Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

11 December 2009

Darwin, Australia Temperature Adjustments Invent a Huge Increase

Willis Eschenbach has been looking into concerns expressed by Professor Wibjorn Karlen about the temperature data used in the 4th UN IPCC 2007 report for northern Australia.  What he has found is very disturbing.

He observes that:
There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.
The temperature data of the UN IPCC 2007 report for the area of longitudes 110E to 155E and latitudes 30S to 11 S according to CRU, which still has not released the record of its data manipulations, is

This shows a clear temperature increase of more than 0.5 C from about 1910 to 2000 for this area of northern Australia.  But what does the raw temperature data look like for that area?  We cannot get that from the CRU, but the recently dumped e-mails indicate that their raw data actually came from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) at NOAA.  Eschenbach found 3 temperature data stations for northern Australia, just as Prof. Karlen had said.  The averaged raw data for those 3 stations is shown below:

Whoa!  Where is that more than 0.5 C temperature increase from 1910 to 2000 shown in the IPCC 2007 report?  Here, it looks to be about a 0.3 C increase.  One also sees higher temperatures in about 1890, which makes the temperature in 2000 seem a good deal less alarming.  How on Earth did this raw data become the UN IPCC 2007 report data?

Eschenbach did some sleuthing and was able to figure out how the NOAA GHCN adjusted the raw data to get the adjusted data they reported for northern Australia.  The adjustment supposedly uses at least 5 other stations outside the area, but in 1941 there was only one other station within 750 km of Darwin and that was 500 km away.  So the normal homogenization technique would not apply.  Nonetheless, NOAA's GHCN people thought some considerable manipulation of the raw data was needed, so here is what they did:

They subtracted about 2 C in the period from 1880 to about 1930 and then they began adding step after step of temperature increases to that as shown with the black line.  Meanwhile, Darwin had a population of only 43,000 in 1974 when the city was wiped out by Cyclone Tracy.  Its population is now 120,000 people, so there would likely be a sizable urban heat island effect which ought to have been subtracted in the recent years of rapid growth.  Instead, only positive increases were made.  This is how raw data showing a net temperature decrease since 1890 can be manipulated to create the required strong positive temperature increase so desired by NOAA today.  Eschenbach found the manipulations by NASA GISS on the raw data of GHCN to be somewhat different, but the outcome was similar.

As Eschenbach sums this up:
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Indeed.  What kind of scientist would do such nonsense?  Perfectly good taxpayer's earnings are being used to pay these jokers.  Then these jokers provide the EPA with the ammunition to shoot us through and through with a ruling that the very act of human breathing is polluting the atmosphere with CO2 emissions!  What is the common cause that unites the NASA GISS, NOAA GHCN, the CRU of East Anglia University, our EPA, and the UN IPCC?  I believe it is an international and national power grab by socialists and man-hating environmentalists.

No comments: