Play the ball, PeterC!

OH my, what a laugh I have just had. Thank you very much my dear friend :p

Tell me again how much peer reviewed research you have read that shows the climate is not changing for the worse! Why do you now suddenly have a problem with it and not with the numerous blog posts that can be published by any old crazy without so much a proofread?

Still chuckling at that one. Ha ha

Well, that's Fairfax, Guardian and the ABC out too, so we're getting a bit thin on the ground for news. Although I think most of us knew that already.

To be fair though, news, fairfax, guardian and abc don't all push it as their mainstream offering, unalike peter's "interesting" newsblog (why sextoys are left on public transport was another story "highlight", along with a woman's lips "nearly" falling off!)

A while back there was a video put up by an aeroengineer fully debunking human induced climate change. He started from first principles and ended with the math...on no level can carbon dioxide be proven to be the cause of any effects on weather. That engineer was Burt Rutan.

Bom has been relocating temp recording sites for some time in regional areas to hotter parts of the area. This in the areas is well known to the local people. Goulburns temp was the lowest recorded in over 30 years i am lead to believe from friends in the area. Funny how it was recorded hotter than it was. One has to ask why this was ?

They get moved to make way for wind turbines. The ones up at Crookwell are working a treat!

Will this manipulation of raw data by so called professionals never end.

Recently I went flying with a commercial pilot and I asked how fast we were going. He looked at an instrument marked ASI and after a few mental gymnastics announced 205 knots. I clearly saw only 180 knots on the ASI, so I questioned his figure. He mumbled something about temperature and pressure and correcting for altitude. It all sounded a bit dodgy.

Then I spotted the GPS and it read 220 knots. Again he waffled on about correcting for wind speed and instrument error. I noted that our destination was 220 NM away so I asked a trick question . When will we get there? He said in 68 minutes. What!!!!! 220NM at 220 knots ? Isn't it exactly 1 hour? He explained that he had to adjust the figure to allow for wind changes and rough air expected on descent.

To an amateur meteorologist like myself this blatant manipulation of raw data was all too much so I went back to reading my REAL raw data weather trends in my favorite magazine, 'The Flat Earth Monthly'http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

2 questions for the warmists that are too thick to realise that climate change is a scam the Nigerians would be proud of :
1)The earth is, give or take 100,000 years, 4.5 billion years old, how does any computer model come up with an accurate forecast of what's happening with the climate with 375 years (Max) of data?
2) Who caused the end of the last ice age (you know, ice caps and glaciers melting) , 11,500 years ago?
If you think you have credible answers to this, could you please supply your bank details, I have an inheritance I need to hide from the ATO for a while....

This is a really dumb question. What sort of answer do you expect? Arthur Iceaxe 21 glacier Road Coldsville.?

I think to be fair based on your last post you should alert the fare paying public with the registration of any aircraft you fly so they can avoid it.:ugh:

Slight Drift....
Re "I have an inheritance I need to hide from the ATO for a while...."

As far as I am aware.......an inheritance is not a taxable item, there are no 'death duties' any more.....

However, any interest earned from it certainly is, and I won't be putting mine in your 'bank'.....

No Cheerrsss.....:=

Normal BOM bashing resumes.......

Come on rutan!

Answering a question with a question:E

Sort of thing I might do...

Instead of reading manufactured **** from ignorant sources, read the statement from the BOM.

They routinely check records, high or low, in case of errors. The stations in question are not used in reporting global warming. The stations in question have been replaced as they were faulty.

Once again, raw data is not pristine data. You just know there will always be problems with it.

Media Release - Bureau of Meteorology Newsroom

The BEST project shows us that global warming is real. The cherry picking of a few outsiders, who choose not to understand how the BOM works, does nothing to alter that warming. If the BOM were going to manipulate the temperature record then they would surely choose the stations that were used to compile the temperature record, not stations that are not used.

I'm fascinated: How does BOM know that there is an error in a measurement from a particular sensor at a particular place at a particular point in time, without having a different sensor making the same measurement at the same place at the same time, and how does BOM know that the different sensor is not itself giving an erroneous measurement?

I really don't know but I'd hazard a guess it's a bit like how we have an educated guess about our instruments when they give squirrely readings. eg We look for supporting evidence. The ASI suddenly reads zero. If the noise from the front has ceased and the aircraft is falling the ASI could well be telling the truth however if all seems normal perhaps the ASI is lying for some reason.

I'm sure the fertile minds of p-pruners can come up with many more examples where the other instruments indicate that a LAME somewhere will be rubbing his hands and planning his next exotic holiday.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

How do we know they don't? They just happened to get caught with this one.
Yes it is, by definition

pristine
ˈprɪstiːn,ˈprɪstʌɪn
adjective
in its original condition; unspoilt.

Once you do anything to it, it's manipulated data.

The act of using an instrument to measure something is manipulation, ergo it is not pristine.

As stated in the post above. It's all manipulated. Especially the satellite data.

Getting all quantum physiccy now. If you don't measure it, is it data? The act of gathering it, in its original condition ie as measured by a particular instrument at a particular instant, makes that data from that instrument pristine. You have to have a base line somewhere, from whence you can consider manipulation to then occur. That's why it's called "raw" data.

But you aren't seeing the data as measured by the instrument. You're seeing it as the instrument spits it out - filtered, calibrated and processed. That's hardly pristine.

Yep. All those bubbles of heavier than air CO2 just floating up into the outer atmosphere!
Leftards seeking funding to fun-arse about for another year!

