Temperature Adjustments in Australia

  • A comparison of raw temperature records (GHCN V2) and homogenised temperature records (adjusted records GHCN v3.1) is presented for 30 climate stations (Figure 2) within a 1000 km radius of Alice Springs, Australia. The adjusted records are subtracted from the raw records which illustrates the degree of adjustment for each station.
  • 29 of the 30 stations have been adjusted to a greater or lesser extent. Only Farina has no adjustments.
  • The size of the adjustments increases back in time and are occasionally large, up to ±1.5˚C. Temperature trends are adjusted by either warming or cooling the past.
  • In 29 records, adjustments are near ubiquitous and are frequently exact decimal fractions, for example exactly 0.5˚C. For individual stations, it is usually very difficult to reconcile the pattern of adjustment made to any geographic or historic system. Homogenisation has also deleted at least 85 annual records that hinders comparison of the two data sets.
  • In Alice Springs the raw record is flat and has no sign of warming. In the adjusted record, homogenistaion has added warming by significantly cooling the past. Five other stations inside the 1000 km ring have similarly long and similarly flat records – Boulia, Cloncurry, Farina, Burketown and Donors Hill. There can be no conceivable reason to presume that the flat raw Alice Springs record is somehow false and in need of adjustment.
  • Six records show a significant mid-1970s cooling of about 3˚C (Alice Springs, Barrow Creek, Brunette Down, Cammoo Weal, Boulia and Windorah) that owing to its consistency appears to be a real signal. Homegisation has tended to remove this real temperature history.
  • The average raw temperature record for all 30 stations is completely flat from 1906 (no area weighting applied). There has been no measurable warming across the greater part of Australia. The main discontinuity in the record, pre-1906, arises from there being only 3 operating stations that do not provide representative cover.
  • The average temperature trend for the 30 adjusted records is also flat and not materially different to the raw record. Hence, wholesale adjustments have not significantly biased the regional record. This raises the serious question of why GHCN have adjusted individual records in a way that introduces trends that do not exist and removes trends that do at the individual station level? The individual GHCN V3.1 records are not temperature records but carry a coded temperature signal that only makes sense when amalgamated with similar code from neighbouring stations.

Figure 1 A 1000 km radius around Alice Springs. Many of the station names (Figure 2) can be found on the map.

In this comment, Sam Taylor pointed out that the way homogenisation works is to modify data in groups of stations and that to get a proper picture of its effect it is necessary to look at a regional group. So I clicked on the middle of Australia and got the list of stations below. This series of posts began with Roger Andrews in Alice Springs. This has been a lot of work. One of the main conclusions is that homogenisation has not biased this regional group of records.

Before proceeding, lets see how homogenisation is defined. First Wikipedia:

Homogenization in climate research means the removal of non-climatic changes. Next to changes in the climate itself, raw climate records also contain non-climatic jumps and changes for example due to relocations or changes in instrumentation. The most used principle to remove these inhomogeneities is the relative homogenization approach in which a candidate station is compared to a reference time series based on one or more neighboring stations. The candidate and reference station(s) experience about the same climate, non-climatic changes that happen only in one station can thus be identified and removed.

And this from the NASA GIS FAQ page.

UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCN v2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis. Rather, these differences are dominated by the inclusion of appropriate homogeneity corrections for non-climatic discontinuities made in GHCN v3.2 which span a range of negative and positive values depending on the regional analysis. The impact of all the adjustments can be substantial for some stations and regions, but is small in the global means. These changes occurred in 2011 and 2012 and were documented at that time.

Figure 2 The system allows you to select a reference station and provides a list of surrounding stations. This printout from GHCN V3.1 is the list of stations analysed down to Larimah.

Figure 3 The chart summarises the adjustments made to the 30 station records showing V2 raw record minus V3.1 adjusted record.  It shows clearly how adjustment is near ubiquitous although there are often segments of a record that are not adjusted. Note Farina (red) is the only station with no adjustment. Note also how the scale of adjustment tends to expand back in time.

