The escalating row goes to heart of the climate change debate - in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last. Marohasy's research has put her in dispute with BoM over a paper she published with John Abbot at Central Queensland University in the journal Atmospheric Research concerning the best data to use for rainfall forecasting. BoM challenged the findings of the Marohasy-Abbot paper, but the international journal rejected the BoM rebuttal, which had been prepared by some of the bureau's top scientists. This has led to an escalating dispute over the way in which Australia's historical temperature records are "improved" through homogenisation, which is proving more difficult to resolve. - Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 23 August 2014
When I first sent Graham Lloyd some examples of the remodeling of the temperature series I think he may have been somewhat skeptical. I know he on-forwarded this information to the Bureau for comment, including three charts showing the homogenization of the minimum temperature series for Amberley. Mr Lloyd is the Environment Editor for The Australian newspaper and he may have been concerned I got the numbers wrong. He sought comment and clarification from the Bureau. I understand that by way of response to Mr Lloyd, the Bureau has not disputed these calculations. What the Bureau has done, however, is try and justify the changes. In particular, for Amberley the Bureau is claiming to Mr Lloyd that there is very little available documentation for Amberley before 1990 and that information before this time may be "classified": as in top secret. - Jennifer Marohasy, 23 August 2014
Congratulations to The Australian again for taking the hard road and reporting controversial, hot, documented problems, that few in the Australian media dare to investigate.
How accurate are our national climate datasets when some adjustments turn entire long stable records from cooling trends to warming ones (or visa versa)? Do the headlines of "hottest ever record" (reported to a tenth of a degree) mean much if thermometer data sometimes needs to be dramatically changed 60 years after being recorded?
One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area. Ken Stewart was the first to notice this anomaly and many others when he compared the raw data to the new, adjusted ACORN data set. Jennifer Marohasy picked it up, and investigated it and 30 or so other stations. In Rutherglen in Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35C became a warming trend of +1.73C. She raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.
Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what "record" temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in The Weekend Australian. - Jo Nova The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology 'altering climate figures' - The Australian
More fiddling. I guess that is what homogenisation means to a climate whacko.
Might be worth the folks at SoTT checking out the Geoff Beck paper on the historical atmospheric CO2 records which go back to 1756. This is in complete disagreement with the Ice Core record - the preferred measure used by the Climate Cheats. In fact the entire AGW globalist scam depends entirely upon the ice core record being right and the direct atmospheric measurements being wrong. They are in complete disagreement. The latter shows higher levels of CO2 in the 1940s and also twice in the 19th century than today whereas the ice core record shows the CO2 levels falling smoothly back into history.
The guy who invented the ice core technique, the entire basis of AGW psuedoscience, and who spent twenty years developing it says it does not work!
Game over.