Remember me
▼ Content

Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data


Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data12-10-2020 16:28
kfl
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), Australian Government, has for a long time been attacked by climate skeptical groups. Very few persons are recognizing the good work BoM is doing inclusive documentation of the history of the meteorological stations and homogenization of meteorological data.

My attention to BOM originates from a YouTube video by prof Ole Humlum, in which he attacked GISS for doing unfounded adjustment of temperature data for Reykjavik(64.1331N, 21.9W), Iceland. In order to understand his reservation, I started reading about GISS temperature series for several meteorological stations. I found that BoM's Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E), Australia has been used as scapegoat station by the skeptical community by many unfounded attacks.

Prof Ole Humlum is a high-ranking member of the skeptical community. He is a member of Global Warming Policy Foundation(GWPF)'s "Academic Advisory Council", of the Danish Klimarealisternes.dk's "Advisory Board" and of the Norwegian Klimarealiterne.no's "Klimarealistenes Vitenskapelige Råd". He has described homogenization as "administrative changes" not recognizing that it is as scientific method.

The most prominent member of the skeptical community in Australia is Jenifer Marohasy.Unlike pro Ole Humlum, she is familiar with the concept of homogenization and has actually written about it. She has several times attacked BoM and presented hers anti-homogenization arguments at least ones to the Liberal Democratic Party National Conference, Sydney, 7th February 2016 stating:

The homogenization of Darwin's temperature is just another example of climate scientists making-up a temperature trend to create the perception of a coming environmental apocalypse.


This is politic not science.

By profession I am a statistician, mathematician, and actuary with a limited knowledge of meteorology. In spite of this, I am trying to convey information about homogenization to the skeptical community. It took some time to understand what homogenization means and how GISS is doing this with a complicated algorithm called Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA). I do not have full access to all GISS data except for downloading single stations. This means that my check of the homogenization is done by using the data for a single station.

Homogenization of meteorological measurement series is to my understanding an old discipline more than 30 years old, with several worldwide workshops. It is the backbone of all analyzes. If the basic data is erroneous, the analysis results are worthless. Therefore, homogenization is a valued discipline among meteorologists and climate scientists. It is just unfortunate that the climate skeptics, including Prof Ole Humlum etc., know nothing about this discipline.

In principle, a homogenization process consists of 3 steps:

1.Identify breaking points
2.Calculate the adjustments for the identified breaking points
3.Adjust the meteorological data with the adjustments found

This often requires significant knowledge of statistics and access to data for multiple stations.

It is possible there is a double counting in respect of homogenization. National meteorological institutes are doing single station homogenization by probable not like the methods GISS is using. On top of this GISS does a multi station homogenization. I have only investigated three danish stations: København, Flyvestation Ålborg og Hammer Odde. No adjustments have taken place for Hammer Odde Fyr. Flyvestation Ålborg is adjusted for breaking points, but not for UHI. København is adjusted for breakpoints and UHI as well.

The BOM station Darwin Airport has been discussed on WhatsUpWithThat The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero on Data mangling: BoM's Changes to Darwin's Climate History are Not Logical, but no one has mentioned the most important year i.e. 1937 in the history of the meteorological station Darwin Airport.

The following graph shows a plot of the unadjusted data and of the homogenized data as well.




It appears from the above that there are some major deviations especially before 1937.

One can rightly ask the question why?
Are GISS/BoM completely out of their minds
It looks like GISS/BoM are completely crooked.

This was my reaction before I started a 3-week investigation of the foundation of homogenization. After many hours of work with internet search og R-programming, the adjustments to Darwin Airport can be traced back to two relevant adjustments of raw data. This can be seen by the following graphs:




The graph at the top right shows that in the periods 1892-1935 and 1935-1951 there have been adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. respectively. From the graph at the bottom right there has been a linear adjustment due to Urban Heath Island (UHI) at -0.6 C in 1940 and in 2020 0.0 C.

While correction for UHI is commonly accepted by all, there is a question mark on the other corrections.
Below I have to the left recorded "year against unadjusted" with a broken line with two breaking points.




To the right, I have corrected the unadjusted data with the broken line. In addition, I have performed a multiple regression on the model used. It appears there the breaking points in May 1935 is sufficient. The calculated breakpoint does not quite agree with what GISS has estimated.



GISS talks about the height of the stairs, my statistical model talks about the height of steps of stairs. Therefore, a conversion is necessary. The GISS adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. correspond to -0.69 C=-(0.83-014) and 0.14 C.

The model used is a linear model in years + two breaking points + a harmonic med period of one year, where the GISS breaking points are used.

It appears from this

That there is a linear trend of approx. 0.00350 Celsius per year
That the breaking point in May 1935 is significantly different from zero
That the breaking point in September 1951 is not significantly different from zero

Initially, the breaking point in 1935 is justified by a statistical analysis, but from the history of Darwin Airport it appears that a new beginning for Darwin Airport took place in 1937 and this may be the reason for one of the breaking points. The calculated breaking point is approx. two years before "the new beginning" for Darwin Airport.


Darwin
The current site (14015) is located on the southern edge of Darwin Airport, about 7 km northeast of the central city and well away from any parts of suburban Darwin. It is over natural grass with some shrubs about 20 m away to the west and east.

History
Earlier observations were made at the Post Office (14016), in the central city area. This is on a peninsula in Darwin Harbour which means that the prevailing dry-season southeasterlies have a trajectory over Darwin Harbour (whereas at the airport they are over land). The site deteriorated progressively from the mid-1930s, becoming overshadowed by trees, especially after 1937. The site (along with the remainder of the Post Office) was destroyed in the Japanese air raids of February 1942 and never rebuilt.

The airport site (14015) has been operating since February 1941. An automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved about 900 m east (along the southern edge of the airport) on 7 August 2001, with observations at the original site continuing under the station number 14040 until June 2007. No significant temperature changes were found between these two sites.


In spite of the many attacks to which BoM has been exposed by climate skeptics, this post is a recognition of BoM's work. I what to thank BoM for the documentation of the history of the meteorological station in Australia.

I have been looking at other meteorological stations, where I am skeptical about the homogenization used by GISS V4. Maybe I will write about this later. In my view it is relevant to have a second opinion bases science.

In Denmark most climate skeptics can be found on Klimarealisterne. It is terrible what Danish Climate Skeptics say and write. I wish there were some competent climate skeptics who can read, understand as well as write about their views. There is a long way from the top of the climate skeptic in the form of Bjørn Lomborg and Judith Curry to the large group of climate skeptics like Ole Humlum.

Using the English version of Klimadebate.dk, I hope some very qualified skeptics will participate in the discussions and teach me a lesson in respect of homogenization.


Links:
Australian Government: Bureau of Meteorology

BoM: Quality control of climate data

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Hungarian Meteorological Service:

10th Seminar for Homogenization and Quality Control and 5th Conference on Spatial Interpolation Techniques in Climatology and Meteorology


Joanne Nova:

Adjusted! Another degree shaved off Darwins history — (it's cooling so fast, in 50 years Darwin won't even be tropical)

Ken Rice

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Judith Curry:

Zeke Hausfather Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Jennifer Marohasy:

Jenifer Marohasy: Why we should rally against homogenization, and I don't mean of milk ?

