Is the BOM manipulating temperature records?

[Ozgrade3]

This has been reported by Chriss Smith of 2GB but I have noticed it as well. I frequently monitor the temp on the BOM website, especially on cold nights so I have seen it myself.

The Golbourn AWOS reports the real time temp of say -10.5 deg C. I see it sitting at my desk. several days later i look at the temperature records and see that the lowest temp on that day has been adjusted to something like -9.0.

Can the BOM be trusted for aeronautical data?

[Flying Binghi]

Can the BOM be trusted for aeronautical data?

That ties well with the lack of credibility of the temperatures that are used re runway length. Aircraft may very well being loaded at lesser weights to suit the corrupt BOM temps. A huge cost to Australian aviation.

Certainly a good case for the government to launch an investigation.






.

[peterc005]

This thread is sure to bring the climate-change skeptic/conspiracy nutters out from under the wood pile.

What possible motivation would BOM for manipulating weather observations?

I've met a few BOM staff over the years and they all appear to have been very serious professionals working to do the best job possible.

If unsure - then test it !!!

Go down to Bunnings, spend ~$100 to buy a portable weather station, locate it near the BOM weather station in question and publish the results. Questions answered.

https://www.bunnings.com.au/our-range/garden/watering-accessories/watering-conservation/weather-stations

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Peterc005...I trust the BOM to maintain a database as much as I trust a CASA FOI to understand a p-chart.

[Slezy9]

This has been reported by Chriss Smith of 2GB but I have noticed it as well. I frequently monitor the temp on the BOM website, especially on cold nights so I have seen it myself.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm a crazy nut bag who believes the BOM, NASA and every reputable scientist in the world is in on a climate change conspiracy.

Can the BOM be trusted for aeronautical data?

Conspiracy!

[Flying Binghi]

Well this thread has got me out from the back of the wood pile..:)


What possible motivation would BOM for manipulating weather observations?

I've met a few BOM staff over the years and they....



Perhaps peterc005 can tell us all about this then...

"...RATHER than admit that temperature dropped to a record low -10.4 degree Celsius on the morning of Sunday 2nd July at Goulburn, the Bureau of Meteorology has come-up with yet another even more absurd story.

Responding to a letter from Josh Frydenberg, the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned. Previously the Bureau claimed that they had placed new limits on how cold it could get at Goulburn..."

Continues - Bureau Misleads Minister Frydenberg on Goulburn - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-misleads-minister-frydenberg-goulburn/)





.

[le Pingouin]

Computers and sensors never fail and are never our of tolerance? You conspiracy nutters make me giggle.

[peterc005]

As I said above, if you have concerns about BOM data buy a weather station to take your own measurements to compare with the BOM.

So far the only argument is an unsubstantiated anecdote about weather data. Show us the facts.

[Flying Binghi]

The BOM initially provided the "facts"...

“The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.”

Then different 'facts' were provided to the minister...

...“the AWS at Goulburn stopped recording when the temperature fell below -10°C.”...

So which of these 'facts' provided by the BOM is correct ?



"...In short, after initially recording -10.0 in the CDO dataset, this was changed to -10.4 three days later following a blog post ( Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum), an outcry on Facebook, and enquires from prominent journalists..."

More fascinating background here: Bureau Misleads Minister Frydenberg on Goulburn - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-misleads-minister-frydenberg-goulburn/)





.

[Ultralights]

was the weather station at YLGB the official station that the data is taken from? i know at Moorebank, the temperature is taken from Holsworthy airport, well away from the heat island effect, and can vary by quite a few degrees.

[compressor stall]

I can't talk about the Goulburn incident, but there are a vast number of private weather stations that feed into WUnderground. If you look at them, you will see definite trends across fairly small areas. Local microclimates can play a very big part in climate records.

There have been occasions where massive uproar amongst climate deniers has been caused after temperature corrections have been applied to a data set where the recording station has been moved. Moving a recording station then correcting the temperature bias is sound science, not a conspiracy.

[drpixie]

The BOM initially provided the "facts"...

“The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.”

Then different 'facts' were provided to the minister...

"...In short, after initially recording -10.0 in the CDO dataset, this was changed to -10.4 three days later following a blog post ( Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum), an outcry on Facebook, and enquires from prominent journalists..."


Awww diddums the Minisiter - forced to bull**** us with misleading bull****, instead of his own genuine bull****.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[currawong]

Of course the climate is changing.

In the 70's there was the threat of an ice age.

That's changed...

[advo-cate]

Well lets get back to facts here. There has been a series of unexplained changes to weather data by the BOM. The most recent was the Rutherglen data set which were compared with and "homogenized" with data from around 1000 km away.

Well??? hows that??

And back to aviation and the TTF at Adelaide that was wrong 4 years ago and two 737's end up at Mildura with next to no fuel.

BOM fail, but no SR's issued in the "slow to develop" ATSB report.

Well??

[bolthead]

You'd think with these 'homogenizations', some would be homogenised up, and some down. Does anyone know a rough percentage of which way they went?

[Derfred]

And back to aviation and the TTF at Adelaide that was wrong 4 years ago and two 737's end up at Mildura with next to no fuel.

Correct, advo.

My Airline is constantly issuing additional weather holding/alternate fuel recommendations because they don't trust the BOM forecasts.

Which is weird, because the conspiracy theorists say that the BOM issues overly optimistic forecasts because they are pressured by the airlines to do so!

Fortunately pilots still get to order fuel without influence.

[peterc005]

BOM are "Manipulating Temperature Records"?

Let me guess, BOM is behind Chemtrails too?

[le Pingouin]

Only in a Murdoch rag would this make the front page. Hmmm, I guess it qualifies as politics rather as news it ain't.

[currawong]

Yet the ABC will run a story about a fox taking a waz in someones rain gauge....

For real.

[le Pingouin]

As a quirky local story, not top of the evening news.

[RickNRoll]

Well lets get back to facts here. There has been a series of unexplained changes to weather data by the BOM. The most recent was the Rutherglen data set which were compared with and "homogenized" with data from around 1000 km away.

Well??? hows that??

And back to aviation and the TTF at Adelaide that was wrong 4 years ago and two 737's end up at Mildura with next to no fuel.

BOM fail, but no SR's issued in the "slow to develop" ATSB report.

