More Cheating Down Under

14 Responses to More Cheating Down Under

1. Dave N says:

   February 21, 2014 at 2:49 am

   I wonder what an “airpor” is? Looks like they’ve turned the data upside down.

   Reply
2. GeologyJim says:

   February 21, 2014 at 3:14 am

   This one has to be a record-setter! More than 2 degrees bogus “past-cooling”

   The staggering thing is that they seem to feel no risk of being discovered – or no concern about penalties.

   Ai-yai!

   Reply
   • Stark Dickflüssig says:

     February 21, 2014 at 4:14 am

     I’d have to dig back through to get exactly which stations, but the USHCN has some “adjusted” by 6°. I’m sure it’s sound science, though.

     Reply
3. Anto says:

   February 21, 2014 at 4:47 am

   Steve,
   I’d be interested to see what they’ve done to Rio, given this:
   http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0018.txt

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     February 21, 2014 at 4:59 am

     http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/gavin-wins-the-2014-world-cup-of-data-tampering-in-brazil/

     Reply
     • Anto says:

       February 21, 2014 at 5:18 am

       Hmmm, there you go. This is also interesting. Re: New Zealand, even the witch-doctors didn’t have a clue why their temperatures changed from CRUTEM2 to CRUTEM3:
       http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0279.txt

       Reply
4. Anto says:

   February 21, 2014 at 5:08 am

   This is also interesting, from Phil Jones in 2008:
   Australia is an interesting example. Here exposure issues before the mid-1910s
   are an issue to developing much longer series. Most of the Australian provinces
   did not introduce Stevenson screens until this time, so their records before the
   change are too warm. NZ in contrast put Stevenson screens into operation at all
   their sites in the 1870s, so their series are much longer and homoegeneous
   throughout. Neville Nicholls knows how to adjust the Australian sites before about 1915,
   but can’t get anyone interested in supporting the work there.
   http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4860.txt&search=australia

   Maybe they found someone interested in supporting the work?

   Reply
5. Andy Oz says:

   February 21, 2014 at 5:23 am

   That could be my bad. A couple of weeks ago on this blog, I pointed out to one of the trolls,(climate something?) that Darwin and Broome airports had no warming in the GISS temperature record over 100 years. Now they have magically adjusted it to be a 2.5 degree rise? That is just pathetic.

   Reply
   • Andy Oz says:

     February 21, 2014 at 5:30 am

     On the plus side, there still has been no warming since 1960.
     I wonder if the fraudsters can explain that.

     Reply
     • Robertv says:

       February 21, 2014 at 9:35 am

       Exactly.

       Reply
6. phodges says:

   February 21, 2014 at 7:47 pm

   Nice…back to Darwin…this post woke me up to the scam…and was how i discovered WUWT!

   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

   Reply
7. Ian George says:

   February 21, 2014 at 7:49 pm

   Darwin has had a SS since at least 1890.
   http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev943.gif
   Steve, do you have the GISS site for Darwin’s raw temp? I get an ‘access denied’ when I try.
   Anto
   This is my NZ favourite.
   Wellington (raw – v1)
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507934360010&dt=1&ds=1

   Wellington (adj – v4)
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507934360010&dt=1&ds=14

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     February 21, 2014 at 8:00 pm

     Here is Darwin –
     http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200004&dt=1&ds=1

     Reply
8. Ian George says:

   February 22, 2014 at 2:20 am

   Thanks, Steve.
   Now the raw data has been archived by GISS, it is difficult to find the original v1 sites (I have been
   building up a number of these to show my ‘warmest friends’).
   Darwin is a good case as it did have an SS pre-1900. The station moved from the PO to the AP after being bombed by the Japanese in World War 2.

   Reply