Jenifer Marohasy :Homogenisation Overview

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: Climate homogenization and the remodeling of climate change, Published Jul 29, 2017 1:43 AM
12-10-2020 19:21
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
Some commenters on one of my YouTube videos, nominated me for a Darwin Award, though it was in taken as derogatory, from the context. Guess I didn't win any prize money...

Mathemagic is a fascinating field. Amazing, how you could change a cooling-trend, into temperatures rising, 'at an alarming rate'...
12-10-2020 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
kfl wrote:
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), Australian Government, has for a long time been attacked by climate skeptical groups. Very few persons are recognizing the good work BoM is doing inclusive documentation of the history of the meteorological stations and homogenization of meteorological data.

My attention to BOM originates from a YouTube video by prof Ole Humlum, in which he attacked GISS for doing unfounded adjustment of temperature data for Reykjavik(64.1331N, 21.9W), Iceland. In order to understand his reservation, I started reading about GISS temperature series for several meteorological stations. I found that BoM's Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E), Australia has been used as scapegoat station by the skeptical community by many unfounded attacks.

Prof Ole Humlum is a high-ranking member of the skeptical community. He is a member of Global Warming Policy Foundation(GWPF)'s "Academic Advisory Council", of the Danish Klimarealisternes.dk's "Advisory Board" and of the Norwegian Klimarealiterne.no's "Klimarealistenes Vitenskapelige Råd". He has described homogenization as "administrative changes" not recognizing that it is as scientific method.

The most prominent member of the skeptical community in Australia is Jenifer Marohasy.Unlike pro Ole Humlum, she is familiar with the concept of homogenization and has actually written about it. She has several times attacked BoM and presented hers anti-homogenization arguments at least ones to the Liberal Democratic Party National Conference, Sydney, 7th February 2016 stating:

The homogenization of Darwin's temperature is just another example of climate scientists making-up a temperature trend to create the perception of a coming environmental apocalypse.


This is politic not science.

By profession I am a statistician, mathematician, and actuary with a limited knowledge of meteorology. In spite of this, I am trying to convey information about homogenization to the skeptical community. It took some time to understand what homogenization means and how GISS is doing this with a complicated algorithm called Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA). I do not have full access to all GISS data except for downloading single stations. This means that my check of the homogenization is done by using the data for a single station.

Homogenization of meteorological measurement series is to my understanding an old discipline more than 30 years old, with several worldwide workshops. It is the backbone of all analyzes. If the basic data is erroneous, the analysis results are worthless. Therefore, homogenization is a valued discipline among meteorologists and climate scientists. It is just unfortunate that the climate skeptics, including Prof Ole Humlum etc., know nothing about this discipline.

In principle, a homogenization process consists of 3 steps:

1.Identify breaking points
2.Calculate the adjustments for the identified breaking points
3.Adjust the meteorological data with the adjustments found

This often requires significant knowledge of statistics and access to data for multiple stations.

It is possible there is a double counting in respect of homogenization. National meteorological institutes are doing single station homogenization by probable not like the methods GISS is using. On top of this GISS does a multi station homogenization. I have only investigated three danish stations: København, Flyvestation Ålborg og Hammer Odde. No adjustments have taken place for Hammer Odde Fyr. Flyvestation Ålborg is adjusted for breaking points, but not for UHI. København is adjusted for breakpoints and UHI as well.

The BOM station Darwin Airport has been discussed on WhatsUpWithThat The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero on Data mangling: BoM's Changes to Darwin's Climate History are Not Logical, but no one has mentioned the most important year i.e. 1937 in the history of the meteorological station Darwin Airport.

The following graph shows a plot of the unadjusted data and of the homogenized data as well.




It appears from the above that there are some major deviations especially before 1937.

One can rightly ask the question why?
Are GISS/BoM completely out of their minds
It looks like GISS/BoM are completely crooked.

This was my reaction before I started a 3-week investigation of the foundation of homogenization. After many hours of work with internet search og R-programming, the adjustments to Darwin Airport can be traced back to two relevant adjustments of raw data. This can be seen by the following graphs:




The graph at the top right shows that in the periods 1892-1935 and 1935-1951 there have been adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. respectively. From the graph at the bottom right there has been a linear adjustment due to Urban Heath Island (UHI) at -0.6 C in 1940 and in 2020 0.0 C.

While correction for UHI is commonly accepted by all, there is a question mark on the other corrections.
Below I have to the left recorded "year against unadjusted" with a broken line with two breaking points.




To the right, I have corrected the unadjusted data with the broken line. In addition, I have performed a multiple regression on the model used. It appears there the breaking points in May 1935 is sufficient. The calculated breakpoint does not quite agree with what GISS has estimated.



GISS talks about the height of the stairs, my statistical model talks about the height of steps of stairs. Therefore, a conversion is necessary. The GISS adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. correspond to -0.69 C=-(0.83-014) and 0.14 C.

The model used is a linear model in years + two breaking points + a harmonic med period of one year, where the GISS breaking points are used.

It appears from this

That there is a linear trend of approx. 0.00350 Celsius per year
That the breaking point in May 1935 is significantly different from zero
That the breaking point in September 1951 is not significantly different from zero

Initially, the breaking point in 1935 is justified by a statistical analysis, but from the history of Darwin Airport it appears that a new beginning for Darwin Airport took place in 1937 and this may be the reason for one of the breaking points. The calculated breaking point is approx. two years before "the new beginning" for Darwin Airport.


Darwin
The current site (14015) is located on the southern edge of Darwin Airport, about 7 km northeast of the central city and well away from any parts of suburban Darwin. It is over natural grass with some shrubs about 20 m away to the west and east.

History
Earlier observations were made at the Post Office (14016), in the central city area. This is on a peninsula in Darwin Harbour which means that the prevailing dry-season southeasterlies have a trajectory over Darwin Harbour (whereas at the airport they are over land). The site deteriorated progressively from the mid-1930s, becoming overshadowed by trees, especially after 1937. The site (along with the remainder of the Post Office) was destroyed in the Japanese air raids of February 1942 and never rebuilt.

The airport site (14015) has been operating since February 1941. An automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved about 900 m east (along the southern edge of the airport) on 7 August 2001, with observations at the original site continuing under the station number 14040 until June 2007. No significant temperature changes were found between these two sites.


In spite of the many attacks to which BoM has been exposed by climate skeptics, this post is a recognition of BoM's work. I what to thank BoM for the documentation of the history of the meteorological station in Australia.

I have been looking at other meteorological stations, where I am skeptical about the homogenization used by GISS V4. Maybe I will write about this later. In my view it is relevant to have a second opinion bases science.

