Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers (some more)

originally posted by: pavil
If Climate change is such a done deal.......why to we continually hear of massaging of data to to fit the claim? And we only hear of the massaging after it's been uncovered by people? If I were a skeptical person, I'd say making the data fir your assumptions isn't a very sound scientific procedure.

it's the daily caller, they have an agenda.

a reply to: growler

Are you saying the data wasn't manipulated? I'm sure that can be verified one way or the other?

The 90% or the 10%...hmmmm, I think again I will go with the 90%

That's seem very similar to the existential questioning a lemming have to face when his horde decide to jump off cliffs...

a reply to: seasonal

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers.

Not making excuses here, just offering a probable explanation.

The tampering may well be caused by the lack of calibration of the measuring devices. When measuring devices are not calibrated as often as they should be they can give false readings. Dunno by how much the temperatures were changed but its possible that some metering equipment might way off the mark.

Its also likely they are very old and known to be give wild fluctuating readings;

Recent information about viruses getting into speed cameras, it has caused information come to light about the accuracy of speed cameras. This info shows that while speed cameras operators do a filed calibration, the cameras are only tested in a laboratory once a year as per the National Measurements Act.

The information also showed that Windows XP although not updated, is still used to do updates to the speed cameras.

Prudence might suggest that we consider that this similar situation may also exist in the weather meteorology equipment.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: seasonal


In the mean time Earths temp is on the rise. Paris Climate accord only has a 5% chance of making its goal. It doesn't matter what Australia did or did not do. Of coarse those of you who are going to believe the mere 10% of climate scientist who say global warming is not real, or the other 90% who do say its real. The 90% or the 10%...hmmmm, I think again I will go with the 90% Both facts here are your links.

Paris Accord....




www.yahoo.com...


90%

www.vox.com...

Why go along with the crowd ? I believe in the truth . Doesnt have anything to do with percentages .
Where did you get them , anyhow ?
I know. dont answer.

This Daily Caller article is FAKE NEWS. The complaints were FAKE NEWS two years ago, and this latest report is FAKE NEWS now (but then, what, after all, do you expect from the Daily Caller?).

In this latest case, the automatic quality control procedures set in place to capture spurious 'out of place' readings appears to be in error, and the complainers may have a point that the BOM is rather slow in solving the problem.

According to the complainers own blogs, they admit that the BOM has corrected the individual data points that have been drawn to their attention. They also admit that the BOM responded to them quickly with a perfectly reasonable assessment of where the difficulty was. It occurs to me that locating ALL the 'at risk' weather stations and correcting the threshold values is not a trivial job.

I see absolutely no reason to run around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming 'CONSPIRACY' every time a legitimate error in a complicated process is discovered. Sheesh.

Just for reference, since the Daily Caller tries to drag the 'issue' from 2 years ago into the discussion to make it sound like the Australian BOM is corrupting the data on a regular basis in order to mislead, here is the 'issue' from 2 years ago and its explanation: (hint: the only thing scurrilous or misleading about any of it is the accusation against the BOM)

No, the Bureau of Meteorology is not fiddling its weather data

The accusation was that the BOM was using homogenisation to make the Australian figures appear to be warmer than they actually were. In fact, homogenisation most often adjusted the figures to be lower than they were actually recorded.

Data homogenisation techniques are used to varying degrees by many national weather agencies and climate researchers around the world. Although the World Meteorological Organization has guidelines for data homogenisation, the methods used vary from country to country, and in some cases no data homogenisation is applied.

Homogenisation can be necessary for a range of reasons: sometimes stations move, instruments or reporting practices change, or surrounding trees or buildings at a site are altered. Changes can be sudden or gradual. These can all introduce artificial “jumps” (in either direction) in the resulting temperature records. If left uncorrected, these artifacts could leave the data appearing to show spurious warming or cooling trends.

Bottom line:

Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. Cherrypicking weather stations where data have been corrected in a warming direction doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: seasonal


In the mean time Earths temp is on the rise. Paris Climate accord only has a 5% chance of making its goal. It doesn't matter what Australia did or did not do. Of coarse those of you who are going to believe the mere 10% of climate scientist who say global warming is not real, or the other 90% who do say its real. The 90% or the 10%...hmmmm, I think again I will go with the 90% Both facts here are your links.

Paris Accord....




www.yahoo.com...


90%

www.vox.com...

Well one thing is for sure, it certainly not your fault that you are so gullible.

a reply to: kurthall

Then you have to realize that it's not just the Australians who have lied on this. Several other prominent groups have been caught out as well lying about this subject.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: ketsuko

They're just Australians, and we all know Australians are weird.

Ha ha , weird huh . Now take a look at your avatar and get back to me .

Pssst, I was kidding. One of my best buds from college is a kiwi now ... although, come to think of it, he's pretty odd when he has a mind to be.

a reply to: seasonal

You clearly have your own agenda to cast doubt on any notion of AGW.

Your OP source is not reputable, but that does not matter because you and your following of science doubters do not care, anything that strokes your confirmation bias is true in your eyes while you all ignore all the evidence that tells us otherwise.

Once again, you make a sensational post, get a bunch of stars and flags and have several posters applauding the ignorance you post as fact.

a reply to: jrod

Doubters can say what they want when it comes to global warming , it aint going away . I now fish where i used to park my car . Actually now i think about it that is quite convenient .

Unfortunately, the OPs article is from the dailycaller and every time I have ever checked their sources I found they were bullsh!ting their claims and with this article, I can't check its source without paying.

If it can't be verified don't we call it fake news?

Hi all,

Just posting another link on this issue: It's from the Australian. I don't know what they're stance on AGW is.

BoM opens cold case on temperature data

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.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Your link takes me to a pay subscription page.

a reply to: jrod

If the earth had never gone through a warming or cooling trend I would agree with you. But the fact that there has a number of "trusted" orgs caught with their finger on the scale.

My opinion, and everyone has one, is that this is a cyclical pattern.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Strange... Here's another link. It's the first one in the results. From the Australian.

Google search for the article headline

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: kurthall

If the Apollo astronauts had manipulated their evidence, they could have convinced 90% that the moon was made of cheese. Assuming that's what everyone wanted to believe back then.

But it is made (partially) of cheese! Hence the cheddar and gorgonzola mines.

Anyone suggesting otherwise has clearly been manipulating the data .....

a reply to: TheBandit795

So BoM is accused by certain bloggers of manipulating data because it has ordered an investigation after it discovered that some data may have been manipulated ....

On that basis I accuse those who accuse BoM of manipulating data of manipulating data .....

originally posted by: seasonal
Seems like if you don't like a temp, change it, or maybe that is just in Australia?

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

You would have thought that by now the Aussie manipulators could have taken a leaf out of the American temperature gathering agencies, where the ground temperature sites in many..many cases, were simply wrongly sited, and even ignoring the NOAA guidlines and creating heat sink sites, making those sites much warmer than they should have been.
The same thing went on in England where sites outlived their usefulness and should have been moved over hundreds of years, but were not, making them too, much warmer readings, and after that, the modellers started juggling the figures as well.
This whole warming debate needs to be totally overhauled, and needs a fresh start as of now, with workable and sensible infrastructure, and a report back in 20 years!

a reply to: seasonal

I wonder if Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Lincoln Chaffee will now think that tampered numbers are our #1 threat since we were right about AGW all along.