"THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.
Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.
In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate *related changes need to be *accounted for in the data for *reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
Dr Marohasy said she had found examples where there had been no change in instrumentation or siting and no inconsistency with nearby stations but there had been a dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.
She said that at Amberley in Queensland, homogenisation had resulted in a change in the temperature trend from one of cooling to dramatic warming.
She calculated homogenisation had changed a cooling trend in the minimum temperature of 1C per century at Amberley into a warming trend of 2.5C. This was despite there being no change in location or instrumentation.
BOM said the adjustment to the minimums at Amberley was identified through “neighbour comparisons”. It said the level of confidence was very high because of the large number of stations in the region. There were examples where homogenisation had resulted in a weaker warming trend."
I don't normally get involved in these things but I am going to take the bait. I think I would take the peer-reviewed work of the Bureau of Meteorology, which has generally taken a conservative view on climate analysis, against a single PhD (biology) who is a known sceptic of climate change and belongs to an "institution" (IPA) known for its cherry picking and deliberate misinterpretation of climate data, and one funded largely by oil, coal and gas companies. But having observed these types of posts by the OP, my comment will not make one iota of difference and is probably a complete waste of the 30 seconds it's taken me to write this.
I don't normally get involved in these things but I am going to take the bait. I think I would take the peer-reviewed work of the Bureau of Meteorology, which has generally taken a conservative view on climate analysis, against a single PhD (biology) who is a known sceptic of climate change and belongs to an "institution" (IPA) known for its cherry picking and deliberate misinterpretation of climate data, and one funded largely by oil, coal and gas companies. But having observed these types of posts by the OP, my comment will not make one iota of difference and is probably a complete waste of the 30 seconds it's taken me to write this.
I suspect it took you more than 30 seconds to write this...
Ah the good old IPA (who refuse to disclose their financial backers despite thriving on tax-deductible donations) trotting out another worn out old canard from a biologist rather than, say, a meteorologist.
Last week the (multi-million dollar loss-making) Australian brought us the idiotic ramblings of a stockbroker rather than any kind of expert. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious and dishonest.
I don't normally get involved in these things but I am going to take the bait. I think I would take the peer-reviewed work of the Bureau of Meteorology, which has generally taken a conservative view on climate analysis, against a single PhD (biology) who is a known sceptic of climate change and belongs to an "institution" (IPA) known for its cherry picking and deliberate misinterpretation of climate data, and one funded largely by oil, coal and gas companies. But having observed these types of posts by the OP, my comment will not make one iota of difference and is probably a complete waste of the 30 seconds it's taken me to write this.
If we did that, Renato would never be heard of again.
Remember, he who cant accurately interpret basic data like the amount of Ice in the Arctic.... Doesn't respond to basic questions like, "Do you really wannna take the risk with the one habitable planet we know of?"
Homogenization or homogenisation is any of several processes used to make a mixture of two mutually non-soluble liquids the same throughout. (The prefix homo- coming from the Greek, meaning the same.)[1]
I don't normally get involved in these things but I am going to take the bait. I think I would take the peer-reviewed work of the Bureau of Meteorology, which has generally taken a conservative view on climate analysis, against a single PhD (biology) who is a known sceptic of climate change and belongs to an "institution" (IPA) known for its cherry picking and deliberate misinterpretation of climate data, and one funded largely by oil, coal and gas companies. But having observed these types of posts by the OP, my comment will not make one iota of difference and is probably a complete waste of the 30 seconds it's taken me to write this.
Actually you raise an interesting issue - Peer-Review of the technique versus Quality Assurance of the resulting adjusted data. I spent most of my working life involved with Quality Assurance of Munitions.
So here we have peer-reviewed work by BOM, using best practices in the world. Sounds good so far. Only problem is their data is being subjected to free quality assurance by individuals who have access to the data, and problems keep being found all the time. Australia is a big place, and it is a big job looking at all of the data, by what at the end of the day are amateurs doing it on an ad-hoc basis - yet what those amateurs find is indisputable, because the raw and corrected information is there for verification by anybody.
Apart from the Amberly example, lots of other problems have been documented, such as after homogenisation daily minimum temperature suddenly being higher than that day's daily maximum temperature - something that plainly wasn't the case with the raw data, and where homogenisation produced flawed results by definition. Peer Review may put it's stamp of approval on that all it likes, but the result is wrong.