In Denmark most climate skeptics can be found on Klimarealisterne. It is terrible what Danish Climate Skeptics say and write. I wish there were some competent climate skeptics who can read, understand as well as write about their views. There is a long way from the top of the climate skeptic in the form of Bjørn Lomborg and Judith Curry to the large group of climate skeptics like Ole Humlum.

Using the English version of Klimadebate.dk, I hope some very qualified skeptics will participate in the discussions and teach me a lesson in respect of homogenization.


Links:
Australian Government: Bureau of Meteorology

BoM: Quality control of climate data

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Hungarian Meteorological Service:

10th Seminar for Homogenization and Quality Control and 5th Conference on Spatial Interpolation Techniques in Climatology and Meteorology


Joanne Nova:

Adjusted! Another degree shaved off Darwins history — (it's cooling so fast, in 50 years Darwin won't even be tropical)

Ken Rice

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Judith Curry:

Zeke Hausfather Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Jennifer Marohasy:

Jenifer Marohasy: Why we should rally against homogenization, and I don't mean of milk ?

Jenifer Marohasy :Homogenisation Overview

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: Climate homogenization and the remodeling of climate change, Published Jul 29, 2017 1:43 AM


The basic problem with so-called homogenization of data is the arbitrarily chosen starting and ending points. You can make anything look like it's increasing or decreasing in value simply by choosing different starting and ending data points.

This is the basic problem with describing whether something is 'warming' or 'cooling'. It is one of the reasons why 'global warming' remains undefined. Another reason of course is that it's not possible to measure a global temperature.

Another basic problem is that statistical math is incapable of the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. This is due to the use of random numbers and the one way nature of averaging itself (which is actually a modulus function applied to the number of data points used, to reduce resolution).

For example, picking a nighttime temperature at a particular weather station as the starting point, then picking a daytime temperature as the ending point will show a 'warming'. If the starting point is in the summer, and the ending point is in the winter, you can show a 'cooling'.

Any 'warming' or 'cooling' you calculate in this way does not predict the future. It can't.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 07:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7515)
Into the Night wrote: The basic problem with so-called homogenization of data is the arbitrarily chosen starting and ending points. You can make anything look like it's increasing or decreasing in value simply by choosing different starting and ending data points.

The way I look at it is that Climate Scientists looking for Global Warming are exactly like Day Traders looking to scalp. They watch the chart looking for the pattern they like, they get in and they get out. Then they make a YouTube video explaining why you need to focus exclusively on their data range and forget about everything else.

Into the Night wrote:This is the basic problem with describing whether something is 'warming' or 'cooling'. It is one of the reasons why 'global warming' remains undefined.

Warmizombies have it in their heads that temperature is nothing short of super-mystical-complex-confusing-convoluted-complicated, mainly because it is the key component of Climate which, like the Christian God, is beyond human understanding. For some reason they don't quite grasp that temperature is exactly as straightforward as driving a car. If you leave point A and sixty seconds later you arrive at point B which is one mile away, you have travelled at a rate of one mile per minute during that time. It does not matter how many precise measurements you took in the interim, it does not matter how the acceleration changed at any point or over any interval ... the time having left point A and the time arriving at point B are all that matter. Similarly, if I were to somehow measure the temperature of Denver at a particular time on a particular day and then exactly one year later I were to measure Denver's temperature to be 0.02C cooler, then Denver would have cooled over that year. It does not matter how many measurements of what kind were taken during that year. I wouldn't need anything else to correctly determine that Denver had, in fact, cooled.

Into the Night wrote: Another basic problem is that statistical math is incapable of the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

I'm glad you raised this point. The IPCC is famous for claiming their confidence in possibilities being possible is a prediction!

California periodically experiences droughts, ergo droughts are a possibility in any given time interval of California's future. The IPCC will therefore tell us that they predict with high confidence that it is possible for California to experience a drought within the next twenty years.

Statistics can provide insight into each possibility, e.g. Amazon is likely to sell more blue shirts than blue socks, ... but cannot tell you how many blue shirts and how many blue socks Amazon will sell.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2020 11:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The basic problem with so-called homogenization of data is the arbitrarily chosen starting and ending points. You can make anything look like it's increasing or decreasing in value simply by choosing different starting and ending data points.

The way I look at it is that Climate Scientists looking for Global Warming are exactly like Day Traders looking to scalp. They watch the chart looking for the pattern they like, they get in and they get out. Then they make a YouTube video explaining why you need to focus exclusively on their data range and forget about everything else.

Into the Night wrote:This is the basic problem with describing whether something is 'warming' or 'cooling'. It is one of the reasons why 'global warming' remains undefined.

Warmizombies have it in their heads that temperature is nothing short of super-mystical-complex-confusing-convoluted-complicated, mainly because it is the key component of Climate which, like the Christian God, is beyond human understanding. For some reason they don't quite grasp that temperature is exactly as straightforward as driving a car. If you leave point A and sixty seconds later you arrive at point B which is one mile away, you have travelled at a rate of one mile per minute during that time. It does not matter how many precise measurements you took in the interim, it does not matter how the acceleration changed at any point or over any interval ... the time having left point A and the time arriving at point B are all that matter. Similarly, if I were to somehow measure the temperature of Denver at a particular time on a particular day and then exactly one year later I were to measure Denver's temperature to be 0.02C cooler, then Denver would have cooled over that year. It does not matter how many measurements of what kind were taken during that year. I wouldn't need anything else to correctly determine that Denver had, in fact, cooled.

Into the Night wrote: Another basic problem is that statistical math is incapable of the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

I'm glad you raised this point. The IPCC is famous for claiming their confidence in possibilities being possible is a prediction!

California periodically experiences droughts, ergo droughts are a possibility in any given time interval of California's future. The IPCC will therefore tell us that they predict with high confidence that it is possible for California to experience a drought within the next twenty years.

Statistics can provide insight into each possibility, e.g. Amazon is likely to sell more blue shirts than blue socks, ... but cannot tell you how many blue shirts and how many blue socks Amazon will sell.


.

Both SOTC wildfire probability and Amazon sales probability are probability math. It also has no power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. Statistics provide no insight into future sales or future wildfires in the SOTC. Probability can't do that either. All probability can give you is the odds of something happening. It can't predict when or if it happens.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 13:12
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
Yes. Basically.
13-10-2020 16:52
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1238)
IBdaMann wrote:
For some reason they don't quite grasp that temperature is exactly as straightforward as driving a car. If you leave point A and sixty seconds later you arrive at point B which is one mile away, you have travelled at a rate of one mile per minute during that time. It does not matter how many precise measurements you took in the interim, it does not matter how the acceleration changed at any point or over any interval ... the time having left point A and the time arriving at point B are all that matter.

.

This makes me think of my grade school days (I went to a private school, so I actually learned something) when we would do what I call "word problems" in mathematics... "Word problems" are mathematics school work in which the questions told a story, gave a whole bunch of information (whether relevant or not) and then asked you to solve a problem using the provided information. Many of my classmates hated that type of school work, since they would get caught up in the BS and get confused, but I enjoyed those problems since I found it fun to sift through all the BS to get to what was relevant.