Well??

They are explained, if you ask them.

Anyone who has had to deal with raw data knows that it can have all kinds of problems. This holy grail of pristine raw data that needs no management is a pie in the sky dream.

[RickNRoll]

You'd think with these 'homogenizations', some would be homogenised up, and some down. Does anyone know a rough percentage of which way they went?

Look up the BEST project. A group of skeptics with some actual brains went ahead and independently rebuilt the temperature record using the same raw data. They came up with the same results the regular climate scientists came up with. Result, BEST called it a day and agreed that the climate is warming. There was no need to continue what is a lot of hard work to come up with the same results as mainstream scientists.

Marohasy is just a fringe nutter. You can safely ignore her and her small army of amateurs.

Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org/)

[Flying Binghi]

"...John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, testified that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/01/scathing-editorial-in-the-australia-rips-al-gores-new-movie-and-his-hype/


Meanwhile, back in the land of Oz...

Look up the BEST project. A group of skeptics with some actual brains went ahead and independently rebuilt the temperature record using the same raw data. They came up with the same results the regular climate scientists came up with. Result, BEST called it a day and agreed that the climate is warming. There was no need to continue what is a lot of hard work to come up with the same results as mainstream scientists.

Marohasy is just a fringe nutter. You can safely ignore her and her small army of amateurs.

RickNRoll, did this "Best project" use the real raw data or the BOM 'adjusted' raw data?..:hmm:

"...A group of skeptics with some actual brains went ahead and independently rebuilt the temperature record..."

RickNRoll, who were these so-called skeptics - got some names ?








.

[underfire]

FWIW, BOM has been trying to get out of the AWOS business for a long time. Unfortunately, due to the contractural obligations, its is likely not going to happen.
What aviation is saddled with is aging, out of date equipment held together with bandaids hoping they can unload the obligation.

A few airports have gone out on there own and secured 3rd party AWOS systems, especially the mining operations.

[RickNRoll]

"...John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, testified that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”..."

Meanwhile, back in the land of Oz...



RickNRoll, did this "Best project" use the real raw data or the BOM 'adjusted' raw data?..:hmm:

"...A group of skeptics with some actual brains went ahead and independently rebuilt the temperature record..."

RickNRoll, who were these so-called skeptics - got some names ?


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/01/scathing-editorial-in-the-australia-rips-al-gores-new-movie-and-his-hype/





.

WUWT? Really?

Don't go down that rabbit hole.

[Flying Binghi]

WUWT? Really?

Don't go down that rabbit hole.

RickNRoll, you have made some fairly 'grandiose' claims. Do you have any substance to back it up?..:hmm:

Again...

RickNRoll, did this "Best project" use the real raw data or the BOM 'adjusted' raw data?..

"...A group of skeptics with some actual brains went ahead and independently rebuilt the temperature record..."

RickNRoll, who were these so-called skeptics - got any names ?





.

[andrewr]

who were these so-called skeptics - got any names ?

The link is in the post you quoted. What do you want him to do - reach out through your screen and click it for you?

[Flying Binghi]

The link is in the post you quoted. What do you want him to do - reach out through your screen and click it for you?

Seems many without the facts think just a hand-wave to some link is all that is needed. Perhaps a hand-wave to any religious book then makes it true...:hmm:

RickNRoll made the claims. RickNRoll can provide the excerpts or information to back up the claims.





.

[chuboy]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org/team/)


Berkeley Earth team members include:

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist
Zeke Hausfather, Scientist
Steven Mosher, Scientist
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics
Will Glaser, Advisor & Board Member
Per Peterson, Advisor
Gina D’Adamo, Executive Assistant

[Flying Binghi]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org/team/)


Berkeley Earth team members include:

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist
Zeke Hausfather, Scientist
Steven Mosher, Scientist
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics
Will Glaser, Advisor & Board Member
Per Peterson, Advisor
Gina D’Adamo, Executive Assistant

I see a list of people on the climate industry payroll. Perhaps chuboy can point out these so-called 'skeptics' that RickNRoll alluded to..:hmm:

Meanwhile, an observation on the climate 'industry'.... "...John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, testified that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/01/scathing-editorial-in-the-australia-rips-al-gores-new-movie-and-his-hype/


"...Elizabeth Muller is listed as “Founder and Executive Director” of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she’s been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick “the right technologies” – presumably meaning the right “Green” technologies..."

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/elizabeth-muller-director-of-best-ran-a-green-government-consultancy/





.







.

[andrewr]

I see a list of people on the climate industry payroll.

You see what you want to see I guess.

"The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute think tank."

[Flying Binghi]

You see what you want to see I guess.

"The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute think tank."

Interesting. I note that well over half, likely three quarters, of the funding for the Australian greeny industry comes from the mining industry. I don't see much support from the greenys for mining..:hmm:


Continuing... I mighta found this skeptic RickNRoll mentioned. Or maybe not...

"...No skeptic I’ve met said that “… carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” (Richard Muller, 2003). So perhaps he became a skeptic later? Not so much. Richard Muller, 2008: “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.”

The defining mark of a skeptic is that they never believe simply because there is a “consensus”..."

Muller-the-pretend-skeptic makes three claims. He?s half right on one. « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/)

Nice little earner Muller and Muller have going here: http://mullerandassociates.com/our-team/


Using the BEST project to back up the BOM claims is looking a bit tenuous eh..:)









.

[chuboy]

Using the BEST project to back up the BOM claims is looking a bit tenuous eh..
I don't really see how.

[Flying Binghi]

Perhaps chuboy can point out these so-called 'skeptics' that RickNRoll alluded to..


I don't really see how.

No, I didn't think so..:hmm:

It is interesting when you take a look at the people involved in the BEST project and then have a look at the names involved in the Muller & Associates company: Our Team | Muller & Associates (http://mullerandassociates.com/our-team/). How many are Listed on both sites... five, six.......

So this little diversion to the BEST project has shown us the climate 'industry' write large..:hmm:

Also, the BEST project did not do any audit or due diligence of the BOM temp records so it is a bit silly to attempt to use it as a device to somehow validate the BOM temperature records.


So back to the thread subject...

"Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon had hard evidence it was cold near Goulburn in the early hours of July 2 this year because his cold water pipes froze, bursting in the wall and breaking the toilet.

