Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin “the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling”. Here’s his graph:

i-8ef50b1d142e2fb73ff4d88341e8fbeb-fig_7-ghcn-averages.png

That blue line for raw temperature in his graph combines different records without any adjustment, even though Eschenbach could see that there was a step change between record 0 and record 1.

The adjustment procedure used is described here, with the the authors noting:

A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the
effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature
trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales
of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have
an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the
adjustments can be enormous. These adjustments are the best we could
do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a
global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series
created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station’s
data is more indicative of regional climate change and less
representative of local microclimatic change than an individual
station not needing adjustments.

Eschenbach, however, simply declares the NOAA’s adjustments “blatantly bogus” that created a “false warming”. This isn’t a strong argument, but maybe there is a way to check the NOAA’s work?

Oh look, here’s the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s high quality climate data for Darwin aiport

i-79b319c0758157d835b5a9a5d8aba8db-darwintemp.png

Their notes state:

A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. Procedures to identify and adjust for non-climatic changes in historical climate data generally involve a combination of:

  • investigating historical information (metadata) about the observation site,
  • using statistical tests to compare records from nearby locations, and
  • using comparison data recorded simultaneously at old and new locations, or with old and new instrument types.

And full details of the procedure are described in this paper.

I suppose the next argument is that the NOAA and the BOM are conspiring together to falsify the temperature record.

Eschenbach, by the way, has cooked temperature records before.

Comments

  1. #1 sparrowfahrenheit
    December 13, 2009

    Written by a physicist:

    What isn’t mentioned in this article is that the data can be “homogenized” to give a downward as well as an upward trend – depending on what is used as a baseline. This is not spin – just simple statistics. “Homogenization” of data is patently unscientific (this is not allowed in hard science). Just because the airport increased in temperature – does not mean we should automatically adjust every other inhomogeneous data set to do the same. This is guessing – not science.

    Truthfully, such poor non-homogeneous data should be thrown out – or included in such a large sampling of data that both upward and downward inhomegenaities statistically cancel. The size of this larger sample would be determined by the amount of error in the calculations. No “homogenization” allowed – to easily biased.

    Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp. The auther is merely showing their bias and hoodwinking all your non-statasticians.

    Willis Eschenbach’s commentary remains more scientifically correct (no data manipulation). Although, as previously noted, a larger and homogeneous data set is needed to know what is really happening over a larger area with any certainty. Truthfully, we don’t have anything here more than poor measurements – and possibly some wishful thinking – by BOTH political camps.

    Chill out – all you children are far too excited.

  2. #2 luminous beauty
    December 13, 2009

    sparrowfart,

    Admit it. You haven’t read this comment string, have you?

  3. #3 Janet Akerman
    December 13, 2009

    sparrowfahrenheit,

    Please support this statement with evidence:

    >*Homogenization” of data is patently unscientific (this is not allowed in hard science).*

  4. #4 Bud
    December 13, 2009

    No actual refutations of what has been shown to be wrong with Eschenbach’s post then, Mr “Physicist”? Just think you can come in, throw some assertions around and expect your “I’m an (anonymous) physicist, therefore I have final say on what is and isn’t science” line to impress everyone into submission.

    Interesting that despite amusingly incompetent attempts to assert yourself as some kind of objective arbiter learning us all about science and statistics and other scary things, you can make a statement such as:

    Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp. The auther is merely showing their bias and hoodwinking all your non-statasticians.

    Now, I may not be a statistician, but even I know that that statement is meaningless. First, because speaking strictly regarding site movement across the single Darwin Airport station, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to the trend whether you “homogenise to the cooler, not the hotter temp”. Second, because there are not merely two arbitrary temperature readings to “homogenise” too. And thirdly, because if you check the [raw mean temperature data for Darwin](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1) and compare it with the [annual mean temp](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=014015&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=A), you’ll see that the most radical adjustment was indeed to “the cooler, not the hotter temp”. Again, not that it makes a difference to the trend.

