Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1429437 - 01/08/2017 08:55 Minimum temperatures at Goulburn
Teddy Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/01/2010
Posts: 339
Loc: Monash, Canberra 625m
Interesting discussion on the radio ABC666 about possible manipulation of Goulburn's minimum temperatures.
Goulburn apparently recorded a minimum of -10.4C around 3 weeks ago but this was changed back to,-10C a letter to the relevant minister was sent by the caller to the minister who then contacted BOM who said that the station malfunctioned that day.
The caller is saying like wtf? It had been functioning normally but was then told Goulburn can't record such low temperatures?
If the figures on the BOM website are clearly wrong like for example somewhere in SA last month had been recording 17-20C and then suddenly records a 40C then fair enough clearly a glitch but ifs it only a difference of less than a degree.
Is there some hidden agenda going on here?

Cold and foggy this morning-1C fairly big standard for winter.

Teddy


MOD EDIT: Topic locked permanently. The discussion about Goulburn's minimum temperature has strayed too far into the Climate Change debate.


Edited by Seabreeze (23/08/2017 19:29)
Edit Reason: Topic locked

Top
#1429441 - 01/08/2017 09:08 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
EddyG Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 19/12/2008
Posts: 4269
Loc: NSW Port Stephens
Any links to the story?
I've had a quick look on ABC Canberra website, but to no avail.
_________________________
Rainfall
MTD 5.7mm
YTD 1058.7mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eddygroot/
YNWA

Top
#1429443 - 01/08/2017 09:35 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Teddy Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/01/2010
Posts: 339
Loc: Monash, Canberra 625m
Not sure if it has made the print media it was a phone call to the local radio station.
Be interested to see any follow up for this after all if BOM is being pressured to change things...

Teddy

Top
#1429444 - 01/08/2017 09:43 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Does the discussion refer to Goulburn Airport, open since 1991? The monthly observations page shows a minimum of -10.4 on July 2. There's also a site at Goulburn TAFE, open since 1971 (with a few gaps), but the coldest recorded there to 2016 is -8.5

I had a quick look at the stats for the Airport. The coldest ever recorded in June, July and August between 1992 and 2016 (all available data) are -10.2, -9.2 and -10.9 respectively. On the face of it, minus 10 point something in July looks like just a matter of time, in fact anything as low as -12 wouldn't look out of place.

So I don't know. AWS's do malfunction and it takes a while for someone to notice. I expect that there would be protocols in place to check values that stand out, for example an apparent new monthly cold record some 1.2 below the old one. I don't know how they would work out the correct value, but it would be preferable to leaving a gap if it could be determined with a reasonable level of confidence. I think it unlikely that anything sinister is going on. I trust the BOM more than I trust the Government.

Top
#1429448 - 01/08/2017 10:08 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Umm cough cough. The bom is part of the governments administrative arm aka the bureaucracy Steve. Like all bureaucracies be they private or public they are given to group think. Just take a look at the ABC or SBS for group think.
The question is simple. Why did a temp measurement at Goulburn airport get rounded up to take it out of the sub 10 category. This incidenr tarnishes their reputation as gatherers and custodians of temp data. And temp data is of greater significance today than at anytime in geoligical history as it is used to create a meme that humanity is doomed unless we radically change energy production practices. Scrutiny. Integrity of data is paramount.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429450 - 01/08/2017 10:28 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
A few more thoughts. Does the bureau claim the -10.4 was an error. And if so how did they determine that? If it was determined to be an error, why was it rounded up instead of a possible lower reading. If the rounding up was an error. Than what is the frequency of this occuring with minimum temps at other aws stations?
And of course if no error took place but was because anything below 10 is weeded out at Goulburn than why at Goulburn itself when there are records of sub ten there. Would they weed out sub tens at Thredbo. Of course not. So why Goulburn. In fact. Why any aws at all.


Edited by Knot (01/08/2017 10:34)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429451 - 01/08/2017 10:32 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
...Scrutiny. Integrity of data is paramount.


I agree with that.

Top
#1429452 - 01/08/2017 10:50 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Wave Rider Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/01/2014
Posts: 6207
Loc: Wollongong, NSW
I personally think they are pushing a certain agenda (which must not be spoken of) by increasing the value of an extremely cold minimum so there's nothing to disprove that we are getting said change in our weather over a long period of time. -10.4°C in 2017 perhaps is too cold for what "it's meant to be" under said changes to that thing.

(Trying my hardest to get the message across without saying directly..)

Here is the full story btw Eddy.

Quote:
The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.

The bureau has admitted that a problem with recording very low temperatures is more widespread than Goulburn and the Snowy Mountains but rejected it has ­attempted to manipulate temperature records.

The bureau’s chief executive, Andrew Johnson, has called for an urgent review and the immediate replacement of recording equipment at a number of undisclosed sites. The action was outlined in a letter to federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and follows weeks of turmoil over why data showing minus 10.4C readings at Goulburn and Thredbo went missing.

Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon blew the whistle on the missing data after watching the minus 10.4C Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10.4, stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10 and then it disappeared,” Mr Pidgeon said.

He relayed his concerns to scientist Jennifer Marohasy, who has queried the bureau’s treatment of historical temperature data. After questions were asked, the bureau restored the original recording of minus 10.4C to its website. A bureau spokeswoman said the low recording had been checked for “quality assurance” before being posted.

READ MORE
Media’s silence of the scams
The bureau said limits were set on how low temperatures could go at some stations before a manual check was needed to confirm them. “The bureau’s quality ­control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman said.

“The error was picked up yesterday internally and quality control processes are being reviewed for those stations where temperatures below minus 10 are possible.”

Dr Johnson told Mr Frydenberg the failure to record temperatures of minus 10.4C at Goulburn on July 2 was due to equipment being “not fit for purpose”.

A similar failure had deleted a reading of minus 10.4 at Thredbo Top on July 16 even though temperatures at that station had been recorded as low as minus 14.7 in the past. That temperature was still blank on the bureau’s website yesterday.