To be certain, Pidgeon checked the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) website and saw the temperature had plunged to minus 10.4C.

“But then I saw something truly bizarre,” Pidgeon says. The temperature recording on BoM’s website adjusted itself to minus 10C and then disappeared from view..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/02/australias-bom-faces-storm-over-weather-data-inaccuracies/





.

[chuboy]

You feeling okay binghi? Your posts are even less coherent than usual.

The BEST study represents everything a true skeptic should appreciate. You have really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to convince yourself the conclusions of their study are meaningless.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see!

[Flying Binghi]

You feeling okay binghi? Your posts are even less coherent than usual.

The BEST study represents everything a true skeptic should appreciate. You have really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to convince yourself the conclusions of their study are meaningless.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see!

Chuboy, I think you will find some posts i made in pprune way back when the BEST project first got started. The concept were good though it soon turned to mud when the first 'research' were put out to the media without any peer review. All well covered at WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com

I'm still waiting to see from RickNRoll how the BEST project actually relates to the corruption displayed by the Australian BOM. Were the BOM/CSIRO met records actually audited by the BEST project. If not, it is irelavent to this thread - perhaps a diversion of desperation..:hmm:

The Australian BOM corruption has even got the attention of President Trumps main news source:

"...The BOM has now been shamed by media investigations into ordering a review of its procedures. But it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it made these “adjustments” in the first place.

These “adjustments” seem to go only one way. The BOM is perfectly happy to record and announce it whenever Australia’s temperatures hit record-breaking highs. But when the temperatures reach new lows it’s a different matter altogether.

For some strange reason that the BOM has been unable to explain, when temperatures go below a certain point it either deletes them as if they had never been – or it enters them into its records at higher temperature than the one actually recorded by its thermometers..."

Delingpole: Australia's Bureau of Meteorology Caught Erasing Record Low Temperatures (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/01/delingpole-australia-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-record-low-temperatures/)





.

[peterc005]

For the benefit of the Climate Change Skeptics and Chemtrail Crazies:

'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories (https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pg7n7y/it-was-like-a-cult-leaving-the-world-of-online-conspiracy-theories)

[Bankstown Boy]

For the benefit of the Climate Change Skeptics and Chemtrail Crazies:

'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories (https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pg7n7y/it-was-like-a-cult-leaving-the-world-of-online-conspiracy-theories)

Oooh! that looks like a really high-brow blog there peter. I can see where you get all your information, from with an Astrology guide amongst the top articles!

To quote Robert Heinlein
"A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual" - find out how he feels about astrology."

But then again, to someone who thinks that precision scientific instruments can be found in Bunnings for circa $100 bucks, I suppose anything is believable.

[De_flieger]

I can see why you wouldn't want to take sites that include any references to astrology seriously, so anything published by news.com.au, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/horoscopes like the Daily Telegraph No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/2017-wellbeing-horoscopes-what-the-stars-have-in-store-for-you/news-story/7c0dfab3bdfdd104741f3cfeff6b1ce9) and Courier Mail No Cookies | The Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/horoscopes) can be ruled out on the same grounds. Good to know.

[thorn bird]

What I want to know is where the hell all this bloody CO2 came from and who's responsible?
Are we importing it from Mars or somewhere? Bloody Martians, always thought they were shifty.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Play the ball, PeterC!

[chuboy]

it soon turned to mud when the first 'research' were put out to the media without any peer review

OH my, what a laugh I have just had. Thank you very much my dear friend :p

Tell me again how much peer reviewed research you have read that shows the climate is not changing for the worse! Why do you now suddenly have a problem with it and not with the numerous blog posts that can be published by any old crazy without so much a proofread?

Still chuckling at that one. Ha ha

[Bankstown Boy]

I can see why you wouldn't want to take sites that include any references to astrology seriously, so anything published by news.com.au, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/horoscopes like the Daily Telegraph No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/2017-wellbeing-horoscopes-what-the-stars-have-in-store-for-you/news-story/7c0dfab3bdfdd104741f3cfeff6b1ce9) and Courier Mail No Cookies | The Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/horoscopes) can be ruled out on the same grounds. Good to know.

Well, that's Fairfax, Guardian and the ABC out too, so we're getting a bit thin on the ground for news. Although I think most of us knew that already.

To be fair though, news, fairfax, guardian and abc don't all push it as their mainstream offering, unalike peter's "interesting" newsblog (why sextoys are left on public transport was another story "highlight", along with a woman's lips "nearly" falling off!)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A while back there was a video put up by an aeroengineer fully debunking human induced climate change. He started from first principles and ended with the math...on no level can carbon dioxide be proven to be the cause of any effects on weather. That engineer was Burt Rutan.

[Connedrod]

Bom has been relocating temp recording sites for some time in regional areas to hotter parts of the area. This in the areas is well known to the local people. Goulburns temp was the lowest recorded in over 30 years i am lead to believe from friends in the area. Funny how it was recorded hotter than it was. One has to ask why this was ?

[Lead Balloon]

They get moved to make way for wind turbines. The ones up at Crookwell are working a treat!

[rutan around]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/597747-bom-manipulating-temperature-records.html#post9849458)
"...John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, testified that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”..."Will this manipulation of raw data by so called professionals never end.

Recently I went flying with a commercial pilot and I asked how fast we were going. He looked at an instrument marked ASI and after a few mental gymnastics announced 205 knots. I clearly saw only 180 knots on the ASI, so I questioned his figure. He mumbled something about temperature and pressure and correcting for altitude. It all sounded a bit dodgy.

Then I spotted the GPS and it read 220 knots. Again he waffled on about correcting for wind speed and instrument error. I noted that our destination was 220 NM away so I asked a trick question . When will we get there? He said in 68 minutes. What!!!!! 220NM at 220 knots ? Isn't it exactly 1 hour? He explained that he had to adjust the figure to allow for wind changes and rough air expected on descent.