    I’m not an expert, and neither, despite your pretences, are you. The difference between us is that a) I’m upfront about my lack of expertise and b) I have enough humility to be willing to learn, and to be wrong. Also, I bother to read people’s posts.

    I suggest you follow that example. I’d suggest it’s the grown-up thing to do.

  5. #5 Bud
    December 13, 2009

    If you can kindly ignore the multitude of typos above, but it’s late where I am…

  6. #6 Lee
    December 13, 2009

    sparrow, bud, et al.

    Guys, have you BOTHERED to look and see what difference all this makes to trends calculated using the the raw vs adjusted data?

    Try here:

    [raw v adjusted](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif)

    That graph shows, for the US, the annual temps calculated using the raw data, and then overlain on it, the results of each successive adjustment to the data.

    The total adjustment for the US causes an increase in trend over the 20th century of about 0.25 C / Century. Of that, about 0.2C is due entirely to correction for time of observation and or transitioning to MMTS sensors. These are necessary, well documented adjustments due to known changes in observing technique, and are not part of the homogenization itself.

    The remaining 0.05C adjustment is from the homogenization – which is designed to statistically handle things like station moves and urban heat island encroachment. This means that the entire homogenization procedure applied to the entire US, leads to an increase in the trend of ~ 0.05C / century. Removing the homogenization step entirely, would cause a decrease in the trend for the US of 0.05C per freaking century. And you guys are up ini arms about how terribly misleading and unscientific and fraudulent this is? Get freaking real.

    [USHCN1](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html)

  7. #7 dhogaza
    December 13, 2009

    What isn’t mentioned in this article is that the data can be “homogenized” to give a downward as well as an upward trend – depending on what is used as a baseline. This is not spin – just simple statistics. “Homogenization” of data is patently unscientific

    Baseline, of course, isn’t relevant for trend calculations.

    Regarding homogenization being invalid …

    Tell that to doctors who homogenize ass-measured temps to oral-measured temps, and explain to them that the fact that ass-temps are lower than oral temps disproves everything medicine knows about historical records, because, you know, any adjustment is “fraudulent” blah blah.

  8. #8 dhogaza
    December 13, 2009

    What isn’t mentioned in this article is that the data can be “homogenized” to give a downward as well as an upward trend – depending on what is used as a baseline.

    And, of course, the poster doesn’t know what homogenization means …

    Wow … the illiterate overturning the work not only of thousands of climate scientists, but *every* scientist, and engineer, too.

    God, it’s a miracle his PC works …

  9. #9 carrot eater
    December 14, 2009

    If anybody wants to see it, George Sherrington has found the historical metadata for Darwin. Keep in mind that the GHCN method does not use this information, but it is such changes that the method is trying to detect, statistically.

    It is in alladj here.

    ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/

  10. #10 Bud
    December 14, 2009

    @ Lee:

    It’s possible that my typos and general English last night was even worse than I’d originally alluded to, but I’m fairly sure if you’d read my comment at #305 again (as well as various other comments I’ve made on this topic) you’d find that I was arguing against sparrow, and most emphatically not calling fraud of any kind.

    Again, my point was that sparrow’s:

    “Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp.”

    Basically demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what this whole subject has been about. For the reasons I mentioned. Take out the data pre-1940, and the homogenisation makes very little difference to the trend. Nick Stokes @#57 showed this better than I did, using the corresponding GISS data.

    Thanks for giving the overall picture, but a little slower on the trigger next time please. :)

  11. #11 Lee
    December 14, 2009

    @ bud.

    My apologies. It wasn’t your typos, but my sleep deprivation at the time.

    -Lee

  12. #12 Bud
    December 14, 2009

    Lee, no worries. Cheers.

  13. #13 Michael Turton
    December 14, 2009

    Not only is his bogus 500 kms not in the original paper, but when he says there is no station for that period within 500 kms, he’s wrong: according to the Excel file from the Aussie Climate data centre, the reference climate station at the Darwin Post Office — basically right next to the airport — covers the data from 1885-1941.

