Broome airport - Aircraft affect BOM temps
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thumbs up to all you wrote Derfred. Someone else posted that we need an agree button on p-prune and they're right
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
LeadSled, your logical fallacy is: The Galileo Fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...alileo-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.
Last edited by De_flieger; 12th Aug 2017 at 05:18.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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..
.
"...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..
.
Thread Starter
For some unknown reason i am banned from the BOM thread: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...e-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...f-meteorology/
.
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...f-meteorology/
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left 270 said:-
We have the technology to produce large scale energy without putting poisonous gasses into the atmosphere,
We have the technology to produce large scale energy without putting poisonous gasses into the atmosphere,
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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/20...tralia-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'..
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut.[1] She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.[2] The site also has on its header the highly ironic phrase "Tackling tribalist 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] The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition "debunking" the 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).[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.
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.
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.
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.
Thread Starter
Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut.[1] She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.[2] The site also has on its header the highly ironic phrase "Tackling tribalist 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] The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition "debunking" the 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).[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.
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.
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.
She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia ? how ?noise? creates history and a warming trend « JoNova
Never trust anyone who has to change their name. This Jo Nova or whoever she is certainly has form for pure undiluted BS.
Here's Joanne Nova's actual bio: Other information on Jo « JoNova
...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
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! rutan around, seems that Joanne Nova is one player you don't want on the field against your 'team'..
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.
Joanne has given keynote addresses and dinner speeches 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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
She sounds like a Jack of all trades and her thoughts indicate she is master of none.
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.
She sounds like a Jack of all trades and her thoughts indicate she is master of none.
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..
JoNova
.