To an amateur meteorologist like myself this blatant manipulation of raw data was all too much so I went back to reading my REAL raw data weather trends in my favorite magazine, 'The Flat Earth Monthly'http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

[airdualbleedfault]

2 questions for the warmists that are too thick to realise that climate change is a scam the Nigerians would be proud of :
1)The earth is, give or take 100,000 years, 4.5 billion years old, how does any computer model come up with an accurate forecast of what's happening with the climate with 375 years (Max) of data?
2) Who caused the end of the last ice age (you know, ice caps and glaciers melting) , 11,500 years ago?
If you think you have credible answers to this, could you please supply your bank details, I have an inheritance I need to hide from the ATO for a while....

[rutan around]

2) Who caused the end of the last ice ageThis is a really dumb question. What sort of answer do you expect? Arthur Iceaxe 21 glacier Road Coldsville.?

I think to be fair based on your last post you should alert the fare paying public with the registration of any aircraft you fly so they can avoid it.:ugh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Slight Drift....
Re "I have an inheritance I need to hide from the ATO for a while...."

As far as I am aware.......an inheritance is not a taxable item, there are no 'death duties' any more.....

However, any interest earned from it certainly is, and I won't be putting mine in your 'bank'.....

No Cheerrsss.....:=

Normal BOM bashing resumes.......

[currawong]

Come on rutan!

Answering a question with a question:E

Sort of thing I might do...

[RickNRoll]

Instead of reading manufactured **** from ignorant sources, read the statement from the BOM.

They routinely check records, high or low, in case of errors. The stations in question are not used in reporting global warming. The stations in question have been replaced as they were faulty.

Once again, raw data is not pristine data. You just know there will always be problems with it.

Media Release - Bureau of Meteorology Newsroom (http://media.bom.gov.au/releases/374/bureau-of-meteorology-statement-on-temperature-observations/)

The BEST project shows us that global warming is real. The cherry picking of a few outsiders, who choose not to understand how the BOM works, does nothing to alter that warming. If the BOM were going to manipulate the temperature record then they would surely choose the stations that were used to compile the temperature record, not stations that are not used.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm fascinated: How does BOM know that there is an error in a measurement from a particular sensor at a particular place at a particular point in time, without having a different sensor making the same measurement at the same place at the same time, and how does BOM know that the different sensor is not itself giving an erroneous measurement?

[rutan around]

I'm fascinated: How does BOM know that there is an error in a measurement from a particular sensor at a particular place at a particular point in time, without having a different sensor making the same measurement at the same place at the same time, and how does BOM know that the different sensor is not itself giving an erroneous measurement? I really don't know but I'd hazard a guess it's a bit like how we have an educated guess about our instruments when they give squirrely readings. eg We look for supporting evidence. The ASI suddenly reads zero. If the noise from the front has ceased and the aircraft is falling the ASI could well be telling the truth however if all seems normal perhaps the ASI is lying for some reason.

I'm sure the fertile minds of p-pruners can come up with many more examples where the other instruments indicate that a LAME somewhere will be rubbing his hands and planning his next exotic holiday.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If the BOM were going to manipulate the temperature record then they would surely choose the stations that were used to compile the temperature record, not stations that are not used.
How do we know they don't? They just happened to get caught with this one.
Once again, raw data is not pristine data.
Yes it is, by definition

pristine
ˈprɪstiːn,ˈprɪstʌɪn
adjective
in its original condition; unspoilt.

Once you do anything to it, it's manipulated data.

[le Pingouin]

The act of using an instrument to measure something is manipulation, ergo it is not pristine.

[RickNRoll]

Once you do anything to it, it's manipulated data.

As stated in the post above. It's all manipulated. Especially the satellite data.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Getting all quantum physiccy now. If you don't measure it, is it data? The act of gathering it, in its original condition ie as measured by a particular instrument at a particular instant, makes that data from that instrument pristine. You have to have a base line somewhere, from whence you can consider manipulation to then occur. That's why it's called "raw" data.

[le Pingouin]

But you aren't seeing the data as measured by the instrument. You're seeing it as the instrument spits it out - filtered, calibrated and processed. That's hardly pristine.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Yep. All those bubbles of heavier than air CO2 just floating up into the outer atmosphere!
Leftards seeking funding to fun-arse about for another year!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Until you make the measurement, by whatever means, and record it somehow, you don't have any data. So at some point, prior to any filtering, calibrating etc, it is the ultimate raw data, thus "pristine". At which point it stops being pristine is obviously up for conjecture. As I said, you have to draw your baseline somewhere.

[601]

without having a different sensor making the same measurement at the same place at the same time,

Would you not have at least three separate instruments so that you could apply different "laws" to the "raw" data to get either Boeing or Airbus type data?

[De_flieger]

When an observer watches the expansion of mercury up a glass tube, and compares it against a calibrated scale, is that pristine? Or when a thermocouple output is fed into a microchip, which measures the voltage and compares it to a lookup table, feeding the results to a display driver to show, is that pristine? What about when infra-red radiation falls on a sliver of silicon orbiting hundreds of kilometres in space, causing the electron charge to change in a quantifiable way across a tiny set of squares, which is then measured, digitised, compressed, transmitted and reassembled into a satellite picture on earth, is that pristine?

Part of ensuring good data is removing obviously incorrect values, if a digital weather thermometer was showing -255.0 degrees the obvious conclusion is that the thermometer has failed, and its output should be disregarded. The conspiracy theorist conclusion on seeing the removal of that data is that the Bureau of Meteorology is following the age-old three step plan - Step 1: Remove cold weather readings to create a false impression of a warming planet and prevent pilots from loading their aircraft to its full capacity, because they really, really don't like pilots. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit.

[RickNRoll]

But you aren't seeing the data as measured by the instrument. You're seeing it as the instrument spits it out - filtered, calibrated and processed. That's hardly pristine.

Complete with measurement errors and dropouts. Not to mention changes in sites, time of observation changes, UHI and errors in record keeping.

The satellite measurements are much worse. They don't measure any temperatures but have to infer it.

[RickNRoll]

Yep. All those bubbles of heavier than air CO2 just floating up into the outer atmosphere!
Leftards seeking funding to fun-arse about for another year!

Someone needs to learn some very basic physics.

[RickNRoll]

Until you make the measurement, by whatever means, and record it somehow, you don't have any data. So at some point, prior to any filtering, calibrating etc, it is the ultimate raw data, thus "pristine". At which point it stops being pristine is obviously up for conjecture. As I said, you have to draw your baseline somewhere.

