Discussion on the starting topic of this thread has run its course, so I don’t feel too bad about hijacking of the thread to discuss Mt.Gambier time series adjustments.

Geoff — Have you been able to determine from the documentation of each data source what sort of adjustments have been applied in each case. It is clear from looking at the graph, that the different organizations have chosen different values for corrections. It also looks like some organizations identified breakpoints that needed correction in places where others treated the data stream as homogeneous. I’m a novice in this area, with most of my knowledge coming from reading about the USHCN Version 2 adjustment process.

My suggestion for a graph would be to pick one series as the reference, and then plot the differences between it and each of the others. If needed for clarity, you could add in an additional offset of 0.1 or 0.5C between the difference series. Since BOM2009 is available over the entire period, it would probably be the best as the “reference series”.

An additional plot line of the actual value of the BOM2009 could be added above the difference plots to provide context. It would probably be best to have the Y axis of the difference series expanded as compared to the BOM2009 actual values.

There are several options. I can make difference graphs. Some writers here known how to click on the smaller graph to get a larger one. I do not. Help please?

The objective here is to show that there is no global temperature estimate which can lay claim to be the thoroughbred line.

I’ve extracted more Australian annual temp data from CRU and placed it in context with a few other authorities. I have no idea if this CRU version is the one that is still used. Ditto for most of the others. It makes me wonder how investigators can try to relate physical effects with temperature. Pick-a-graph.

This site, Mount Gambier in South Australia, has WMO #948210 and Australian # 126021. It is about 25 km north of the Southern Ocean and 210m asl. Some metadata from BOM -
“Meteorological observations commenced in Mt Gambier in 1861, when daily rainfall readings commenced at the Post Office. The Bureau of Meteorology opened an office at the Mt Gambier airport in 1941.
Observations continued from the control tower on the airport up until 1963, when the office was moved to its present location on a small rise overlooking and adjacent to the airport. The office is about ten kilometers north of the City of Mt Gambier.”

Please email me if a more clear graph would help. Recall that the blue diamonds at top, BOM 1993, are the earliest and the rest are adjustments thereof. I do not know what happens with yellow GISS. Sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom. (This version of GISS is raw, not homogenised).

Although I don’t agree with the reply, he did make a substantive reply rather than just burying the request or sending back a form letter saying something like “doesn’t meet the FOIA or Q of I inquiry requirements”.

A key statement in the response is that ESRL/PSD section of NOAA doesn’t do any review of HADCRU3 other than making sure the data is an accurate copy of the Met submission.

My next step is to inquire with the main CIO of NOAA. I will politely point out the importance and influence of this data; the lack of transparency at CRU and the Met Office; and try to convince them to conduct an independent review.

I may even suggest that someone with the initials SM might be convinced to accept a contract to review HADCRU3.

A parallel inquiry will be an inquiry under FOIA to the Secretariat of NOAA, to find out whether a group other than ESRL/PSD has done a due diligence sort of review of HADCRU3. Each little step helps a bit. Calling their attention to the lack of verification of HADCRU3 and then NOAA having to come back and say “we don’t have any documents on verification of HADCRU3 because we never did any” may help them decide that it is a project worth doing.

Well, if we’re not getting anything we can use out of Hadley, maybe Oak Ridge should consider not funding it?

I gotta say that this is hilarious — in a serious, grownup way, of course — and mpaul’s post cracked me up.

NOAA OAR has determined that the Hadley Centre datasets do not meet the definition of influential since the data will not have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.

Is Dr Nick Wilde not aware of the fact that HADCRUT3 is the data set used by the IPCC???!!!