Figure 4 Example of individual station record adjustment. The raw record for Barrow Creek was flat. Adjustments have cooled the past to create a warming trend. Note the style of flat line decimal fraction adjustments. Also note the significant adjustment to the mid 1970s data that tends to remove a real cooling event observed in several stations.

Figure 5 Somewhat surprisingly, since 1907 the raw temperature record for this large part of Australia is completely flat (Figure 6). There has been no warming. (note no area weighting). Pre 1907 there were only three operating stations and this imparts bias to the record. Mid 70s cooling is observable. There were no large volcanic eruptions at the time but VEI4 eruptions in 1973 (Tiatia), 1974 (Volcan de Fuego), 1975 (Tolbachik) and 1976 (Mount Agustine).

Figure 6 A regression through the post-1907 data is completely flat.

Figure 7 Averaging the dT records for 30 stations (Figure 3) shows that since 1906 no significant trend or bias is introduced. But the negative dip in the mid-1970s removes what is likely a real climatic signal. I’m unsure what impact the large pre-1906 bias may introduce but suspect that this may be removed by expanding the area that would increase the number of pre-1906 stations to a representative level.

Figure 8 Prior to 1906 there were only 1 to 3 operating stations. In 1907 that number increased to 7 and the temperature signal settled on a representative regional average. The number of stations then grew steadily to a maximum of 27 in 1972. Then in 1993, there was massive station closure, down to 6 is barely enough to provide representative regional cover.

Figure 9 Following from Figure 7, it is difficult to spot the differences between the raw and the adjusted record. There is less variance in the homogenised data which I guess is what homogenisation does but I suspect that real climate signal has been smoothed out, in particular the possible mid-1970s cooling event.

Figure 10 Six stations record a rather similar style of mid-1970s cooling that seems it could be a natural signal that homogenisation has removed (V2 unadjusted records).

Figure 11 Six stations with old records do not show warming. Notably Farina was the only record to have no adjustments made. There is no evidence for warming or cooling anywhere and therefore no justification to add warming or cooling artificially using homogenisation (V2 unadjusted records).


Homogenisation of climate records changes virtually everything and nothing at the same time. The objective of homogenisation is to remove non-climate artefacts. Wholesale re-writing of the temperature history everywhere is not consistent with the stated aims. Homogenisation appears to have added warming or cooling to records where neither existed. Homogenisation may also have removed real climate signal.

I find zero warming over such a large part of the Australian continent to be a surprise result that is consistent with Roger Andrew’s observation of no to little warming in the southern hemisphere, an observation that still requires more rigorous testing.

There is no evidence in this data set to support the more serious allegation that has been made for GHCN and NASA GISS adjusting records to manufacture global warming.  Individually, the GHCN V3.1 records cannot be treated as climate records since each one contains fragments of code designed to create regional homogeneity.

Note added 2 March.

It seemed prudent to have an anomaly chart, so here it is. Doesn’t change anything, the average temperature series are completely flat from 1880 to 2011.

This entry was posted in Climate change and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Temperature Adjustments in Australia

  1. Euan:

    Figure 6: A regression through the post-2007 data is completely flat.

    I think you mean 1907?

    It’s interesting to compare this result with BEST’s version of Australian temperatures,

    • Andrew Thickpenny says:

      Hi Roger,

      So why is the BEST temperature plot that you show so different from Euan’s homogenised temperature plot in Figure 9?

      • Roger Andrews says:

        Partly because BEST plots temperature anomalies relative to 1960-90 (I think) means while Euan plots absolute temperatures, and partly because the GHCNv3.1 data set Euan uses isn’t the same as BEST.

        I hope to have a post up later this week that cuts through some of the confusion over how different data sets – of which there are many – react to adjustments.

