Sometimes it does look as though BoM has a hard sell on its hands. For example on ABC Landline it pointed to unusual warmth for SE Australia on Sept 14. See 1.22 into
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2015/s4320309.htm
Never mind the fact it has been cool the rest of the month.

However I accept the conclusion there is an overall warming trend and that we should prepare for bad outcomes. BoM tells us that a year worse than 1998 will happen and I believe it, whether it is 2015 or some other year. The fact this winter was unusually cold I take to be a sign that something is awry with the climate.

No, there is no warming trend. Hasn't been for 18 years and eight months.

The warming scare began in the mid-1970s, when the previous "cooling trend" scare became untenable. It lasted only until the late 1990s. The promoters of anthropogenic global warming didn't predict the current period of slight cooling. Thus BoM's attempts to "adjust" - ever upwards - the temperature record.

And the many thousands of predictions of various forms of catastrophe, large and small, have failed to eventuate.

You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to recognise that the whole confection has been a scam.

The BoM is a discgracefully inept department that cannot get the daily weather forecast right far too often. It certainly has to be ignored in matters of climate change, as does Minister Hunt, who will be able to now fully reveal his Left wing warmist beliefs under fellow Left wing warmist fool, Malcolm Turnbull.

Greg Hunt killed the review because it was politically motivated.
As the author knows it easy to spread doubt with laymen. As the authors knows the temp data maintained by the ABM, follows best practices methods and is reviewed by its peers.

Anthony Sharwood was correct in asking the Author about motivations. The fact that the Author has pointed to so called climate-gate is telling.

One of tactics of skeptical interest groups is to put up endless requests for data. This is a tactic for example used by anti-evolutionist asking government uni's to present their data . It takes time a resources to put the information together and when you know that the group your sending the data to, will not actually use it eventually you star saying no. This is essentially what climate-gate was about.

To the author the paper you link to is unfortunately behind a pay wall, so T haven't read. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a good understand data analysis. I also know to use methods that have strong support by peers in the industry.

In the academic world I guess that would equate to how many times your paper has been cited, are you able to tell us if any groups have cited your paper to "improve" their temp data cleaning methods.

Cobber (Part 1).

I've published lots of examples showing that what the BoM actually do when they 'adjust' is not consistent with their own policies. Much of this is at my website www.jennifermarohasy.com . It is not rocket science, try working through an example at one of my recent blog posts.

Then there are my publications, the one you refer to does not detail a new methodology. But I start this process in a book chapter to be published next year by Elsevier.

The book chapter ran to more than 7,000 words, so I had to delete the final 11 recommendations. I am going to have to incorporate these into a new publication, but I will list some here.

... Except when I just tried to, I'm again up against a word limit. So, I shall have to make this two posts...

Cobber (Part 2)

My first two recommendations, that refer to the content of the upcoming book chapter...

1. Acknowledge that datasets currently used worldwide to report climate variability and change are not intended to be accurate historical representations. Rather these datasets are weighted means based on remodeled approximations, with the objective of demonstrating global warming as a simple linear trend. Adjustments made to individual temperature series, for example the Deniliquin ACORN-SAT record, are propagated backwards in time, Figure 11. This is a different category of change to correcting for outliers caused by transcription errors, etcetera, and should not be confused with traditional quality control.

2. Acknowledge that the current tendency to report temperature change as a single linear trend, generally reported as a change in degrees Celsius per century, is unlikely to provide an accurate description of climate variability and change. This is because temperature series worldwide show distinct cycles of warming and cooling at shorter intervals. For example, the maximum temperature series for Echuca on the Murray River shows four distinct cycles of 26, 21, 21 and 25 years duration, respectively, since 1914, Figure 8. These cycles correspond with years of drought and flood which are broadly synchronous with changes in temperature patterns across the Pacific Ocean...

More to come. Consider subscribing for my updates at my website.

And thanks for taking an interest.

If the undertakings given by the romantics to the rationalists; maintaining the existing approach toCO2 emissions to secure their support of the assassination, the rationalists should be at least a little concerned.

Because of the comments and demeanour of the Environment Minister Greg Hunt – firmly on the alarmist side of the ledger.

Firstly, why the necessity to boast that it was he who convinced the government not to investigate of the Bureau of Meteorology “adjustments” to the historical temperature record which to be generous, have not been well explained?

