Broome airport - Aircraft affect BOM temps

[Flying Binghi]

Some fascinating observations by Tom Harley over at Broome. His day job is CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc.

"...Once again, in fact, nearly every day, there is a spike of around 1C every time we have jet aircraft movements...
...As each flight arrival turns off the runway, the jet exhaust lines up with BoM’s recording instruments..."

Continues - https://pindanpost.com/2016/03/26/jet-fueled-temperature-rises-for-broome/






.

[peterc005]

Senator Malcolm Roberts got elected with 77 votes. Wonder where he found the other 76 crazies?

One Nation Senator Got Elected With Just 77 Personal Votes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/04/a-one-nation-senator-got-elected-with-just-77-personal-votes_a_21445406/)

While a small band of Climate Change Skeptics/Nutters make public rants on forums that lack vigorous peer-review, the science is well established:

36 Nobel laureates signed a declaration on climate change (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-chatter-dominates-island-of-nobels1/)

[Flying Binghi]

Senator Malcolm Roberts got elected with 77 votes. Wonder where he found the other 76 crazies?

One Nation Senator Got Elected With Just 77 Personal Votes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/04/a-one-nation-senator-got-elected-with-just-77-personal-votes_a_21445406/)

While a small band of Climate Change Skeptics/Nutters make public rants on forums that lack vigorous peer-review, the science is well established:

36 Nobel laureates signed a declaration on climate change (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-chatter-dominates-island-of-nobels1/)

Seems that the Broome airport temp reading observations are valid then..:)





.

[Lead Balloon]

Labor's Alex Gallacher was elected with only 330 votes. Liberal senator Chris Back was elected with only 430 votes.

If the optional preferential system is OK for the big parties, it's OK for the little parties.

[Capn Bloggs]

It's the Fokkers that do it...

1 post. Good job, you lot!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

While a small band of Climate Change Skeptics/Nutters make public rants on forums that lack vigorous peer-review, the science is well established:

36 Nobel laureates signed a declaration on climate change

And were pretty much ignored by the rest of the world at the time and ever since for doing so. As usual, rather than debate the issue with one of their own with a dissenting view, they just closed ranks and shut the argument down.

[rutan around]

"...Once again, in fact, nearly every day, there is a spike of around 1C every time we have jet aircraft movements..This may well be true but it is nothing to the temperature spike in many cockpits as they fly down final over Cable Beach.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

[FGD135]

No, peterc005, the science is not "well established". Nothing like it. Not even close.

I have been following this issue since the late 90's and can tell you that there is considerable scientific opinion favouring the skeptical side of the debate.

In fact, I believe there are more skeptical scientists than there are believers. I have no proof of this, but this is just my observation.

Heard of the Oregon Petition? That is a list of over 30,000 scientists who dispute the idea that man's CO2 emissions are having any dangerous effect on the climate.

Over 9,000 on that list have a PhD. Here are the disciplines from which that 30,000 odd is comprised:

Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39)
Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
Chemistry: 4,822
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
Medicine: 3,046
Engineering and General Science: 10,102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[le Pingouin]

At least do a bit of research before believing everything you read on Wikipedia FGD. The science is better established than that petition, but then that's not saying much.

[De_flieger]

Or even just read the *entire* Wikipedia article before you use it as a reference. It talks about how there was no verification of the claimed credentials of any signatories, no way to prove their legitimacy, and included such scientific luminaries as Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls (not just once, but twice!), Drs Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce, all of whom were fictional characters on MASH, Michael J Fox (the real actor), Perry Mason (the fictional lawyer), Charles Darwin and at least one character from Star Wars.

[FGD135]

... included such scientific luminaries as Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls (not just once, but twice!), Drs Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce, all of whom were fictional characters on MASH, Michael J Fox (the real actor), Perry Mason (the fictional lawyer), Charles Darwin and at least one character from Star Wars.
Those names were discovered and removed. You would know that if you read the article properly.

Don't use the Wikipedia article, go directly to the website of the Oregon Project.