For example: "Sally bought six oranges and eight apples at the farmer's market. After she got back home, she discovered, to her dismay, that one of her oranges was bruised. Later that same day, Charlie bought four oranges, six tomatoes, four cucumbers, twelve apples, and twenty potatoes at the grocery store. After he got back home, he discovered, to his dismay, that two of his oranges weren't quite as ripe as he would have hoped for. How many oranges were bought at the farmer's market?"

When we get right down to it, the info about the other fruits/vegetables is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and can be completely discarded... Same goes for the information about what was discovered about some of the oranges... Same goes for what was bought at the grocery store rather than the farmer's market... Thus, to answer the question, SIX oranges were bought at the farmer's market. That's all that matters in this case... The other information is just complete fluff...

What would happen to plenty of my classmates is that they would get caught up in the irrelevant information and give wrong answers, such as answering this problem with "TEN oranges", completely missing the fact that four of those oranges came from the grocery store rather than the farmer's market, or answering "FIVE oranges", thinking that the fact that one of them was bruised somehow means that it wasn't bought, and etc...
Edited on 13-10-2020 16:59
13-10-2020 18:16
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1837)
gfm7175 wrote:
I found it fun to sift through all the BS to get to what was relevant

Little did you know you were also learning how to watch the evening news.
13-10-2020 21:32
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1238)
GasGuzzler wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I found it fun to sift through all the BS to get to what was relevant

Little did you know you were also learning how to watch the evening news.


14-10-2020 06:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
kfl wrote:
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), Australian Government, has for a long time been attacked by climate skeptical groups. Very few persons are recognizing the good work BoM is doing inclusive documentation of the history of the meteorological stations and homogenization of meteorological data.

My attention to BOM originates from a YouTube video by prof Ole Humlum, in which he attacked GISS for doing unfounded adjustment of temperature data for Reykjavik(64.1331N, 21.9W), Iceland. In order to understand his reservation, I started reading about GISS temperature series for several meteorological stations. I found that BoM's Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E), Australia has been used as scapegoat station by the skeptical community by many unfounded attacks.

Prof Ole Humlum is a high-ranking member of the skeptical community. He is a member of Global Warming Policy Foundation(GWPF)'s "Academic Advisory Council", of the Danish Klimarealisternes.dk's "Advisory Board" and of the Norwegian Klimarealiterne.no's "Klimarealistenes Vitenskapelige Råd". He has described homogenization as "administrative changes" not recognizing that it is as scientific method.

The most prominent member of the skeptical community in Australia is Jenifer Marohasy.Unlike pro Ole Humlum, she is familiar with the concept of homogenization and has actually written about it. She has several times attacked BoM and presented hers anti-homogenization arguments at least ones to the Liberal Democratic Party National Conference, Sydney, 7th February 2016 stating:

The homogenization of Darwin's temperature is just another example of climate scientists making-up a temperature trend to create the perception of a coming environmental apocalypse.


This is politic not science.

By profession I am a statistician, mathematician, and actuary with a limited knowledge of meteorology. In spite of this, I am trying to convey information about homogenization to the skeptical community. It took some time to understand what homogenization means and how GISS is doing this with a complicated algorithm called Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA). I do not have full access to all GISS data except for downloading single stations. This means that my check of the homogenization is done by using the data for a single station.

Homogenization of meteorological measurement series is to my understanding an old discipline more than 30 years old, with several worldwide workshops. It is the backbone of all analyzes. If the basic data is erroneous, the analysis results are worthless. Therefore, homogenization is a valued discipline among meteorologists and climate scientists. It is just unfortunate that the climate skeptics, including Prof Ole Humlum etc., know nothing about this discipline.

In principle, a homogenization process consists of 3 steps:

1.Identify breaking points
2.Calculate the adjustments for the identified breaking points
3.Adjust the meteorological data with the adjustments found

This often requires significant knowledge of statistics and access to data for multiple stations.

It is possible there is a double counting in respect of homogenization. National meteorological institutes are doing single station homogenization by probable not like the methods GISS is using. On top of this GISS does a multi station homogenization. I have only investigated three danish stations: København, Flyvestation Ålborg og Hammer Odde. No adjustments have taken place for Hammer Odde Fyr. Flyvestation Ålborg is adjusted for breaking points, but not for UHI. København is adjusted for breakpoints and UHI as well.

The BOM station Darwin Airport has been discussed on WhatsUpWithThat The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero on Data mangling: BoM's Changes to Darwin's Climate History are Not Logical, but no one has mentioned the most important year i.e. 1937 in the history of the meteorological station Darwin Airport.

The following graph shows a plot of the unadjusted data and of the homogenized data as well.




It appears from the above that there are some major deviations especially before 1937.

One can rightly ask the question why?
Are GISS/BoM completely out of their minds
It looks like GISS/BoM are completely crooked.

This was my reaction before I started a 3-week investigation of the foundation of homogenization. After many hours of work with internet search og R-programming, the adjustments to Darwin Airport can be traced back to two relevant adjustments of raw data. This can be seen by the following graphs:




The graph at the top right shows that in the periods 1892-1935 and 1935-1951 there have been adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. respectively. From the graph at the bottom right there has been a linear adjustment due to Urban Heath Island (UHI) at -0.6 C in 1940 and in 2020 0.0 C.

While correction for UHI is commonly accepted by all, there is a question mark on the other corrections.
Below I have to the left recorded "year against unadjusted" with a broken line with two breaking points.




To the right, I have corrected the unadjusted data with the broken line. In addition, I have performed a multiple regression on the model used. It appears there the breaking points in May 1935 is sufficient. The calculated breakpoint does not quite agree with what GISS has estimated.



GISS talks about the height of the stairs, my statistical model talks about the height of steps of stairs. Therefore, a conversion is necessary. The GISS adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. correspond to -0.69 C=-(0.83-014) and 0.14 C.

The model used is a linear model in years + two breaking points + a harmonic med period of one year, where the GISS breaking points are used.

It appears from this

That there is a linear trend of approx. 0.00350 Celsius per year
That the breaking point in May 1935 is significantly different from zero
That the breaking point in September 1951 is not significantly different from zero

Initially, the breaking point in 1935 is justified by a statistical analysis, but from the history of Darwin Airport it appears that a new beginning for Darwin Airport took place in 1937 and this may be the reason for one of the breaking points. The calculated breaking point is approx. two years before "the new beginning" for Darwin Airport.


Darwin
The current site (14015) is located on the southern edge of Darwin Airport, about 7 km northeast of the central city and well away from any parts of suburban Darwin. It is over natural grass with some shrubs about 20 m away to the west and east.

History
Earlier observations were made at the Post Office (14016), in the central city area. This is on a peninsula in Darwin Harbour which means that the prevailing dry-season southeasterlies have a trajectory over Darwin Harbour (whereas at the airport they are over land). The site deteriorated progressively from the mid-1930s, becoming overshadowed by trees, especially after 1937. The site (along with the remainder of the Post Office) was destroyed in the Japanese air raids of February 1942 and never rebuilt.