Is Hunt attempting to court favour with his fellow alarmists, soothe the offended bureaucrats at BOM or something else?

Secondly, isn’t there are a shred of concern from a party who expresses an appreciation of our current financial position, that the billions of dollars committed to changing the temperature,; should have a demonstrably scientific basis in terms verifiable scientific data?

BOM’s adjustments can reasonably give rise to suspicions when their effect is to reverse the contradiction between the observed temperature data and the models – the pause – at a time when it’s becoming particularly difficult for the alarmists to pretend it doesn’t exist.

It might well be that the adjustments can all be properly rationalised and the timing is coincidental.

If so, what’s the problem?

Why this this constant hysteria at the mere mention of the observed data?

Surely warmies and their propagandists in the establishment media, would relish an opportunity to rub the sceptics noses in a finding which validates an alarmist position?

Not a costly exercise financially – particularly comparable to what we are and will spend on this alleged future disaster.

It all just seems a little strange to me.

Thanks Jennifer, a great article. Ironically, the BOM are probably cutting their own throats. Your analogy of pedophilia and the church is very appropriate.

I have been following this with interest for sometime.
I do not know whether a Royal Commission would be the best body to take
all this apart, but we have Royal Commissions and other types of enquiries
where a lot less money is at stake. It is not billions that will be
spent on global warming but over some years TRILLIONS !
If we do not get it right it will send us stoney broke.
It likely will send us broke if we do get it right !

My particular concern is that we need to urgently find a new energy
system no matter what happens with temperature.

Jennifer frankly I could not care less whether the data for Rutherglen is a bit iffy. The fact that globe has lost so much ice over the past 40 years, and particularly the last 10 years, should be clear enough evidence for even the most die hard skeptic that the globe warming is real.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer

1. Read this sentence.
"For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures"
2. Looked at author name.
3. Read no further. Denialists just can't get a grip on reality.

Great riposte Mr Green #sarc The Global Warming Trolls used to complain that the skeptics (what you term deniers) weren't publishing in the peer reviewed literature. The assumptions were that they weren't good enough to do science, and that the peer review literature was always right.

Now you have an author who is skeptical and has published her skepticism in the peer reviewed literature, and all you can do is sneer.

How about you engage?

Actually Graham, that's your narrative. There are actually no such assumptions about peer-reviewed literature.

Noone for a second believes that peer reviewed literature is always right. I cannot possibly be. But it does have an element of quality filtering before being published which other forms of publication do not.

Of course people who don't publish in peer reviewed literature are good enough to do science, however publication on non-peer reviewed scientific media is not science, nor does it have a scientific purpose, nor can it reasonably be used in scientific discussion.

Publication in non-peer reviewed literature is mostly either for entertainment educational or political purposes. Most 'skeptic' literature I would put in the last category.

As for Marohasy, I know her history and her publication record. She's a good critic, but not a great scientist.

>>How about you engage?<<
When there's something worth engaging, I will. At the moment it's like asking me to engage with Aliens at Area 51 or the Moon Landing being faked.

So the anti comments are basically ad hominem. Uhuh.

Corrupt science conceals the data and methods. Honest ones publish it.

And those who obstruct transparency by using political power to interfere with audits are - what? The conclusion is obvious.

Max and Warm Air,

What is happened is that the dept of Meteorology (DOM) publishes raw data, then produced a "homogenized" set of data that appears to give significantly different trending from the raw data with little to no explanation. Given the hugely political nature of the results, this unilateral action might well be justified, but certainly merits a detailed explanation of the reasons for this manipulation of data with solid scientific reasons.

While I believe that global warming is large man made, given the vast complexity of climate science, (and having a science background) I would be hugely surprised if the margin of error in predictions was less than 50%.

It is therefore with some disdain that I view the attitude of many greens that the IPCC has descended from mountains with the climate models carved in stone. (usually the same greenies suffer from a complete lack of science training), and the reason for the failure to engage is more because WA and MG can't.

Just out of interest ChrisPer, in a choice between:

1) a publicly funded scientist that obtains funding through rigorous competitive granting schemes

or

2)a privately funded scientist who obtains direct funding through a private Discretionary Investment Trust

which of these examples would most likely produce 'corrupt' science?