Until you make the measurement, by whatever means, and record it somehow, you don't have any data. So at some point, prior to any filtering, calibrating etc, it is the ultimate raw data, thus "pristine". At which point it stops being pristine is obviously up for conjecture. As I said, you have to draw your baseline somewhere.

Would you not have at least three separate instruments so that you could apply different "laws" to the "raw" data to get either Boeing or Airbus type data?

When an observer watches the expansion of mercury up a glass tube, and compares it against a calibrated scale, is that pristine? Or when a thermocouple output is fed into a microchip, which measures the voltage and compares it to a lookup table, feeding the results to a display driver to show, is that pristine? What about when infra-red radiation falls on a sliver of silicon orbiting hundreds of kilometres in space, causing the electron charge to change in a quantifiable way across a tiny set of squares, which is then measured, digitised, compressed, transmitted and reassembled into a satellite picture on earth, is that pristine?

Part of ensuring good data is removing obviously incorrect values, if a digital weather thermometer was showing -255.0 degrees the obvious conclusion is that the thermometer has failed, and its output should be disregarded. The conspiracy theorist conclusion on seeing the removal of that data is that the Bureau of Meteorology is following the age-old three step plan - Step 1: Remove cold weather readings to create a false impression of a warming planet and prevent pilots from loading their aircraft to its full capacity, because they really, really don't like pilots. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit.

Complete with measurement errors and dropouts. Not to mention changes in sites, time of observation changes, UHI and errors in record keeping.

The satellite measurements are much worse. They don't measure any temperatures but have to infer it.

Someone needs to learn some very basic physics.

Nothing ultimate about raw data. It's just one step in the chain.

I agree, I was just correcting your error.

Fair enough Rick.
Perhaps you could explain who was responsible for the end of the last "ice age". Was that temperature rise caused by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble cooking too many brontosaurus burgers?

Bbbzbzbzbzbbzzbbzbz

According to this, since there wasn't anyone around that could record and analyse the warming for us, there is some conjecture.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/
Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age « RealClimate

I don't know why you are assuming that I would argue that climate change can only be anthropogenic.

It certainly wasn't billions of humans burning thousands of years worth of stored carbon.

They do have that ability already. You can correlate the measurements across distance and use statistical analysis to work out if a reading is anomalous.

...says RickNRoll

And there is your problem. Climate is not homogenous because weather is not homogenous. You cannot reduce all local weather records to a single point analysis. The weather experienced in Harrietville is ALWAYS totally different to Rutherglen even though they are both within 50nm of each other. You cannot take the temp record of Rutherglen and weight it's data using data from Bairnsdale in Gippsland. The weather experienced in Rutherglen is not the weather experienced in Cobar. Why adjust temperature records...hard data...to fit a hypothesis? Who decides what record is anomalous? ..and why it is anomalous?

No one person has the wherewithal to check the data produced by BOM. Doesn't it set alarm bells ringing when individual records are found to be corrupted? Doesn't it then suggest if one site is corrupted, are all sites corrupted? Can the data produced by BOM be ever trusted again?

.....and 1.5m of snow fall has been recorded this week on Mt Hotham. The same week a report was published stating snow fall will be more infrequent. Would we be better suited if there was a more thorough study on why Hadley Cells are still influencing southern latitudes when they should be blowing the crap out of Brisbane in time for the Ekka!...it isn't due to a trace gas!

That is the weather report. That is not climate.

If you do not understand how CO2 works as a 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere there is plenty of information out there. Just saying you don't understand how it works (with exclamation mark) doesn't mean the physics is wrong. You don't seem to appreciate the power of statistics either.

No one person has the wherewithal, but most data from the BoM will be checked by professional users, of which I was one for almost 50 years. Occasionally, errors or apparent anomalies will be found. When this happens, it is reported to the Bureau, and in my experience, a response is always received. The data is always checked. Sometimes it is found to be wrong, sometimes it is found to be correct, and sometimes the assessed quality of the data is altered (not all data is 'best' quality - sometimes you have to take what you can get) but overall the error rate is quite low. If you are so minded, there will be traceability in the data, right back to the calibrations that have been done through the life of the instrument, so I'm sure that a freedom of information request would get it for you.
Can the BoM's data be trusted? Sure, more than you can trust some coal-funded climate sceptic politician or conspiracy theorist.

Sure, if you want to pay three times as much. I personally think it's a great idea, but try selling it to the voters.

Why don't you give us a quick rundown on the physics, RickNRoll?
Make sure you include the fact that CO2 molecules are HEAVIER than air, and that the AGW theory assumes that increased atmospheric water vapour (not CO2) is responsible for the global warming.

Is CO2 ?well mixed?? ? A Few Things Ill Considered

CO2 is a forcing, it initiates the change. Water vapour is a feedback, it responds to the rise in temperature by making it rise even more.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...or-feedback-2/

Jeez Rick please be careful! You are in great danger of forcing some of your opponents here to think or even do some reading before engaging their keyboard. If they did that this thread would just fizzle out.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

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 get that if the AWOS temperature measurement reported in minus 104 degrees C, the inference may reasonably be drawn that the measurement is erroneous.

But who in BOM decides that minus 10.4 is erroneous or anomalous? What measuring equipment, precisely, was used to support that decision, and who used that equipment to make the measurements and when?

I'd make a wild guess that no one in BOM decides. I'd make a wild guess that BOM works like every other government department does these days: 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.

The computer has been programmed to say that any temperature below minus 10 at Goulburn is erroneos. No checking. The computer just says so because the person who wrote the program was told that anything below minus 10 at Goulburn is erroneous. And instead of acknowledging the flaws in the software, BOM has to pretend that there's something wrong with the measurements.