Nothing ultimate about raw data. It's just one step in the chain.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I agree, I was just correcting your error.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Fair enough Rick.
Perhaps you could explain who was responsible for the end of the last "ice age". Was that temperature rise caused by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble cooking too many brontosaurus burgers?

Bbbzbzbzbzbbzzbbzbz

[RickNRoll]

Fair enough Rick.
Perhaps you could explain who was responsible for the end of the last "ice age". Was that temperature rise caused by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble cooking too many brontosaurus burgers?

Bbbzbzbzbzbbzzbbzbz

According to this, since there wasn't anyone around that could record and analyse the warming for us, there is some conjecture.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age « RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secrets-to-ending-an-ice-age/)

I don't know why you are assuming that I would argue that climate change can only be anthropogenic.

[le Pingouin]

It certainly wasn't billions of humans burning thousands of years worth of stored carbon.

[RickNRoll]

Would you not have at least three separate instruments so that you could apply different "laws" to the "raw" data to get either Boeing or Airbus type data?

They do have that ability already. You can correlate the measurements across distance and use statistical analysis to work out if a reading is anomalous.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

You can correlate the measurements across distance and use statistical analysis to work out if a reading is anomalous.
...says RickNRoll

And there is your problem. Climate is not homogenous because weather is not homogenous. You cannot reduce all local weather records to a single point analysis. The weather experienced in Harrietville is ALWAYS totally different to Rutherglen even though they are both within 50nm of each other. You cannot take the temp record of Rutherglen and weight it's data using data from Bairnsdale in Gippsland. The weather experienced in Rutherglen is not the weather experienced in Cobar. Why adjust temperature records...hard data...to fit a hypothesis? Who decides what record is anomalous? ..and why it is anomalous?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

No one person has the wherewithal to check the data produced by BOM. Doesn't it set alarm bells ringing when individual records are found to be corrupted? Doesn't it then suggest if one site is corrupted, are all sites corrupted? Can the data produced by BOM be ever trusted again?

.....and 1.5m of snow fall has been recorded this week on Mt Hotham. The same week a report was published stating snow fall will be more infrequent. Would we be better suited if there was a more thorough study on why Hadley Cells are still influencing southern latitudes when they should be blowing the crap out of Brisbane in time for the Ekka!...it isn't due to a trace gas!

[RickNRoll]

No one person has the wherewithal to check the data produced by BOM. Doesn't it set alarm bells ringing when individual records are found to be corrupted? Doesn't it then suggest if one site is corrupted, are all sites corrupted? Can the data produced by BOM be ever trusted again?

.....and 1.5m of snow fall has been recorded this week on Mt Hotham. The same week a report was published stating snow fall will be more infrequent. Would we be better suited if there was a more thorough study on why Hadley Cells are still influencing southern latitudes when they should be blowing the crap out of Brisbane in time for the Ekka!...it isn't due to a trace gas!

That is the weather report. That is not climate.

If you do not understand how CO2 works as a 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere there is plenty of information out there. Just saying you don't understand how it works (with exclamation mark) doesn't mean the physics is wrong. You don't seem to appreciate the power of statistics either.

[Hydromet]

No one person has the wherewithal to check the data produced by BOM. Doesn't it set alarm bells ringing when individual records are found to be corrupted? Doesn't it then suggest if one site is corrupted, are all sites corrupted? Can the data produced by BOM be ever trusted again?
No one person has the wherewithal, but most data from the BoM will be checked by professional users, of which I was one for almost 50 years. Occasionally, errors or apparent anomalies will be found. When this happens, it is reported to the Bureau, and in my experience, a response is always received. The data is always checked. Sometimes it is found to be wrong, sometimes it is found to be correct, and sometimes the assessed quality of the data is altered (not all data is 'best' quality - sometimes you have to take what you can get) but overall the error rate is quite low. If you are so minded, there will be traceability in the data, right back to the calibrations that have been done through the life of the instrument, so I'm sure that a freedom of information request would get it for you.
Can the BoM's data be trusted? Sure, more than you can trust some coal-funded climate sceptic politician or conspiracy theorist.

[Hydromet]

Would you not have at least three separate instruments so that you could apply different "laws" to the "raw" data to get either Boeing or Airbus type data?Sure, if you want to pay three times as much. I personally think it's a great idea, but try selling it to the voters.

[FGD135]

Someone needs to learn some very basic physics.Why don't you give us a quick rundown on the physics, RickNRoll?
Make sure you include the fact that CO2 molecules are HEAVIER than air, and that the AGW theory assumes that increased atmospheric water vapour (not CO2) is responsible for the global warming.

[RickNRoll]

Why don't you give us a quick rundown on the physics, RickNRoll?
Make sure you include the fact that CO2 molecules are HEAVIER than air, and that the AGW theory assumes that increased atmospheric water vapour (not CO2) is responsible for the global warming.

Is CO2 ?well mixed?? ? A Few Things Ill Considered (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/is-co2-well-mixed/)

CO2 is a forcing, it initiates the change. Water vapour is a feedback, it responds to the rise in temperature by making it rise even more.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

[rutan around]

Jeez Rick please be careful! You are in great danger of forcing some of your opponents here to think or even do some reading before engaging their keyboard. If they did that this thread would just fizzle out.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

[Lead Balloon]

No one person has the wherewithal, but most data from the BoM will be checked by professional users, of which I was one for almost 50 years. Occasionally, errors or apparent anomalies will be found. When this happens, it is reported to the Bureau, and in my experience, a response is always received. The data is always checked. Sometimes it is found to be wrong, sometimes it is found to be correct, and sometimes the assessed quality of the data is altered (not all data is 'best' quality - sometimes you have to take what you can get) but overall the error rate is quite low. If you are so minded, there will be traceability in the data, right back to the calibrations that have been done through the life of the instrument, so I'm sure that a freedom of information request would get it for you.
Can the BoM's data be trusted? Sure, more than you can trust some coal-funded climate sceptic politician or conspiracy theorist.How would the data produced by the Goulburn AWOS be "found" to be erroneous or anomalous by "professional users"? Who, precisely, using what measuring equipment, precisely, made what measurements to make the finding, when precisely?

I get that if the AWOS temperature measurement reported in minus 104 degrees C, the inference may reasonably be drawn that the measurement is erroneous.