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

Take a look at the FAQ section. There is detail there about fraudulent signatures and other attempts to discredit the petition and how that was dealt with. Amongst other things, it points out that names such as Perry Mason, Michael Fox are not the actors, but real scientists that have the same names.

[le Pingouin]

It's still a crock.

[FGD135]

It's still a crock.Why is that? Because you don't agree with it?

[le Pingouin]

No, because it lacks rigour and is nothing more than a self reporting opinion survey. Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean they have any more clue about a subject that's outside their area of expertise than a random person on the street.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But if 36 Nobel Laureates, one of whom is not even a scientist (peace prize), and who also do not have any qualifications in the field, tell us we're all gonna die, are they any more relevant?

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Just a caution on: All the experts agree, there is a consensus of the all the relevant authorities, there is wide public support of the experts, it is a/the greatest moral issue of the times, etc., etc.

Most of you ( I hope) know that Johannes Kepler was the father of modern astronomy, he worked out the laws of planetary motion, in an era where, until then recent times, "the experts" believed that everything revolved around the earth.

As Galileo found out the hard way, only narrowly escaping execution for disputing the consensus, as dictated by the Church.

But back to Kepler, in around 1620, he had to abandon his work, he had to defend his mother from charges of witchcraft, which carried a death sentence.

All the "relevant authorities" and "opinion makes" of the era, the "scientific experts", the population at large, all agreed that witchcraft was the major problem facing civilization, indeed the very existence of the human race was threatened by witchcraft.

As I an sure you all know, witchcraft, the ultimate evil, was the manifestation of the devil on earth, and therein lay the existential threat to civilisation. Or so everyone was convinced --- and the majority, particularly the experts, the educated classes, can't be wrong, can they??

Such was the threat to civil society, that it is estimated that around around 50,000 people were executed between 1500 and 1700 ( this was the era of the voyages of the great navigators --- all operating on agreed scientific principles, remember a bloke called Cook) as a result of convictions for witchcraft, having been subject to all the proper processes of "the law", which was based on the irrefutable knowledge, the "conventional wisdom" of the "experts" of the day. Of course, as was the "scientific" practices of the era, that the methods used to extract "confessions" were gruesome in the extreme, by our standards, but considered quite appropriate "in the day", given the seriousness of the threat to society of the "actions of the agents of the devil on earth".

And a confession is obviously the best proof of the crime, the "truth", isn't that undeniably correct??

It took Johannes Kepler a protracted period of time to mount an ultimately successful defense of his mother, Katharina, who had even spent some months in around 1621 chained to a cell floor, such was the concern if such a powerful witch came into contact with a susceptible subject.

Kepler's defence of his mother was, apparently, a tour de force of genuine scientific reasoning as we would understand it, he was said to have been very good at highlighting dependencies and logical flaws in the "expert" evidence for the prosecution, despite almost universal condemnation for flying in the face of the "consensus of experts". Fortunately for his mother, he succeeded.

Do you see the parallel here --- global warming, man-made, is the greatest threat to mankind, to the degree that anybody who even has the temerity to suggest a contrary case is howled down by the mob, and that mob includes all the "experts" etc., etc., etc.

But there are some really serious and genuine doubts about what is going on, and just what is the cause ----

And is it really a smart idea to be rapidly de-industrialising Australia in pursuit of a "low carbon future" when our Chief Scientist testifies under oath, before the Senate, that even eliminating Australia's 1.3% share of the annual "carbon" output completely, will make zero difference.

My personal view: The earth is slowly warming, how could it be else, we are coming out of the Maunder minimum of the 1600s. But, given the human activity accounts for only about 3% of the annual carbon cycle, our contribution to a cycle of temperature changes is very limited, given the geological history of temperature change.

Indeed, one of the greatest mathematicians of our (or any) age, Dyson Freeman, believes that it is presumptuous in the extreme of the human population that its 3% is the whole reason, and that we can do much about it.

After all, well within recorded human history, Greenland was once green, that's why it is called Greenland, Nordic races of the era grazed cattle on the island.

Tootle pip!!

