The Ongoing Data Tampering By Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology
In science, the raw data is sacrosanct, but a new type of analysis shows hundreds of anomalies and oddities in the Australian Bureau Of Meteorology raw data, and whole months of supposedly raw records have been cut and pasted, in one instance as far as 40 years earlier
After all the high-minded purity of BOM claims that they provide all their raw unadjusted data to critics, an audit by Geoff Sherrington and Tom Berger has found that “almost all CDO* data sets that we have studied, about 150 stations, show some past adjustments.”
In one case duplicated patterns were found separated by 82 years. And then there are hundreds of repeated structured patterns called “the broken seam” where there is a pattern of repeats, with one or two different values in the middle of the sequence.
In the longer stretches, two weeks are copied, then two days are different, and then another two weeks is copied.
Tom Berger is a specialist in data-based deception analysis who has assisted the FBI in the past. So, he has analyzed the BOM raw data in new very detailed ways.
He found adjustments in one site were predictable in a machine-learning way from another site 800km away, suggesting that “the adjustments were following a systematic, network-wide pattern,” not just with an issue at a single station.
In one case of a duplicated month (to a tenth of a degree), Graham Lloyd at The Australian tracked down the original archived paper records and confirmed that the 1907 online data was correct but that the original values in the month of August 1867 had been replaced with a copy of the 1907 data.
Among other anomalies Berger found the maximum temperature records in Sydney show 110 years of non-random adjustments in a warmer direction. Always warmer, never colder.
He also found data gaps — in one case where 647 consecutive days were missing.
On top of this there are 879 instances of something he calls “value traps” and over 500 “structured repeats”. One of the structural repeat patterns is known as the 5+1+5. Where there are five identical values, then one different one, and another five identical values. There are also 4+1+4 and 3+1+3 repeats as well.
These were the fingerprints, he said, of a human hand on the data.
Imagine if a company’s accounts had duplicated receipts?
Everyone knows the BOM publishes adjusted formally “corrected” datasets, and we have debated the many versions of ACORN adjustments and homogenization many times, but if the guardians of the raw data are presenting mistaken or altered data as though it was the original recordings, that crosses a new line.
Significantly, these strange duplications were not corrected in any version of the ‘expert’ corrections. They were spread across the whole country, and many were even in the modern era, not just among the old, digitized records copied from handwritten notes.
As the two auditors say:
“None of these findings require any knowledge of climate science – they are purely data integrity failures that would disqualify any dataset in any other field of science.”
This error prone data is being fed into climate models that farmers (used to) rely on, and town planners, health officials and insurers are trying to use.
We’re betting the economy and transforming our energy grid on this data. We’ll spend a trillion dollars killing off coal but we won’t audit the original data?
The BOM Budget is 614 million dollars a year, and it has 1,803 staff, but it took an analysis by two volunteers to find a litany of irregularities are impossible by chance. The BOM just spent $96 million redesigning their website which was universally panned. But they haven’t checked their own data. It doesn’t add up.
(Don’t forgot the old BOM site still exists so bookmark https://reg.bom.gov.au/. That’s what I use!)
The BOM admits there are some (a few) issues and says it will fix them
The ‘experts’ tell us life on Earth depends on understanding ‘climate change’, but they don’t seem to care what the longest and best records in the Southern Hemisphere say.
Perhaps these duplications are accidental. Perhaps the Russians have hacked the database?
When asked by Andrew Wilkie MP, Stuart Minchin, CEO and director of the BOM, said contributions from citizen scientists “play an important role” and that “The BOM rejects allegations of fraudulent or deliberate manipulation of Australia’s temperature record – there is no evidence to support this assertion, and it has no basis in fact.”
The BOM acknowledges duplicated data affects fewer than 200 daily values form a dataset with more than seven million values, but claim this has no effect on the long-term temperature record.
They would say that though, as they want you to believe what they claim without question.
See more here climatechangedispatch