I can’t comment specifically on the Australian data as I haven’t analysed them but the simple reality is that the adjustments made to global temperature records have introduced a DOWNWARD bias in temperatures in recent decades.
This is a most inconvenient fact for the skeptics as they consistently claim the data are revised upward but consistently fail to provide any evidence to back up their claims. The past and present data are available online for the whole world to access, anyone can run their own comparisons. Skeptics won’t because it proves them wrong*.
Here’s the graph for the LOTI record, the others produce similar results:
Dr Marohasy was merely asking her Bureau of Meteorology to explain the corrections to minimum temperatures for Amberley, Queensland, in this analysis. So far, they do not have a good answer, http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/05...
The chart below shows the data. The most extreme example is Amberley on the right hand side. Marohasy asked the BoM if the calculations were correct. They replied by attempting to justify the correction of 3.6 °C.
Let's just take a step back. The original temperatures were recorded as and when they occurred. Now, many years later, we know with even more accuracy what those temperatures actually were. Colour me sceptical.
The Australian BoM also claim that figures prior to 1990 may be Classified (i.e. Top Secret!). Presumably, anyone who can remember or who has recorded a temperature prior to 1990 is now a threat to Australian security. As Dr Marohasy suggests: "That’s right, there is apparently a reason for jumping-up the minimum temperatures for Amberley but it just can’t provide Mr Lloyd with the supporting meta-data at this point in time."
@ Trevor: " ... they consistently claim the data are revised upward but consistently fail to provide any evidence to back up their claims." Does this not address your point about evidence?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...
From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...
We didn't withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. It is a binding document we can't withdraw from which was why Howard (Liberal) didn't want to sign it. Perhaps because they see what the scientists see. Rudd (Labour) signed it. Gillard (Labour) introduced carbon tax. Abbott (Liberal) abolished carbon tax but is still binded to the Kyoto protocol.
Such a scandal. Skeptics are responsible? Or are they even involved. Is this bad? Is it a symptom of Urban Heat Island revisited? For the answer to these and others, tune in next week to As the Globe Warms.
Well while the present government maybe skeptic, most of the governments before have been leftish, and definitely climate alarmist, including their national telivision ABC so I am not surprised that the BoM is manipulating data, without being very subtle about it either, they could, because up to now nearly all the media was biased.
Heres one example
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/au...
If scientists just adjusted temperatures to please their political masters, then, yes, scientists who work for skeptic governments would adjust the temperatures downwards.
Gotta love it......Manipulating previously manipulated data in order to manipulate the appearance of credible of data.
Smoke and Mirrors attempt by amateurs.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-heat-is-on-over-homogenised-temperature-records/
Given that Australia is run by a skeptic government that withdrew from Kyoto accord and abolished Australia's carbon tax, one wouldn't blame a conspiracy theorist for guessing downward? Yet, even denialists knew the answer was going to be UPWARD..