But who in BOM decides that minus 10.4 is erroneous or anomalous? What measuring equipment, precisely, was used to support that decision, and who used that equipment to make the measurements and when?

I'd make a wild guess that no one in BOM decides. I'd make a wild guess that BOM works like every other government department does these days: BOM's purchased some magic bean software that was promised to do the BOM's work for it. And that software has been programmed to pretend to do what used to be done through tedious manual checking by human professionals.

The computer has been programmed to say that any temperature below minus 10 at Goulburn is erroneos. No checking. The computer just says so because the person who wrote the program was told that anything below minus 10 at Goulburn is erroneous. And instead of acknowledging the flaws in the software, BOM has to pretend that there's something wrong with the measurements.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Can the BoM's data be trusted? Sure, more than you can trust some coal-funded climate sceptic politician
Why is anyone who is sceptical always "coal-funded"? I am sceptical, and am yet to receive any reimbursement. Have I missed some funding application paperwork somewhere?
Of course, alarmist dieties such as Al Gore and Tim Flannery are completely trustworthy, have never uttered falsehoods or exaggerations, and are working for free. :suspect:

[Hydromet]

How would the data produced by the Goulburn AWOS be "found" to be erroneous or anomalous by "professional users"? A "professional user" (your quotes) may be a researcher, an air conditioning designer, a farmer or one of the myriad data users. It may be one of the private weather agencies. Their suspicions may be aroused enough by an extremely low temperature for them to query it. Or they may have significantly different nearby data from a private station (lots of them around). In any case, a query raised by the user would be checked.
Who, precisely, using what measuring equipment, precisely, made what measurements to make the finding, when precisely? Ask the bureau, I'm sure they'll answer your question.
I'd make a wild guess that no one in BOM decides.And like most wild guesses, it would be wrong.
BOM's purchased some magic bean software that was promised to do the BOM's work for it. And that software has been programmed to pretend to do what used to be done through tedious manual checking by human professionals. If you expect the data checking to be done manually you're dreaming. There just aren't enough people who can do the checking properly, and even if there were, who would pay them? I certainly wouldn't because it would be a completely inefficient way of checking. As one who did this sort of checking manually back in the day, I can assure you that computer checking is far more effective. The "magic bean" software is Australian written, and is arguably the best in the world. I say that as one who has used it since its inception, maybe 30 years ago until my final retirement a few years ago. Its design is guided very much by the users - the BoM plus virtually all Australian water authorities, some mining companies and a few others - who test the daylights out of it and also specify particular things they want it to do.
It does have range checking, and sure, someone would have set the limits. The limits would be different for each station, or stations in a region, and set by the person/people responsible for that station. The person who wrote the program wouldn't know or care what a reasonable value was, because it's not hard coded. I don't know about the BoM, but normally anything outside the expected range would raise a flag for the data to be checked. I've told you in my previous post what that could result in.

I don't carry any particular candle for the BoM, and have never worked for them, but as I've said, I've had a bit to do with them as both a professional user and data supplier. Sure, occasionally errors will get through. You may never have made a mistake, but most of us aren't that good. To say that because one piece of data is wrong, all data is suspect, is a load of rubbish.

[Lead Balloon]

You actually made my points for me.

Thanks.

[Hydromet]

You actually made my points for me.

Thanks.

I suspect not, but I tried to answer your questions.

[cattletruck]

The OP describes an aberration between real-time data and archived data, however there could differences in how these two figures are derived.

Real-time data could come straight off the sensor, the BoM like doing this kind of thing for public consumption. Unfortunately sensors could easily be affected by many other external factors e.g precisely dropped steaming bird pooh.

Data for archival would mostly likely be generated from a model that takes as input not just the sensor but many other factors including the dynamics of the weather at the time, some statistical analysis, etc with the aim of providing a more accurate value for the wider area rather than just the immediate area around the sensor bulb.

[Lead Balloon]

The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.The software was programmed - and presumably remains programmed - to reject what the equipment says is true, and replace it with what someone else decided to program the software to say is true.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out the fact - because it is an objective fact - that the BOM's opinion as to what is spurious is merely that: an opinion.

And whilst anyone could say, correctly, that whatever temperature the equipment represents as true may nonetheless be untrue as an objective fact, it is equally correct to say that BOM's opinion as to what is a spurious temperature may nonetheless be untrue as an objective fact.

Who knows why the BOM's "quality control" system was set at - 10 minimum for Goulburn. It might have been because the person instructing the programmer liked round numbers. It might have been because the Giant Spaghetti Monster (blessed be the Giant Spaghetti Monster) used a noodly appendage to change the code in the software. It might have been because the person who chose the threshold had dedicated his or her life to climatology and weather statistics and forecasting, and earnestly believed, based on his or experience, that the temperature could never go below - 10 at Goulburn.

It doesn't matter a fcuk what the motivation was: The decision to set - 10 as the 'spurious threshold' was, objectively, a mistake, unless someone can prove that the temperature measured by the AWOS was wrong and the temperature at that site will never fall below - 10.

Which brings me back to the delicious paradox of all this: Nobody can actually prove what the actual temperature was.

If all that happens out of these events is that BOM defends its software and the validity of its "quality control" system, I'm hardly surprised conspiracy theorists draw the inferences they draw.

[Hydromet]

Which brings me back to the delicious paradox of all this: Nobody can actually prove what the actual temperature was.
I'm speculating here, but it's quite possible that the old mercury max/min thermometer was still in place.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm not speculating here: Absent evidence of first-hand observation of that thermometer by a person with expertise in the correct reading of that thermometer, and absent first-hand evidence of the calibration and accuracy of the indications given by that thermometer, it's just a tree falling in the forest that nobody heard.

[chuboy]

So you don't have trust any temperature reading that you haven't taken yourself from a thermometer you calibrated?

[On eyre]

Yeah well LB is getting a tad tedious and that is an unadulterated fact !

[FGD135]

CO2 is a forcingNo, CO2 is a gas. A "forcing" is the effect from a heating or cooling source.
Water vapour is a feedbackEr, no, water vapour is a gas. A "feedback" is an effect.

The AGW theory says that "feedbacks" from the increased CO2 will cause an increase in the water vapour concentration, with the new concentration of the latter causing the warming ("increased forcing").