For a little light reading: The Astronomer and the Witch, Professor Ulinka Rublack, Professor of early Modern History, St.John's College, Cambridge.

[Cloudee]

Greenland was called Greenland by Eric the Red because he thought a favourable name would attract more settlers. He was banished there after murdering a few fellow Vikings and presumably wanted a bit more company.

[le Pingouin]

Sigh. You're willing to listen to anyone who presents a contrary opinion to the "experts" on the off chance they might be right based on the historical precedence of Galileo and Kepler?

You fail to mention the millions of other contrary views on various subjects that have proved to be entirely wrong. Not a great track record I'd say. Can you nominate any of them who hold a faint flicker of a candle to the intellects of Galileo or Kepler?

Those opposing Galileo and Kepler were basing their views on nothing but ideology and religious belief. Not science. So your argument is of no relevance.

Turn it around. The "powers that be" that opposed Galileo are matched by the Trumps and such of this world. They oppose science and logic with ideology and vested interest in power.

[AerocatS2A]

"...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagen.

[LeadSled]

Le Ping,
I am not quite sure if you are addressing my post?

All I am saying is that, just as the "science is settled" with climate change, so the "science was settled" over threat to civilisation from witchcraft.

Medicine is another area where the absolute truths of an era turn out, with the increasing quantum of human knowledge, to be anything from somewhat off the track to completely wrong.

What we do know, without doubt, is that there have been quite large changes, over change cycles, in the earth's temperature over both the span of geological history and the much shorter time scale of human history.

Dyson Freeman's point is that it is rather presumptuous of a group of scientists to believe they know virtually all about "global warming", that the major causes of global warming are human activities, and that any likely changes to human activity is going to make much difference.

Is the current deindustrialisation of Australia a smart idea, to produce precisely nil effect on any global warming trend.

I note, this week, we are actually importing commons house bricks from Spain and elsewhere, goes well with the Portland cement we now import from Korea, instead of making it in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[Left 270]

I actually find this whole argument moot now. We have the technology to produce large scale energy without putting poisonous gasses into the atmosphere, shouldn't we do it based on that alone? Bonus is, if man made climate change is a thing we also helped.

[Derfred]

I find your analogies quite amusing, Leadsled.

The way I interpret those analogies, the conservative stalwarts (those who believed in witches and a flat earth) are exactly those who represent the modern-day climate change deniers. Partly because it offends their ideologies, but mostly because it offends those in power and big business.

Kepler was the climate scientist.

I don't see the climate scientists going around saying "the science is settled". Scientists don't tend to do that. Al Gore might, but that's just Al Gore.

Nor do doctors tend to go around spinning "absolute truths" as you put it.

Scientists tend to keep an open mind, and base their recommendations on the best evidence available - without biasing that evidence with economic threats such as deindustrialisation, as you have just done.

In face, deindustrialisation of Australia is happening not because of climate change politics, but because of globalisation. It's just cheaper to buy bricks from Spain, and cement from Korea. Even with our so-called cheap coal.

In fact, if shipping became more expensive (carbon price on oil), and electric power became cheaper (continued development of renewables), it would probably tip the economic balance back to more localised industry.

But we wouldn't let such economic arguments get in the way of the science would we?

[rutan around]

:ok:Thumbs up to all you wrote Derfred. Someone else posted that we need an agree button on p-prune and they're right

[bolthead]

Which poisonous gas are you referring to Lefty. It's not CO2.

If we don't ban Australians from buying bricks and cement, will the CO2 emissions just be transferred overseas? Why don't we move back into caves?

On another point. If we can call CO2 as carbon pollution, wouldn't calling it oxygen pollution be more correct.

By the way, I am comfortable with the fact that the climate has always changed, and always will.

On the Skynews' Outsiders last Sunday, Ian Plimer made the statement that during one ice age the CO2 values were much higher than today. Is he wrong?

[Band a Lot]

I think the effects of fossil fuels used to make energy that creates pollution is shocking, but warming the planet by its direct use absurd.

I also think is indirect use is negligible, but the pollutants still shocking.