Which of these scientists do you think would be more likely to produce results/publications that would potentially be used for political gain?

Anyway, that's just an academic exercise anyway. Pay no attention to it.

Someone should tell Jennifer to google "Sophistical" though. An exceptionally ironic (Fruedian slip?) use of the word on her climate lab homepage. http://climatelab.com.au/

Bugsy, your are right, your comparison is foolish.

Who is going to report results that dry up a river of money that all their colleagues livings depend on?

We in other privately funded scientific disciplines do that all the time, when we cannot justify the expenditure for rewards. Negative results are important results. Publicly funded bodies on the other hand apparently develop a different mindset.

In any case, the snide ad hominems above are just the quality of discussion we expect from unshakable believers.

My expectations of climate science have been repeatedly proven right over the years; and the public can judge them by integrity of the arguments and tactics they use

And who would the 'they' be in that last sentence Chris?

What privately funded science do you do?

I think I might like to get in on that action.

//My expectations of climate science have been repeatedly proven right over the years; and the public can judge them by integrity of the arguments and tactics they use//

Like "There hasn't been any warming since 1998", a record El Nino year.

Like "Temperatures precede CO2 changes by 800 years in the ice-age cycle!" as if climatologists didn't already *know* this, and hadn't already measured out the fact that Milankovitch cycles alone were not enough to account for about 40% of the warming when coming out of an ice age or cooling when going into one. CO2 trapped under ice sheets took the temperatures down lower in the heart of an ice age by 40%!

Like "It's the sun" when solar activity has been pretty standard for a long time while the climate warms.

Like "We don't know where the heat goes" when it's going into the oceans and getting burped back up in ever worse El Nino's.

Like all the other cliche pet topics that 'climate sceptics' (too kind a term) have loaded in their "Forum Gun" and just blurt them out, and whenever the peer-reviewed data from multiple credible organisations smashes their cherrypicked arguments out of the water, they just abandon argument A and move on to B. When B gets smashed, assert C. Right on through the argument until months later they're back to A and people have logged off from boredom and not recognised this very obvious pattern!

The *only* sceptical argument I have seen with any validity to it was Glaciergate. And for that, I thank them! It shows how even with a vast number of peer-reviewed scientists working together, sometimes some dodgy report can get through. Well done! You did your job! But "there's been no warming since 1998?" Really? Cherrypicking much? Seriously? That old chestnut is still being circulated, even in this thread? Far out. Some people need to get a life.

Jennifer has always reminded me a little of Parallax,

“Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816–1884) was an English inventor and writer who wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe under the pseudonym "Parallax". His work was based on his decade-long studies of the earth and was originally published as a 16-page pamphlet (1849), which he later expanded into a 430-page book (1881). According to Rowbotham's method, which he called Zetetic Astronomy, the earth is an enclosed plane, centered at the North Pole and bounded along its outward edge by a wall of ice, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth.

Like a terrier vigorously attacking the tail of the elephant while the rest of the beast continues to saunder forward.

Jennifer states we know less than half. Thank goodness for that. There is only so much fantasy fiction that can be absorbed.

OK, the Abbott government may have been pushed by The Australian to review BOM; because of articles written by Lloyd in that paper; who got all of his views from Jennifer.

So, this comedy stars only one person - Jennifer, who has no meteorological experience, and only minuscule physics.

It is no wonder that the totality of the science literate community trying to besmirch BOM is, and always has been, one biologist. The question is: why? What is to be gained by attempting to hurt BOM's reputation? The basic science behind global warming was settled in the 1800s. And no fault in that science identified to date. And evidence of global warming impact is found in many, many branches of science. The edifice of scientific knowledge showing the horrendous direction the earth is heading almost leaves global air temperature behind.

I have a reasonably deep understanding of physics. I worked at BOM for12 years, an organisation dedicated to community service and highly professional in their work; spent a year at Mawson. I have enjoyed decades of adventure in the mountains, here and overseas.

I am exceptionally frightened by the environment we are taking our planet and home towards.

The world is chaotically moving towards keeping temperature rise to 2C.

BUT, climate scientists believe 2C is catastrophically too high.

Of course I am frightened.

