Australia caught!

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/

We have previously discussed that Australia was caught tampering with weather data, to "adjust" cold readings to not-so-cold, or to delete them altogether. Now it seems that the narrative on exactly why and how that was happening is changing almost as rapidly as the temperature data. The story du jour is something about "smart cards" that limit how cold the stations can report.

Which begs the question: what's the point of reporting data, if the equipment is set to not report the data?

P.S. Some of the titles in the sidebar look interesting, too.

[230RN]

Well, cold flows downhill, so naturally they'd have to correct for this error since they're in the southern hemisphere.

We have the same problem in Fraser, Colorado.  We have to adjust the temperature readings upward to normalize them to global warming standards.  The average annual mean temperature is 32.5°F according to those lying inaccurate faulty thermometers and recording instruments, so we have to add about 30°F to make it come out right.  Depending on the season, of course.  We have to add less than 30°F in summer.

Terry

REF:
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-of-the-coldest-places-in-the-world-to-live/fraser-colo

[MechAg94]

Recently I ran into someone who thought global warming was real.  I hadn't run across anyone like that for a while.  However, I think she was convinced by a college professor and several years later hasn't changed her mind.  I doubt the subject will come up again, but I will keep this link in mind. 

It is really looking like just about all the data that was once used to "prove" global warming was adjusted or made up. 

[230RN]

Well, here's the long term record over 400,000 years, mostly by proxy measurements, but the validity is shown by the regular patterns.

My stance is that you can't tell what's going to happen merely from the last 200 years of which you actually have direct measurements.  Rather, look at the long term.  If you do, there's high suspicion that we're heading into an Ice Age.

Can't be sure, but I'll let you know in 50,000 more years.

The problem lies in the mere 200 year sample size.

Terry, Ice-conoclast, 230RN