Todd would have outlawed the practice of homogenization. Scientists of that era considered the integrity of observational records sacrosanct.
At an online thread I recently read the following comment about homogenization:
Don't you love the word homogenise? When I was working in the dairy industry we used to have a homogeniser. This was a device for forcing the fat back into the milk. What it did was use a very high pressure to compress and punish the fat until it became part of the milk. No fat was allowed to remain on the top of the milk it all had to be to same consistency… Force the data under pressure to conform to what is required. Torture the data if necessary until it complies…
Clearly the Bureau's remodeling of historical temperature data is unnatural and unscientific. In erasing the natural climate cycles and generating a global warming trends, the capacity of modern climate scientists to forecast spikes in global warming is greatly diminished, as is their capacity to forecast droughts and floods.
Because of the homogenization of the surface temperature record in the compilation of national and global climate statistics, those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, have long preferred the UAH satellite record. Even though this record only begins in 1979.
The UAH global temperature record for the lower troposphere which once showed no trend for 18 years, now shows a surge in warming. This warming, however, is neither catastrophic nor outside the bounds of natural variability. And it certainly hasn't been caused by carbon dioxide.
A manuscript entitled 'Reconciling temperature trends generated from raw versus homogenized monthly temperature datasets for Darwin, Australia, 1895 to 2014', was first submitted to the International Journal of Climatology in early June 2015. After major revisions, a letter was received from the journal's editor, Radan Huth indicating that the manuscript had been accepted subject to minor revisions. In particular the letter from Huth stated:
Both referees are satisfied with the revisions you have made; they have, nevertheless, a few additional minor comments. I am, therefore, very happy to grant conditional acceptance of the paper, subject to you making satisfactory revisions as clarified below. These revisions are minor, in the sense that there are no major recalculations or major analyses required, but there may be less-major analyses needed and there are a number of important revisions to the text that are necessary. Please review the attached document listing the file requirements for your revision.
These revisions were duly made and the manuscript resubmitted on 18th December 2015. On 10th February 2016, a letter was received from Huth indicating that the manuscript was now "denied publication" in the journal. A key concern from reviewer #2 was my addition of a comment in the text which indicated that the temperature series, as homogenized by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, may not be a good representation of historical temperatures. In the earlier drafts of the manuscript I had let the data speak for itself, but in the minor revisions I had been asked to provide commentary.
The letter from Huth also included comments from a new third reviewer who rejected the manuscript, and provided a long defense of the methods currently used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for the homogenization of historical temperature data.
Earlier in 2015 a version of the same manuscript had been submitted to, and rejected by, two other international climate science publications.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
130 posts so far.