To Shadow Minister,
To correct the record,
the unhomogenised data shows slightly more warming than the homogenised data does.
This sort of leaves a large sink hole under Jennifer's nefarious claims.

Tony,

All the articles I have seen have stated that the homogenized data shows increased warming. If you have data showing otherwise, please point me in that direction.

Try this

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Tony,

I asked for data not a warm and fuzzy explanation in a left wing blog.

The point that Jennifer was making is that there were sites that have not moved nor changed their equipment whose data has been altered. The article you linked does not explain this.

It's a conspiracy, maaaan.
Of the guv-ern-ment, maaaaaan!

Then they'll try and take our guns, and then where will we be, maaaaaan?

Dear Shadow,
Many, many months ago the issue of Rutherglen was fully addresses. All of Jennifer's views totally rebutted. There is no value in repeating all that was said. If you are unable to chase through URLs in the referenced paper, there is nothing I can do to help you. The Conversation is published by a consortia of Universities. Originated in Australia, it now has publishing groups in th US and other countries. I gather that by calling such a group left wing, you are avidly anti science, and incapable of reviewing any data that could be provided.

By the way, you can access it yourself at the Bureau site.

It is pleasing to note that Jennifer has lost her university cloak and has returned to home, at the IPA, where anti science is the preferred religion.

You may have noticed a substantial downward trend in the number of denialists remaining. Which is a little sad, as the long lived ones, like Jennifer keep on repeating the same myths. Jenn had many supporters in the earlier discussions on Rutherglen. But exceptionally few supporters for this current fictional piece.

I like to think it was her University that removed her cosy spot, but I don't know. It may be that her sponsor was getting little return for money spent.

Dear Shadow, Jennifer, the IPA and others,

believe in the almighty role the free market plays in all of our lives. They follow the tenants first articulated by the Marshall Institute in the US.

If there is any science which, if accepted by Govt, requires additional govt regulation, then try to trash that science. But, not through knowledge of the science, but by trashing the reputation of scientists. Via this approach, the Marshall Institute manage to delay for decades the formal acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer. And probably thousands of premature deaths caused.

That modus operandi seems to me to be Jennifer's marching orders. Trash the Bureaus scientists without attempting to understand the science. As with the cancer smoking matters, such climate change denialists will not be looked upon kindly by history. Jennifer's actions possibly pivotal in leading Abbott astray.

Thank goodness Turnbull is intelligent (fingers crossed)

These recent exchanges show why the whole AGW thing is has very negative
effects on the country.
The point is it does not matter whether AGW is true or not !
It will not make the slightest difference.

THE FUEL IS NOT THERE AT ANY COST TO CAUSE AGW !

Hi Bazz – I am assuming from your last post that you do not understand how we are warming the planet. Here is a very simple explanation. Consider three simple questions:

1. Why do you breathe?
2. Why is the sky blue?
3. Why does our earth not freeze during the night?

Breathing: you essentially breathe in to get oxygen into your body where it combines with carbon that is in all of the food that you eat. When oxygen and carbon combine, it releases much energy – that your body needs. In doing this, it creates carbon dioxide, CO2, which you breathe out.

Nearly all of the energy the world needs comes from the relatively simple process of creating CO2 – generating electricity, burning fuel in cars, planes and other transport, and much more.

Blue sky: the sky is blue because air molecules in the sky capture some of the blue light coming from the sun, then immediately releases that light – in all directions. So the sky is blue. Other colours in sunlight are not affected by the air, and so green and other colours come directly to us, in a straight line from the sun

Not freezing: the earth does not freeze at night time because the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere captures some of the heat trying to escape, and then sends it in all directions. Some of that heat comes back to the earth.

CONTINUES IN NEXT POST

Bazz - PART 2

So, carbon dioxide forms a blanket helping to keep the world warm.

We measure the amount of CO2 in the air.

We can also measure what was in the air many years ago. Air is captured when snow falls. The Russians drilled a 3 kilometre long core from the Antarctic some time ago. It shows the amount of CO2 in the air for the past 800,000 years.

During the many ice ages in that period, the amount of CO2 in the air oscillated between 100 parts per million (during the coldest phases), to 290 parts per million during warm periods. So, no more than 290 parts per million for 800,000 years.

Today it is 400 parts per million – first time for 800,000 years. And CO2 is part of the earth’s blanket.