I use to loved the term "Global Warming" that I think Gore's jets were making - Then had to be re-named to "climate change" as it was a cooling period as per the science when this took a mainstream media view.

So I will sit on the fence for any argument other than, regardless of humans the temperatures on Earth will continue to change with or with out our input.

But it is disgusting the amount we pollute the water/s, land/s and air on this planet, My guess is that more sea creatures die from plastic than our portion of water temp change. More Koala's die from habitat destruction than overheating or freezing.

Mother nature has, and always will control us in this lifetime and more to come. She can take everyone of us out - faster than a tweet between Kim and Trump on who dyke is limpest.

[De_flieger]

LeadSled, your logical fallacy is: The Galileo Fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/216/Galileo-Fallacy The idea that because people laughed at Galileo and said he was wrong but he was ultimately proven right, shows that because people say you are wrong demonstrates you are right, doesn't necessarily follow. There's a reason these signs exist on freeways, and it's not because the people driving against the flow of the traffic are smarter and better drivers than everyone else.
https://us.123rf.com/450wm/zstoimenov/zstoimenov1409/zstoimenov140900063/32232867-wrong-way-sign-on-kwinana-freeway-western-australia.jpg?ver=6

[Eyrie]

I find it really amusing that those who claim to be so certain that humans are causing climate change seem to know the least about it. I'm looking at a few of you here.
Leadsled is right about the medical consensus. The link between cholesterol and heart disease is tenuous at best and downright fraudulent at worst. I tend toward the latter. The heart disease/saturated fat in diet issue is linked and likewise fraudulent.
Likewise any claim about human caused climate change. Where is the evidence? Sure we can change the climate in cities and regional areas by land use changes but nobody has demonstrated unequivocally that the small amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for climate change. Some of the indicators of this are entirely missing such as the mid tropical troposphere hot spot which should occur if CO2 is the culprit.
Measurement of air temperature at the surface is fraught with difficulty. It is good enough for aviation operational purposes but as a long term climate record site, changes, surrounding environment changes, measuring instrument changes (electronic thermometers react much faster than the old mercury in glass types, thus capturing momentary spikes) etc. The satellite record is better but only goes back to 1979 and there are 30 and 60 year and longer periods in various meteorological variables making conclusion drawing after less than 40 years difficult.
About 12000 years ago Earth came out of an ice age (note the Barrier Reef as we know it dates from then as sea levels rose about 100 meters). Proxies have shown the temperature since then has varied several times by more than the alleged increase in the last 40 years and do note that for nearly 20 years the surface temperature as measured by the satellites hasn't increased except during the recent El Nino and it has now decreased again.
Now if you are worried about CO2 emissions you would be a staunch advocate of nuclear power. Windmills and solar cells aren't going to power an advanced technological civilisation.
In the end the ice will be back soon enough.

[LeadSled]

Derfred,
With respect, you completely invert the analogy.

I am not going to try and answer every point, but the statement: "The science is settled" was made by (among others) a Professor at a Victorian university, who is a leading proponent of climate change being caused by that 3% of the earths annual carbon cycle --- I could, but I will not "name names" due defo. considerations.

Both Galileo and Kepler were the minority, fighting "The science is settled" scientific establishment consensus of their day.

Yes, the Spanish bricks are cheaper, because ratbag pollution and energy policies have driven up the costs of brick making here --- that is the whole point of my observation. Likewise cement making in Australia.

Apparently we, particularly the greenies/watermelons, are happy if the pollution is made somewhere else, but NIMBY is pretty dumb if said greenies/watermelons are really genuine about concern for Gaia.

Bottom line, seeing as you are inclined to give me a lesson in business principles: How is destroying swathes of Australian industry, and all the jobs involved and the taxation forgone as a result, and adding to a chronic balance of payments problem, for precisely zero climate change outcome (either way) a good idea??

And that last question hardly scratches the surface of the plethora of problems being created by ratbag extreme "pollution" policies.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Without CO2 we cannot breath --- remember your first aid for somebody who is hyperventilating, and why increasing CO2 concentration is the answer.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... No dissenters of the Broome temp spikes...

