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!