The airport site (14015) has been operating since February 1941. An automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved about 900 m east (along the southern edge of the airport) on 7 August 2001, with observations at the original site continuing under the station number 14040 until June 2007. No significant temperature changes were found between these two sites.


In spite of the many attacks to which BoM has been exposed by climate skeptics, this post is a recognition of BoM's work. I what to thank BoM for the documentation of the history of the meteorological station in Australia.

I have been looking at other meteorological stations, where I am skeptical about the homogenization used by GISS V4. Maybe I will write about this later. In my view it is relevant to have a second opinion bases science.

In Denmark most climate skeptics can be found on Klimarealisterne. It is terrible what Danish Climate Skeptics say and write. I wish there were some competent climate skeptics who can read, understand as well as write about their views. There is a long way from the top of the climate skeptic in the form of Bjørn Lomborg and Judith Curry to the large group of climate skeptics like Ole Humlum.

Using the English version of Klimadebate.dk, I hope some very qualified skeptics will participate in the discussions and teach me a lesson in respect of homogenization.


Links:
Australian Government: Bureau of Meteorology

BoM: Quality control of climate data

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Hungarian Meteorological Service:

10th Seminar for Homogenization and Quality Control and 5th Conference on Spatial Interpolation Techniques in Climatology and Meteorology


Joanne Nova:

Adjusted! Another degree shaved off Darwins history — (it's cooling so fast, in 50 years Darwin won't even be tropical)

Ken Rice

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Judith Curry:

Zeke Hausfather Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Jennifer Marohasy:

Jenifer Marohasy: Why we should rally against homogenization, and I don't mean of milk ?

Jenifer Marohasy :Homogenisation Overview

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: Climate homogenization and the remodeling of climate change, Published Jul 29, 2017 1:43 AM


I have been to Darwin many times.Thank you for explaining honestly how you people are making it all up


duncan61
15-10-2020 04:03
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
duncan61 wrote:
kfl wrote:
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), Australian Government, has for a long time been attacked by climate skeptical groups. Very few persons are recognizing the good work BoM is doing inclusive documentation of the history of the meteorological stations and homogenization of meteorological data.

My attention to BOM originates from a YouTube video by prof Ole Humlum, in which he attacked GISS for doing unfounded adjustment of temperature data for Reykjavik(64.1331N, 21.9W), Iceland. In order to understand his reservation, I started reading about GISS temperature series for several meteorological stations. I found that BoM's Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E), Australia has been used as scapegoat station by the skeptical community by many unfounded attacks.

Prof Ole Humlum is a high-ranking member of the skeptical community. He is a member of Global Warming Policy Foundation(GWPF)'s "Academic Advisory Council", of the Danish Klimarealisternes.dk's "Advisory Board" and of the Norwegian Klimarealiterne.no's "Klimarealistenes Vitenskapelige Råd". He has described homogenization as "administrative changes" not recognizing that it is as scientific method.

The most prominent member of the skeptical community in Australia is Jenifer Marohasy.Unlike pro Ole Humlum, she is familiar with the concept of homogenization and has actually written about it. She has several times attacked BoM and presented hers anti-homogenization arguments at least ones to the Liberal Democratic Party National Conference, Sydney, 7th February 2016 stating:

The homogenization of Darwin's temperature is just another example of climate scientists making-up a temperature trend to create the perception of a coming environmental apocalypse.


This is politic not science.

By profession I am a statistician, mathematician, and actuary with a limited knowledge of meteorology. In spite of this, I am trying to convey information about homogenization to the skeptical community. It took some time to understand what homogenization means and how GISS is doing this with a complicated algorithm called Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA). I do not have full access to all GISS data except for downloading single stations. This means that my check of the homogenization is done by using the data for a single station.

Homogenization of meteorological measurement series is to my understanding an old discipline more than 30 years old, with several worldwide workshops. It is the backbone of all analyzes. If the basic data is erroneous, the analysis results are worthless. Therefore, homogenization is a valued discipline among meteorologists and climate scientists. It is just unfortunate that the climate skeptics, including Prof Ole Humlum etc., know nothing about this discipline.

In principle, a homogenization process consists of 3 steps:

1.Identify breaking points
2.Calculate the adjustments for the identified breaking points
3.Adjust the meteorological data with the adjustments found

This often requires significant knowledge of statistics and access to data for multiple stations.

It is possible there is a double counting in respect of homogenization. National meteorological institutes are doing single station homogenization by probable not like the methods GISS is using. On top of this GISS does a multi station homogenization. I have only investigated three danish stations: København, Flyvestation Ålborg og Hammer Odde. No adjustments have taken place for Hammer Odde Fyr. Flyvestation Ålborg is adjusted for breaking points, but not for UHI. København is adjusted for breakpoints and UHI as well.

The BOM station Darwin Airport has been discussed on WhatsUpWithThat The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero on Data mangling: BoM's Changes to Darwin's Climate History are Not Logical, but no one has mentioned the most important year i.e. 1937 in the history of the meteorological station Darwin Airport.

The following graph shows a plot of the unadjusted data and of the homogenized data as well.




It appears from the above that there are some major deviations especially before 1937.

One can rightly ask the question why?
Are GISS/BoM completely out of their minds
It looks like GISS/BoM are completely crooked.

This was my reaction before I started a 3-week investigation of the foundation of homogenization. After many hours of work with internet search og R-programming, the adjustments to Darwin Airport can be traced back to two relevant adjustments of raw data. This can be seen by the following graphs:




The graph at the top right shows that in the periods 1892-1935 and 1935-1951 there have been adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. respectively. From the graph at the bottom right there has been a linear adjustment due to Urban Heath Island (UHI) at -0.6 C in 1940 and in 2020 0.0 C.

While correction for UHI is commonly accepted by all, there is a question mark on the other corrections.
Below I have to the left recorded "year against unadjusted" with a broken line with two breaking points.




To the right, I have corrected the unadjusted data with the broken line. In addition, I have performed a multiple regression on the model used. It appears there the breaking points in May 1935 is sufficient. The calculated breakpoint does not quite agree with what GISS has estimated.



GISS talks about the height of the stairs, my statistical model talks about the height of steps of stairs. Therefore, a conversion is necessary. The GISS adjustments of -1.21 C and -0.41 C. correspond to -0.69 C=-(0.83-014) and 0.14 C.

The model used is a linear model in years + two breaking points + a harmonic med period of one year, where the GISS breaking points are used.

It appears from this

That there is a linear trend of approx. 0.00350 Celsius per year
That the breaking point in May 1935 is significantly different from zero
That the breaking point in September 1951 is not significantly different from zero

Initially, the breaking point in 1935 is justified by a statistical analysis, but from the history of Darwin Airport it appears that a new beginning for Darwin Airport took place in 1937 and this may be the reason for one of the breaking points. The calculated breaking point is approx. two years before "the new beginning" for Darwin Airport.