The definition of those "feedbacks" and exactly how they supposedly work is very mysterious. Nobody seems to know - which can be said about most of the "science" in this scam.

[RickNRoll]

The title to this topic is incorrect from the start. All data managers have to manipulate the data since all raw data has issues. The question is why and how.

From the BOM press release I linked to earlier.

"Contrary to claims, the Bureau has not deliberately set limits on the temperatures it records. The Bureau's systems are designed to flag unusually high or low temperatures so they can be checked for veracity before being confirmed."

[Hydromet]

Perzactly, R 'n' R.

[Lead Balloon]

The title to this topic is incorrect from the start. All data managers have to manipulate the data since all raw data has issues. The question is why and how.

From the BOM press release I linked to earlier.

"Contrary to claims, the Bureau has not deliberately set limits on the temperatures it records. The Bureau's systems are designed to flag unusually high or low temperatures so they can be checked for veracity before being confirmed."So who, precisely, checked the "veracity" of the Goulburn temperature measurement in this case, and how, precisely, after the "flag" was flown?

[Lead Balloon]

So you don't have trust any temperature reading that you haven't taken yourself from a thermometer you calibrated?A question that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of the points being made.

My level of "trust" depends on the implications of the reading.

Fortunately for you, the same concept applies to matters that determine your guilt or innocence and, if you're on an operating table, life and death.

A person was recently acquitted on the basis that evidence of a critical point of time was merely someone's observation of a mechanical clock on a hospital wall. No evidence was led as to how often the clock was checked against an accurate standard or how much time the clock 'lost' or 'gained' between checks. Two minutes were the difference between guilt and innocence. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the clock was less than two minutes 'out'.

A difference of 0.4 degrees C of a meaurement of your vital signs on the operating table could be the difference between you living and dying.

If I'm checking the tension on the control cables on my aircraft, I'm picky about the accuracy and calibration of the tensiometer I'm using. If I'm checking the tension of the lines of my Hill's Hoist, I don't give a sh*t.

I suppose some people take the view that if billions are going to be taxed and spent based on opinions about what a 'spurious' temperature reading may be, substantial rigour should be put into analysing those opinions and ensuring that temperature readings are demonstrably accurate within a demonstrable accuracy range.

[chuboy]

Well it's fortunate then, that the IPCC has written its numerous reports on more than simply the readings from this one weather station.

[RickNRoll]

Well it's fortunate then, that the IPCC has written its numerous reports on more than simply the readings from this one weather station.
also from that link.


It is also important to note that while all of the Bureau's hundreds of automatic weather stations contribute to the Bureau's weather forecasting models, not all contribute to the official temperature record used for monitoring long-term temperature change, ACORN-SAT (the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature).

The initial analysis is that the ACORN-SAT temperature record has not been directly or indirectly affected by this hardware issue.

The two affected locations are not ACORN-SAT sites and have not been used for quality assurance for ACORN-SAT during the time periods when the outages occurred.

[RickNRoll]

A question that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of the points being made.

My level of "trust" depends on the implications of the reading.

Fortunately for you, the same concept applies to matters that determine your guilt or innocence and, if you're on an operating table, life and death.

A person was recently acquitted on the basis that evidence of a critical point of time was merely someone's observation of a mechanical clock on a hospital wall. No evidence was led as to how often the clock was checked against an accurate standard or how much time the clock 'lost' or 'gained' between checks. Two minutes were the difference between guilt and innocence. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the clock was less than two minutes 'out'.

A difference of 0.4 degrees C of a meaurement of your vital signs on the operating table could be the difference between you living and dying.

If I'm checking the tension on the control cables on my aircraft, I'm picky about the accuracy and calibration of the tensiometer I'm using. If I'm checking the tension of the lines of my Hill's Hoist, I don't give a sh*t.

I suppose some people take the view that if billions are going to be taxed and spent based on opinions about what a 'spurious' temperature reading may be, substantial rigour should be put into analysing those opinions and ensuring that temperature readings are demonstrably accurate within a demonstrable accuracy range.

Fortunately that didn't happen so you can calm down.

[Lead Balloon]

Rest assured: I'm calm.

So what did happen? I keep asking who, precisely, confirmed the Goulburn reading, using what equipment, precisely?

If BOM's software if programmed to consider a reading of -10.4 at Goulburn is potentially spurious, who made that decision, on what basis?

What is the level of accuracy of the measuring equipment?

[Hydromet]

LB, how do you expect anyone here to be able to answer your question, unless they work for the BoM? Even then, why would they put someone's personal details on a public page?

Why don't you ring up the bureau and ask them.

[Lead Balloon]

How can RickNRoll assert what "didn't happen", without knowing what did happen.

Rick obviously purports to be precisely the person you describe: A BOM 'insider'.

I should note that I'm not alleging (and haven't alleged) 'manipulation' of data for inappropriate purposes. I'm merely interested in getting an insight into why the delta between aviation forecasts and reality seems to be getting larger.

These days I breathe a sigh of relief when I read "severe turbulence" in a forecast, as the ride almost invariably turns out smooth.

Not so welcome are all the announcements that Centre has to make about amended area forecasts being available. They seem to be increasing. It's almost as if there's some magic beans software that produces ARFORS on Saturday afternoon/evening, all of which have to be changed substantially when reality hits on Sunday morning.

Maybe I'm just perceiving these changes.

[FGD135]

Why don't you ring up the bureau and ask them.You think you will get a satisfactory answer?

Jennifer Marohasy and Lance Pigeon have tried and tried to get satisfactory answers from the BOM on not just this incident, but a range of questions relating to their temperature data handling.

They have not got satisfactory answers yet.

[Duff Man]

Hilarious. One dodgy YGLB temp reading is the root of the international AGW left green conspiracy. You guys need to take a cold (-10C) hard look at yourselves.

[bolthead]

Does anyone know the lowest temp ever recorded at YGLB? Might have something to do with it.

[FGD135]

What is hilarious, Duff Man, is your waltzing into this discussion and naively believing it is all about one reading. Do you realise just how ignorant you look?

Rutherglen, Victoria. Remember that name. This is the place where the questionable methodologies of the BOM are at their most apparent.