    • Sam Taylor says:

      You can also look at BEST’s result for central australia here: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/24.92S-133.00E

      Seems to show warming as well. I think that BEST might still use a slightly different methdology, in that they treat data before and after an obvious breakpoint as a different time series. In the alice springs time series they seem to identify the mid 1970’s as a breakpoint ( http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152286 ).

      • Euan Mearns says:

        Here’s Berkley Alice Springs. I’m not sure how they get to the chart you link to from this:


        My approach to this at a global scale would be to assume that human / geographic impacts on records will on the large scale cancel out – some will be warmed and some will be cooled. Discontinuous records are a major problem. What I would tend to do there is to patch missing data with data from a near by site that shows similar trend. This is imperfect but will likely reduce any bias introduced by no data. I’m flicking through Iceland records. Homogenising Iceland with anything outside of Iceland will create bias, although Thorshaven (Faeroes) and Jan Mayen have some strong similarities.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      The most likely reason is that my data is not all Australia. Notably its the bit where hardly anyone lives. But its a huge area – over one third of the continent, to not show any sign of warming. Must mean that the bits to E and W are warming a lot

      • Roger Andrews says:

        No, they aren’t. 😉

        • William says:

          You mean they aren’t warming? How do you reconcile that with the rising number of very hot days linked to in Alexander’s link (Rude Pundit) below or with the BOM graph here:

          • Euan Mearns says:

            William, if you accept my arithmetic means of the GHCN V2 data I present here, then to create the warming shown in the chart you link to which I have also looked at, then you have to have really rapid warming in the areas outside of the 1000 km radius of Alice. I have not looked at that at all. But I think Roger has.

          • Roger Andrews says:

            No, I said they hadn’t warmed a lot

          • William says:

            Yes, Euan, I was assuming that what you showed is correct. And moreover that the rapid warming must instead be in the other parts of Oz, as you suggested. Roger said it isn’t warming, or not a lot. But this conflicts with the BOM chart and the increase in warmest 1% days. I don’t see how Roger can reconcile these points, they seem firmly at odds. Hence my question.

  2. edhoskins says:

    Hi Euan

    What I am still fascinated with is that different Meteorological agencies from the USA (Dale Enterprise West Virginia) and Australia (Sydney) could appear to use the same technique for lowering past temperatures.

    Sydney Australia 0.1 °C steps from 1865 – 1950 in ~10 year jumps
    Dale Enterprise West Virginia 0.1 °C steps from 1895 – 1940 in ~6 year jumps

    I have become a suspicious sort of chap and it would seem to me that in order to get such consistent results it would perhaps appear that a form of international collusion has taken place in temperature adjustments of the past and the technique has been passed around. These agencies would not expect that those difficult people would ever bother to do the difference sums using their published data.

    Accordingly I was rather disappointed when I saw your diagram from
    Figure 3

    Sadly it appears there that the same consistent technique, giving mindless precision. has not been employed at other Australian locations.

    Certainly the cooler past about -1.0°C is well emphasised in your figure 3 but not with same sort of mechanistic approach.

    I do not know if this comparison is worth pursuing. Perhaps Roger Andrews and Paul Homewood might comment.

    I have updated the Dale Enterprise diagram at


    to clarify the technique a little more.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Data is data. The homogenisation algorithm produces all sorts of weird outcomes, some cooling the past, some warming it with a net zero outcome. This is where Paul Homewood is going to have to watch since it is easy to cherry pick warmed sites like I did in my earlier post.

    • Roger Andrews says:

      Hausfather’s article deals with t_obs biases in the US only. So no, it’s not applicable to Australia.

  3. roberto says:

    ” This paper presents reasons why the surface temperature is inadequate to determine changes in the heat content of the Earth’s climate system.”


    … with some astonishing photos of thermometer locations…


  4. Hi.

    I think this report from actual climate scientists and meteorologists is quite well:

    “2014 was Australia’s third-warmest year since national temperature observations commenced in 1910. Following Australia’s warmest year on record in 2013, both maximum and minimum temperatures remained well above average, with frequent periods of abnormally warm weather throughout the year. Only February, with a monthly anomaly of −0.17 °C, saw a national mean temperature which was below average (compared to 1961–1990).”