Of course we are getting warmer – because the earth and its growing population is consuming more and more energy by burning fossil fuels to create that CO2 – and to get energy. All the time creating a thicker blanket to warm the earth further.

Absolutely the earth is warming - and we are causing it, and the science behind this greenhouse effect was known by the year 1900.

It is not very comforting to know what we are doing to this planet.

Tony153, you seem to inhabit a different reality, where the IPCC have not demonstrated that theCo2 science from the laboratory does not work in real life, or at least not the way that they apply it through their computer models.Tthe elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere, asserted without justification, to be human caused,does not cause the temperature rise which they calculated. You also perceive“. The edifice of scientific knowledge showing the horrendous direction the earth is heading almost leaves global air temperature behind”, but you can reference no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. You cannot explain why the “science” to which you refer, when applied by the IPCC, does not work, and in the face of their predictions of warming, which they baselessly attribute to human emissions, global warming stopped almost 19 years ago
You are in a bad way Tony. What you see as reality does not exist. Is there any substance abuse involved?. You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be.
If the reputation of the BOM is damaged, it is by the conduct of the BOM. The aim is to stop them lying about our climate.

Hey Leo,
the IPCC does too track with reality so nyer nyer de nyer yer!

(That's about the quality of your baseless dogma-driven assertions without any link to credible sources for credible data for credible arguments. I just thought I would reply in kind so you know how puerile it all sounds).

Max, I have backed what I say with references. You will not read them, but denial that I gave them is dishonest. You do not have to continually demonstrate your dishonesty, you have satisfied us on that. Anyway, here is another reference:
“Per NOAA, the U.S. warming pause (aka the 'Hiatus') has now achieved a 19-year stall (see adjacent chart). In fact, a slight cooling has been the trend over this period.
Remember the predicted global warming by experts? The same "experts" who predicted that hurricanes would becomestronger and more frequent as a result of the global warming - which also did not happen.
As the empirical climate datasets reveal, the predicted global warming has amounted to about nil for close to two decades. And because of this, the global warming scientists recently resorted to exceptional fabrications of temperature datasets to produce "warming" that disappears the pause”
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

I know that you have no science to support your assertions, but posting nonsense, like you have, will not distract us from that fact.

Tony 153, I will assume you did not understand my post.
Let me put it again;

Because of the rising cost of extracting oil & coal there is not as
much oil & coal that we thought we will be able to burn.
The IPCC took this into account but their quantities have not been
adjusted to realistic values.

The oil companies are already in a bind. Their return on funds invested
in exploration and development are now very poor.
These costs are the cause of declining demand.
The oil companies are currently selling assets to pay dividends.
Shell sold its holdings in Woodside for that reason.
I notice that their drilling operation in Alaska has failed and they
are pulling out because the quantity of oil found cannot give a return.
Most of the majors are in the same boat.
Returns are less than costs. They increased expenditure to $trillions
in a desperate search for cheap oil.
All they are getting is expensive oil the economy has rejected.

The situation with coal is different. Many coal fields around the
world are now into expensive seams of coal. In the US most of the
cheap coal has been mined and power station are changing to gas.
Australia is in a better position. We will need our oil & coal to
build whatever is our next energy system, but it is certain it will
not be wind & solar excepting miracle developments.

So we have to leave oil & coal before they leave us.

It does not matter whether AGW is true or not.
It is the wrong argument !

Tony, Greens, CFMEU, Scientologists, and others,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-records-contradict-bureau-of-meteorology/story-e6frg6xf-1227037936046?sv=fa17786900e7b252d4c06a48f2c99577

From what you write, it is clear that I have a stronger scientific background than you have. Science is not a religion that you "believe in". If you investigate a topic using rigorous scientific methods you can produce results and conclusions that have credibility.

However, one of the corner stones of the the scientific method is the sanctity of data. Modifying data is a sure way to destroy one's credibility and career, and is not done without serious justification such as new equipment or siting. If as the above article alleges the data at Rutherglen was modified without justification, this is a serious indictment.

The moment that you start labeling everyone that does not completely agree with you as anti science, denialists etc and start talking about CO2 blankets you have lost any credibility and sound like yet another scientifically illiterate greenie.

Leo,
Bob Tisdale? Are you for real? Denialist Eco-chamber much?
Here's what the real science says: not that you'll read it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=57&p=3

Shadow,
I am pleased to note your physics qualifications.

So you do fully understand the processes leading to warming of our planet.

This leaves the obvious question: WHY are you arguing against action?

On homogenisation:

How would you process a set of temperature data with current data measured in degrees C and earlier data measured in degrees F? Would you homogenise to one type of measurement? I guess not.

If you replace a manual temperature recording instrument with a fully electronic one, and the latter shows the manual system was 0.5F out for earlier decades I guess you recommend using the inaccurate data.

Further discussions with you of no value.

Bazz,
In our free market, carbon / oil prices are collapsing because of decreasing demand.

Costs are not constraining demand. Lower growth and booming solar and wind installations are reducing demand.

See URL for this quote: “only 20% of total fossil fuel reserves can be burnt to 2050”

http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf

Detailed plans already drawn up to convert Australian electricity generation to wind and solar over 10 years (produced in 2010)

http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf

It is exciting that oil / coal businesses are really feeling financial stress.

May it get worse!

Leo,
CO2-as-a-planet-greenhouse-gas science demonstrated/validated in the 1800s

IPCC does not "DO" science. It summarizes science done around the world.

Taswegian:
Global warming impacting minimum temperatures more than highest daily temperatures. Cold winter accompanied by low rainfall – hence rash of current fires in Tasmania and Victoria

Calwest
NASA measures heat into the earth from the sun, and heat escaping. Would normally expect inputs to equal outputs over a year. NASA shows about 1 watt per square meter less heat going out – absolutely leads to warming. Most of excess heat goes into oceans – partly driving very strong El Nino this coming summer. Warming trends over last 18 years easily detected and commented on.

ttbn:
Absolute rubbish you write. I guarantee you review the forecast every day – without complaint

Jennifer: you are obviously constrained to push your untested views. Of course historical records are retained – and so are homogenised records. Single linear trend is nonsense. There will be highest temp trends, lowest temp trends, error trends and more. Take time off to learn. Why, if the worlds set of meteorological organisations all accept rising temperatures, what keeps you mired in Rutherglen?

DionysusOz
Jennifer is the only person originating concerns about BOM. Ridiculous to spend millions on her personal views – strange though they are.

Wattle
Only Jenn would see meteorological science in church matters. Should I laugh or cry?

Graham
I could not find evidence that Jennifer’s articles were peer reviewed. And could find few if any citations.

The stay on this post has been fun. Time to go and do something useful.

OH: and skeptics learn, denialists don't.

AND, another AGW caused extinction is racing towards us: denialists are disappearing into a black whole

Toni 153, you make the irrelevant comment that the IPCC does not do science.

It publishes science of its selection in its summaries, so when I say IPCC computer models, I mean computer models of which the IPCC have published results.They are responsible for the failed science, because they have adopted it by publishing it.
You can see that, but when you have no science to support your position, being a troll posting irrelevancies is the best you can do. The IPCC has shown that the science on which they rely does not support the baseless AGW assertion, so whatever you say was proved in the laboratory in the 1800s, is not proving the IPCC’s crap now. So we finally see that the science is falsified, or that the climategate miscreants applying it for the IPCC are incompetent.
There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so it is only your dishonesty which supports your assertion of human caused global warming. There is no science to support your position.

Tony 153 said;
In our free market, carbon / oil prices are collapsing because of decreasing demand.

Costs are not constraining demand.

Ahh yes that illustrates that you do not understand what happened.
It was the high prices in the $90+ area that depressed the economy as
it could not be afforded. As demand fell the tight oil which had hidden
the decline was becoming unwanted by refineries and depressed the
prices. Some industries had no choice but to pay the higher prices, but
the majority cut back by buying smaller cars and shipping freight by rail etc etc.
There has been what looks like a permanent reduction in demand.

Tight shale oil peaked in the first months of this year and as
conventional crude oil peaked back in 2005 it will be like a magician
taking the cloth from over his mystery and we will find that there
is nothing there.
Goldilocks is dead ! there is no just right price.