Dr Johnson said failure to record the very low temperatures had “been interpreted by a member of the community in such a way as to imply the bureau sought to manipulate the data record”.

“I categorically reject this ­implication,” he said.

The bureau’s handling of temperature data and the homogenisation of records to form a national average has been controversial.

It has said warmer minimum temperatures were one reason for the upward trend in average temperatures due to climate change.

In a letter to Mr Frydenberg, Dr Johnson said: “Preliminary analysis had indicated the ACORN-SAT national temperature record had not been affected by the issues experienced at ­Goulburn and Thredbo Top ­Station.” But, he added, electronic ­hardware “not only at Goulburn and Thredbo Top Station, but also a small number of other automatic weather stations in cold climate locations, are not fit for purpose”.

“I have taken steps to ensure that the hardware at this locations is replaced immediately,” he said. “To ensure that I have full ­assurance on these matters, I have actioned an internal review of our AWS network and associated data quality control processes for temperature observations.

“The review will be conducted by a member of the bureau’s senior leadership team and will ­involve independent external ­expertise where appropriate.

“I expect the review to be conducted in a matter of weeks and I will report back to you as soon as it is completed.”

Dr Marohasy said Dr Johnson’s claims of equipment failure were easily disproven by the screen shots that showed the very low temperatures before being “quality assured” out.

She said claims the omission of the very low temperatures did not affect the national temperature record were also easily disproven.

“While Goulburn station is not a listed ACORN-SAT station, it is used to homogenise Canberra and Canberra is an ACORN-SAT station,” Dr Marohasy said.

The bureau did not respond to questions about how widely the quality control system had been applied and at what upper temperature the cut-off had been set.

Dr Marohasy has evidence of the initial minus 10.4C recording at Thredbo before it was deleted for quality ­assurance.

“This either reflects an extraordinary incompetence, or a determination to prevent evidence of low temperatures,” Dr Marohasy said.


Edited by Wave Rider (01/08/2017 10:57)
_________________________
2016-17 season storm total for here= 15

Oct- 21st
Nov- 9th, 28th
Jan- 24th
Feb- 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th(2)
Mar- 13th, 16th, 22nd
Apr- 9th, 26th
May- 24th

The longer you wait for things, the more you appreciate them.

Top
#1429454 - 01/08/2017 10:56 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
A few more thoughts. Does the bureau claim the -10.4 was an error. And if so how did they determine that? ...

There is a "feedback" link near the bottom right hand corner of the BOM landing page. Anyone concerned about data or about any aspect of the BOM's work can use that to ask questions. I have used it a couple of times when I spotted apparent errors in historical data and the BOM changed the values. For example (going by memory) I spotted record low max of 13.3(?) at Sydney Airport in January 1955. This didn't look right. The BOM checked and changed it to 31.3. Maybe it was a typo when digitising data.

On the other hand, I have not had a response when asking about apparent 'phantom' falls if 0.2 rainfall from a clear sky at OH or the Airport. So you might get lucky, or not.

I believe the BOM, I don't believe for one minute they would fudge the data. In any case, anyone wanting to do do would have changed it to -9 and probably no one would have queried it.

Be that as it may, anyone with concerns about that Goulburn minimum can ask the BOM if they wish. If someone does so and gets feedback, it would be interesting to see the result posted here.


Edited by Steve777 (01/08/2017 11:03)
Edit Reason: Last two paras

Top
#1429455 - 01/08/2017 11:14 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Ron W at Walcha Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/04/2008
Posts: 420
Loc: Walcha. NSW Northern Tableland...
BOM forecast for Walcha tomorrow- "Early Light Frost, -6 to 13!What does a heavy frost require?

Top
#1429458 - 01/08/2017 11:29 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
WarrenTheSnowMan Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 18/04/2016
Posts: 317
Loc: Frosty, Kemp's Creek
Weather change is a myth, our climate and weather is the same as it always has been with lack of volcanic eruptions and solar minimums.

Ron, wouldn't rely on the BoM, anything below -3 is a hard freeze yet they never forecast it.

Top
#1429462 - 01/08/2017 12:28 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Teddy Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/01/2010
Posts: 339
Loc: Monash, Canberra 625m
Originally Posted By: Knot

And of course if no error took place but was because anything below 10 is weeded out at Goulburn than why at Goulburn itself when there are records of sub ten there. Would they weed out sub tens at Thredbo. Of course not. So why Goulburn. In fact. Why any aws at all.


Yes apparently Thredbo has been singled out as well!
I've no idea why either but Yes as custodians of weather data you'd think no shenanigans would be taking place?
Teddy

Edit just read Wave Rider's response good find. Well they set -10C as an absolute minimum that would explain the changing of data. Perhaps lower limits for the data will be set at some locations now to avoid future issues.


Edited by Teddy (01/08/2017 12:34)
Edit Reason: Saw Wave Rider's post

Top
#1429465 - 01/08/2017 12:37 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
EddyG Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 19/12/2008
Posts: 4269
Loc: NSW Port Stephens
Thanks WR

Unbelievable!!

So in theory Goulburn's minimum could have been even lower?
_________________________
Rainfall
MTD 5.7mm
YTD 1058.7mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eddygroot/
YNWA

Top
#1429466 - 01/08/2017 12:37 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Bush meteorologist Lance??

Top
#1429474 - 01/08/2017 14:05 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Is it a case at the bureau that the 'Lunatics have taken over the asylum'


Edited by Knot (01/08/2017 14:07)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429487 - 01/08/2017 16:57 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Originally Posted By: Knot
Is it a case at the bureau that the 'Lunatics have taken over the asylum'

Maybe it's a funding thing?

Top
#1429490 - 01/08/2017 17:18 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Funkyseefunkydo]
Wave Rider Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/01/2014
Posts: 6207
Loc: Wollongong, NSW
Originally Posted By: Funkyseefunkydo
Bush meteorologist Lance??