    Once we have El Nino year, Australia will be record hot (again) with a significant drought. If it can indeed be drier than it already is…


    • Euan Mearns says:

      The report you link to shows rainfall is increasing.

      • JerryC says:

        Increasing rainfall is also consistent with global warming. 🙂

        • Euan Mearns says:

          And increasing snowfall 🙂

        • Jerry,

          of course, with higher temps, one (has to) have higher evapotranspiration (if there is water left to evaporate, which usually is the case), no mystery here. So TOTAL precipitation has to increase. But total precipitation is one thing, precipitation spatio-temporal distribution and intensity is quite another. But hey, I am too kind here, here as a less polite guy describing climate change in Australia:

          You want climate change evidence? There’s your fuckin’ climate change evidence, numbnuts. That’s a chart of the number of days per year where temperatures were above the 99th percentile for average temperatures in Australia. In other words, the number of days that were in the warmest 1% recorded between 1910 and 2013. Now, the Rude Pundit is no mad statistician, but he can spot a trend. In fact, things have gotten so fucked that half of those days have occurred in the last 20 years. But, no, really, let’s burn some more fossil fuel and dig for coal for shits and giggles.

          Cold Here? It’s Crazy Fuckin’ Hot Down Under

          And in other climate change related news, this time from Brazil, things are going better every day:

          Taps run dry in Brazil’s biggest city as drought bites


          • Euan Mearns says:

            Alex, so the averages I present here are crude mainly because they do not area weight and the temperature – time series are discontinuous and have highly variable overlap. I went into this at the suggestion of Sam Taylor who made a good point. I was expecting to see a warming trend and a difference between V2 and V3.1 data. I saw neither.

            What do you suggest is going on?

          • Hi Euan.

            I am no really an expert on temps data processing and homogenization, so I am not really sure what your analysis tells or if it is correct, maybe it is better to ask some climate scientist from Australia 😉

            Regarding the precipipiation “rise” and a somewhat ironical note on that snow should increase as well with warming, drying in parts of Australia already is a reality, *despite* increasing total precip, see here:

            Spatial trends in annual total precipitation since 1970

            Some good popular explanation of temp homogenization can be found by Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy;

            No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal

            How you correct the data is important, of course, and this is where the second claim comes in: Scientists manipulated the data specifically to make it look like global warming is stronger than it really is.

            Ah, but we know that’s not true!


          • manicbeancounter says:

            There are a number of ways to look at the data.
            As my wife is from Brazil, late last year I looked into why the mega city of Sao Paulo was experiencing its worse drought in at least 80 years. It is being blamed on deforestation of the Amazon.
            There are three alternative reasons, that I believe are more significant to “climate change”. In order of importance are
            1. The normal air flows from the Atlantic hit Brazil at the mouth of the Amazon, go west over the rainforest to the Andes, depositing and picking up moisture. At the Andes they head south to Bolivia, then turn east to Sao Paulo State in the North, and towards Uruguay in the South. In the last year air flows have hit the Brazil coast much further South in the drier state of Bahia, and taken a much shorter loop to Sao Paulo via Minas Gerais. It is mainly a natural phenomena.
            2. Locals have been complaining for years of a lack of investment in infrastructure. The two main reservoirs that feed the city were in place by the mid 1930s, when the city had less than a tenth of the current population.
            3. The area of Sao Paulo and also Rio de Janeiro was the northern tip of the South Atlantic forest, that once extended over South Brazil, Paraguay and Northern Argentina. It is over 90% gone. In NW Parana, where most of my in-laws live, this has lead to drier climate, and more flash-floods.