The BOM do something called "homogenisation" to all the recorded temperature readings. The temperature record then holds "homogenised" readings that are nothing like what was recorded on the ground at the time.

Yes, that's right - the temperature record is no longer a series of raw data readings, but a set of "homogenised" values.

Look at this:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Screen-Shot-2014-08-27-at-4.22.55-AM.png
What you see is 100 years of Rutherglen's temperature data. The raw readings (green) and the "homogenised" (red). The BOM do not dispute this data or any of the readings. Does anything look fishy to you?

That graph was taken from this page. Take a look:
Rutherglen - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/rutherglen/)

While you're there, look at this. More background on other places around Australia where a clear cooling trend, thanks to "homogenisation", has been turned into a warming trend:

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IPA-Review-June-2017-Warming-up-in-Rutherglen.pdf

[Lead Balloon]

Yes bolthead: The person who recorded the lowest temp ever recorded at YGLB knows.

It's -8.5 according to this website: Goulburn historical averages, records and extremes (http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climate.jsp?lt=site&lc=70263) But the website says it only covers from 1971 onwards. And it does not say what source it uses for the data.

I recorded -2 F in 1967 using a wall thermometer I purchased on the advice of Joe the Gadget Man, so I guess it's -18.889 C unless someone else has recorded a lower temperature.

[le Pingouin]

FDG, the temperature record at a single place means absolutely nothing in terms of global climate. One data point does not a trend make.

[FGD135]

One data point does not a trend make.It's way, way more than just "one data point". Have another look at that graph I posted. I don't know how you could have missed it.

[le Pingouin]

I'm referring to the single data point of Goulburn - Marohasy and the IPA are looking at the trend lines of the homogenised data and raw data from one location as if it's significant. Presumably with the intent of using it to discredit the BOM and saying they're manipulating data to support the pro-AGW case.

The temperature trend for a single location says absolutely nothing other than what is happening locally so is of zero significance taken in a wider context.

[Lead Balloon]

So why "homogenise" it?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

One data point...how many GRIB blocks make up the upper wind forecast? What BOM is doing is "Homogenise" key data sites with long recording history. They then use these sites to adjust across the country to show a warming trend across the entire database. Effectively, BOM will reduce the key temp data to a handful of data points to represent the entire continent. Why one site? Why ANY site? Any thinking person must ask, critically, is the temperature record now trustworthy?

[RickNRoll]

So why "homogenise" it?
To account for non climate related impacts on the recorded temperatures.

[Lead Balloon]

So how did BOM or anyone else work out the existence and extent of the non-climate related impacts on the temperatures recorded in Rutherglen Victoria in the early 1900s?

[FGD135]

To account for non climate related impacts on the recorded temperatures.So what "non climate related impacts" have there been on the Rutherglen site, RickNRoll?

None.

This is why that site is in such sharp focus. Unlike most other sites, it has never been moved. Also unlike most other sites, it has never had an encroachment of urbanisation on it.

So why the warming trend at Rutherglen when the raw data - which would have to be one of the most pristine temperature records in Australia - shows a cooling trend?

[Derfred]

Not just non climate related impacts, also measurement methods.

For example, for how long has the Rutherglen station used a Stevenson Screen?

[RickNRoll]

So what "non climate related impacts" have there been on the Rutherglen site, RickNRoll?

None.

This is why that site is in such sharp focus. Unlike most other sites, it has never been moved. Also unlike most other sites, it has never had an encroachment of urbanisation on it.

So why the warming trend at Rutherglen when the raw data - which would have to be one of the most pristine temperature records in Australia - shows a cooling trend?

It has a huge gap in it around 1960. So much for 'pristine'.

Climate Data Online (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/)

Also, what we know of the history of this site. As AGW was not an issue back then, the importance of tracking all changes and impacts on temperature records were not relevant back then.

Rutherglen weather station (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml)

[Bankstown Boy]

It has a huge gap in it around 1960. So much for 'pristine'.



Mmmm ... Thats the very definition of Pristine ... you know ... "in its original condition; unspoilt."

Perfect, would be if there was no break in the data

Anyway, I don't think it's AGW that's made people pay attention, rather it's CAGW. Without the "C" its not worth a bucket of warm spit (with apologies to John Nance Garner).

I think you'll find that people knew the importance of collecting data on temperature, it just that there weren't trillions at stake for the prophets and acolytes of the 21st century's new religion

[Lead Balloon]

The phrase "correcting a statistically determined artificial jump in the data" used in BOM's explanation for the "homogeneity adustments" to the Rutherglen recordings is one of the starkest examples of circular self-justification I've read for long time.

And I'm someone who accepts a causal link between climate change and human activity.

It's no wonder the conspiracy theorists jump on this kind of nonsense. "Statistically determined" just means the output of a model based on someone's assumptions based on opinion. The extent of the "correction" will have been based on someone's opinion.

Another completely circular self-justification: "As AGW was not an issue back then, the importance of tracking all changes and impacts on temperature records were not relevant back then."

We have come to the conclusion that there is AGW. We do that on the basis of records. But some of those records have an "artificial jump" which we found as a consequence of a statistical model. We therefore have to "correct" those records. The "errors" were there because the people who made the records did not know about AGW. Once "corrected", the records support the conclusion that there is AGW.

[fujii]

Is there any point to this thread?

The OP posted;

The Golbourn AWOS reports the real time temp of say -10.5 deg C. I see it sitting at my desk. several days later i look at the temperature records and see that the lowest temp on that day has been adjusted to something like -9.0.

These were made up examples, not actual readings which have lead to over six pages and over one hundred posts for a fictitious 1.5 degrees.

[Lead Balloon]

You're not compelled to read it, you know.

[cattletruck]

...and here are the findings

Josh Frydenberg - Release of review of the Bureau of Meteorology's Automatic Weather Stations (http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/guest/mediaReleasesDetails.aspx?id=424)

Technical report here

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/Review_of_Bureau_of_Meteorology_Automatic_Weather_Stations.p df

[Stationair8]

Also on the front page of Friday's The Australian.

[FPDO]

Hey Big G, they apparently didn't realise that the temp controller in their work place will change the ARFOR temps mate, so old mate has been turning the office temp controller up in winter mate, SOz he didnt know that controller was for the actual country dude!