Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Is the BOM manipulating temperature records?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Is the BOM manipulating temperature records?

Old 8th Aug 2017, 06:46
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,437
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.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 09:26
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 607
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.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 10:35
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
You actually made my points for me.

Thanks.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 11:23
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
You actually made my points for me.

Thanks.
I suspect not, but I tried to answer your questions.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 12:09
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,434
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.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 12:16
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2017, 13:56
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 607
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.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 00:48
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 02:01
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 280
So you don't have trust any temperature reading that you haven't taken yourself from a thermometer you calibrated?
chuboy is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 02:37
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 378
Yeah well LB is getting a tad tedious and that is an unadulterated fact !
On eyre is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 02:52
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 668
CO2 is a forcing
No, CO2 is a gas. A "forcing" is the effect from a heating or cooling source.
Water vapour is a feedback
Er, 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.
FGD135 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 03:00
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
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."
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 03:28
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 607
Perzactly, R 'n' R.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 05:04
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by RickNRoll View Post
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 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 05:40
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 08:35
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 280
Well it's fortunate then, that the IPCC has written its numerous reports on more than simply the readings from this one weather station.
chuboy is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 13:12
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
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 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 13:14
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
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.
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 22:39
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
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?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 23:14
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 607
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.
Hydromet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.