Darwin
The current site (14015) is located on the southern edge of Darwin Airport, about 7 km northeast of the central city and well away from any parts of suburban Darwin. It is over natural grass with some shrubs about 20 m away to the west and east.

History
Earlier observations were made at the Post Office (14016), in the central city area. This is on a peninsula in Darwin Harbour which means that the prevailing dry-season southeasterlies have a trajectory over Darwin Harbour (whereas at the airport they are over land). The site deteriorated progressively from the mid-1930s, becoming overshadowed by trees, especially after 1937. The site (along with the remainder of the Post Office) was destroyed in the Japanese air raids of February 1942 and never rebuilt.

The airport site (14015) has been operating since February 1941. An automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved about 900 m east (along the southern edge of the airport) on 7 August 2001, with observations at the original site continuing under the station number 14040 until June 2007. No significant temperature changes were found between these two sites.


In spite of the many attacks to which BoM has been exposed by climate skeptics, this post is a recognition of BoM's work. I what to thank BoM for the documentation of the history of the meteorological station in Australia.

I have been looking at other meteorological stations, where I am skeptical about the homogenization used by GISS V4. Maybe I will write about this later. In my view it is relevant to have a second opinion bases science.

In Denmark most climate skeptics can be found on Klimarealisterne. It is terrible what Danish Climate Skeptics say and write. I wish there were some competent climate skeptics who can read, understand as well as write about their views. There is a long way from the top of the climate skeptic in the form of Bjørn Lomborg and Judith Curry to the large group of climate skeptics like Ole Humlum.

Using the English version of Klimadebate.dk, I hope some very qualified skeptics will participate in the discussions and teach me a lesson in respect of homogenization.


Links:
Australian Government: Bureau of Meteorology

BoM: Quality control of climate data

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Hungarian Meteorological Service:

10th Seminar for Homogenization and Quality Control and 5th Conference on Spatial Interpolation Techniques in Climatology and Meteorology


Joanne Nova:

Adjusted! Another degree shaved off Darwins history — (it's cooling so fast, in 50 years Darwin won't even be tropical)

Ken Rice

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Judith Curry:

Zeke Hausfather Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Jennifer Marohasy:

Jenifer Marohasy: Why we should rally against homogenization, and I don't mean of milk ?

Jenifer Marohasy :Homogenisation Overview

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: Climate homogenization and the remodeling of climate change, Published Jul 29, 2017 1:43 AM


I have been to Darwin many times.Thank you for explaining honestly how you people are making it all up



I've said it before, I don't think Australia's weather is in the same discussion as the northern hemisphere.
It is HOT in Australia, to see more, watch Crownies.
Edited by branner on 16-10-2020 17:50
15-10-2020 17:58
kfl
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
I was hoping for answers from knowledgeable people with experience homogenization.

I did not receive any useful answers.

Answers are responses from anti-science, anti-mat and anti-state people.

Note: thanks to math/stat, one can test and investigate methods of homogenization.

Without this you can do nothing.
15-10-2020 19:15
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
kfl wrote:
I was hoping for answers from knowledgeable people with experience homogenization.

I did not receive any useful answers.

Answers are responses from anti-science, anti-mat and anti-state people.

Note: thanks to math/stat, one can test and investigate methods of homogenization.

Without this you can do nothing.


Homogenization goes against God and Nature, tool of the devil. The world was a much nice place, before you people came out of the 'closet', and expecting everyone to accept and pity you disgusting lifestyle choice...
16-10-2020 03:14
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
We are not accepting the faith based on real life events.No sea level rise corals still growing fish in the water people in the water polar caps still freezing over.stop fiddling with the readings.it is what it is stop changing it to suit your agenda.,Fact.Amberley air base has shown a 1.C cooling since 1942 but that does not suit the Agenda so now it is alledgedly 1.76C warmer after Homogenisation.Go figure
16-10-2020 04:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
They talk about 'global' climate change, but they only focus on some very specific locations. So what if more ice melt this year, around Norway. More ice didn't melt on the other side of the world. All about playing with averages, and adjusted data. If it's a 'global' problem, shouldn't the entire planet, be experiencing the same changes, all at the same time? How can only a few isolated islands be losing beaches and coast land, while the rest of the planet remains basically the same? Doesn't strike me as a global problem, more of a localized problem.
16-10-2020 05:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
kfl wrote:
I was hoping for answers from knowledgeable people with experience homogenization.

Already given.
kfl wrote:
I did not receive any useful answers.
Yes you did. You ignored them.
kfl wrote:
Answers are responses from anti-science, anti-mat and anti-state people.
You are describing yourself.
kfl wrote:
Note: thanks to math/stat, one can test and investigate methods of homogenization.
I find that high pressure put through small nozzles works best. It's simple and efficient.
kfl wrote:
Without this you can do nothing.

Therefore you can do nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-10-2020 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7515)
kfl wrote:I was hoping for answers from knowledgeable people with experience homogenization.

Imagine how we feel. We were hoping for intelligent questions.

Don't you think you should learn some science and math before asking uninformed and uneducated questions?

kfl wrote:I did not receive any useful answers.

You have to learn some science and some math before answers can be useful.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2020 03:53
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
kfl wrote:
I was hoping for answers from knowledgeable people with experience homogenization.

I did not receive any useful answers.

Answers are responses from anti-science, anti-mat and anti-state people.

Note: thanks to math/stat, one can test and investigate methods of homogenization.

Without this you can do nothing.



I have my own thoughts. Unlike some people, I have a high speed internet connection and can surf the internet quite easily. And the first thing I do is to throw out homogenized data.
Looking at pictures of Australian women like Jessica Green, Indiana Evans or watching Australian TV shows, beats the heck out of the aggression of people saying prove me wrong or I don't like what I'm hearing.
I've posted in here before that ozone depletion is sufficient to account for any warming our planet has experienced. It "is". ITN's argument. At the same time, the Earth's average distance to the Sun is DECREASING.
This simply means that solar radiation is decreasing. With Star Trek, our mission is to seek out that which we do not understand so that we can know her, er, "it".
It's about exploring spaces we haven't been to and those we've visited to better know.
And yet, if all things were made similar, would this attached picture look like
https://images.app.goo.gl/Y5QnkkhLqxAmrxnz9? That is the basis of homogenization while T'Pol is not homogenized.
With science, it is up to the individual to express how mathematics and theory allow for an idea that has been posited. This allows for no debate, discussion or other INTERCOURSE because math is absolute.
If math cannot clearly state a hypothesis, then it is not math that has failed but the person creating a hypothesis that does not agree with mathematics.
As for women, they simply have more pheromones than hormones which is why the planetoid called Earth basically has one sex. It's inhabitants merely react to a difference in pheromones when seeking partners. All allowed for in mathematics and in chemistry and the joules of energy released during such intercourse.
Attached image:


Edited on 17-10-2020 04:24
17-10-2020 04:04
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
ie, to combine the preceding image with this, then we would have achieved homogenization. Just as with pictures of Australian women, what "IS" hot? and how do we define it?
The 2 images are dissimilar so if current identities are used, they'll be deleted? They should be. I wonder though why a man would find a picture of an attractive woman offensive but not pure garbage that is posted? Is that because women are not considered desirable while when a man who is wagging his tongue, that is satisfying to the moderator?
Is mindful of Caligula and how he relished power.
Attached image:


Edited on 17-10-2020 04:05
17-10-2020 04:20
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.
17-10-2020 14:07
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
James___ wrote:
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.


Probably missed the deleted posts, but a couple of your pictures looked a little sub-legal young. Though they weren't under dressed, still a little perverted. It's a climate-debate forum, not a pedophile-hangout.
18-10-2020 04:41
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
How did we get from Darwin airport average temperature to pedophile-hangout.Nice work people
18-10-2020 07:16
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
duncan61 wrote:
How did we get from Darwin airport average temperature to pedophile-hangout.Nice work people


Kentucky Corn Whiskey probably had a lot to do with it...
19-10-2020 04:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
kfl wrote:
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), ...

Thank you for such a well constructed and researched post kfl! Really nice.

I'd agree that quality skepticism is a rare and valualbe thing.

Sadly the "conspiracy theory" formula dominates most "skeptic" debates wherein:
1- Any claim at all can be made
2- It's found that available information contradicts the claim
3- The contradiction is dismissed as the work of some all powerful villain (in this case the government).

But as you have pointed out so well, and done yourself, the work of others can be analyzed and critiqued.

The bottom line for me on government conspiracies is that the government's competence is very limited. Men In Black was just a movie.

Fraud and error will be found out.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 19-10-2020 04:13
19-10-2020 04:16
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.


Probably missed the deleted posts, but a couple of your pictures looked a little sub-legal young. Though they weren't under dressed, still a little perverted. It's a climate-debate forum, not a pedophile-hangout.



Nah, ITN wants "hot" defined? Sometimes to define something, we need to say what it is not. It's like you saying there are no shortages of fresh water in the US because it rains in Florida. And Duncan would probably accept your logic.
And Harvey, you don't know enough to discuss climate science. And when people don't know much, it's because they need pictures to look at. Wasn't it you that said that your leisure time is to precious to spend learning something? Maybe all you do is look at pictures on the internet all day?
I mean today, who has dial up? Everything you have is paid for. Where's it going?
19-10-2020 04:19
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
duncan61 wrote:
How did we get from Darwin airport average temperature to pedophile-hangout.Nice work people



I'll need to quit watching Australian television shows. What's on them is much racier. Even with the show RUSH, they get into soft porn a lot. It's actually amazing how much drugs and sex and alcohol is on Australian television. For you and your buddy to be so insulting, that's all you have, right?

p.s., Maybe one day you and Harvey55 can discuss some science? You yourself say that satellites can't tell us anything while you use a fish finder. You're not even capable of understand that changes in the Earth's atmospheric temperature are always greater in the northern hemisphere by twice as much.
Why is it that Australia will only warm or cool 1/2 as much as Texas, Florida or California? Air circulates, right? Yet neither you nor your friend know this. With McLeod's Daughters, when I asked Tess or Claire, neither you nor your buddy said anything. Why? Don't either of you find women attractive or desirable?
With Jessica Green and the other gal, nothing in their pictures was inappropriate.
Why does it bother you guys when someone's trying to have some fun with you?
You can't talk science or climate change.
Edited on 19-10-2020 04:40
19-10-2020 04:56
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
@Harvey55 and Duncan61, when this thread is about homogenizing data, it doesn't take a long post to say that it's being devalued. When it's all made to appear the same, it "PRETTY" (isn't that "HOT") much loses it's value.
I mean you both have shown that you know when someone might look under 18 but when it comes to scientific data, it requires more than looking at a picture. Neither of you have demonstrated that yet. I wonder why.
A good example Duncan61 is when you said that you can look at the water front around Perth and can tell that sea levels haven't risen. And yet in the link I posted from an Australian source said it has risen around Perth.
You discounted about 100 years of data collected by Australians because you say that you know what you're looking at. What you did was homogenize the data to fit your "set" of observations.
In this post, I showed what Australians know but you don't.

Sea levels on Perth coastline


On 5 December 2012, The West Australian newspaper published the following page 3 story concerning rising sea levels off the Perth coastline.


https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/climate-change-in-green-land-d6-e3099.php#post_54511
Attached image:

19-10-2020 05:08
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
And then there's this;

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/111.php


And what you might not understand Duncan61 is that activity around Antarctica might cause a slow surge because of the volume of water. Also, between the Sun and the Moon, if you look at the charts, the sea level around Australia can increase for a few years and then decrease for a few years. That's in the link to the PMSL.
But when you homogenize data to what you see, how can you and Harvey discuss something?

And this is from Australia. They maintain it for the benefit of the ports. If the image says 62330 on it, then it matches what the ports in Australia accept.
www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_62230_SLI.shtml


By the way, some people say that prevailing winds around the Southern Oscillation will increase sea level in the Indian Ocean.

p.s., this data has not been homogenized. Glacial melt and ice shelves can increase sea level just as ocean currents and many other things can influence sea level. And in Antarctica, many of it's shelves that have broken off might have done so because of their mass. They simply became to heavy for the little or no support they have. And in time, they'll grow back.
So what would you guys like to discuss? Have you come prepared or do you just want to say, someone said something and here's a picture?
I'm going to enjoy having surgery tomorrow. I'll feel so bad that posting in here might just take my mind off of it.
Attached image:


Edited on 19-10-2020 05:22
19-10-2020 06:51
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
And another way to consider different data sets to see if there is a common denominator. This means that values need to be given to wind speed, barometric pressure, position of the Earth around the Sun and the Moon's position as well.
All of those different values can be factored to determine local sea level. This is because as the oceans shift their mass, the shape of the seafloor will channel water to certain areas.
And if that is known then it might be possible to accurately predict on what shore the sea level will rise how much. And since the currents might shift slightly because of the wind, that could probably be accounted for as well.
Yet would it be worth it to break down a shoreline when the local weather stations and people who live on the shore will probably know where in the range different parts of the shore will be affected differently. So it doesn't need to be exact for a regional forecast. I think Florida has several hundred miles of coast line.
Attached image:

19-10-2020 06:59
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
And to understand how the gravity of the Sun and the Moon affect the Earth, you'll probably need to use trig identities so you can calculate the specific relationships for a specific time.
Otherwise calculus would be able to define the change in the orientation between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth. Then you could have an upper and lower limit such as what was shown in the derivatives picture in the previous post.
This is if you'd want to plot for every 2 or 3 hours rather than know the rate of change which is what calculus would be used for. And I hope you guys have fun with these pictures.

