Is the BOM manipulating temperature records?
Can the BoM's data be trusted? Sure, more than you can trust some coal-funded climate sceptic politician
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.
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'd make a wild guess that no one in BOM decides.
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.
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.
You actually made my points for me.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which brings me back to the delicious paradox of all this: Nobody can actually prove what the actual temperature was.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO2 is a forcing
Water vapour is a feedback
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.
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."
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."
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Why don't you ring up the bureau and ask them.