Lol I guess so.

And thinking about it further after my post, I don't think (and hope) they wouldn't be pushing an agenda and it is just because the AWS could be limited to a range of -10 to 50 for example. But that doesn't explain the all time record low of -10.9°C.


Edited by Wave Rider (01/08/2017 17:18)
_________________________
2016-17 season storm total for here= 15

Oct- 21st
Nov- 9th, 28th
Jan- 24th
Feb- 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th(2)
Mar- 13th, 16th, 22nd
Apr- 9th, 26th
May- 24th

The longer you wait for things, the more you appreciate them.

Top
#1429492 - 01/08/2017 17:30 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, given a choice between a conspiracy and a stuffup, I'd go for the stuffup in the absence of specific evidence for the former.

As to this particular case. I proffer a plausible alternative explantion:

* An AWS records a reading of -10.4
* Being more than 1 degree below a monthly record, it comes out on a report.
* The figure is checked by a human being.
* The equipment is checked and found to be faulty, maybe in need of recalibration
* Alternatively, maybe the equipment doesn't work well below -10, but that would surprise me. If this is the case, they need better equipment, especially in a cold location.
* BOM decides not to discard the reading but round it to the nearest whole number, which is -10.

I don't know. I don't work for the BOM. I haven't been to Goulburn for a while. It's rather cold in Winter as I recall. But the above seems to me to be far more believavle that any deliberate tampering with the data for some sinister purpose.

* I note in passing that the old monthly record was eclipsed a few times during the month, but these instances appear not to have caused concern.


Edited by Steve777 (01/08/2017 17:37)
Edit Reason: Added 5th bullet point

Top
#1429493 - 01/08/2017 17:33 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
I don't see how it could be an agenda driven thing. These cold temps only happen with a blocking high with clear skies and no wind. No fronts reaching the mainland in winter is where our attention should be.

Top
#1429494 - 01/08/2017 17:34 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Wave Rider Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/01/2014
Posts: 6207
Loc: Wollongong, NSW
I was meant to say I don't think they WOULD be pushing a certain agenda

Yes I agree with your assessment Steve, I could probably not think of anything more plausable, especially the last point.
_________________________
2016-17 season storm total for here= 15

Oct- 21st
Nov- 9th, 28th
Jan- 24th
Feb- 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th(2)
Mar- 13th, 16th, 22nd
Apr- 9th, 26th
May- 24th

The longer you wait for things, the more you appreciate them.

Top
#1429500 - 01/08/2017 18:16 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Jimi Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/03/2004
Posts: 787
Loc: Cammeray
I wouldn't be surprised if the equipment did require calibration. Goulburn is cold at night, no doubt, but it seemed to become a focal point for the statewide minimums more than I would have expected, and it broke the monthly record a few times apparently.

Top
#1429506 - 01/08/2017 19:08 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I laughed so hard I cry when I read that bom has no agenda. Has anyone here read one word of alternative explanations for climate variance in any bom publication, on their website or in a public release. The science is settled viewpoint predominates. Actually predominates is the wrong word as it assumes a variance of opinion. And there is no variance of opinion. Can't buck the system. Mortgages and careers to protect.
It is hardly a scientific approach to a question. Real science proposes a question. Then a hypothesis is proposed and tested by way of experimentation and observation to see if it adequately answers the question. If the hypothesis is faulty or inadequate a new hypothesis is proposed and so on and so forth. Did Galileo accept the settled science of his day. Nay. What of Copernicus. Nay. The bom now has a quasi ecclesiastical kind of role. And like the pre reformation church it seeks to maintain control of the information. They recognise the danger of data being scrutinised and democratised. It leads to discovery. Of cover ups. Which leads to questionng authority which invariably leads to the crumbling of monolithic institutional power.


Edited by Knot (01/08/2017 19:11)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429510 - 01/08/2017 20:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
DerekHV Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 12/02/2010
Posts: 779
Loc: Aberglasslyn (Maitland) NSW
There is no way the Charlotte Pass record will ever be broken, that is for sure.
Oh hang on, they closed the station in 2015, problem solved.

Top
#1429513 - 01/08/2017 20:21 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Originally Posted By: Knot
Has anyone here read one word of alternative explanations for climate variance in any bom publication, on their website or in a public release. .
I'm interested. Can you provide a link to one?

Top
#1429514 - 01/08/2017 20:22 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
But the science kind of IS settled. Are you seriously suggesting that the BOM is involved in some sort of climate conspiracy?

Top
#1429517 - 01/08/2017 21:29 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Knot
I laughed so hard I cry when I read that bom has no agenda. Has anyone here read one word of alternative explanations for climate variance in any bom publication, on their website or in a public release. The science is settled viewpoint predominates.

The science is never settled, and the idea that it is...is a point of view smile .

Top
#1429520 - 01/08/2017 21:53 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
oh for pete's sake, what are you even saying?

Top
#1429524 - 01/08/2017 22:11 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: sou]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Originally Posted By: sou
But the science kind of IS settled. Are you seriously suggesting that the BOM is involved in some sort of climate conspiracy?


They are part of the climatocracy. Unconsciously or consciously they wl act in accordance with the edicts, precepts, dictates that uphold and sustain the structure of belief. Did you ever see the Mel Gibson film Apocalypto. There is a classic scene it where the King and his conniving high priest are marking an eclipse. They know the sun will re appear but the ignorant subjects think the sun is gone for good and can only return if human sacrifice is carried out. So the king and the high priest get the grizzly sacrifices underway. The sun miraculously returns. The peoples faith in the king and religious heirarchy is reaffirmed. The lucrative sacrificial system continues.
Climate stuff is big bucks these days. Grants etc. The threat of being in the dole cue keeps anyone thinking about not toeing the line in check. Loss of income. Status. Most people don't go out of there way to go down the ladder. So they go along with stuff. They migt come across stuff that they don't think is kosher. But they'll shut up about it. They remember what happened to the last whistleblower. They saw him on the way to the office sitting on a railway platform with the @ss hanging out of his pants.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429526 - 01/08/2017 22:16 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: sou]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: sou
oh for pete's sake, what are you even saying?