"...there is a spike of around 1C every time we have jet aircraft movements..."

Considering many of the 'official' BOM temp gauges are located at airports it looks like we have discovered the cause of Australias global warming hysteria..:)






.

[Flying Binghi]

For some unknown reason i am banned from the BOM thread: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/597747-bom-manipulating-temperature-records.html


Jennifer Marohasy Vindicated...

"...Contrary to the Minister’s press release of last Thursday, core issues at the Thredbo weather station have not been fixed – and these are issues that also affect the other 694 weather stations. By its own admission in the report (page 22), the Bureau is recording one-second extrema from at all weather stations: it is not averaging these values over at least one minute as is standard practice in the UK, or over 5 minutes as is done in the US.

Recording one-second extrema (rather than averaging) will bias the minima downwards, and the maxima upwards. Except that the Bureau has been placing limits on how cold an individual weather station can record a temperature, so most of the bias will have been upwards over the last few years...

It is well and truly time for an open, transparent and independent external review of the Bureau, and its management..."

Looks like BOM corruption to me...


https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/not-really-fit-for-purpose-the-bureau-of-meteorology/






.

[rutan around]

Left 270 said:-
We have the technology to produce large scale energy without putting poisonous gasses into the atmosphere,Left 270 has the technology you refer to anything to do with this? If it has or you have something even better feel free to PM me.
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916)
I had a chat with Bill Shorten about this when he was in town recently. It could be the key to a total clean energy plan for Australia and indeed the rest of the world.

[KittyKatKaper]

Binghi., did you bother to read the actual report ?
Data-acquisition systems generally just acquire the raw data, then do some basic sanity-checks on it before recording it, (or transmitting it) to a central data-centre for more-extensive verification and analysis.

As for that 'not averaging' claim.
If a sensor is 'stuck', or limits (for whatever reason) the data, then it doesn't matter what method you use for the 1-minute reading, the result is the same.
The BOM does sanity-checks on the 1-second samples by requiring that the '1-minute' data (1-minute minimum, 1-minute-maximum, last valid sample) must have at least 10 valid samples within that minute.
There is also a 'rate test' which invalidates samples that change more than 0.4'C from the previous sample.
A sub 0.4'C/second change would pass that 'rate test' and at one extreme (ie. all positive or all negative changes) could result in a near 24'C change within 1 minute, which I think would be somewhat noticeable.
Go read the actual report before relying on interpretations from second-hand sources.

[Flying Binghi]

Binghi., did you bother to read the actual report ?
Data-acquisition systems generally just acquire the raw data, then do some basic sanity-checks on it before recording it, (or transmitting it) to a central data-centre for more-extensive verification and analysis.

As for that 'not averaging' claim.
If a sensor is 'stuck', or limits (for whatever reason) the data, then it doesn't matter what method you use for the 1-minute reading, the result is the same.
The BOM does sanity-checks on the 1-second samples by requiring that the '1-minute' data (1-minute minimum, 1-minute-maximum, last valid sample) must have at least 10 valid samples within that minute.
There is also a 'rate test' which invalidates samples that change more than 0.4'C from the previous sample.
A sub 0.4'C/second change would pass that 'rate test' and at one extreme (ie. all positive or all negative changes) could result in a near 24'C change within 1 minute, which I think would be somewhat noticeable.
Go read the actual report before relying on interpretations from second-hand sources.

"Rate test" keep in mind the global warming hysteria is based on a few 'decimals' of temperature increase claimed to be caused by CO2.

As to the so-called BOM checks why then do people like Ken Stewart find actual false high temperature recording:
"...Thargomindah, where on February 12 the High Temp was 2.3 degrees to 2.5 degrees higher than the temperatures 15 minutes before and after?...". ...Heh, the local aggy pointing the hot end of his aircraft at the met station perhaps..:)

https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/how-temperature-is-measured-in-australia-part-1/


Here's a "second hand source"... "...A paper by Lin & Hubbard in 2008, argued that, even 5 minute averaging was not long enough to avoid some warming bias in maximums..." So even them scientists see problems with the BOM 'rate tests'..:hmm:

BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/bom-scandal-one-second-records-in-australia-how-noise-creates-history-and-a-warming-trend/)





.

