This is a very strange article. The reason the bureau was criticized was because it continued to claim a Cat 5 when all the instruments on the ground recorded much less than that. The bureau is expected to provide accurate unbiased data, yet there is no evidence that a Cat 5 passed through Yeppoon or Rockhampton.

Hear hear Chaz.
Rhrosty.

WTF?

I thank the BOM for their outstanding ability to predict the course and strength of cyclones.

Data is quickly and constantly added to models that increase in sophistication and accuracy every year.

This is real science at work in the real world. I find it inspiring. The tracking of cyclone Nathan is a current example.

Unfortunately while the science of weather forecasting becomes more and more accurate and applicable the Taliban-of-Intelligence has made a number of advances in recent years.

In the USA, for instance, the anti-science movement has become so successful that in the last 20 years the number of adults who believe that natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet has fallen from 45% to only 40%.

This same anti-science movement is work here in Australia where we daily see attacks on science from those who either do not understand it or refuse to accept the consequences of our every-changing understanding of our world.

Well what do you know.

Here we have a gold plated, card carrying, elite member of the bureaucracy, defending that bureaucracy.

Not once does he refer to any evidence to substantiate his defence, just appeals to authority.

Just why these people believe we are all dills, with closed eyes, I really can't imagine, but that is obviously their belief.

Unfortunately for Chas, the Bureau, & the poor buggers in Vanuatu, we now have cyclone Pam, right on the heels of cyclone Marcia. Even blind Freddy can see a massive difference in the effect of both. These, so close together, highlight the rubbish that Marcia was ever a cat 5 or even a 4.

Add in the effects on the Cardwell area of Yasi recently & it is obvious that we can no longer trust the bureau. It is also obvious that Yasi was the strongest of the three to any experienced eye.

I don't care at all if they get things a bit wrong. In the 3 cyclones I have experienced in the Whitsundays they had a bit to quite a bit wrong. Still their warnings & information were invaluable at the time, & did save some damage, & possibly lives.

No we don't mind if they are not perfect, but telling lies, for whatever reason, we damn well do mind. If you get it wrong fellers, admit it, correct the information, tell us what you see as wrong, why, & what you can do about it.

In fact become OUR BOM. Trust us, & tell the truth, & we will support you all the way. Try to hide your stuff-ups, & treat us as mushrooms, & we'll come gunning for you with every bit of ammunition nature keeps providing for us.

Oh & stop dills from the gold plated bureaucracy being apologists for your failures. It is not a good look.

I agree with Wattle, the author has misread the nature of Jennifer’s criticism. No-one expects weather forecasters to have a perfect record. Rather, the issues are:

1. The Bureau continued to describe the cyclone as Category 5 during and after the event even though evidence on the ground suggested it was considerably weaker. Such inflation may be dangerous because, when a real Category 5 arrives, residents and authorities will be underprepared if they expect conditions similar to Marcia; and

2. This is part of a systemic pattern of the Bureau manipulating data to make the weather record appear to correspond more closely to the narrative of human activities causing temperatures to rise resulting in more frequent and severe extreme weather events such as cyclones. Other instances are “normalisation” of historical temperature records that make the past appear cooler than the contemporary temperature records showed.

The first point seems pretty straightforward; the second is more contentious and debatable.

Appealing for the Bureau to be given “the benefit of the doubt” would be fine if all they are accused of is a forecasting error. But evidence of systemic data manipulation is a more serious matter, and deserves a more serious response.

Rhian,
Why do you expect us to accept your assertion that the BOM is manipulating data?
Weather forecasting is still an imprecise science, yet getting better as more facts are discovered, tested, then given a bearing on predictions of outcomes.

You seem to be supporting the idea that weather scientists are manipulating historic and current data to change the defining parameters of meteorological activity.
Why would they do that? Wouldn't they just be kidding themselves?

I suggest that what they are doing may not be giving accurate predictions all the time, but is still a damm sight better than sticking a wet finger in the air and guessing.

Predictions and forecasts of all impending events, weather-related or man-made, need to be absorbed in an attitude of informed querying, otherwise we are merely wishful supplicants.