    Hard to imagine how he could have missed that, since DARWIN AIRPORT and DARWIN POST OFFICE are right next to each other in the Excel file.

    Michael Turton
    The View from Taiwan

  14. #14 MapleLeaf
    December 15, 2009

    I posted this on the Monckton thread in connection with Monckton claiming that there has been no warming for 15 years, but it is perhaps more relevant here.

    Monckton may have sourced this comment from something posted at The Air Vent on 12 November 2009. Jeff Id says at one point “so let’s have a little fun with the team”. You can read the full post at:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/no-warming-for-fifteen-years/

    So it appears that Monckton’s comment was made in reference to some stats analysis made by Jeff Id who concluded that “three of four measurements show no significant global warming for the last 15 years and came very close to clearing the 17 year mark.”

    The denialists were/are over the moon with this analysis. Unfortunately for them, Tamino has soundly scuttled their “brilliant analysis”, today in fact, what great timing:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124

    Tamino concludes that “That does not mean that there’s been no warming trend in those 15 years — or in the last 10, or 9, or 8, or 7, or 6 years, or three and a half days. It only means that the trend cannot be established with statistical signficance. Of course, it’s another common denialist theme that “there’s been no warming.” This too is a fool’s argument; any such claims are only statements about the noise, not about the trend. It’s the trend that matters, and is cause for great concern, and there’s no evidence at all that the trend has reversed, or even slowed.”

    The denialists really do know how to massage and distort data.

  15. #15 edward
    December 16, 2009

    Why homogenize the data at all?
    See the following at the link http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824

    When a temperature station is moved it should simply become a new station at that point in time, with a new set of siting errors (and accuracy if the sensor is upgraded). It has a different time window than it previous incarnation – it is a new data set. You don’t ‘homogenize’ neighboring stations into a mythical (and fictional) virtual station.

    Basically what alarmists needed to do was not adjust data, they needed to create a thermal atmosphere model which would take into account siting characteristics both local and large. This would include distance from large bodies of water, altitude, latitude, etc. A three dimensional model that would explain why various stations have their unique siting profiles and temperature records. It would explain why temperatures near oceans fluctuate less than stations inland 100-200 miles. It would show how a global average increase of 1°C would result in a .6°C increase at high latitudes or altitudes. It would EXPLAIN the data variations in the measurements.

    “But we don’t have this model. Alarmists cannot explain with accuracy why stations 10 miles apart show different temperature profiles each and every day of the year. So they pretend to know how to ‘adjust’ the data…”

  16. #16 dhogaza
    December 16, 2009

    It would explain why temperatures near oceans fluctuate less than stations inland 100-200 miles

    Yeah, it’s really a scandal that scientists don’t understand why this is true. It’s also a pity that they don’t know why this is more true on the western coasts of continents in the northern hemisphere. It’s also a pity they haven’t given these regions a catchy name, like “Maritime Climates”.

    Oh, wait …

  17. #17 Ripper
    December 16, 2009

    Here is how merging two stations 12 km apart and 62 metres different in elevation can distort things.

    http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hchomog.jpg

    If you check fig 8 of the pdf http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf, this should have set off alarm bells.

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    edward:

    Basically what alarmists needed to do was not adjust data, they needed to create a thermal atmosphere model

    So a science denialist thinks there should be a model?

    Oh, the irony.

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    December 16, 2009

    319 Chris,

    Surely Edward is a Poe (although his punctuation makes it hard to tell what he’s saying and what he’s quoting)?

  20. #20 Lester Hunt
    December 21, 2009

    I urge people to read Eschenbach’s actual posts, and decide for themselves who is actually “lying” here, Eschenbach or Lambert. This is a good place to start:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

  21. #21 dhogaza
    December 21, 2009

    Uh, I’m sure most of us have.

  22. #22 sod
    December 21, 2009

    again, in the comments to that article, Eschenbach admits, that he does not understand the data he is working with.

    No, the “day” is midnite to midnite, so you will only get one high or low per day. The low is typically shortly after dawn, and the high somewhere in the late afternoon.

    he does not know how a min-max thermometer works. he has not understood the time of observation bias. but he insists in using the raw data. pretty insane.

    and the comments are even worse. they don t understand, that positive and negative adjustments nearly balance out over the [TREND](http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/)

    the discussion is worth a look at anyway. special thanks to Nick stokes and JJ for bringing some sense to WUWT…

  23. #23 el gordo
    December 26, 2009

    The method used to correct the UHI is in error, yet we keep pushing predictions for a future that can’t possibly be valid except by chance.

    With so many uncertainties about global warming, it is remarkable that the IPCC is so imperious.

  24. #24 guthrie
    December 26, 2009

    El Gordo – have you ever thought about getting a life? Rather than posting lies and insinuations on a blog you could be out there having fun.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009

    With a never=ending supply of bullshit, it is no surprise el gordo is so imperious.

  26. #26 lance
    December 27, 2009

    So who will be the reliable source now?

  27. #27 Bruce Sharp
    December 27, 2009

    Lance, were you not around when El Gordo posted a link to Denial Depot, not realizing that it was a parody? That might give you some indication of the reliability of El Gordo’s posts.

  28. #28 el gordo
    December 27, 2009

    Wrong Brucy, I first found the parody at Eli R and dropped it here with little comment. It caught a few off guard and for that I apologise, especially to Jeff.

  29. #29 Bruce Sharp
    December 27, 2009

    El Gordo, I don’t doubt that you found the parody at Eli’s. I’m just not sure you understood that it was a parody.

    You are, after all, one of the people here who repeatedly posts weather reports, as though snow in London in the middle of winter says something meaningful about global warming.

    Then again, maybe you only do that as a way of highlighting the absurdity of denialists. Maybe it’s not that you don’t recognize parody when you see it. Maybe I don’t recognize parody. You’ve been spouting silliness for months, and here I was, reading your posts as though you actually meant what you were writing.

  30. #30 ScaredAmoeba
    December 28, 2009

    Eschenbach admits below that NASA GISS are down-playing climate change and that temperatures are rising!

    Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941

    It seems that Eschenbach got his graph in a twist!

    I spotted this while foolishly trying and failing to get a Denidiot to see that Eschenbach was lying.

    Thanks to Tim for highlighting and unravelling this web of deceit.

  31. #31 el gordo
    December 28, 2009

    Bruce

    Eli said it was parody and I believed him. My only crime was failure to raise the ‘parody’ flag, but as my credibility here is close to zero it doesn’t really matter.

    We are moving back into a cool PDO and so we can expect more winter snow in Europe for the next 20 years.

  32. #32 jakerman
    December 28, 2009

    >*but as my credibility here is close to zero it doesn’t really matter.*

    A level of credibility that el gordo has done [much to earn](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2167449)!

  33. #33 zoot
    December 28, 2009

    Close to zero?? You flatter yourself. Try non-existent.

  34. #34 el gordo
    December 28, 2009

    Eschenbach may have got it wrong, but we won’t resolve it here and now with a definitive answer. Anyway, the real action is elsewhere.

    In the mid 1990’s there were some in the environment movement who wanted to de-emphasize the link between AGW and extreme weather because it left them vulnerable.

    But the movement failed to take their own advice and all extreme weather events were offered as further proof of global warming.

    This New Year’s Eve a return of blizzards to North East US and the UK are predicted, which everyone will agree has nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with climate change. Or will I be told that it’s weather and not climate?

  35. #35 TrueSceptic
    December 28, 2009

    335 El Gordo,

    nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with climate change

    What gibberish is that?

    Anyway, it’s weather, not climate. It will still be weather if the UK is covered in 10 feet of snow for a month.

  36. #36 luminous beauty
    December 28, 2009

    >…but as my credibility here is close to zero it doesn’t really matter.

