AUSTRALIAN DATA FIDDLED BY CRU

[marchesarosa]

Courtesy of WUWT's "Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero" by Willis Eschenbach here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/



Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement to CRU about Australia:

“Another example is North Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC North Australia diagram [below] based on?"





"If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature [trend] has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.”

00000000

One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. It uses three stations in North Australia as Wibjorn said, and nine stations in all of Australia, that cover the period 1900-2000. Three is not a lot of stations, but that’s all of the century-long Australian records we have in the IPCC North Australia region.


Here is the average of the RAW GHCN unadjusted data for those SAME three Northern stations at Darwin, Alice Springs and Yamba, from AIS. NO UPWARD TREND




Here are the RAW data for the 30 stations with century-long records in Northern Australia. NO UPWARD TREND





Here are the RAW data for absolutely ALL the 222 stations in Northern Australia, irrespective of length of the record. NO UPWARD TREND.





SO WHY IS CRU CHERRY-PICKING THE DATA AND THEN TORTURING IT ?

I SUPPOSE IT'S COS THEY WANT TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR THESIS OF 'ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING'




So what happened with the CRU/IPCC numbers?





"Before getting homogenized, temperatures (blue) in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century … but after the homogenization (red), they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. And the adjustment (black) that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C."

Thanks to Willis Eschenbach posting at WattsUpWithThat

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

[marchesarosa]

The way I read it, joe is that the IPCC chart misses out the higher pre-1910 data.

And if you look at the SPECIFIC Darwin data you can see how the raw data has been adjusted out of all recognition.

The data has been artificially LOWERED for pre 1940 and artificially INCREASED for post 1940 to create the illusion of a steeply rising trend.



Joe you're not supposed to ask awkward questions. I'm the teacher here.

[marchesarosa]

What I do not understand is why there is no increase in temperature over the last 10 years (agreed by all scientists) despite massive emissions of CO2 over the same period.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there, joe. Note the IPCC thumbnail graphs stop at 2000.

[marchesarosa]

Smoking Guns Across Australia: Where’s the warming?

Looking at 16 other locations.

joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/

[marchesarosa]

Joe, I've just got back from Scottish Dancing and have had had a chance to look in more detail at the difference between the first (IPCC) graph and the fourth (raw ghcn) graph.

Both are anomaly graphs, i.e they plot the differences between each year's temp and the average annual temp (zero) over the period. The shape of the lines may be roughly similar but the similarity ends there. The scales on the y-axis are different for a start and the number of years used to compute the average is probably also different.

If you draw a line across the IPCC graph on the zero (average) level you will see that most of the anomaly line is above zero and it ends in 2000 about 0.6 degrees C higher than the average. (I'm not sure on what period the average is based - is it 1910 to 2000 or less?)

Looking at the zero line across the 4th (raw ghcn) graph you will see that the anomaly line post-2000 is only 0.1 degree C above the average for the whole previous 130 years.

Conclusion: The graph of the average anomaly of ALL the measuring stations in North Australia shows only one tenth of a degree difference between the lastest measured temps for the 21st Century and the previous 130 year average. That difference would probably be considered statistically insignificant so there is no upward trend at all in this region.


Phew! I thought you had me there.

[marchesarosa]

Yes, It's not clear about the base period. IPCC often uses 1961 to 1990, whereas the raw data gives the average of ALL years so it gives a better long-term view.

The margin of error in any temperature data, whether with an individual station or averaged data over time or space may be greater than the variability supposed measured.

HOWEVER, the IPCC does cherry pick the places and the base periods it uses to demonstrate a steeper upward trend gradient than the raw data warrants. That is surely uncontested, joe?