Attached image:

19-10-2020 09:51
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
There are 2 basic ways of homogenizing data. With sea levels at any given location, say Perth, WA or Seattle, Washington, pick 4 specific times to record the sea level. That creates a "data set" and then when graphed, it will be representative of actual sea level because the gravitational effect from both the Sun and the Moon will have been cancelled out.
An example is if when the Moon is 90º perpendicular to the Sun and the Earth as shown in the drawing. With A being morning and B being evening, point 1 is the location closest to the Sun. Location 2 is at it's furthest from the Sun. 1 and 2 only reference facing the Sun or facing away from the Sun. With different locations, sidereal time could be used to determine what time to measure sea level.
This would give data points A1, A2, B1 and B2. Then the single value would have been homogenized. The other way to homogenize data is to use calculus. It represents change or the rate of change.
This is what they use for their models which forecast global warming. It ignores data that disagrees with the model. But this is what homogenization of data can allow for.
When using calculus to determine possible outcomes, the data sets need to be in agreement. If not then how could you expect to arrive at the correct answer? But you guys haven't been learning math so you might not really understand what they base their models on.
Don't get me wrong on this, it is warming. I just think that they entered improper data sets to arrive at their conclusion. And this tends to make the waters murky when trying to understand causation.
After all, if using the 4 point data set that I referenced, sea level increase would have an accurate curve easier to observe. And sadly, in here people do not allow for natural warming. The actual argument used to be if we are influencing but that changed to we are causing it.
At the same time, do we really need to trash our planet to enjoy a good quality of life? I don't think that's necessary but most people don't care.
There is an odd thing about taking temperatures in the city if you guys think about it. It's the heat island effect. Basically temperatures should be taken away from cities. Then if we take the temperatures in the city, are we adding much heat to the atmosphere because of urbanization? If so, even electric motors put out heat. So what accounting method should we use?
Attached image:

19-10-2020 10:32
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
The thing about temperature data, it was collected, and recorded for one purpose, and it was good enough for the purpose. Climate 'scientist', needed to re-purpose the historic data, for political reasons. The data, of course, doesn't fit the business model they created, so they had to 'adjust it some. The temperature data was collected where people live, because that's where people were most interested in knowing. The intent of collecting the data was to study weather and local conditions. People wanted to know what's going on, where they live, not 20 miles away.

There really isn't anyway to know, if it's global warming or cooling, since both could be possible, with the huge margin of error introduces. This also means the CO2 connection is false as well. No way to determine if there is even an actual change, alarming, or otherwise. We can't be sure it's natural, or man made either. Nothing stays the same, it's always changing. We don't get what we want either. How many times in your life, have you planned and prepared for some outdoor activity. You pick a date, that should be the most perfect weather. The day comes, and it's miserable, pouring down rain (fresh water). We don't even know what's normal, or what to expect, it's our first inter-glacial.
19-10-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
tmiddles wrote:
kfl wrote:
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data
Bureau of Meteorology(BoM), ...

Thank you for such a well constructed and researched post kfl! Really nice.

I'd agree that quality skepticism is a rare and valualbe thing.

Sadly the "conspiracy theory" formula dominates most "skeptic" debates wherein:
1- Any claim at all can be made
2- It's found that available information contradicts the claim
3- The contradiction is dismissed as the work of some all powerful villain (in this case the government).

But as you have pointed out so well, and done yourself, the work of others can be analyzed and critiqued.

The bottom line for me on government conspiracies is that the government's competence is very limited. Men In Black was just a movie.

Fraud and error will be found out.


Darwin Airport is not the world, dumbass. There is no global temperature data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-10-2020 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.


Probably missed the deleted posts, but a couple of your pictures looked a little sub-legal young. Though they weren't under dressed, still a little perverted. It's a climate-debate forum, not a pedophile-hangout.



Nah, ITN wants "hot" defined? Sometimes to define something, we need to say what it is not. It's like you saying there are no shortages of fresh water in the US because it rains in Florida. And Duncan would probably accept your logic.
And Harvey, you don't know enough to discuss climate science. And when people don't know much, it's because they need pictures to look at. Wasn't it you that said that your leisure time is to precious to spend learning something? Maybe all you do is look at pictures on the internet all day?
I mean today, who has dial up? Everything you have is paid for. Where's it going?


So you can't define 'hot', eh?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-10-2020 03:03
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
I am working in Fremantle Thursday I will go have another look.If you are right James it should be over the breakwater by now
20-10-2020 03:07
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.


Probably missed the deleted posts, but a couple of your pictures looked a little sub-legal young. Though they weren't under dressed, still a little perverted. It's a climate-debate forum, not a pedophile-hangout.



Nah, ITN wants "hot" defined? Sometimes to define something, we need to say what it is not. It's like you saying there are no shortages of fresh water in the US because it rains in Florida. And Duncan would probably accept your logic.
And Harvey, you don't know enough to discuss climate science. And when people don't know much, it's because they need pictures to look at. Wasn't it you that said that your leisure time is to precious to spend learning something? Maybe all you do is look at pictures on the internet all day?
I mean today, who has dial up? Everything you have is paid for. Where's it going?


So you can't define 'hot', eh?



"Hot" is a subjective term. This is because the"self" or one's own ego or sense of self defines it in many instances.
20-10-2020 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
The 2 previous posts should be deleted because it rains in Florida. Yet no one cares that the rains in Florida are caused by the coriolis effect. Actually, no one understands why that is. Kind of getting into astrophysics there and how it influences our weather.
But in showing pictures of attractive women, why are they deleted? It did not allow for any discussion based on what we consider "hot"? And in a discussion, we do, as ITN states, need to define what "hot" is. Why does the moderator limit the discussion to psychology alone?
My opinion is that it only allows for "hot" "is". And by saying that a woman is "hot", then that is not "is". And yet the moderator chooses to limit the discussion to a belief and not an opinion which can be subjective.
That is homogenization in it's purest form. Make everything like me, and like Caligula, I will be a good moderator and will spread my seed. And Caligula was known for liking to watch 2 men wrestle in the nude. Have to wonder about this forum, it's purpose and the moderator.


Probably missed the deleted posts, but a couple of your pictures looked a little sub-legal young. Though they weren't under dressed, still a little perverted. It's a climate-debate forum, not a pedophile-hangout.



Nah, ITN wants "hot" defined? Sometimes to define something, we need to say what it is not. It's like you saying there are no shortages of fresh water in the US because it rains in Florida. And Duncan would probably accept your logic.
And Harvey, you don't know enough to discuss climate science. And when people don't know much, it's because they need pictures to look at. Wasn't it you that said that your leisure time is to precious to spend learning something? Maybe all you do is look at pictures on the internet all day?
I mean today, who has dial up? Everything you have is paid for. Where's it going?


So you can't define 'hot', eh?



"Hot" is a subjective term.

It is also a comparative term. It has no meaning except to compare against something else that is 'cold'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New High Temperature Records Again Outpace Lows3102-09-2020 23:24
New Temperature High Recorded in Death Valley1919-08-2020 02:27
Another week, more new high temperature records1117-08-2020 01:52
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth13205-07-2020 00:00
Measuring the Earth's Surface Temperature501-07-2020 21:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact