The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > You don't know the half of it: temperature adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology > Comments

You don't know the half of it: temperature adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 28/9/2015

The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognized as a 'dam release flood', and the subject of a class action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 October 2015 5:24:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 5 October 2015 9:30:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Tony153, Monday, 5 October 2015 3:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Tony153, Monday, 5 October 2015 4:12:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 5 October 2015 4:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 5 October 2015 5:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy