What is more likely: that the temperature at Amberley (well inland from the ocean) changed from increasing to cooling in 1980,* despite surrounding areas continuing to warm; or that an unrecorded change in how the temperature was being taken introduced a spurious cooling that should be adjusted if you wanted a true idea of the actual changes to the longer term temperature record?
What is more likely: that climate researchers at the BOM have for years been looking at temperature records and simply saying "that one's going in the wrong direction: let's just increase this one by 1 degree and no one will ever notice", or that they are consistently applying technical and widely accepted scientific procedures to try to make the complete record more accurate?
What is more likely: that idiots will claim that the BOM is "destroying" raw temperature records, even when the very story they are wetting themselves about is based on comparing raw records with adjusted records; or that they will recognise they are being inconsistent idiots?
I know what is likely, or beyond question, really: people who are convinced by Marohasy and Jonova are fools.
* note Ken's statement in comments - "When Amberley anomalies are compared with anomalies from neighbouring
sites, there is a distinct drop around 1980. Certainly it doesn’t look
right. But the adjustment doesn’t look right either." Yes folks, that is what this is all about - a bunch of politically motivated self aggrandising amateurs in the field saying "that doesn't look right - it must be wrong!"
Update: Nick Stokes at his Moyhu blog shows why the Amberley adjustment makes sense.
The point being: there is much less common sense in what Marohasy and Jonova want their rabid followers to believe than the obvious explanation - the 1980 change was spurious and needed adjustment. (And the adjustment applied is nothing remarkable or dishonest.)
Update 2: the focus has shifted to Rutherglen, with a hysterical Jennifer Marohasy wanting "heads to roll" because a retired scientist says there was a thermometer in a different location, but it wasn't used; whereas it appears the BOM believes there was a thermometer move. Even if (and I do not concede the point at all) the retiree is correct, surely there is enough there to indicate mistake rather than fraud. But no, the bile filled climate change denialists think every discrepancy (even apparent discrepancy) is conclusive evidence of fraud. What a joke.
Hotwhopper looks at Rutherglen too, and notes a big break in the raw data, which certainly indicates something amiss in that site.
And back at Moyhu, Nick Stokes shows that homogenisation does not mean all local trends only increase.
So why the need for adjustments and the level of adjustments?You fat headed disability swine?
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure you will not bother reading it, but Zeke had a series of posts about this, to counter the other amateur "I know better than climate scientists" idiot Steve Goddard's recent claims of fraudulent adjustments to the US record.
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
Don't spend me off to do homework, you idiot. Explain it in your own words as to why those changes are required.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need Homer Paxton to help you as we all know how numerate he is.
Prediction confirmed...
ReplyDeleteSurely even any old bloviating Catallaxian would understand that changes to equipment, time of readings, siting of thermometers, and urban heat island effects can make raw temperature records over a century need adjustments to get a proper idea of how the temperature has actually changed over a century?
The need for adjustments is obvious, you twit.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteyou have to realise JC doesn't understand all that.
Explain the actual reasons for the adjustments in the particular cases that Nova is referring to, you disability pensioned oaf.
ReplyDeletePiss off homer Paxton.
ReplyDeleteJC, read the last link in the update; or does your wife pre-chew your food for you so you don't have to put the merest effort into anything?
ReplyDeleteHas the site been moved, yes or no?
ReplyDeletehttp://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/
We have one guy who used to be there, sometimes, who said there was another thermometer but it wasn't used. It looks like there is a break in the raw data in the 60's. Graham Readfern says the BOM has "documentary evidence" of a move in thermometers.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, we are to hear more, but meanwhile, hysterical Jennifer Marohasy wants "heads to roll" over this based on one retired scientist's recollection?
You're a gullible fool, JC, willing to believe a woman with grandiose ideas that she's found a smoking gun.
You and your Catallaxy mates don't understand homogenisation and leap to conclusions before you have a proper picture of what's happened.
more evidence that the mad 'right' are as paranoid and into conspiracy theories as the old time 50s commos.
ReplyDeletehow sad but typical as they are very lazy.
By the way you will be pleaed to note Davidsson groups you. M0nty, Gerard Jackson and my self as haters.
Criticism equals hate. Poor sad creature
"Graham Readfern says the BOM has "documentary evidence" of a move in thermometers."
ReplyDeleteOkay, then let him find the evidence and present it.
As for believing this or that woman... Moron I simply work on evidence, unlike you.
You on the other hand need to get a grip on the fact that the climate change models are rooted and don't align with the love data.
STFU stepford.
JC, even if (for the sake of the argument) one site was way wrong because of a bad adjustment, do you really think it is going to make a difference to the total picture built up over 100's of stations over about a century?
ReplyDeleteAs one commenter at WUWT noted, the satellite record for Australia even indicates the BOM rate of warming isn't likely to be far off the mark.
And then there was the Berkeley Earth project, using completely independent ways of working through the temperature records, which concluded the existing records had all got it pretty much spot on.
It's pathetic desperation that climate change denialists keep returning to their ten year old vomit that has been shown to be rubbish time and time again, and accuse climate researchers of fraud. Marohasy and Jonova are IPA aligned jokes.
Stepford
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't one station alone. The issue is to find out if they lied. It's a good way of establishing if we need to invoke the cockroach theory... Where there's one there's always more.
The Berkeley analysis was just for US temps you moron.
You're wrong about Berkeley Earth. From their website:
ReplyDelete"Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results."
You know, what you heard 2 years ago might be out of date by now...
Stepford:
ReplyDeleteI've never argued against Berkeley's findings although I wasn't aware they had also looked at the global temp, which is more recent. I always thought the guy running the analysis was a straight shooter.
However I don't have the same feeling about the plebs in Australia and this is why I along with a lot of people would like to know just how they came up with that adjustment.
I think there's a sacking on the way.
Rubbish.
ReplyDeleteLook, one of the most irritating things about this is that Marohasy, Jonova and retired blokes spending time in their sheds staring at temperatures records they don't understand try to make out that they have discovered something hidden.
It's the complete opposite - as I said in my post, you actually want to believe that technicians and scientists at BOM sit around and deliberately make fraudulent adjustments that they know are going to be out there for anyone to find. How credible is that??
And if there a conspiracy to do this that lots of people in the BOM is in on - it is utterly absurd to think that a disgruntled ex employee would not have gone public on it.
What you want to believe is ridiculous.
I have put this into Around the Traps Steve.
ReplyDeleteThat Mohyu is a good blog. He certainly demolishes the argument that changes increases the temperature overall.