  5. ducdorleans says:

    OK, I understand this is Australia, and Iceland will probably be one of the next to be examined … but after what Paul Homewood has written, what I have read, and checked, and calculated, I’m convinced (as if that still needed to be proven …) that GISS is hankypankying …

    this is what a comparison between data of the Icelandic Met Office (IMO) and GISS looks like … http://imgur.com/gqbfIUg

    all data here … … http://1drv.ms/1EkoF75

    as I wrote on Paul’s … ““through chartmanship (prof. J. Brignell of numberwatch) and administrative warming (prof. O. Humlun of climate4you) GISS increases the level of catastrophicness by getting rid of the 1940’s blip” …

  6. Hello,

    for the next blowout week summary I also suggest following important news:

    Respected Moscow scientist Professor Vasily Bogoyavlensky has called for ‘urgent’ investigation of the new phenomenon amid safety fears.

    Until now, only three large craters were known about in northern Russia with several scientific sources speculating last year that heating from above the surface due to unusually warm climatic conditions, and from below, due to geological fault lines, led to a huge release of gas hydrates, so causing the formation of these craters in Arctic regions.

    Two of the newly-discovered large craters – also known as funnels to scientists – have turned into lakes, revealed Professor Bogoyavlensky, deputy director of the Moscow-based Oil and Gas Research Institute, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Dozens of new craters suspected in northern Russia


    A study of wheat yields by 53 researchers on six continents, including a Kansas State University professor, has found that the effects of climate change on Kansas’ top crop will be far more disastrous, and begin much sooner, than previous thought.

    Each time the average global temperature increases by one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), global wheat grain production is reduced by about 6 percent, according to the study, published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change.

    Study: Effects of climate change on wheat will be dire


  7. Nial says:

    This prompts the question “What does all this manipulation do to the accuracy of the resultant temperature record?”

    • Nial.

      To be more correct, it is not manipulation, it is processing.

      Such data processing is aimed at increasing the reliability of correctly measuring the air temperature, as it is affected by other humans influences, such as urbanizing of the landscape etc.

      But maybe even more importantly, we know even without measuring the air temperature, that Earth is warming, and rapidly so.


      • A C Osborn says:

        Alex, please supply some proof that “we know even without measuring the air temperature, that Earth is warming, and rapidly so”
        Because the mangled temperature record doesn’t even show that.

        • AC Osborne,

          quite good indicator of rapidly warming planet it the rate of deline of floating Arctic ice. We have a good data during the last 1400 years. I would forward you to a this summary here:

          “The data show clearly that Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over the last few decades, a decline the like of which has certainly not been seen for over 100 years prior to that. In addition, a recent survey of available proxy information — not a reconstruction, but a thorough review of the evidence — tells us that the modern decline in Arctic sea ice is “unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”

          1400+ Years of Arctic Ice


          • A C Osborn says:

            Sorry Alex, you need to catch up, that was written in 2011 a lot has changed since then.
            THat study also likes to ignore the lack of Ice in the early 1900s and 1950/60s when Submarines were photographed in Open Water at the North Pole.
            I notice you choose to talk about Arctic Ice, but not Antarctic or Global Ice, which have been breaking records for the last 2 years.
            Anarctic Ice has been increasing since satellite records began.

          • AC Osborne,

            if something changed then for the worse, since 2011 arctic ice decline has actually speeded up.

            Oh, that submarines story? Don’t count on it as a accurate measure of ice thickness in 50-60ties, just a good advice. And another good advice – stop reading Anthony Watts, he is not a good source of anything:

            Anthony Watts and WUWT North Pole antics – skating on thin ice

            And of course I know that on the South pole there is a LITTLE trend of increasing ice area, but far too smaller to compensate for the loss in the Arctic.

            So yes, rapidly declining Arctic ice is and indicator of rapid climate change underway.



          • A C Osborn says:

            Alex, I am sorry that you cannot face facts.
            What do you not understand about RECORD GLOBAL SEA ICE?