[rutan around]

Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-science) presenter and a professional wingnut (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wingnut).[1] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-1) She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT) climate denial (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) myths (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myth), making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer) or Andrew Bolt (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt).[2] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-2) The site also has on its header the highly ironic (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony_meter) phrase "Tackling tribalist groupthink (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Groupthink)." She has also written a handbook called "The Skeptic's Handbook," a brief pamphlet that reads like it was copy-pasted from another denialist site without the slightest whiff of actual research and peppered with pretty pictures.[3] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-3) The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) "debunking" the scientific consensus (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) (it doesn't); carbon dioxide lagging, not leading temperature change (ignoring Milankovitch cycles and feedbacks); the carbon dioxide effect being saturated (it isn't); and bad weather station siting (relying on the self-debunked work of Anthony Watts (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts)).[4] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-4)
In between regurgitating debunked climate myths, she often posts non-sensical fiscal arguments; then breaks into a general bitching session about anything including the denial crowd pleaser, the Gore bash fest (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gore%27s_Law).
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute) and the Science and Public Policy Institute (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute).




BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/bom-scandal-one-second-records-in-australia-how-noise-creates-history-and-a-warming-trend/)
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.

[Capn Bloggs]

Does that mean my QNH is valid for only 1 second, not 15 minutes?? :{

[Flying Binghi]

Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-science) presenter and a professional wingnut (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wingnut).[1] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-1) She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT) climate denial (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) myths (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myth), making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer) or Andrew Bolt (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt).[2] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-2) The site also has on its header the highly ironic (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony_meter) phrase "Tackling tribalist groupthink (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Groupthink)." She has also written a handbook called "The Skeptic's Handbook," a brief pamphlet that reads like it was copy-pasted from another denialist site without the slightest whiff of actual research and peppered with pretty pictures.[3] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-3) The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) "debunking" the scientific consensus (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) (it doesn't); carbon dioxide lagging, not leading temperature change (ignoring Milankovitch cycles and feedbacks); the carbon dioxide effect being saturated (it isn't); and bad weather station siting (relying on the self-debunked work of Anthony Watts (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts)).[4] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#cite_note-4)
In between regurgitating debunked climate myths, she often posts non-sensical fiscal arguments; then breaks into a general bitching session about anything including the denial crowd pleaser, the Gore bash fest (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gore%27s_Law).
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute) and the Science and Public Policy Institute (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute).




BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/bom-scandal-one-second-records-in-australia-how-noise-creates-history-and-a-warming-trend/)
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.

Wow! rutan around, seems that Joanne Nova is one player you don't want on the field against your 'team'..:)
Here's Joanne Nova's actual bio: Other information on Jo « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/about/biog/)


...And, back with Jennifer: "...Last Friday morning, after flipping through the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s latest 77-page internal report – Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Automatic Weather Stations – he looked up at me, and then said, “But this is all about you.”..."

John has Plus 10 Degrees, Bureau Loses Minus 10 Degrees - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/john-plus-10-degrees-bureau-loses-minus-10-degrees/)





.

[rutan around]

Wow! rutan around, seems that Joanne Nova is one player you don't want on the field against your 'team'..http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gifBinghi I'd back 'my team' (Your term. I prefer 'Level headed scientists who go where the evidence takes them) every day of the week over your loud mouthed ignorant (in the true sense of the word) fact free attention seekers.