Another example, is the hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia. After homogenisation the hottest temperature didn't occur where the raw data typically shows it in central parts of Australia, but by the beach in Albany WA back in the 1930s (after lots of degrees were added to the raw data on that day).
And homogenisation is meant to take account of supposed poor practices back then, like assuming the people were dills and kept thermometers in direct sunlight. Only problem is, homogenised results have been found where the raw data maximum temperature figure was significantly reduced - even though the maximum occurred at around midnight, when plainly there was no sunlight on the thermometer.
And it matters not whether the analysis leading to the identification of flawed data results is done by members of the IPA or by members of Greenpeace, flawed results are flawed results - and anyone can go and verify them when they are documented.
If we did that, Renato would never be heard of again.
Remember, he who cant accurately interpret basic data like the amount of Ice in the Arctic.... Doesn't respond to basic questions like, "Do you really wannna take the risk with the one habitable planet we know of?"
Hi Renato... I'm Baaaaack
Hi Rom,
I'd just like to point out that with respect to Arctic Ice data, that it is 2014, and the Arctic Ice is still there despite the predictions that it would have all disappeared last year and drowned all the poor polar bears.
Thus the interpretations and subsequent predictions made from the ice data trend figures back in 2006 were entirely flawed. I can understand that, but you seem to be having the difficulty with it.
The latest figures for the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet and the Antarctic Ice sheet, however, are truly alarming. At the current horrendous rate of melting, in a mere 100 years, Greenland will have lost 1% of its ice mass. And the Antarctic will lose 1% of it's ice mass in 2200 years. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight.
It's actually interesting trawling through the BOMs archives of data. It reveals a lot about the growth of Australia. It is really hard though to use the info without "homogenising" it to validate anything to do with climate. There are only a few handfuls of sites that have data extending over 100 years. Most last around 30 years before they are moved.
It was interesting though to review Dubbo and Sydney, which each date back to the mid 1800s in their data acquisition. Sydney saw a steady increase in temp since the turn of the century, Dubbo didn't, and showed a possible cooling, like Amberly. Maybe this effect is due to less development in the surrounding area, presenting more natural conditions for data acquisition.
Actually you raise an interesting issue - Peer-Review of the technique versus Quality Assurance of the resulting adjusted data. I spent most of my working life involved with Quality Assurance of Munitions.
So here we have peer-reviewed work by BOM, using best practices in the world. Sounds good so far. Only problem is their data is being subjected to free quality assurance by individuals who have access to the data, and problems keep being found all the time. Australia is a big place, and it is a big job looking at all of the data, by what at the end of the day are amateurs doing it on an ad-hoc basis - yet what those amateurs find is indisputable, because the raw and corrected information is there for verification by anybody.
Apart from the Amberly example, lots of other problems have been documented, such as after homogenisation daily minimum temperature suddenly being higher than that day's daily maximum temperature - something that plainly wasn't the case with the raw data, and where homogenisation produced flawed results by definition. Peer Review may put it's stamp of approval on that all it likes, but the result is wrong.
Another example, is the hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia. After homogenisation the hottest temperature didn't occur where the raw data typically shows it in central parts of Australia, but by the beach in Albany WA back in the 1930s (after lots of degrees were added to the raw data on that day).
And homogenisation is meant to take account of supposed poor practices back then, like assuming the people were dills and kept thermometers in direct sunlight. Only problem is, homogenised results have been found where the raw data maximum temperature figure was significantly reduced - even though the maximum occurred at around midnight, when plainly there was no sunlight on the thermometer.
And it matters not whether the analysis leading to the identification of flawed data results is done by members of the IPA or by members of Greenpeace, flawed results are flawed results - and anyone can go and verify them when they are documented.
Regards,
Renato
Yes, quality assurance is very important. Without it, you'll have people putting out statements that the amount of ice in the Arctic is increasing despite un-homogenised data that states exactly the opposite...
Hi Rom,
I'd just like to point out that with respect to Arctic Ice data, that it is 2014, and the Arctic Ice is still there despite the predictions that it would have all disappeared last year and drowned all the poor polar bears.
"After an unusually cool summer in the northernmost latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on September 13, 2013. Analysis of satellite data by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showed that sea ice extent shrunk to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles).
The extent of sea ice this September is substantially greater than last year’s record low. On September 16, 2012, Arctic sea ice spread across just 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles)—the smallest extent ever recorded by satellites and about half the average minimum from 1981 to 2010.
Though less Arctic sea ice melted in 2013 compared to 2012, this year’s total is the sixth lowest in the satellite record. This year continues a long-term downward trend of about 12 percent Arctic sea ice loss per decade since the late 1970s—a decline that accelerated after 2007."
In short, you couldn't read a graph if my life depended on it But, you will ignore this and continue to twaddle on because... because.. The satellite imagery has been doctored OF COURSE!
Anyone with a cents worth of intelligence understands that modeling earths systems is an inexact science and any twit who expects the systems to respond by a specific date is just that, a twit.
However, its a hell of a lot easier to look at long term trends and get a pretty good idea whats happening, unless you have some vested interest for being a twit, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Thus the interpretations and subsequent predictions made from the ice data trend figures back in 2006 were entirely flawed. I can understand that, but you seem to be having the difficulty with it.
Flawed, only because they don't meet your head in the sand criteria for accurate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
The latest figures for the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet and the Antarctic Ice sheet, however, are truly alarming. At the current horrendous rate of melting, in a mere 100 years, Greenland will have lost 1% of its ice mass. And the Antarctic will lose 1% of it's ice mass in 2200 years. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Cheers,
Renato
Yeah, in whose fairyland? People like you like to pull random twaddle from totally discredited sources and promote it as the truth, yet you ignore the fact that every credible scientific body on the planet says this is real. Your agenda? Spreading doubt to undermine efforts by those who give a XXXXe about protecting the planet.
We are only just beginning to understand the potential of some of the feedback loops that operate on this planet and, if the science is even remotely accurate, we're in deep WITH NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.
It's actually interesting trawling through the BOMs archives of data. It reveals a lot about the growth of Australia. It is really hard though to use the info without "homogenising" it to validate anything to do with climate. There are only a few handfuls of sites that have data extending over 100 years. Most last around 30 years before they are moved.
It was interesting though to review Dubbo and Sydney, which each date back to the mid 1800s in their data acquisition. Sydney saw a steady increase in temp since the turn of the century, Dubbo didn't, and showed a possible cooling, like Amberly. Maybe this effect is due to less development in the surrounding area, presenting more natural conditions for data acquisition.
The thermal heat island effect in towns over the last century and a half(from concrete, bricks, buildings, asphalt) is something well known, and which climate scientists correct for when looking at historical records to determine temperature trends. How good that correction is, has had some debate.Though that issue is unrelated to what was raised in the Australian article.
Regards,
Renato
"After an unusually cool summer in the northernmost latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on September 13, 2013. Analysis of satellite data by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showed that sea ice extent shrunk to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles).
The extent of sea ice this September is substantially greater than last year’s record low. On September 16, 2012, Arctic sea ice spread across just 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles)—the smallest extent ever recorded by satellites and about half the average minimum from 1981 to 2010.
Though less Arctic sea ice melted in 2013 compared to 2012, this year’s total is the sixth lowest in the satellite record. This year continues a long-term downward trend of about 12 percent Arctic sea ice loss per decade since the late 1970s—a decline that accelerated after 2007."
In short, you couldn't read a graph if my life depended on it But, you will ignore this and continue to twaddle on because... because.. The satellite imagery has been doctored OF COURSE!
Anyone with a cents worth of intelligence understands that modeling earths systems is an inexact science and any twit who expects the systems to respond by a specific date is just that, a twit.
However, its a hell of a lot easier to look at long term trends and get a pretty good idea whats happening, unless you have some vested interest for being a twit, of course.
Originally Posted by Renato1http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif Thus the interpretations and subsequent predictions made from the ice data trend figures back in 2006 were entirely flawed. I can understand that, but you seem to be having the difficulty with it.
Flawed, only because they don't meet your head in the sand criteria for accurate
Originally Posted by Renato1http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif The latest figures for the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet and the Antarctic Ice sheet, however, are truly alarming. At the current horrendous rate of melting, in a mere 100 years, Greenland will have lost 1% of its ice mass. And the Antarctic will lose 1% of it's ice mass in 2200 years. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Cheers,
Renato
Yeah, in whose fairyland? People like you like to pull random twaddle from totally discredited sources and promote it as the truth, yet you ignore the fact that every credible scientific body on the planet says this is real. Your agenda? Spreading doubt to undermine efforts by those who give a XXXXe about protecting the planet.
We are only just beginning to understand the potential of some of the feedback loops that operate on this planet and, if the science is even remotely accurate, we're in deep WITH NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.
Hi Rom,
Climate Scientist predictions of Arctic Ice trends in 2006, were that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013.
You do not believe that the prediction was a flawed prediction, when the very stuff you cite shows that there is abundant ice there. May I suggest that it isn't me with the head-in-the-sand, and who is having difficulty dealing with reality.
Well, they won't get caught out again
If you read to the bottom of this link, you'll see they are predicting it to go ice free for some of the year at some time in the 21st century. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php
As for the supposed "fairyland" and "random twaddle", you are most welcome to find different estimates as to how long it will take for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to lose 1% of their mass. But instead, all you do is raise unsupported assertion that it is plainly wrong, with some kind of quasi-religious sermonizing fervor.
Yes, quality assurance is very important. Without it, you'll have people putting out statements that the amount of ice in the Arctic is increasing despite un-homogenised data that states exactly the opposite...
I notice that you haven't addressed anything I actually wrote.
Funny thing about your fixation with the Arctic ice which hasn't disappeared as previously predicted, is that when one looks at the yearly maximum Arctic sea ice extent, there hasn't been much change at all in the last 15 years http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php
In a warmer ocean, wouldn't one expect both minimum and maximum sea ice extent to drop significantly, rather than just one of them?
Cheers,
Renato
I notice that you haven't addressed anything I actually wrote.
Funny thing about your fixation with the Arctic ice which hasn't disappeared as previously predicted, is that when one looks at the yearly maximum Arctic sea ice extent, there hasn't been much change at all in the last 15 years http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php
In a warmer ocean, wouldn't one expect both minimum and maximum sea ice extent to drop significantly, rather than just one of them?
Cheers,
Renato
This as little or nothing to do with your original post which I found interesting on many levels.
But have a look at the link below which seems to offer a possible answer to your question above.
I do think the sensationalism over the years has clouded the issue for many people but perhaps we do have reason for concern if a trend of warming can be established
I saw the article in the paper on the weekend, and in particular the graph which the OP has appended to the first post.
It is IMMEDIATELY obvious when looking at the raw data that there is a step-shift downwards in 1980 - obviously, "something" changed with the way the raw data was being collected in about 1980. You have to adjust the data for this "something" before you can attempt to analyse for underlying trends.
Neither of the segments left or right of the step shows any apparent downward trend. If you instead fit a straight line by eye to each of the two segments, what do you get? Two upward trending lines which are roughly parallel with the trend-line in the homogenised data.
It looks like the person who created the graph simply fitted a linear trend-line to the complete data set, including across the step-change, in order to support a claim that temperatures are dropping. The sole basis of the claimed downward trend is a spurious step-change in the data which is being "analysed".
Funny thing about your fixation with the Arctic ice which hasn't disappeared as previously predicted, is that when one looks at the yearly maximum Arctic sea ice extent, there hasn't been much change at all in the last 15 years http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php
Did you even LOOK at your own data?!
If you plot the data in the table, you get a clear downward trend in both the winter and summer measurements - although the trend is MUCH stronger in the summer figures.
Also, the averages over time are quite significant:
Winter average - 1979-2000: 15.7
Winter average - 2001-2014: 15.1
Summer average - 1979-2000: 7.0
Summer average - 2001-2014: 5.5
Only the wilfully blind would argue that this data doesn't show a clear trend!
Figures show the rate of ice loss from Greenland has doubled since 2009 so using the current rate of melting to predict anything is deliberately misleading and dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Hi Rom,
Climate Scientist predictions of Arctic Ice trends in 2006, were that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013.
Which Climate scientists predicted that? Reference please.
What about predictions of sceptics though? Here's where your beloved sceptic Bob Carter predicted global cooling and stated that it "has been cooling since 2002". http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/01/...lobal-cooling/
Of course he was completely wrong.
No comment yet on the fact that Maurice Newman (whose opinion on renewables you previously lauded) has deliberately misrepresented the work of scientist Mike Lockwod? That makes Newman a liar and fraud.
As for surface temperatures, sceptic blogger Anthony Watts has repeatedly claimed that the US surface temperature record is unreliable and has been manipulated but investigation after investigation (Menne, 2010, Muller etc) has shown him to both wrong and quite dishonest.
In your world only scientists have to be perfect I guess whereas deniers can trot out any old garbage and you'll believe them.