          • AC Osborne,

            not sure what you are talking about with regard to record global sea ice. When was the record? Here is the last official statement:

            When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, the globally-averaged sea ice extent during January was 21.08 million square km (8.14 million square miles), 7.06 percent above the 1981-2010 average and the second largest January global sea ice extent on record. This was 170,000 square km (60,000 square miles) smaller than the record large January Global sea ice extent that occurred in 1979, when both the Antarctic and Arctic monthly sea ice extents were above average. Global sea ice extent during January is decreasing at an average rate of 1.0 percent per decade.

            Global Snow & Ice – January 2015


      • Euan Mearns says:

        Alex, to argue that this is data processing then you need to find justification in the real world for all the adjustments made in Figure 3.

        • Euan,

          I don’t know. I think the best way to proceed in this is to ask people who are professionals and do this kind of analyses. I really don’t see any reason why would anyone want to make look the global temperature trend to look differently, than it looks like. (They would get more money for data processing if the trend is steeper or what? 🙂 ) Or manipulate it according to some preference.

          On the other hand, I see a lot of reasons for people making money from fossil fuel extraction to obfuscate the science 😉


          • Euan Mearns says:

            This from the GISS FAQ page:

            To recap, from 2001 to 2011, GISS based its analysis on NOAA/NDCD’s temperature collection GHCN v2, the unadjusted version. That collection contained for many locations several records, and GISS used an automatic procedure to combine them into a single record, provided the various pieces had a big enough overlap to estimate the respective offsets; non-overlapping pieces were combined if it did not create discontinuities. In cases of a documented station move, the appropriate offset was applied. No attempt was made to automatically detect and correct inhomogeneities, assuming that because of their random nature they would have little effect on the global mean.

            GHCN V3.1 is supposed to be the same as V2, the main difference being that multiple records from single sites are merged and some specific adjustments made for site moves etc.

            My Figure 3 is the simple arithmetic difference of two records. Iceland is worse since V3.1 contains loads of data not present in V2.

    • Roger Andrews says:

      Post on its way when I can break free of domestic commitments.

  8. Euan Mearns says:

    Homogenisation of climate records changes virtually everything and nothing at the same time. The objective of homogenisation is to remove non-climate artefacts. Wholesale re-writing of the temperature history everywhere is not consistent with the stated aims. Homogenisation appears to have added warming or cooling to records where neither existed. Homogenisation may also have removed real climate signal.

    That applies to central Australia. I’m looking at Iceland now and judge that GHCN will have a much bigger problem explaining that.

    • A C Osborn says:

      If you go over to Paul Homewood’s forum he has the actual IMO data and links over there.
      They are already corrected before GHCN/GISS get their grubby fingers on them.

  9. A C Osborn says:

    Alex, I have to admit my data for sea ice was slightly wrong, the Antarctict sea ice has been continuously breaking records.
    In December 2014 during the summer period for the antarctic the Global Sea Ice, which had been above average for most of the year broke the Record for that day see

    As to your using “Hot Whopper” to besmirch the character of Anthony Watts and the reliability of the NavSource.org website is ridiculous.
    Perhaps you will believe the British News Pathe film of 1962. Look at the end of film where the Subs are in open water being checked for damage.

    I am quite happy for you to believe that the Sea Ice in only Half the world is the prime indicator of “Rapid Global Warming” when all the other indicators say that gloabally it is not warming at all, especially as Arctic Sea Ice is now increasing again.

    • AC Osborne,

      point taken. I understand that “rapid” in geological scales may appear “glacial” in human scales. We will see what the future holds. I for one am NOT an ostimist.


  10. Hi again.

    Just to inform those few interested, I would support CO2 regulation and legislation EVEN in the case if there is NO radiative effect of CO2 (i.e. no AGW AT ALL). That should not be shocking for those with basic environmental education, since ocean acidification is a similar problem as climate change is:

    Millions of oyster larvae were dying in its Washington hatcheries, and production had dropped by 80 percent. Down the coast, Oregon’s hatcheries faced the same problem.

    Highly acidic ocean water, it turned out, was dissolving the microscopic oysters. Part of the acid blast came from naturally occurring events. But human-caused “ocean acidification” — which occurs when oceans absorb carbon dioxide emissions — was also partly to blame, the company later learned. “There’s no question that [man-made] CO2 contributed to oyster mortality,” Bill Dewey, public affairs manager for Taylor Shellfish in Shelton, Washington, said.

    CO2 Emissions Threaten Seafood As Ocean Acidification Spreads Along US Coastlines


    • A C Osborn says:

      I suggest that you go and read this post to get and idea of the hosts views on Ocean Acidification.

      There are a few other posts on here where it has been discussed at length and basically debunked.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      I think upwelling of deep acidic ocean water is the main process.

    • Graeme No.3 says:

      @Alexander Ač

      CO2 is NOT going to acidify the ocean. Chemists and Geologists know that well.
      For starters the level of CO2 was much higher (over 2000 ppm) in the Jurassic and not much less in the Cretaceous. The White Cliffs of Dover were laid down by marine creatures in the Cretaceous.
      IF rising CO2 causes warming then it will reduce the solubility of itself in water.
      The level of CO2 required to cause acidification is known from a coral reef off New Ireland, where CO2 was bubbling out from cracks in the coral. Deep in the vent the sea water was 6.2 pH. Once diluted fractionally the pH rose to 7.3 and 1 metre away the pH was the normal 7.9 or near that. In other words it would take the CO2 level to get to 1,000,000 ppm (the complete atmosphere) to induce acidification.

      Forget this nonsense.

  11. Ariane says:

    Many people say that the current weather conditions (which some are considered extremely cold), are not related to our greenhouse gas production activity, because, they say, you see, we have snow, so where is global warming?

    They forget that any change in the normal course of the weather means that climate change is a fact in our society.

    I’m afraid that the cold weather seen in the U.S. and in many unusual parts of the planet will have a response that will bring heat waves during the summer of this year 2015.


    • A C Osborn says:

      On what Data do you base your belief that there is currently “Global Warming” and that it is in some way detrimental to humanity?
      I did not notice any unusual “Heatwaves” after last years record breaking cold weather, perhaps I missed it, can you point it out to me?

  12. Pingback: Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland | Energy Matters

  13. Euan Mearns says:

    Thought I’d better check out the anomalies. 1981 is reference year. 4 stations didn’t have data that year, so I left them out.

    • A C Osborn says:

      If you compare that with BOM, GISS and BEST there is no comparison.
      You MUST be totally wrong, because they all roughly agree. /sarc in case you didn’t think so.

      But what you, nor anyone else can replicate is the next stage of their process which is the Gridding/Krigging of the data, where they smear around temperatures for 1000Kms where non exists or doesn’t fit the narrative.
      Because it does not seem to matter what data goes in to that process it all comes out the same. You only have to look at the work that Zeke has done trying to explain why it is all legitimate, he showed the raw data graphed, but after converting to Anomolies, homogenisation and then Gridding, the data was completely changed from a graph with massive changes in temperature up and down to a nice smoothed out trend that will fit the hockey stick, the CO2 trend and allow the GCMs to fit much better.
      It is Science Jim, but not as we know it.

      • Euan Mearns says:

        I’m trying to work out how all the global reconstructions show warming. S Africa next where I’m pretty sure I will get a result totally at odds with BEST, at that stage time to engage with Mueller and ask WTF is going on? I suspect he will not know but I have a theory.

  14. climanrecon says:

    Euan, you and your readers are invited to visit my new blog on reconstructing climate from instrumental data. I’m starting with Australia before 1910, but have to warn you that this involves substantial cooling of many records:


  15. Pingback: The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Africa | Energy Matters

  16. Pingback: AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: March 9, 2015 - Master Resource

  17. Pingback: The Iceland Meteorological Office Versus GHCN V2 | Energy Matters

  18. Pingback: Understanding GISS Temperature Adjustments in Southern Africa | ManicBeancounter

Comments are closed.