Broome airport - Aircraft affect BOM temps
Thread Starter
Do tell Le Pingouin, is that the report that were written after six days of four hour meetings?..
So much for the "real time monitoring"...BoM Carnegie station in outback WA ? obvious errors for days | Errors in IPCC climate science
.
So much for the "real time monitoring"...BoM Carnegie station in outback WA ? obvious errors for days | Errors in IPCC climate science
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi did you read this.
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I'll do you a deal. You read mine and I'll read yours.
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I'll do you a deal. You read mine and I'll read yours.
Thread Starter
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
.
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
.
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.
"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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
"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.
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
.
Thread Starter
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
Warwick Hughes latest post covers false temperature readings at Goulburn airport: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5323
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 12th Sep 2017 at 13:38.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you haven't actually read the report have you Binghi?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
.
"...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
.
Thread Starter
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/...mer-somewhere/
.
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/...mer-somewhere/
.