    Au contraire, Gordito, your credibility is a large negative number, quite far from zero.

  37. #37 el gordo
    December 28, 2009

    Sub zero? The mini ice age commeth.

  38. #38 jakerman
    December 29, 2009

    >*Sub zero? The mini ice age commeth.*

    Thanks for re-emphasizing [the point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php#comment-2167629).

  39. #39 el gordo
    December 30, 2009

    Joe Bastardi just made this forecast. Should we take it seriously?

    The major population centers of the northern hemisphere are facing a cold spell not seen in a quarter century. ‘The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion’.

  40. #40 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    A 15 day weather forcast? Keep cherry picking el gordo!

    [This is](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:180/plot/gistemp/last:180/trend) what ‘we’ should take seriously.

  41. #41 el gordo
    December 30, 2009

    What if this winter in the UK is the coldest since 1962-63, is that weather or climate?

  42. #42 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    >*What if this winter in the UK is the coldest since 1962-63, is that weather or climate?*

    What if one season in one country is the coldest since 1962? I’ll call your puny regional weather, and puny 1962 record and raise you with last month, the globally hottest November on record! A record set during an extended solar minima!

    That el gordo, is cherry picking weather. This is the [global climate trend!](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:180/plot/gistemp/last:180/trend)

  43. #43 el gordo
    December 30, 2009

    The NAO and AO tend (like the PDO) to be predominantly positive for some decades and negative during others.

    The NAO and AO went negative at the time of the Copenhagen Conference and may remain in this mode for some time. The PDO is also fully cool.

    These oscillations determine climate, not CO2.

  44. #44 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    >*These oscillations determine climate, not CO2.*

    Now all you need it evidence to match and [surpass this](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html). Oh and the evidence that [keeps mounting](http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html)!

  45. #45 Antoni Jaume
    December 30, 2009

    Here at 39º41’3.85″ North, 2º50’48.60″ East and 142m over the sea, we are having a rather soft end of december: 19 °C, come clouds, wind SW 26km/h, humidity 70%

  46. #46 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    Palma?

  47. #47 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    342 el gordo,

    Weather, of course. Why do you keep repeating similar questions?

  48. #48 Antoni Jaume
    December 30, 2009

    “Palma?”
    Very near, about 22km in the island of Majorca. Should have been colder, but somehow siberian air is been contained in northern latitudes of Europe.

  49. #49 luminous beauty
    December 30, 2009
  50. #50 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    346, 347,

    That’s where I make it.

  51. #51 Lee
    December 30, 2009

    Let me get this straight, gordo.

    2009 started with a la nina, and one of the colder winters in recent years. We’re in a negative PDO, have gone from neutral to negative NAO and AO, are a couple years into a major extended solar minimum. We are ending the year with an el nino, but it isn’t very strong. And yet, despite all these conditions trending to colder temperatures and the only ‘warming’ condition being relatively weak, 2009 is going to end up being one of the few hottest years on record.

    This is all weather, of course, but it is striking that even your very own cherry-picked weather contradicts the climate claims you are making, gordo.

  52. #52 Solomon Green
    December 30, 2009

    “Oh look, here’s the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s high quality climate data for Darwin aiport.”

    I looked and what did I see? According to the chart of the high quality data, Darwin Airport was founded within a year or so of the Wright Brothers first flight. Does this make Darwin the first airport in the world? How many other airports were built before 1910?

    Even the AMB only rate Darwin data as “fair”. Perhaps that is because it is now classified as “urban” whereas, unless the airport was built on top of existing buildings, the site was most unlikely to have been urban previously. Could this explain the significant discontinuities in 1930 and later in 1940?

    How much of the obvious temperature increase post-1940 can be traced to increased air travel. Would it not be interesting to see aircraft movements at Darwin Aiport plotted against the temperature anomaly histograms? Or would that be considered a spurious correlation?

