Nothing is sacred – no temperature data is immune from the warmist tampering by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in their ACORN SAT highly warming fabricated dataset. The max has not been adjusted in ACORN
Giles must be one of the most remote weather stations on Planet Earth.
Text from the ACORN SAT Station Catalogue
Giles (013017)
This site is located at the Giles Meteorological Office, in an extremely remote
area near the Western Australia/South Australia/Northern Territory border.The screen area is mostly bare red soil and gravel with some patches of
dry grass. There are areas of spinifex and low desert shrubs once outside a
20-metre radius from the site.History
There are no known substantial moves since the site opened in 1956. An
automatic weather station was installed in June 1992 and became the primary
instrument on 1 November 1996.Although it is located in Western Australia, the Giles office is managed
by South Australia and makes observations according to South Australian
time, so the ’9 am‘ observation is made at 7.30 am Western Standard Time
(WST) in winter and 6.30 am WST in summer. Prior to 1 July 1978, these
observation times were 30 minutes earlier (7 am WST in winter and 6 am
WST in summer), following a practice that had been used at other South
Australian stations but had become obsolete at those stations in the 1950s.Nearest ACORN-SAT sites
015666 RABBIT FLAT (568 km)
015590 ALICE SPRINGS (583 km)
011052 FORREST (647 km)
never stuff up a good yarn by telling the truth
I keep looking for where the BoM explains exactly what they have done with each site record, but all I find is the station catalogue, which Warwick quotes here, and the discussion of methods here: cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf.
I don’t see anywhere a precise list for each site of the adjustments made, the date, the amount, the reason etc.
There are many individual adjustments (the blue dots in the graph), and also “regime changes” that shift the annual averages (the white line). Perhaps the former come more from statistical comparisons and the latter more from metadata, i.e. real known changes?
Altogether though it seems the data were just fed into a fantastically complicated processing machine. Cop this from the methods document: “Finally, the inhomogeneities identified by metadata were consolidated with those found by statistical methods, with the metadata-identified inhomogeneity taking precedence if it occurred within 2 years of a statistically-identified inhomogeneity. All inhomogeneities were presumed, for the purpose of further analysis, to have taken place on 1 January unless a specific date could
be identified from metadata.” How could one possibly take seriously DAILY data arrived at on such an arbitrary basis?
hey warwick
think i now why the minimums need to be changed. observations were done early than was normal. so if it was 5 degrees one night, because observations are done to early in the morning that 5 degrees could show up for the next night as well. the changes match up with the dates list you showed when observation time practice changed.
so it seems like these were changed for a science reason.i think you a bit naughty to say it is fabricated – wont you get in trouble for saying that?
ben k