Would you like me to quote Dr Johnson about ACORN-SAT instead, as it is about Goulburn smile ?

Edit: Actually, skip that, leave you to it.


Edited by Seira (01/08/2017 22:23)

Top
#1429527 - 01/08/2017 22:17 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Plenty of spelling mistakes in my last post. Just thought I would point that out before a spelling nazi pounces he he he
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429529 - 01/08/2017 23:44 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Wave Rider Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/01/2014
Posts: 6207
Loc: Wollongong, NSW
Originally Posted By: Knot
Plenty of spelling mistakes in my last post. Just thought I would point that out before a spelling nazi pounces he he he


You are right, but not like it's an English class.

I am a spelling nazi and have always been but I try to hold back lol.

PS: I also was a little confused by Seira's post, until I read it a few times. Might just be the way he/she writes, which is okay but sometimes the point that is trying to be put across might be missed.


Edited by Wave Rider (01/08/2017 23:51)
_________________________
2016-17 season storm total for here= 15

Oct- 21st
Nov- 9th, 28th
Jan- 24th
Feb- 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th(2)
Mar- 13th, 16th, 22nd
Apr- 9th, 26th
May- 24th

The longer you wait for things, the more you appreciate them.

Top
#1429550 - 02/08/2017 09:47 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
The BOM is part of the "climatocrocy"?! Not the hugely powerful industry giants that make trillions of dollars from fossil fuels and who must maintain climate change skepticism to continue to do so? Oh sweet baby jesus.

Top
#1429553 - 02/08/2017 11:17 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: sou]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Originally Posted By: sou
The BOM is part of the "climatocrocy"?! Not the hugely powerful industry giants that make trillions of dollars from fossil fuels and who must maintain climate change skepticism to continue to do so? Oh sweet baby jesus.


Skepticism is driven by science itself. Not the fossil fuel industry. Skepticism is, or should be a defining feature of science. Copernicus was a skeptic. He was skeptical of the prevailing consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. You wouldn't suggest his skepticism was wrong would you?




Edited by Knot (02/08/2017 11:22)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429556 - 02/08/2017 12:11 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
rain gauge Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 16/02/2006
Posts: 4435
Loc: Gorokan NSW 4klm West of the ...
97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and humans are making it worse.

This guy named Bob on facebook with a Gun in one hand and road kill in another thinks climate change is B/S..


It's really hard to pick a side.
_________________________
Gorokan-YTD-892.9mm
SEP rain 0.0 mm

2016 Rainfall-1241.9mm
2015 Rainfall-1568.2mm
2014 Rainfall-1109.1mm


Top
#1429558 - 02/08/2017 12:24 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Since when hasn't the climate changed. A climate not changing would be the odd man out in earth's geological history. There never has been perpetual climate stasis and there never will be. There has been rapid change. Slow change and in between change. With without us. No need for gloom and doom about it.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429563 - 02/08/2017 12:51 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
Hey Knot, I feel like there's no point going over the obvious differences between human induced climate change and historical changes in the climate of the earth as you are surely familiar with these arguments, but i'm puzzled by your position, being as we're on a weather forum rather than the comments page of the daily telegraph. I don't know what to say, and I feel like all this stuff has been covered exhaustively already so my comments will just be frustrating for you, me and anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this thread. Best to you though smile

Top
#1429565 - 02/08/2017 13:22 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Snowies Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 16/10/2001
Posts: 1869
Loc: Westbury
Originally Posted By: Knot
Originally Posted By: sou
The BOM is part of the "climatocrocy"?! Not the hugely powerful industry giants that make trillions of dollars from fossil fuels and who must maintain climate change skepticism to continue to do so? Oh sweet baby jesus.


Skepticism is driven by science itself. Not the fossil fuel industry. Skepticism is, or should be a defining feature of science. Copernicus was a skeptic. He was skeptical of the prevailing consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. You wouldn't suggest his skepticism was wrong would you?





I suspect the fossil fuel industry have way more to lose than the scientists...

There is irony in citing Copernicus, a man whose science was correct, but at the time he was condemned, proclaimed a heretic and ultimately 'recanted' his views to satisfy those who believed in something other than the science presented. Galileo didn't fare much better.

I suggest you find scientists who were accused of being wrong and where the pre-existing dogma and faith ultimately prevailed.

I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




Edited by Snowies (02/08/2017 13:31)

Top
#1429570 - 02/08/2017 14:27 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@snowies. Might I remind you that Copernicus and Galileo were in the minority. The majority scientific opinion of the day was earth centric. They went against the tide of consensus. Just as some scientists do today who postulate alternative hypotheses for climate variance.
The fixation on one of many possible causations affecting a chaotic system is not science. It is dogma

@Sou I guess this whole convo is steering into the unmentionable topic a bit. Lol. Who kicked this off. Anyways we just have to agree to disagree. Best to you too


Edited by Knot (02/08/2017 14:32)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429580 - 02/08/2017 16:00 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
With government funding cuts we will continue to see errors. There's no agenda. If anyone has an agenda it's the religious coal advocates. God ain't here to save us.

Top
#1429591 - 02/08/2017 17:22 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Funkyseefunkydo]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Originally Posted By: Funkyseefunkydo
With government funding cuts we will continue to see errors. There's no agenda. If anyone has an agenda it's the religious coal advocates. God ain't here to save us.


Baloney
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1429597 - 02/08/2017 18:32 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 469
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Still waiting for your friend Per strandberg to explain his Enso predictions but just keeps tweeting radical you tube vids.

Top
#1430282 - 09/08/2017 19:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
My my. The bom changes their story about the Goulburn incident every few days. It's now due to 'smart cards'. A filter attached to the sensor. I am sure there are none at at hot sites to filter out non weather related heat spikes from air ducts, engines etc. /sarc
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430481 - 12/08/2017 15:10 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Morham Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 40
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Originally Posted By: Knot
Since when hasn't the climate changed. A climate not changing would be the odd man out in earth's geological history. There never has been perpetual climate stasis and there never will be. There has been rapid change. Slow change and in between change. With without us. No need for gloom and doom about it.

Absolutely true. Nobody is denying that.

Earth has experienced many ice ages which have decimated life.
In fact this warmer period we live in now, arguably, has contributed to the rise of our powerful and intelligent civilization.

Carbon dioxide once helped Mars go through a period of warmth. There was liquid water on the surface, over millions of years the co2 was absorbed into rock (which is a theory) robbing Mars of its warm atmosphere.

Lots of co2 exists in rocks on earth as well. In coal for example.

Co2 is critical for atmospheric warmth. But obviously, too much of it will warm the atmosphere to a point where parts of earth may become uninhabitable.

That has happened on planet earth countless times over the eons. Species go extinct when the climate changes, new species adapt and live there, sometimes virtually all life vanishes from an area. Whale bones have been found in the Sahara desert.

However, why is the concentration of co2 on earth increasing now? Yes co2 has increased on earth when our ancestors were slithering around swampy pools.

Is the current increasing concentration of co2 a perfectly normal cycle, or is the co2 we release from rocks like coal contributing to it?

I guess even with the science, people have to make their own conclusions.

I believe releasing co2 from coal will add more co2 to the atmosphere, at a rate faster than plankton/ocean/forests can absorb it resulting in a warmer climate. Sounds crazy, but that's what i believe!
grin

Top
#1430485 - 12/08/2017 16:01 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Morham]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Morham
...Is the current increasing concentration of co2 a perfectly normal cycle, or is the co2 we release from rocks like coal contributing to it?


The scientific consensus is that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels:

Quote:
"Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

What is causing increase in CO2


Here's another link: Climate Change (NASA)

Top
#1430487 - 12/08/2017 16:40 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Not the old consensus routine again Steve. Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake (in some parts of todays world this is still happens under the gaze of fanatical nutcases).A consensus of opinion is not science. Now it may well be that some rudimentary consensus exists on matters that are clearly obvious. e.g If I held the belief that the earth was flat I would be going against an overwhelming tide of observation. However we are talking about a chaotic system that defies a one size fits all hypothesis when there are likely many inputs that as yet we have little or no understanding of. Co2 being solely responsible for empirical data that may indicate warming is one hypothesis that is in vogue when many scientists. But it is not the only one. And ultimately it is observations over a considerable period which may add credence to one hypothesis or another. If observations became at variance with the hypothesis than the hypothesis must be altered. There are specifically two observations, that were they to occur, would require the Co2 = warming hypothesis to be scrapped. 1. Co2 levels increased exponentially(either naturally or human action) but warming either stalled or reversed. 2. Co2 levels fell drastically and after a period of time allowing for lag temperatures increased. Either observation would nullify the hypothesis.



Edited by Knot (12/08/2017 16:41)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430489 - 12/08/2017 16:51 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
And I think it is fear of point No.1 in my previous post that drives the doom speak by many who now have a vested interest in the GW gravy train. And I would expect just like cultish behaviour exhibits in religions today and in the past that any informstion that threatens the cult will be expunged if survival of the cult and its' caste is at stake. So I think that any evidence of cooling will be obscured. None of the GW cult members would want to have the masses suddenly feeling like they have been had
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430490 - 12/08/2017 17:39 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
'Consensus' is the new form of 'groupthink' IMO. Given they still can't accurately predict next weeks weather, how can they forecast any further than that?

And as for 'climate change', that has and always will. The question is "is it man made". If so, then what caused all the previous heat records in the 1800's? What caused the previous heat episodes eons ago and what caused the various ice ages. They can't answer those questions definitively so how can they now answer this one?

Top
#1430492 - 12/08/2017 17:47 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
...Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake

That was not done because there was a consensus based upon careful observation and analyis that certain beliefs were wrong and dangerous. It was done by people who had an unshakeable conviction that they were absolutely right beyond the possibility of error and didn't need evidence. Or, in some cases, maybe it didn't matter. Certain people were deemed to be a threat to the established order and had to be 'dealt with'. There is no parallel to science.

Quote:
1. Co2 levels increased exponentially(either naturally or human action) but warming either stalled or reversed.

False: Warming since 1998


Quote:
2. Co2 levels fell drastically and after a period of time allowing for lag temperatures increased. Either observation would nullify the hypothesis.

Not quite sure what you mean there. CO2 has risen steadily since the start of the Indistrial Revolution: Greenhouse gases. Over geological time CO2 has risen and fallen owing to natural processes, e.g. volcanoes. These processes are happening now and will continue to do so. Anthropogenic warming will be in addition to these. One way or another it might wash out in a few thousand years, but we need to get through the next hundred first.

Quote:
And I think it is fear of point No.1 in my previous post that drives the doom speak by many who now have a vested interest in the GW gravy train.

Any credible climate scientist, i.e. one who has relevant qualifications, has been involved in climate research and who has published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, who put up a case that the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere (fact) by the burning of fossil fuels (very strongly supported by isotopic analysis) would not cause any significant changes in the world's climate system would be in line to receive rivers old gold from fossil fuel interests to support their research. They'd be set for life.

EDIT: I know I won't convince anyone, but just needed to say it. Everyone is free to check out the evidence by Googling on the science. Fossil fuel interests accept scientific evidence when looking for coal and oil, they don't rely on contrarian bloggers.


Edited by Steve777 (12/08/2017 17:51)

Top
#1430495 - 12/08/2017 17:50 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Steve777]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Steve777
Originally Posted By: Knot
...Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake

That was not done because there was a consensus based upon careful observation and analyis that certain beliefs were wrong and dangerous. It was done by people who had an unshakeable conviction that they were absolutely right beyond the possibility of error and didn't need evidence. Or, in some cases, maybe it didn't matter. Certain people were deemed to be a threat to the established order and had to be 'dealt with'. There is no parallel to science.


Oh the irony in this statement....

Can we please not turn this into another AGW -v- Non-AGW thread. Suffice to say everyones had their say. Back to the topic which is the BoM fiddled with the data smile

Top
#1430498 - 12/08/2017 18:06 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Kino
Maybe what happened at Goulburn AP is maybe a small glimpse into how the data gate keepers are going about shoring up the 'faith'. I ask a straight fwd question now. Does the bom use 'smart cards' to filter out what they think may be anomalous high temps?
hmm. Should be a simple answer.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430499 - 12/08/2017 18:11 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Knot
@Kino
Maybe what happened at Goulburn AP is maybe a small glimpse into how the data gate keepers are going about shoring up the 'faith'. I ask a straight fwd question now. Does the bom use 'smart cards' to filter out what they think may be anomalous high temps?
hmm. Should be a simple answer.


A quick glance at the BoM website shows clearly not...#heatreigns

Top
#1430501 - 12/08/2017 18:18 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I think you read point 1 wrong Steve. I will put it another way. If co2 levels quadrupled in 50 years to what they are now but temperatures decreased ( with no discernable imput from high sulphur volcanic activity, solar min or or orbit changes etc), would this not renders the Co2 hypothesis untenable. Yes or no?
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430502 - 12/08/2017 18:34 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Morham Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 40
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Beliefs aside, what happened at Goulburn station is not a good look.

Do temperature adjustments like that happen at the BoM regularly?

Do they only have one weather station at the site? Would it make more sense to have 3 weather stations so outlier readings can clearly show malfunctions?

Top
#1430504 - 12/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3441
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
I think you read point 1 wrong Steve. I will put it another way. If co2 levels quadrupled in 50 years to what they are now but temperatures decreased ( with no discernable imput from high sulphur volcanic activity, solar min or or orbit changes etc), would this not renders the Co2 hypothesis untenable. Yes or no?


OK I misunderstood your question. Science is testable and falsifiable. If, hypothetically, a quadrupling of CO2 was accompanied by a temperature decrease, that would cast severe doubt upon anthropogenic global warming. There would be something else going on. It's science, not faith.

Another example. If an object were to be detected travelling faster than light, that would at the very least mean that the theory of relativity as currently understood, is wrong. It would be unlikely to be totally wrong, more likely incomplete, as was Newton's theory it replaced.


Edited by Steve777 (12/08/2017 18:51)
Edit Reason: Last para

Top
#1430505 - 12/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
All good Steve.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430528 - 13/08/2017 09:40 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Steve777]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
"Any credible climate scientist, i.e. one who has relevant qualifications, has been involved in climate research and who has published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, who put up a case that the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere (fact) by the burning of fossil fuels (very strongly supported by isotopic analysis) would not cause any significant changes in the world's climate system would be in line to receive rivers old gold from fossil fuel interests to support their research. They'd be set for life."
Tooooottttalllllly!!

Top
#1430538 - 13/08/2017 12:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Sou
I pose the same question I posed Steve. If co2 in Atmosphere quadruple and temps decline, would you accept that the co2 = warming hypothesis is dead? If you would accept that, well and good. If you wouldn't accept it then what would be your reasoning for doing so?
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430627 - 14/08/2017 16:38 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
If CO2 in the lower atmosphere quadrupled in concentration, my understanding is more terrestrial IR heat could be absorbed from the surface. CO2 does not condense naturally (that I know of) in the lower atmosphere; however, water does. Thus, the surface environment would absorb solar radiation (when there is less cloud-cover) and support increasing amounts of the thermal heat. That would drive the saturation vapour pressure up – because it is heat-dependent, and thus the temperature at which given quantity of water-vapour could be retained within the lower atmosphere (troposphere and stratosphere) would increase. This, in turn, would increase the difference between the most and least amount of water-vapour the troposphere could retain, thus generating greater differences (geographically) between temperatures readings (including due to orographic, land-sea breeze and convection effects). Hence, it would not be surprising to see more extreme-end spectrum records being broken. This would be a true reflection of raw data, accounting for human’s being here, whether or not they are contributing to this dynamic or not. However, as homogenisation and consistency of records needs to be maintained for reason of reliability for research purposes, I would think spurious data or outliers need to be considered when adjusting records accordingly.

Top
#1430638 - 14/08/2017 18:21 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Snowies]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 6514
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Top
#1430646 - 14/08/2017 18:45 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Petros]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Well if people can demonstrate the last X years of claimed data manipulation have detrimentally impacted and laid waste to more than 50 years of scientific advancement (going back to the very beginnings of lab experiments), go for it...otherwise.

Top
#1430647 - 14/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Well if people can demonstrate the last X years of claimed data manipulation have detrimentally impacted and laid waste to more than 50 years of scientific advancement (going back to the very beginnings of lab experiments), go for it...otherwise.


Surely, Sierra, someone has to be concerned that the BoM is systemically removing historic high temp records due to being "suss" thereby artificially influencing the temperature record?

Top
#1430654 - 14/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Surely, Sierra, someone has to be concerned that the BoM is systemically removing historic high temp records due to being "suss" thereby artificially influencing the temperature record?

Even if they are...it would still have to be verified through evidence with an independent review, outside the Bureau.

Sure, there are anomalies in scientific discourse out there, probably big ones too, however after hearing recently that the government requires computer [weather/climate] modellers in the 10s to figure out what the [censored] is really going on with the climate and weather...[I probably have a vague idea, but far from concrete]...I am not particularly encouraged.

It's not just the digital records I'd be concerned about...some (from what can I remember) are still in paper form. That requires people and time...

Top
#1430667 - 14/08/2017 19:54 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
The bom remind me of certain ancient Egyptians expunging all references to Akhenaten. It will likely be the case one day that there will be no paper records. Just digitalised. And tampering will be all the easier.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430701 - 14/08/2017 22:15 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
My reference to anomalies in scientific discourse was general.

