, into dramatic warming of 1.6 degree C per century.

Ignoring this new example of homogenisation at Williamtown RAAF, and the 28-pages of ‘adjustments’ released by the Bureau just last week that show most, if not all the weather stations that make-up the official station network are corrupted, the first person to comment at the thread that is now open at the Newcastle Herald is suggesting that I am “cherry picking” and that the overall trend for Australia is surely one of warming.

In fact I’ve hardly started with my criticisms, and the overall trend for Newcastle, like the rest of Australia, is very much one of cooling.

Let me explain, Williamston RAAF is one of the 112 stations that is used to calculate national trends, but it’s not the best temperature series for the Newcastle region. It only starts in about 1951. A much more comprehensive record, but one that is conveniently ignored by the Bureau in the development of the official temperature network, comes from the Nobby’s Signal Station, Newcastle. This record starts way back in 1862, and guess what, like most of the really long records it shows that it was much warmer in the late 1800s than for any time since. In fact the hottest years on record are 1877 and 1878.

We have been conditioned to believe that temperature have been gradually warming, but this is not what the data shows.

Newcastle

When those early records are taken into account, it is clear that New South Wales experienced cooling from the late 1800s to about 1960. After 1960, temperatures across the state and the nation started to increase. This warming continued until it reached a plateau in 2002. Because the warming of the late twentieth century never completely negated the cooling of the early twentieth century, the overall net trend is actually one of cooling. In the case of Newcastle, its a cooling of 0.63 degree Celsius per century.

****
Also today, Graham Young has republished an earlier blog post by me, ‘Bureau caught in own tangled web of homgenisation’ at On Line Opinion…
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16680

Any comments you can make in this comment thread would be appreciated.

And perhaps also at the Newcastle Herald thread here… http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2558481/opinion-adjusted-temperatures-need-explaining/?cs=308

After all, in a democracy your vote, your opinion, does count even if it does not accord with popular opinion.

If you want to Tweet this, I’ve made a new tiny URL.. http://tinyurl.com/nbm54ts

Open Thread

By

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”
Karl Popper, 1902-1994.

Karl Popper

Bureau Caught in Own Tangled Web of Homogenisation

By

THE Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledge that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated. Indeed, earlier in the week, 28 pages of ‘adjustments’ were released online following a series of articles in The Australian and The Weekend Australian by Graham Lloyd. Scrutinise the detail in this document of adjustments and not only is the rationale and methodology indefensible, but it contradicts information published in the official Station Catalogue which is meant to be the go-to document for understanding this official network known as ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network –Surface Air Temperature).

That the Minister has not yet intervened, and that many within the Australian scientific community attempt to justify the practice of homogenisation that creates these ‘adjustments’ that changes cooling trends to warming trends at a whim, is reason for national shame. It all amounts to corruption of the scientific process on a grand scale, with significant economic implications. But not even a whisper about the scandal can be heard from the Australian national broadcaster or the many other typically righteous institutions and individuals that claim to be motivated by the truth.

Yet the deceit is increasingly in plain view. Consider, for example, that the official ACORN-SAT Station Catalogue clearly states on page 6 that in the development of the temperature record for Bathurst Agricultural Research Station (Station No. 063005) data from the longer Bathurst Gaol (Station No. 063004) record was not used. Now go to the 28-page ACORN-SAT Station Adjustment Summary and it lists eight occasions when the Bathurst Gaol record was used to make changes to the Bathurst Agricultural Station Record, which cumulatively have changed the temperature record by 4.65 degree Celsius in different directions at different times.

Also note amongst the changes made to this temperature series the addition of 0.6 degree C to the maximum temperature series (applied to all data prior to 1971) following the installation of a Stevenson screen. That’s right. While the Bureau has been claiming it must discard all data prior to 1910 because until this year stations didn’t have Stevenson screens, in fact we can now see that it has accepted post-1910 data from stations that did not have screens installed until later, in some cases not until 1971.

Moving across the border into Victoria: the Bureau released the ‘adjustments’ used to homogenise the temperature series from the Agricultural Station at Rutherglen (also part of the ACORN-SAT network) about a week earlier than for everywhere else. This followed the series of articles in The Australian newspaper questioning why a cooling trend in the original record from Rutherglen had been turned into a warming trend in the official record.

Rutherglen

Ken Stewart has already attempted to use the data for Rutherglen that was released last week to understand how and why the Bureau homogenised the temperature series at Rutherglen. After several days work he came to the conclusion that either the wrong list of 17 stations (against which the Bureau claimed it has made comparisons) was provided and/or their percentile-matching algorithm produced an error. In short, the method when applied as per the newly provided information produces an altogether different result to that documented by the Bureau, at least for Rutherglen.

But why even bother with the homogenisation when there was no good reason in the first place to apply it to Rutherglen?

After Graham Lloyd first brought the issue of homogenisation at Rutherglen to the nation’s attention the Bureau replied that the process had needed to be applied because there had been a site move. But it has since been unable to provide any evidence, and the claim contradicts its own station catalogue.

It is the case that when weather stations are moved, for example, from post offices to airports, discontinuities can be created in the data that may need to be corrected. But in fact there is no evidence to suggest that the weather station at Rutherglen has ever moved. For the last 100 years it has been sitting in a flat paddock, creating a near perfect temperature series. In fact, all that seems amiss with the temperature series is that the minimum temperatures show a cooling trend, contrary to global warming theory.

Statistician David Stockwell had tested the original minimum temperature series for Rutherglen for discontinuities and found none. Agronomist Bill Johnston has run his own very fine-scaled ‘ruler’ over the same dataset and found step-changes that could be attributable to shifts in the climate, the equipment or something else. But nevertheless when all of these micro-lumps and bumps are accounted for, Dr Johnston concludes that the residual trend is no different to zero-trend. In other words, no need to make any adjustments.

Drs Stockwell, Johnston and myself have all been called deniers by the mainstream climate science community for drawing attention to the logical inconsistencies obvious in the homogenisation of Rutherglen. But at the same time none of the same name-calling scientists, who draw a government salary for their apparent expertise in this area, have been prepared to actually mention the word ‘Rutherglen’ in public – let alone discuss the data.

I’ve come to the conclusion that those who have so far defended the homogenising of the temperature series at Rutherglen, Amberley, Deniliquin and Bourke, as the first example that I have thrown up over the last few weeks, are acting either on faith, ignorance or the new morality being preached by technocrats who believe it is wholly legitimate to change received evidence when it does not accord with theory. In the case of the Bureau it’s called homogenisation. Ansley Kellow in his book Science and Public Policy refers to the phenomenon as noble cause corruption.

With the release of the 28-pages of adjustments earlier in the week it should be crystal clear that the practice of homogenisation is indefensible and widespread, affecting virtually all the stations that comprise the ACORN-SAT network. This must have significant ramifications for government policy in so many different areas, because the temperature trends created by the ACORN-SAT network underpin the notion that we have man-made global warming.

In a democracy it is the role of government to oversee the correct function of institutions like the Bureau of Meteorology. Greg Hunt is the Minister ultimately responsible. So far he has been silent on the issue. This is in effect condoning what until recently would have been considered a totally unethical practice: changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline. It’s unacceptable, but will Minister Hunt do anything about it? Will the national broadcaster even report on it? What can you do about it?

Postscript:

Over recent years the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been given increasing responsibilities and more and more funding. For example, with the Water Act 2007, it has taken over responsibilities for provision of information that determines water allocations within the Murray Darling (essentially the size of the rice and cotton crops), in October last year an initiative of the National Plan for Environmental Information established the Bureau of Meteorology as Australia’s central coordinating authority for all environmental information.