  53. #53 el gordo
    December 30, 2009

    Nothing is straight forward, that’s why I raised a question earlier about the hard winter of 1780. The sun was fully active and innocent, so what was the cause?

    A strong La Nina was in place at the time and now we have a weak El Nino, so where’s the link?

    As a member of the general public it would be nice to get an informed response, instead of ‘just the usual pedantic certainty’.

  54. #54 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    el gordo writes:

    >*it would be nice to get an informed response, instead of ‘just the usual pedantic certainty’.*

    el gordo science provides evidence, you provide the [usual arrogant certainty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php#comment-2171077).

  55. #55 Gaz
    December 30, 2009

    According to the chart of the high quality data, Darwin Airport was founded within a year or so of the Wright Brothers first flight.

    No, Solomon Green, the chart indicates that there was a thermometer at or about that location.

    It doesn’t say anything about the history of powered flight.

    What a pathetic note for you to end the year on.

  56. #56 twawki
    February 1, 2010

    Seems like the data manipulation goes on and on and on and on!

    All manipulated up of course

    http://www.twawki.com

  57. #57 Bud
    February 1, 2010

    In other news, black is white and hot snow falls up.

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    February 2, 2010

    Twawki should be renamed twitti. His/her web site peddles the usual anti-scientific contrarian crap; it is no wonder that every ‘article’ has no replies to it. Go away, twawki.

  59. #59 Vangel
    February 16, 2010

    I am sorry to rain on your parade but from what I can see it is the Australian BOM that has a credibility problem, not Willis. As long as the methods and justification used to make the changes are unavailable for review the temperature reconstructions will have to be considered invalid because science does not allow for a ‘trust us, our data and methods are OK,’ position. This should be an easy argument to settle. Make all data, metadata, and methods available for independent review and let the claims stand up to indepenent verification.

  60. #60 Bud
    February 16, 2010

    Vangel, the methods and justification are [here](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf) and [here](http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf). Eschenbach noted them, then ignored them. I can’t be arsed to track the metadata down for you, but given that Eschenbach used it in his post that’s a pretty big clue that it’s publically available. That old line won’t wash here.

    Science may not ideally operate on trust alone (although I’ve yet to meet the layman who wants to peer-review his own coronary bypass operation in situ), but neither can it function under an atmosphere of poison and baseless allegations of fraud. If we had to discard every single old set of historical records because someone didn’t want them to show what they showed and had a hissy fit over a missing notebook here or there then nothing would ever get done.

    Eschenbach would have you believe that it is more likely that he has uncovered bogus data tampering than an outlier station who’s homogenisation has a much greater warming affect than average. Why are you taking him on trust?

  61. #61 zoot
    February 16, 2010

    Vangel @360: What was the BOM’s reply when you asked them for “the methods and justification used to make the changes”? How about when you requested all the “data, metadata, and methods”?
    And what would you do with them if you got them?

  62. #62 CarlNC
    February 17, 2010

    Many on this thread have apparently not read what Eschenbach posted. It is especially troubling that some have been so irresponsible that they called him a liar based on a complete distortion of what he wrote. Even the starting premise of the discussion is questionable.

    Anyone who spends any time reading blogs and internet posts must realize by now that you can’t trust anything anyone writes, even if you desperately want to agree with it. Please, to avoid pointless conflict in the future, do your due diligence, or don’t post.

  63. #63 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    CarlNC,

    I read what Eschenbach posted. I read what you posted, You just presented empty opinion devoid of factual content.

  64. #64 CarlNC
    February 17, 2010

    to jakerman:

    Thank you for your comment. You are correct, I provided no facts because I thought the facts were apparent, and in any case everyone should do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Question everything, even if you are disposed to believe it.

    To expand on my first post:

    There were several posts by W.E. about the Darwin records. It is necessary to read them all in order to fairly judge them.