The closure of the tight oil companies together with their
bankruptcies will it appears keep prices low. These volatile oil
prices were predicted back in the 1990s by that group of oilfield
engineers and geologists.
They predicted a few cycles of high & low prices, but I think the
problems with world debt and tight shale oil companies needing more
funds from nervous Wall St financiers may mean no further cycles.
That will be very interesting to watch.

Everything you see going on now, debt crisis, high then low oil price
natural gas projects are all a scramble because peak crude oil occurred in 2005.
Just because the politicians, the oil companies, the banks and those
like yourself do not believe it does not change the fact that money cannot make oil.

Tony,

Firstly, I haven't been arguing against climate change which if you had actually read my posts you would have realized.

Secondly temperature is temperature, and the scales are completely interchangeable between Fahrenheit, Celsius or even Kelvin, and the change between the scales is not homogenization, which if you had even the vaguest inkling of science you would know.

It is typical, the most ignorant are the most vocal and abusive. It is a waste of my time stooping to your level.

OK Shadow,
You obviously want to go deeper than that very simple example of homogenisation.

Try your knowledge on this 100 page plus article.
What in it do you believe is not correct process? Which of the many reasons for homogenisation do you not support? And, on what science do base your opinions?

http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf

The only way I can sense your attitude towards AGW is your attack on BOM - your activity is that of a denialist. Perhaps there might be a better word - do know of one?

Perhaps we can use the phrase "stealth denislist", coined by the Royal Society for the Arts in the UK. Stealth Denialists are those who profess to understand / agree with AGW science, but do nothing about it.

Temperature is not temperature! Length of a mercury column might be used as a proxy for temperature. Bimetallic devices, infrared sensors and many more. They all attempt to measure the average kinetic energy of molecules in the air, for example.

Seeing as you do believe in AGW, what average global temp increase are we headed for? And what are the impacts if we all do nothing to prevent that increase? What action should the world take?

Have fun

I guess we need to come to a conclusion that nature is committing fraud. Glaciers are retreating with only a few extending; the surface ice on Greenland is melting, with the melt water being taken into moulins by rivers; Barrow in Alaska was hit by 11-13 foot waves weeks ago as there was no protection from sea ice; some pingos have exploded; and permafrost is thawing. A heightened temperature is usually associated with these eventualities.

Temperature of sea water off Maria Island is being monitored by UTAS, they're measurements must be wrong as they showing an increase in water temperature. Fish that normally reside in waters much further North have apparently become disorientated as they have been found off the East Coast of Tasmania for a number of years. Tasmania's fire season has just begun months in advance of usual. Nature is committing fraud as these kind of happenings only occur with heightened temperature.

Having been involved in outdoor activities for forty five+ years which creates the need to keep tabs on weather forecasts before going out, I'm very happy with BoMs accuracy.

The point of my comment is to say that you do not need a thermometer to show that the climate is changing.
Those who are skeptical or deny climate change use every device possible to imply man created climate change is not happening.

Hi Ant,
not to mention seasons changing, and various bugs hatching before the leaves they rely on have sprouted for them to eat, and all manner of things are out of whack.

Yep, something's up, and this has been known for a while.

As Physics Today says:

"Not that climate change itself had been ignored; even the general public paid attention to that. By the late 1930’s it was common knowledge that the world had been warming up. Grandfathers were saying that the younger generation had it easy: none of those early frosts and daunting blizzards of bygone times. And in fact, as one magazine put it in 1951, “The old-timers are right-winters arent’ what they were.” The evidence was largely anecdotal. Rivers failed to freeze over as formerly, glaciers retreated, and fish were found north of their former haunts. But detailed analysis of temperature statistics also seemed undeniably to show a rise…

Nobody was worried…

…By the early 1960’s much had changed. Many scientists had become seriously concerned that warming might be no mere phase of a modest natural cycle but the onset of an accelerating climb, unprecedented and foreboding."
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Catastrophic climate change was becoming mainstream science, as this Bell Telephone company Science Hour show from 1958 demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

On 6 October 2015 at 10:42:26 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:

23,892,208 - and these figures have now gone up based upon:

1. The estimated resident population at 31 March 2015 and assumes growth since then of:

One birth every 1 minute and 46 seconds, one death every 3 minutes and 23 seconds, a net gain of one international migration every 2 minutes and 37 seconds, leading to an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 32 seconds.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

All of these people, along with the existing population in Australia and worldwide are having a very serious environmental impact, and countries like Australia, have a very high ecological footprint.

