More climate data manipulations

Yes, I'm beating this drum again, but it's the key point in the debate: the raw data (data as recorded) do not show much or any warming, but after the data are adjusted the record shows considerable warming. Interestingly, the primary way this is done is not by adjusting current temperatures upward, but by adjusting old temperatures downwards.  This is a good overview of how that sausage is made:

The hubris of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is on full display with its most recent remodelling of the historic temperature record for Darwin. The Bureau has further dramatically increased the rate of global warming at Darwin by further artificially lowering historic temperatures. 

This begins by shortening the historical temperature record so that it begins just after the very hot years of the Federation drought. Then by changing the daily values: that is changing the observed measured temperatures to something else. 

For example, on 1st January 1910 the maximum temperature recorded at the Darwin post office was 34.2 degrees Celsius. 

A few years ago, the Bureau changed this to 33.8 degrees Celsius, cooling the recorded temperature by 0.4 degrees. In its most recent re-revision of Darwin’s climate history the temperature on this day has been further reduced, and is now just 32.8.

Remember, the scientific consensus is that the global average temperature increased by about a degree celsius during the 20th Century.  Here we see that one degree celsius created out of thin air.  And this happens repeatedly over the years for the same site, with the adjustments changing over time:

Environmental reporter for the Australian newspaper, Graham Lloyd, asked the Bureau why it had made such changes earlier in the week. A spokesperson is quoted in The Weekend Australian as follows:

“For the case of Darwin, a downward adjustment to older records is applied to account for differences between the older sites and the current site, and difference¬s between older thermometers and the current automated sensor. 

“In other words, the adjustments estimate what historical temperatures would look like if they were recorded with today’s equipment at the current site.” 

Yet this is a version of exactly the same reason given by the Bureau just six years ago for reducing the temperature on 1 January 1910 by ‘only’ 0.4 degrees. 

Neither the equipment, nor the site has changed since ACORN-SAT Version 1 was published in 2012.

Nothing has changed at the weather site for a long time.  Adjustments are almost always done because of station changes - different equipment or siting, for example.  Doesn't apply here:

To be clear, the weather station has been at the airport since February 1941, and an automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990. A Stevenson screen was first installed at the post office site in 1894, and has always been used at the airport site. 

So, why was the temperature dropped down by a further one degree for 1 January 1910 in the most recent revision – undertaken just a few months ago? There is no logical or reasonable explanation.

Nope.  The gap between raw and adjusted data is striking.  The green and blue lines on the graph are the raw data (note that the station was moved to the airport in 1941 which is the shift from green to blue).  The red are the adjusted data.

Hard to get much of a warming signal there - there doesn't seem to be any increase during the green period and not much at all during the blue.

Let me say again: the 20th Century supposedly say 1° warming over the entire 100 years, and yet downward adjustments to old years add that or more.  My opinion is that the data simply do not show much - or perhaps even any - warming.

I would love the Trump administration to conduct a serious audit of the data adjustment process, requiring site-by-site justification for adjustments.  And then fire any scientist who makes changes once the adjustments are all approved.  I'd also like to see Trump make NOAA publish unadjusted (raw) data as well, i.e. "20th Century temperatures increased by 1°C (adjusted); temperature increased by 0.1° (unadjusted)".  At least then we would have a more honest discussion on the subject.

Remember, the ClimateGate emails contained exchanges between the scientists talking about how to reduce the hot "blip" in the 1940s.