AGW – A comprehensive review of the Australian BOM ACORN -SAT analysis


Ken McMurtrie:

Ken’s comprehensive analysis appears to be authentic. It suggests at least that the authenticity is demonstrably better than that of the BOM. Net inference is that the BOM data processing leaves something to be desired, contains suspicious manipulations with insufficient transparent justification which tend to bias the trend to a higher warming, and that they display a reluctance to respond to what could be termed “peer-review” by the panel.
The article’s conclusion is inserted here for the reader’s interest.

“The Bureau’s responses to all of the review panel’s recommendations are listed here. Some are very enlightening: BOM appears to be not as keen on public accessibility as the review panel recommends! BOM is quite happy to calculate monthly means for months with up to 12 missing days. No mention is made of short length sites.

Let the review panel have the final say (my emphasis):

The Panel’s overall confidence is derived from its close examination of the Bureau’s observation practices, its network selection methodology, its approach to data homogenisation, and its methodologies for the analysis of trends. All of these factors need to be satisfactorily handled before stakeholders can be confident about findings based on the data; a failure in any one of these factors will result in a loss of stakeholders’ confidence in the system as a whole. But the confidence of public stakeholders needs always to be nurtured in other ways as well. For that reason the Panel has placed special emphasis in its report on the need for good communications and greater transparency of the development and operations of the ACORN-SAT system. A side benefit of this transparency for the Bureau is that useful suggestions for improvements and refinements to the ACORN-SAT system will almost certainly be made.”

“We can only hope!”

 

Related articles

Originally posted on kenskingdom:

Ken Stewart, May 2012

and

Update, April 2014

Readers may have come to this site via a poster campaign, featuring (with my permission) graphs of adjustments to minimum temperatures at Rutherglen, Victoria.  The graphs show comparisons of unadjusted daily temperatures as shown at Climate Data Online, with temperatures downloaded from the Acorn site (see below.)   The daily temperatures have been smoothed with a 365 day running mean and linear trends are shown.  The amount of adjustment in the Acorn data is clear.  Pleased read on for a full explanation.

Introduction

In March 2012, a new daily temperature reconstruction was released, called the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network- Surface Air Temperatures, or ACORN-SAT (Acorn).  It appears that the previous “High Quality” Annual and Daily series will be quietly forgotten, as it had become apparent that they had significant, but never admitted, problems (see my previous posts: The Australian Temperature…

View original 4,533 more words

About these ads

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in AGW, AUSTRALIA, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to AGW – A comprehensive review of the Australian BOM ACORN -SAT analysis

  1. Pingback: Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set, | The GOLDEN RULE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s