    The graph “GHCN Raw and Adj. Temperatures Darwin Airport” was presented by W.E. to show the degree of adjustments made. He did not maintain that the unadjusted data was correct, as Lambert implies, thus the premise of this discussion appears to be false. In his (W.E.’s) discussion, he agreed that there was a step change made and an adjustment required. He questioned the reason for all the other adjustments. Perhaps you missed that post, which as I recall was a follow-up. There were other statements made by Lambert that need a line by line fact checking, but I’ll leave that to you.

  65. #65 Bud
    February 17, 2010

    Question everything, even if you are disposed to believe it.

    See, this attitude of waltzing in pretending to be an independent thinker in a sea of sheep is going to do you no favours whatsoever here. Most people here have read the post in question, are well aware of what Eschenbach was trying to do and why he was wrong. If he has since corrected the errors in this post and apologised for the baseless accusation of fraud, feel free to link to it.

    Lambert made no implication as to Eschenbach’s belief about the unadjusted data. He accurately recounts Eschenbach’s belief that the data was adjusted to create false warming. W.E. noted the reasons for homogenisation early on in the ‘smoking gun’ post, then promptly forgot about them. His suggested asjustment has no justification for it at all. He switched from absolute temps to anomolies half-way through his post so as to prevent any reasonable like-for-like comparison between data pre and post homogenisation. He offers no reasonable comparison with other stations available to him, suggesting strongly that he cherry-picked the station that would show the most radical upward adjustment (see Nick Stokes @57 to see effects on other stations).

    And his conclusion after all this? Numbers were deliberately bumped up to show warming. This conclusion has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. The post was an absolute joke.

  66. #66 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    CarlNC writes:

    >*The graph “GHCN Raw and Adj. Temperatures Darwin Airport” was presented by W.E. to show the degree of adjustments made. He did not maintain that the unadjusted data was correct, as Lambert implies, thus the premise of this discussion appears to be false.*

    Did Tim imply that Willis Eschenbach “maintain[ed] that the unadjusted data was correct” and was this the premise of Tim’s post?

    No, the premise was that Eschenbach claims that for Darwin “the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling”.

    And that: Eschenbach, simply declares the NOAA’s adjustments “blatantly bogus” that created a “false warming”.*

    Hence I do not accept the characterization of your criticism as you currently state it.

  67. #67 Patty
    May 20, 2010

    I never know whom to believe. So I will just continue trying to do what I can to help keep the earth from heating up.

  68. #68 jakerman
    August 12, 2010

    >*Oh man. It’s things like this that discredit the entire field of climate research.*

    You mean Willis Eschenbach’s erroneous allegations, pushed by Watts’ denial machine discredit climate research?

    Only in the eyes of those vulnerable to false propaganda. Unfortunately that number is not small.

  69. #69 Julian
    February 28, 2011

    It now appears to have been accepted that Willis was right. See, for example, http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/willis-was-right-and-ncdc-agrees-no-wild-adjustments-at-darwin/

  70. #70 jakerman
    February 28, 2011

    Willis writes:

    >*Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*

    Julian can you show us where this claim is justified?

    This is associated with an attempt to claim the global warming is an artifact of bad homogenization. Yet global warming from GHCN v2 is from a -0.3 deg anomaly (1880) to a +0.7 deg anomaly at present. This is virtually the same warming as GHCN v3. You [have to go to 3 decimal places](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/ghcn-version-3-beta/) to find a difference over this 130 year period.

    Willis like Watts can’t see the wood for the trees. They are focusing on possible imperfections that don’t significantly change the magnitude of warming.

    And because the data does not fit their narrative they over reach can make unsupportable claims about a unjustified systematic bias that is where the data is supposedly:

    >*changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*

    This narrative is unsupported and it is dishonest.

  71. #71 burberry women
    http://www.burberrycanada.info/burberry-women-clutch-bag-c-9.html]
    April 26, 2013

    Most people buy Movies, because we would like to enjoy them all.

  72. #72 Poptech
    US
    October 18, 2013

    You may find this interesting,

    Who is Willis Eschenbach?

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html

    As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.

    He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

    “A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach…”

Current ye@r *