Your post is not all bad. Thanks for the heads up re the list below. I will NEVER engage the services of anyone in the groups listed until I find out their opinion about her beliefs. Anyone silly enough to believe a word she says isn't going to be employed by me especially for a transplant.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

Joanne has given keynote addresses and dinner speeches (http://joannenova.com.au/wp/science-presenter-speaker/) at national conferences and launches, for groups like CPA’s (Certified Practicing Accountants), Transplant Nurses Association, Aged Care Australia, BDS Accounting, The Australian Science Teachers Association, The Australian Science Festival, ACTEW (ACT Electricity and Water), and Amnesty International.
Topics included anti-aging, genetics and the future of medicine, as well as on the science of “funny”. Her favourite topics include discussing the medical revolution and how we may all outlive our superannuation. Since 2008 Joanne has focused on the science of monetary systems, financial history, the gold market, and has also become heavily involved in communicating the science of carbon’s role in “Climate Change”. Joanne attended the UNFCCC in Bali Dec 07, has spoken in New York at the International Climate Change Conference, and to Senate staffers in Washington DC, as well as to Australian leaders of business and banking at Consilium, for the Centre for Independent Studies.
She sounds like a Jack of all trades and her thoughts indicate she is master of none.

[Flying Binghi]

Binghi I'd back 'my team' (Your term. I prefer 'Level headed scientists who go where the evidence takes them) every day of the week over your loud mouthed ignorant (in the true sense of the word) fact free attention seekers.

Your post is not all bad. Thanks for the heads up re the list below. I will NEVER engage the services of anyone in the groups listed until I find out their opinion about her beliefs. Anyone silly enough to believe a word she says isn't going to be employed by me especially for a transplant.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

She sounds like a Jack of all trades and her thoughts indicate she is master of none.

Astounding!

rutan around, i put the JoNova link up for other readers. After the 'assault' you put out about her i just assumed you'd actually read her web site. So much for your 'researched' comments..:hmm:

JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au)





.

[rutan around]

So much for your 'researched' comments..http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gifBinghi for the same reason I don't conduct Orbital Mechanics research in the Flat Earth Monthly

[le Pingouin]

So you haven't actually read the report have you Binghi?

[Flying Binghi]

So you haven't actually read the report have you Binghi?

Do tell Le Pingouin, is that the report that were written after six days of four hour meetings?..:hmm:

So much for the "real time monitoring"...BoM Carnegie station in outback WA ? obvious errors for days | Errors in IPCC climate science (http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5303)





.

[rutan around]

Binghi did you read this.

Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916)

I'll do you a deal. You read mine and I'll read yours.

[le Pingouin]

Why won't you answer a simple straight forward question Binghi?

[Flying Binghi]

Why won't you answer a simple straight forward question Binghi?

Questionair regarding the latest BOM 'report'

Q: How many days of meetings were held by the review panel ?

Q: from the report what do the quote "real time monitoring" refer to ?


Vindicated: Bureau not following WMO guidelines - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/vindicated-bureau-not-following-wmo-guidelines/)






.

[KittyKatKaper]

Why the *bleep* does it matter "How many days of meetings were held by the review panel" ?

"Real Time" depends on the process.
For physical-mail, real-time checking would be once per day.
For an e-tag (toll-road or rail), real-time is in the sub-second or tens of milliseconds region
The BOM data is received once per minute, therefore 'real time' in that context would be checking (or doing something) roughly every minute.
Checking that the data is consistent and uninterrupted is a process that can be done at a slower rate, hence 'real time' in *that* context could be in region of several minutes.
(it's might be nice to know within 1 minute that a station has not sent its' data, but is it necessary ?, the 'gap' could be due to all sorts of factors and it only becomes a problem if there is a lengthy loss of contact, because that then means someone has to go to the (remote) site and fix it.)

The only reason to average data at the collection point is to *reduce* the *volume* of data to be transmitted or stored.
The BOM has 3 data items per minute (minimum, maximum, last reading) instead of just an average, so that allows you to do *more* sanity checks on the data., and because you have the raw data you can average it at the data-centre using whatever method you want.

[le Pingouin]

Sorry Binghi, I won't play your diversionary game taken straight from the denialist handbook. Have you read the BOM report or not? Simple question. KKK may I suggest you don't feed the troll.

[Flying Binghi]

Why the *bleep* does it matter "How many days of meetings were held by the review panel" ?