Top
#1430807 - 15/08/2017 18:50 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 6514
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
....one day the penny will drop for the warmists, ....."the Emperor is wearing no clothes" - ....and that CO2 atmospheric levels are a consequence, not driver, when the climate is warming.

Far better to put your efforts into understanding the incoming radiation budget from the sun, then include the relative position of nearby planets, .....and maybe for some of you, ....the concept of CYCLES might drop, and the collective hatred of big business/mining can be diverted to more productive pursuits.

Top
#1430809 - 15/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Ask any tree and they will tell you they don't understand what us humans have against trees having a more abundant food supply. Weird if you ask me.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431000 - 17/08/2017 16:24 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.

Top
#1431002 - 17/08/2017 16:38 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Siera.
Care to elaborate.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431014 - 17/08/2017 18:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Top
#1431015 - 17/08/2017 18:30 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Provide evidence of this bias in "adjustment"....otherwise. And it's not me the evidence needs to be directed towards. Make it formal, send them a letter...or an email. Quite frankly I was only attempting to point others in what I thought was the right direction [in science terms]. These are not the type of questions I can readily address.


Edited by Seira (17/08/2017 18:33)

Top
#1431017 - 17/08/2017 18:36 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Provide evidence of this bias in "adjustment"....otherwise. And it's not me the evidence needs to be directed towards. Make it formal, send them a letter...or an email. Quite frankly I was only attempting to point others in what I thought was the right direction [in science terms]. These are not the type of questions I can readily address.


They were rhetorical and they were appealing to you as a "scientist".

Top
#1431018 - 17/08/2017 18:37 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
As for evidence, this whole thread clearly shows one. I don't buy this equipment "failure", it's baloney. Amazing that they fail only in cold.


Edited by Kino (17/08/2017 18:37)

Top
#1431021 - 17/08/2017 18:44 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Rhetorical about science? Ok. I'll let that one go. Bye.


Stop being precious. You said "Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not'.

The questions I pose go to that statement. So, yes they are rhetorical because clearly you're not the one doing it, are you?

Top
#1431022 - 17/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


Edited by Seira (17/08/2017 18:50)

Top
#1431029 - 17/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

Top
#1431037 - 17/08/2017 20:23 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I love salt on everything he he.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431209 - 18/08/2017 23:05 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

(1) First, which part of what I expressed is “true in theory”?

(2) Secondly, the idea that tens of billions [of dollars I presume], if not more, is “being diverted to a theory” is also a claim for which no supporting evidence has been presented in this thread. I would also wonder what theory (in particular) is being referred to…there are many. I could assume one in particular is meant, however I’d like to hear it from someone else, directly.

(3) Thirdly, if “that’s where the skepticism comes from” – it’s scepticism with a “c” in Australian English, although I admit that’s being a bit pedantic – it is based on idea for which supporting evidence has not yet been provided, as in point (2).

(4) Fourth, the idea “aren’t scientist supposed to be skeptics” assume scepticism (being sceptical) is inherent to the nature of scientific enquiring…which therefore applies to the idea one is sceptical about (the “theory” or theory). This means the supporting evidence validating the veracity of a concrete theory is an equal in counterpoise to scepticism.

(5) Science is about following a method, practice, process, procedure (or what have you) …consistently, thoroughly, and within reason – to the best of our ability. That is how breakthroughs are made or discovered, insights are found, and how our practical knowledge of the world around us improves over time. Sure, mistakes can be made even when giving our all, but that’s human nature. It’s the principle that matters.


Edited by Seira (18/08/2017 23:14)

Top
#1431211 - 18/08/2017 23:44 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

(1) First, which part of what I expressed is “true in theory”?

(2) Secondly, the idea that tens of billions [of dollars I presume], if not more, is “being diverted to a theory” is also a claim for which no supporting evidence has been presented in this thread. I would also wonder what theory (in particular) is being referred to…there are many. I could assume one in particular is meant, however I’d like to hear it from someone else, directly.

(3) Thirdly, if “that’s where the skepticism comes from” – it’s scepticism with a “c” in Australian English, although I admit that’s being a bit pedantic – it is based on idea for which supporting evidence has not yet been provided, as in point (2).

(4) Fourth, the idea “aren’t scientist supposed to be skeptics” assume scepticism (being sceptical) is inherent to the nature of scientific enquiring…which therefore applies to the idea one is sceptical about (the “theory” or theory). This means the supporting evidence validating the veracity of a concrete theory is an equal in counterpoise to scepticism.

(5) Science is about following a method, practice, process, procedure (or what have you) …consistently, thoroughly, and within reason – to the best of our ability. That is how breakthroughs are made or discovered, insights are found, and how our practical knowledge of the world around us improves over time. Sure, mistakes can be made even when giving our all, but that’s human nature. It’s the principle that matters.



Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

2. Are you seriously denying that money is being spent on AGW or whatever it's called now (given it's had a number of name changes...)? One can talk in hyperbole all they like, but the reality is world Govts via Kyoto and now Paris agreeements are spending $$$ on it.

3. Thanks for the spelling bee, want your medal now? Is it "evidence" or "opinion" that's the question. How can one say that's there's "evidence" when many of the claims have been disproven time & time again (Flannery & Gore 2 perfect examples).

4. I'm not even sure what you meant in this point.

5. "Mistakes made...it's the principal that matters". Oh really? So you therefore support Icelands moves to eradicate Down syndrome through aborting of every baby that's identified as a potential carrier? After all, it's the principle that counts isn't it! Don't worry about how we get there, just focus on the outcome. All very Orwellian. That's the whole sticking point with AGW - tweak the data til we get our principle read result.


Edited by Kino (18/08/2017 23:45)

Top
#1431369 - 21/08/2017 16:14 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Why don't people take the [censored] attitude out of this [censored] AGW stuff and actually address the science? It’s not that difficult.