Many are now expressing concern that there is too much focus on climate change/or whatever term a person uses (alone) and not enough focus on environmental problems across the board - that is made worse by an increasing population - and yes the majority will not change their "buy, use and throw away" lifestyle in financially well off countries like Australia.

With rubbish and waste I recently bought recycled pegs - some didn't even last a week and I threw them in the rubbish bin, Australia across the board is using too much water from the River Murray, rare bird species are dying due to taking in small toxic pieces of plastic off Australia's coastline and then there are impacts of urban sprawl on farmland, deforestation and permanent land damage caused by mining.

Tony,

I wonder what deep personal insecurity drives you to try and label negatively anyone that is not in lock step with your opinions? First you call me anti science until you realise that I am probably the only one on the site with any science background. Next we have "stealth denialist" coined by collection of scientific ignoramuses. I have openly stated that I understand the concepts behind AGW and that this is largely due to the activities of mankind. However, only an idiot would believe that climate science is exact, that effects and consequences of CO2 emissions are fully understood, and that there is only one way to tackle the problem.

As for the harmogenization of information, I have clearly stated that I understand the principles and need for it, however, I also understand that the manipulation of raw data is something that if not done carefully has the potential to strip any analysis/results of credibility. With this in mind, and given the political sensitivity and prominence of the issue in the media, the process of harmogenization needs to be handled with openness and full disclosure, as only a few poorly done harmogenizations will give critics all the ammunition they need to trash the outcomes.

Rutherglen appears to be a prime example of just this, and no one with any scientific background would be in any doubt as the seriousness of this.

Jeez, SM blow your own trumpet much?

You are certainly NOT the only one on this site with any science background, and from what I have read of your material, yours must be pretty thin.

I have read that has been claimed by the BOM that they have documentary evidence that the Rutherglen site was not in the place where it is now and that they detected a jump/break in the data series around the 1970s that would explain this.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

Marohasy says that there are no documented site moves.

Hmm, who to believe?

Also, the raw data is freely accessible, otherwise Marohasy wouldn't have been able to access it right? So the integrity of the raw data is not in question,but the actual analysis of temperature trends, which of course require that homogenisation be done to get an accurate signal from noise.

Your little puns betray that you are not neutral on this matter, and that the integrity of the data is actually not your primary concern.

Shadow,
Just this one point: "stealth denialist" coined by the Royal Society for the Arts (RSA).
So, people along way from the realms of science understand the societal problems in getting society to move quickly.

Let me get this straight, the earlier Rutherglen minimum temperatures were adjusted down which gives a warming trend yet the earlier maximum temperatures were adjusted up which produces a cooling trend, but the focus is on the first because this produces the best fodder for those who think there is a conspiracy occurring.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjustment-summary-Rutherglen.pdf

In fact nowhere in Jennifer's article or her blog does she mention the maximum temperature adjustment. Doesn't fit the narrative?

In Olbost they did the opposite;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjustment-summary-Orbost.pdf

Why not a song and dance over it?

Cherry picking delight.

Steele, putting it another way in relation to climate, we are told by climate scientists that warmer atmosphere and oceans increases evaporation.

Here is a quote from a Meteorologist working for a Insurance company:

"Meteorologist Steve Bowen told USA Today that the fact that the flooding in South Carolina was the sixth “1-in-1,000 year” rain event since 2010 was unprecedented. That term means that the event had a 0.1 percent likelihood of occurring in any given year."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/07/3709459/south-carolina-flooding-impacts/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&elq=8e0dc11c6b5540dcb4b434679c95ea45&elqCampaignId=4032&elqaid=27502&elqat=1&elqTrackId=9a13355fb64348128760e67267df4e3a

It's a big jump to not take into consideration extra warming of oceans and atmosphere when such statistics are presented.

Every graph I have seen where temperature has been processed shows the processed temperature to be ever so slightly below the measured temperature. But, the trend line shows a continuing upward movement.
The Pacific, North Atlantic and Indian Oceans are showing that the hiatus has been a nonsense; they have been belching up lots of warmth. In relative terms the Southern Ocean is also showing warm signs through undermining of the Totem Ice Sheet.

https://youtu.be/qQEXRF3Y52g