"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

BOM Temperature Tampering exposed

Orwell's 1984  provides blueprint for climate data revision
Following a story broken by real scientist Jennifer Marohasy on huge temperature "adjustments" at Rutherglen and Amberley the BOM made a pathetic attempt to justify the tampering at Rutherford saying the thermometer had moved and it was necessary to massively cool last century readings. However retired scientist Bill Johnson has told Graham Lloyd of the Australian that the meter has not moved and shows that the region cooled slightly over a 100 year period.
THE  official catalogue of ­weather stations contradicts the Bureau of Meteorology’s explanation that the relocation of the thermo­meter in the Victorian winegrowing district of Rutherglen has turned a cooling into a warming trend.
Analysis of the 100-year ­record at the station shows a cooling of 0.35C in the raw data had become a 1.73C warming after “homogenisation” by BOM.
A review of the data by independent scientist Jennifer Marohasy shows the warming trend had been achieved by progressively dropping temperatures from 1973 back to 1913.
For 1913 the difference ­between the raw temperature and the BOM homogenised figure was 1.8C.
BOM said the discrepancy in the data was consistent with the thermometer site moving from a farm building on a small hill outside the town to its current ­location on low-lying flat ground. Minimum temperatures are normally higher on slopes than on flat ground or in valleys.
However, the official catalogue of all stations used to make up the national temperature record says the Rutherglen thermometer is an automatic weather station in the grounds of a research farm, 7km southeast of Rutherglen. Not only has the station not moved since being ­established in 1913, it’s “well outside the town area, on flat ground over grass but with low hills a few hundred metres to the north”.
“There have been no documented site moves during the site’s history,” it says.
BOM has so far been unable to explain that discrepancy.
Retired scientist Bill Johnston, who has worked at Rutherglen, said a temporary thermometer had been put on higher ground near the office of the farm but it never provided temperatures to the bureau.
“Some locals thought the ­official data was not particularly inviting for winter tourists,’’ Dr Johnston said.
“So they established a second Stevenson screen near the office on a watered lawn, near fruit trees, so it was pretty useless as a weather station.”
The bureau says its homogenisation of temperature records is used by other weather agencies and has been “peer reviewed”. Homogenisation is used to remove anomalies from complex data sets. Defenders of the bureau have called critics “amateurs”.
Dr Marohasy says BOM is acting without supporting metadata in a way “that the temperature record is completely altered, despite the ­absence of evidence of any changes in siting, equipment or any other factor that could conceivably introduce a non-­climatic ­discontinuity”.

No comments:

Post a Comment