"Real Time" depends on the process.
For physical-mail, real-time checking would be once per day.
For an e-tag (toll-road or rail), real-time is in the sub-second or tens of milliseconds region
The BOM data is received once per minute, therefore 'real time' in that context would be checking (or doing something) roughly every minute.
Checking that the data is consistent and uninterrupted is a process that can be done at a slower rate, hence 'real time' in *that* context could be in region of several minutes.
(it's might be nice to know within 1 minute that a station has not sent its' data, but is it necessary ?, the 'gap' could be due to all sorts of factors and it only becomes a problem if there is a lengthy loss of contact, because that then means someone has to go to the (remote) site and fix it.)

The only reason to average data at the collection point is to *reduce* the *volume* of data to be transmitted or stored.
The BOM has 3 data items per minute (minimum, maximum, last reading) instead of just an average, so that allows you to do *more* sanity checks on the data., and because you have the raw data you can average it at the data-centre using whatever method you want.

"...Why the *bleep* does it matter "How many days of meetings were held by the review panel" ?..."

Well, if a so-called review panel spent six days, and likely half days at that, reviewing something then you would question just how in depth the review were. Two of the review members 'attended' meeting via video call. One of the review panel went out and visited a met site and another review member sat down for a day at a BOM office and went through the QC process. Considering the shear size of the BOM and its facilities, not what I'd call an in-depth 'audit'.

"...real time monitoring..." Straight from the BOM 'report' and yet, we have this just recently: BoM Carnegie station in outback WA ? obvious errors for days | Errors in IPCC climate science (http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5303)





.

[Flying Binghi]

Sorry Binghi, I won't play your diversionary game taken straight from the denialist handbook. Have you read the BOM report or not? Simple question. KKK may I suggest you don't feed the troll.

Never ending insults..:hmm:

le Pingouin, what are you so frightened about that all you've got is insults and you want to shut down the debate ?


le Pingouin, if you had actually fully read the report yourself then you would of noted the attendance record of the 'audit' members which I referred to. You would also have noted the section on "real time monitoring" which i referenced purely because Mr Hughes had a relavent recent post at his site: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5303
Jennifer Marohasy had linked to the BoM report at her site: Vindicated: Bureau not following WMO guidelines - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/vindicated-bureau-not-following-wmo-guidelines/)

Warwick Hughes latest post covers false temperature readings at Goulburn airport: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5323




.

[rutan around]

So you haven't actually read the report have you Binghi? Le Pingouin of course he hasn't read it. He's been far too busy reading the balanced, reasonable and informed reporting discussing both sides of the argument about 2 stroke engines by such luminaries as Paul Murray and Cory Bernardi.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Seriously, I hope the hydrogen story has got a future, it is(or was) already being used, on a small scale, as a transport fuel, in Germany.
Tootle pip!!

[rutan around]

Leadie,
It's not just Germany. Japan is going ahead in leaps and bounds. We recently had a delegation sniffing around here with a view to import hydrogen for Japan. Activity on this front in Taiwan and South Korea as well. Not sure about North Korea. I don't think you need export quantities for H-bombs.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Flying Binghi]

How often do it have to happen before the smell of corruption is noticed...

"...We’ve seen this all three times before. As soon as skeptics expose enough scandals in The Australian the BOM has to run and hide behind a “major revision”, a panel, or a review. It’s their pass-out-of-class to not answer questions..."

Too late: Bureau of Met buys time with another ?major revision? of data that was already ?best quality? five years ago « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/too-late-bureau-of-met-buys-time-with-another-major-revision-of-data-that-was-best-quality-five-years-ago/)





.

[Flying Binghi]

The smell of corruption just gets worse...

Another BOM all time record recorded near an airstrip:

"...Etched forever into the Bureau’s records is that the AWS located in a dusty paddock, in the middle of nowhere, at a place that hardly anyone has heard-of; and whose data isn’t accessible from climate data on-line, reported Australia’s hottest-ever winter-day on the 24th August 2017 (39.6oC). Furthermore, that single number is the only evidence proffered in the recent Seasonal Climate Summary supporting the Bureau’s claim that 2017 is Australia’s warmest winter on record..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/welcome-to-australia-where-its-always-warmer-somewhere/





.