Australian Met Office accused of man-made climate change (again) 

Posted: February 16, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, data, ideology, Temperature
Tags:



This approach to data seems par for the course in climatology, as they strive ever more to make the world look warmer than before, in order to prop up the failing theory of human-caused trace gases ruining the world.

Source: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

The Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, greatly increasing the rate of warming since 1910 in its controversial homogenised data set, writes Graham Lloyd in The Australian.

Rather than the nation’s temperature having increased by 1C over the past century, the ­bureau’s updated homogenised data set, known as ACORN-SAT, now shows mean temperatures have risen by 1.23C.

Bureau data shows the rate of mean warming since 1960 has risen to 0.2C a decade, putting the more ambitious IPCC target of limiting future warming to 1.5C close to being broken.

Homogenisation of temperature records is considered necessary to account for changes in instrumentation, changes in site locations and changes in the time at which temperatures were taken.

But the bureau’s treatment of historical data has been controversial. In recent years there have been claims that the organisation was treating temperature records in such a way that left it exposed to accusations that ideological pursuits had trumped good scientific practice.

Continued here.

Related: Jennifer Marohasy – Bureau Rewrites History – Again, at Albany

Comments
  1. ivan says:

    The BoM doing what they do best – making it up as they go along which is typical of the acolytes of the UN Church of Climatology.

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    several people made a challenge to met offices and colleges world wide on this subject. First remove all the ‘estimated’ science fiction numbers from the reported temperatures. Second subtract the measured temps from the final reported temps yielding the “adjustments” to the raw data. Plot that set of numbers along with the CO2 concentration over that period.

    Amazingly, the adjustments rise at pretty much the same slope as the CO2 rise. More CO2? well then well have to jack up the adjustments to the raw data then.

    Next, compare the temp readings (final) from the land, the radiosondes, and the satellites. Two of the three agree very closely. Guess which one is odd man out. Like they say on Sesame Street, “one of these things is not the same…”

  3. oldbrew says:

    Formula: the less actual temp rise, the more ‘adjustments’ are needed.
    – – –
    Weak El Niño forecast for next few months, unlikely to be long-lasting.
    https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2019-02-14-el-nino-has-developed-weak-winter-spring

    NOAA says: ~55% chance.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

  4. nzrobin says:

    In the cartoon, suggest that after ‘is’ the words ‘- or was’. Thought that’d cover both ends better.

  5. oldbrew says:

    If we had worldwide natural cooling for a period of centuries (LIA), it isn’t unreasonable to imagine that being followed by a few centuries of natural warming i.e. where we have been in recent times until now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    oldbrew says:
    February 16, 2019 at 4:26 pm
    ————————————–
    that’s why they’ve spent so much time trying to “prove” the LIA was just a European event. Just saw an article right in front of this one showing Australia was affected and a year or so ago several papers showing South America affected, etc., etc.

    LIA = very cold. Not the LIA = back to normal temps. duh.

    If they localize the LIA then current temperature rise (“since the beginning of the Industrial age”, i.e., since the end of the LIA) is all our fault.

  7. Phoenix44 says:

    So what exactly have they discovered since they last did this that means they must change it again?

    That is what they must demonstrate, that they now have a much better understanding of how to do this more “accurately”.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Phoenix – see Marohasy link at the end of our blog post e.g.:

    JM: Most climate scientists seem to want to believe that the temperature values that they are working with represent real measurements. But they don’t!

    Just recently this ACORN-SAT database – used by Lewis, Karoly and thousands of other scientists here in Australia and also overseas – was updated. Dr Blair Trewin at the Bureau has re-adjusted temperature values yet again, creating ACORN-SAT Version 2.

    In the case of Albany, the maximum temperature on 8th February 1933 is now shown as 49.5 degrees Celsius. In reality the maximum temperature in Albany on that day back in 1933 was 44.8 degrees Celsius.
    – – –
    So who is kidding who here? Bizarre ‘science’ indeed.

  9. ivan says:

    No matter how they fiddle the figures there is the inconvenient truth to be found in the local newspapers of the time.

    The question we should be asking is ‘what will this do to scientific progress when the next LIA arrives’. These zealots appear determined to dig the grave for science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s