Top
#1431371 - 21/08/2017 16:22 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

Direct me to exactly what you mean if you want smile.


Edited by Seira (21/08/2017 16:27)

Top
#1431372 - 21/08/2017 16:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

Direct me to exactly what you mean if you want smile.


Clearly I can't because you edited it out.

As for "addressing the science" the BIGGEST issue for many is that the science has also been taken out - AGW is based upon:
- altered data (unscientific! whatever the reasons given. The changes aren't public nor explained, hardly transparent)
- That altered data is then fed into a "model", owned and developed by "scientists" who want a warming result, which contains a number of algorithms that are also unknown, unexplained and unproven and refused to be made public (for whatever reason).

That result is then taken as gospel and if anyone dares question it they are labeled "sCeptics" (note the "C") or a "denier" akin to a horrendous insult for past war atrocities. So you wonder WHY there is "ATTITUDE"? #Glasshouses

Top
#1431373 - 21/08/2017 17:08 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Wave Rider Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/01/2014
Posts: 6207
Loc: Wollongong, NSW
The passive aggressive attitude in this thread is cringey.

And Kino, you make some very valid points in your posts above and on the previous page.
_________________________
2016-17 season storm total for here= 15

Oct- 21st
Nov- 9th, 28th
Jan- 24th
Feb- 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th(2)
Mar- 13th, 16th, 22nd
Apr- 9th, 26th
May- 24th

The longer you wait for things, the more you appreciate them.

Top
#1431374 - 21/08/2017 17:09 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7037
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

Direct me to exactly what you mean if you want smile.


Clearly I can't because you edited it out.

Ok, so I made a mistake/edit somewhere along the line. There would have be a reason for it (maybe not relevant to the thread, can't remember)
Originally Posted By: Kino
As for "addressing the science" the BIGGEST issue for many is that the science has also been taken out - AGW is based upon:
- altered data (unscientific! whatever the reasons given. The changes aren't public nor explained, hardly transparent)
- That altered data is then fed into a "model", owned and developed by "scientists" who want a warming result, which contains a number of algorithms that are also unknown, unexplained and unproven and refused to be made public (for whatever reason).

That result is then taken as gospel and if anyone dares question it they are labeled "sCeptics" (note the "C") or a "denier" akin to a horrendous insult for past war atrocities. So you wonder WHY there is "ATTITUDE"? #Glasshouses

My understanding (this is sincere) is the acronym “AGW” has connotations of ideology associated with it because it has been taken out of a scientific context – it is a hypothesis or idea, not a theory. The reason for the name change was because it is now multidisciplinary, not theory but more of an understanding (and an incomplete one at that). Theories are from within; science generates theories.

If people wish to look at the science, starting off by taking about altered/fudged data or the like, means one has to know something about the original data in order to draw that conclusion, which means having sourced the raw data in the first place. So…getting back to the thread topic, has anyone made enquiries about getting the original datasets, and how is one going to determine the veracity of those datasets?

Also I don’t want a medal – I want sincerity and transparency as well smile . I am happy to clarify these issues if I can.

To be quite honest I'm sick of this tangential debate...so bye to it!


Edited by Seira (21/08/2017 17:14)

Top
#1431375 - 21/08/2017 17:17 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
petethemoskeet Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/08/2003
Posts: 1250
Loc: toowoomba
Can anybody give me a reason why the BOM Charlottes pass AWS is no longer used.Remember the -23C recorded there on the 24th June 1994.I would say that some of the low temps we've seen this winter would have given that record a good shake.

Top
#1431417 - 22/08/2017 09:14 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: petethemoskeet]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: petethemoskeet
Can anybody give me a reason why the BOM Charlottes pass AWS is no longer used.Remember the -23C recorded there on the 24th June 1994.I would say that some of the low temps we've seen this winter would have given that record a good shake.


A great question.

Top
#1431472 - 22/08/2017 20:10 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
DerekHV Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 12/02/2010
Posts: 779
Loc: Aberglasslyn (Maitland) NSW
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: petethemoskeet
Can anybody give me a reason why the BOM Charlottes pass AWS is no longer used.Remember the -23C recorded there on the 24th June 1994.I would say that some of the low temps we've seen this winter would have given that record a good shake.


A great question.


I agree, it means the overall Australian record will never be broken again. (as this was clearly the coldest weather station)
It could just be cost cutting, or logistical reasons.
A bit like how they have moved many weather stations to airports, that are clearly a fair way out of town.(this includes Maitland Airport in July last year, where the station was moved 10Ks to the airport)


Edited by DerekHV (22/08/2017 20:11)

Top
#1431480 - 23/08/2017 08:12 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I think Bom ues a very simple over arching methodology these days regarding historical temperature data. All hot temps must be made colder. In order to enhance the notion that things are on the boil in the present. Look out for attempts to question veracity of Oodnadatta record.
The bureau won't be installing any aws in Australia from now on that would challenge the CP cold record. You can take that to the bank. The bom is now primarily a political agency not a scientific one in my opinion.


Edited by Knot (23/08/2017 08:17)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431481 - 23/08/2017 08:16 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Kino Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 683
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Knot
I think Bom ues a very simple over arching methodology these days regarding historical temperatur data. All cold temps must be made warmer and all hot temps must be made colder.
The bureau won't be installing any aws in Australia from now on that would challenge the CP cold record. You can take that to the bank. The bom is now primarily a political agency not a scientific one in my opinion.


Sad to say, but amen.

Top
#1431517 - 23/08/2017 18:57 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@ Kino
hallelujah bro lol




MOD EDIT: Topic locked permanently. The discussion about Goulburn's minimum temperature has strayed too far into the Climate Change debate.


Edited by Seabreeze (23/08/2017 19:31)
Edit Reason: Topic locked
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >


Who's Online
0 registered (), 290 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
batty
Forum Stats
29370 Members
32 Forums
23688 Topics
1462495 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image