From Jo Nova:
How accurate are our national climate datasets when some adjustments turn entire long stable records from cooling trends to warming ones (or visa versa)? Do the headlines of “hottest ever record” (reported to a tenth of a degree) mean much if thermometer data sometimes needs to be dramatically changed 60 years after being recorded?
One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area…
This really stinks. Thermometers get calibrated when they’re made. And thereafter the raw data is whatever is read off them. And that data should be sacred. Because there’s no other record.
Why are they screwing around with the data? And why is a 70 year cooling trend being converted into a 70 year warming trend? The answer is probably that they want to see a warming trend (because that’s their ideological commitment), and so they’ve screwed around with the raw data to create a warming trend. And then they can show the warming trend to the Australian government and say, “Here’s the temperature trend in Amberley. It’s been steadily warming. And that’s very worrying.”
They may as well throw away all the thermometers and just make up the ‘data’ off the top of their heads.
I think the reason for the ‘homogenization’ is that air temperature is recorded in relatively few locations, and there are large areas where there are no records at all. So what they do then is to say that if it was 20°C 100 miles north of some place, and 26°C 100 miles south of it, then the temperature half way in between was most likely 23°C. Or else there are two or three thermometers a few miles apart, and they all have different readings, and so the average of them is taken, and some are ‘corrected’ upwards, some downwards. Something like that.
But however it’s done, and for whatever reason, the end result is a fabrication. It’s the result of having insufficient or contradictory data, and trying to extract good data from it. Really they should just say, “We don’t have enough data.”
When the whole planet is covered with accurate thermometers at 10 mile intervals, it may be possible – without making any extrapolations or interpolations or adjustments or corrections at all – to at last measure whether the planet is warming or cooling.
In the mean time, we all remain in the dark, and our ‘climate scientists’ are just guessing, and they should be ignored until they’ve got some good data.