In other words, I think that the inclusion of months of mostly missing data at non-randon times has depressed the early years of GISS and given a false impression of a following increase. (Remember December is summer here). That is part of why I started my studies in 1968. But, as well, there is a difference point-to point in later years between BOM and GISS that is probably not from missing data, especially post 1995 (AWS). I’d like GISS to explain how these changes arose as I can see no pressing reason to change the BOM data. I tend towards indiscriminate, overall use of the mangler.

Don’t have the digital data for GISS. As explained elsewhere, there is some infilling in my data that negates sophisticated analysis.

The need for infilling can be shown for some of the early years I rejected:

YEAR MONTH DAY Tmax Tmin
1949 11 6 5.6 1.7
1949 11 7 3.9 0.6
1949 11 8
1949 11 9
1949 11 10
1949 11 11
1949 11 12
1949 11 13
1949 11 14
1949 11 15
1949 11 16
1949 11 17
1949 11 18
1949 11 19
1949 11 20
1949 11 21
1949 11 22
1949 11 23
1949 11 24
1949 11 25
1949 11 26
1949 11 27
1949 11 28
1949 11 29
1949 11 30 7.8 4.4
1949 12 1
1949 12 2
1949 12 3
1949 12 4
1949 12 5
1949 12 6
1949 12 7
1949 12 8
1949 12 9
1949 12 10
1949 12 11
1949 12 12
1949 12 13 7.8 4.4
1949 12 14 6.7 3.9
1949 12 15 6.7 2.8
1949 12 16
1949 12 17
1949 12 18 8.9 2.8
1949 12 19
1949 12 20
1949 12 21
1949 12 22
1949 12 23
1949 12 24
1949 12 25
1949 12 26
1949 12 27
1949 12 28
1949 12 29
1949 12 30
1949 12 31

Giss shows about half a degree rise from 1951-2008. The Australia data show far less than this.

Would you be willing to fit a quadratic to each series and report the statistics?

Re Macquarie Island.

Here is the GISS version for average annual temp, after application of GISS corrections.

What corrections are needed? It’s about as rural as you can get: it’s close to sea level: it has no other nearby relveant stations to corrupt its pure data; to my knowledge, it has has half-hourly automatic temp recording for some years; no lights. I can’t see ANY corections are needed.

Giss shows about half a degree rise from 1951-2008. The Australia data show far less than this. (Data before 1951 are really full of missing values).

Calling NASA Goddard – what did you do to the data from BOM?

Re: Hu McCulloch (#69),

I didn’t do the AWS correlation by itself because of the limited data. You are right though, it would be interesting to see, I’ll try to do something later.

If it wasn’t clear, my point is that the non-reconstructed correlation of surface stations as plotted by SteveM shows reasonable de-correlation with distance. There is enough data that the RegEM versions of the surface station retain similar ‘appearing’ distance correlation to the original with a few outliers. The AWS stations after RegEM on the other hand don’t have enough data to retain a realistic correlation with distance resulting in what looks to me like a substantially blended trend.

It might might be informative to compute manned station correlations by distance separately for Antarctic island pairs, continental pairs, and island/continental pairs. I suspect that island stations pick up a lot of correlation from ocean currents that would not affect continental pairs.

(This would exclude, of course, the 5 temperate oceanic stations in #51 that didn’t belong in this study, or at least put them in a separate category.)

RE #69, the same might be done for island vs continental AWS stations, but the data there is already so sparse this might not be informative.