Neville Nicholls and Sophie Lewis are striking back at George Christensen, MP, who accused the BOM of “wiping” the official records of heat waves in 1896 and demanded an inquiry. For some reason, despite their world class work, Nicholls and Lewis still don’t seem keen on having an inquiry — so they go to some length to explain why it’s “false” to say it was hotter in 1896 than it was in 2013. Oddly though, to come to this conclusion they don’t use BOM work, because the BOM concluded “it would be very difficult to compare the 19th-century temperature data with modern observations.” Instead that difficult task was done by Berkley. Nichols calls it “brave”, but a “fact” at the same time.
In their long article, what they don’t explain is why they almost never mention any of the hundreds of ultra hot historic temperatures in their press releases and national news. George was “wrong”, and that’s a “fact” we’re told, but most of their article on The Conversation explains why we don’t know what the temperature was in 1896. Try not to get confused.
That old data is dodgy see — I’ll paraphrase:
- Satellites agree with the BOM. (Seriously, this is their first point). Apparently Nichols and Lewis expect that the gloss of this fabulous scientific achievement, which occurs after 1979, will glow all the way back to 1896. It rather ignores the fact that the biggest BOM adjustments occur to the oldest records. (I marvel that the BOM has discovered UAH and RSS. When those same satellites didn’t agree with the BOM’s “hottest” ever records, no one at the BOM seemed to know they existed.)
- Not all thermometers were Stevenson screens in 1896, therefore none of the early readings count. The presence of non-standardized records renders the others useless. Who knew?
- Since some thermometers were older types called Glaisher or Greenwich Screens, their data is unusable, even though there are decades of temperatures comparing the two types of screens and they are remarkably similar.
- Even though Stevenson screens were installed across Australia between 1880 – 1910, since they were new (ahem), they were likely to be warped and cracked, and therefore not acceptable. After that date they were better maintained (except they still needed a lot of downward adjustment).
There is a lot of data comparing older screens to newer ones. As Nicholls and Lewis mention:
The results of this 61-year experiment show that summer daytime temperatures measured using the Glaisher Stand are, on average, 1C warmer than in the Stevenson Screen.
Is it really beyond the power of the BOM to subtract 1 C from the old readings? They don’t seem to have any trouble subtracting 2C from the newer and better Stevenson screens. (Heck even 50C can vanish.)
As far as the claims of hiding things goes, the BOM carve it both ways. While they never mention the older temperatures in polite company, they publish details in graphs and tables on their site and then claim they hide nothing, as if the average person in West Wyalong will listen to the ABC news then check the depths of the climate data online.
I agree that it is a stretch for George Christensen to definitively declare “it was hotter” in 1896. It might have been, but all our surface data, even our current data is such a mess I wouldn’t put a definitive statement on anything. But Nicholls and Lewis are focusing on that, and are doing their best to avoid the real point skeptics are making. It doesn’t really matter whether it was 0.1 degree Celsius hotter or colder in 1896, what matters is that Australians no longer feel they can trust the BOM to give them the whole story about the climate. The BOM exhibit no curiosity about older hotter records, and make no effort to use any of the data — even though some of it can be used to extend some sites and some states back into the hot era of the late 1800’s. That is why skeptics are calling for an inquiry.
The BOM can’t churn out press releases announcing record after record and yet hide the historic heat of the Federation Drought. They slice and dice the permutations of every version of hottest autumn weekend, or warmest winter night since 1953, yet few Australians know that often hotter temperatures were recorded, all across Australia, back in the 1800’s. That too is why skeptics are objecting — the imbalance in the public declarations. The BOM never admit that in some towns and some places it probably was hotter.
See more of the historic heat, strange adjustments well as these other related posts:
- The mysterious lost hot Sunday in Bourke, did it really happen?
- 1953 Headline: Melbourne’s weather is changing! Summers getting colder and wetter
- The lost climate knowledge of Deacon 1952: hot dry summers from 1880-1910
- BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations “might” have moved!
- Wow, look at those BOM adjustments – trends up by two degrees C!
- Climate-trivia headlines and the BoM’s unscientific obession with “hottest ever” records
- Forgotten: Historic hot temperatures recorded with detail and care in Adelaide
- Charles Sturt’s time: so hot that thermometers exploded. Was Australia’s hottest day in 1828? 53.9C!
- Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.
The “non” Conversation have put a lot of comments on their blog into moderation on the grounds that the comments were off topic. More likely their into censorship because their on the losing end of the argument. Also, they refused to publish Jennifer Marohasy’s research.
360
It is quite extraordinary that they will not publish Jennifers article.
Please cut and paste your comments here as well as you post them. We can check to see which ones don’t qualify for The Conversation. I would like to have a list of the comments that get rejected. They may be more useful being rejected than accepted, see the “Barbara Streisand Effect”
*They are publishing Jennifers comments, but not her article even though she has published in the peer review literature on this.
Michael Hopkin , Editor, responds:“The Conversation’s policy when covering climate science is to rely on input from credentialed researchers in the relevant field. We feel this is important in providing readers with reliable information based on quality peer-reviewed research.:”
331
I got this through on the Conversation yesterday – still there this morning.
‘The fact is that January, 1896 was an extreme. For instance, Bourke had a Jan average that year of 43.4C (22 consecutive days of +40.0C).
The highest in recent years has been 40.6C in 2013.
The 1896 temps must have been higher than 2013, even accounting for the difference between the GS and the SS 0f 1.0C as stated in the article.’
No comment made to this as yet.
191
Well to start with – the editor at the Conversation declared:
Jennifer Marohasy has published in the peer reviewed literature in the relevant field yet they won’t publish her reply.
What we are looking for is trends – if in 1880 a station had a thermometer on the back southern shaded veranda for 20 years one can reasonably draw a trend from the data and if all associated sites also show a similar trend and all show higher temps then that data is significant.
They also claim that their authors are unconnected to the BoM so they are not influenced.
Neville Nichols might be a mild mannered Professor today but in 1996 he was the first scientist, along with Simon Torok, to manipulate the climate data to create the father of ACORN SAT the HQ data. Like father, like son.
421
“…based on quality peer-reviewed research”
I never thought that the word “quality” would be turned into a weasel-word.
190
By the word ‘quality’ they mean cherry picked and manipulated to demonstrate more warming than actually happened.
These guys are paid to demonstrate/exaggerate warming trends. So that’s why they are there.
210
In this case it’s a qualifier of the type of peer review that will be accepted.
50
You need to work in QA for a while, there are 2 weasel words in QA, Quality and Assurance.
80
“credentialed researchers” should be read as “we think they are experts and because they are experts they must be correct”.
“quality peer-reviewed research” is a non-starter too. Check almost any journal and you’ll find that the authors of papers are requested to suggest reviewers. Now do you think those authors will suggest people who might be highly critical or might give the paper an easy tick of approval? The Conversation seems gullible enough to think that peer-review means that a paper is correct and that the wider scientific community won’t find fault with it (reminder: Gergi, Karoly et al).
The Conversation assumes that its readers are too dumb to follow Jennifer M’s data and reasoning. What an insult.
170
Nicholls may not be with the BoM now but I was on BoM met course 21 with him in 1971. He went straight into the BoM research branch and was there until the mid 1990s at least. He’ s a long term former BoM employee.
BTW I rate the course as excellent, the BoM’s operational organisation, methods, support and employee welfare as abysmal in the early to mid 1970s.
120
In their alleged search for some sort of perfect non biased and absolutely pure temperatures, the BOM seem to have discarded a great deal of data which would be very useful and it so happens the data discarded or homogenized or ignored seems to fit a pattern of creating temperature alarmism.
If we had temperature records say from the Roman warming period, no matter how recorded or with what device, immense effort would be made to try to recover the valuable data but not for the BOM. They will discard data even if a screen which after all is supposed to be location independent is simply moved. Then if temperature data (and no other data is relevant here) is so very sensitive to precise location, why is data interpolated from hundreds of kilometers away preferable to data from metres away? If the local data showed a downward trend over decades, how can it show an upward trend after homogenization? Surely positional problems always increase temperature, not decrease it, so real temperatures show be even lower not higher.
There is much which is strange in the rush to discard data which would show at the very least that modern warming is not unprecedented and hotter days have occurred a hundred years ago, as seems likely. Was there a desperation to support the story of Global Warming. Was there a request from overseas for adjustment to fit the story? Was Australia letting the side down? Was there an urgency as world temperatures were actually dropping, causing potential havoc to global funding? Was there a request to ‘review’ the data and support the story of global warming by editing, elimination, interpolation, homogenizing? Were we asked to ‘hide the decline’?
We can only be thankful satellites have negated the story of continued warming or perhaps we would be told that warming in the late 20th century was continuing, a story which some commentators are still pushing? Why else the endless press releases about heat, not cold?
(I note in Warwickhughes blog that even the BOM admit the temperature difference between Glaisher screens and Stevenson screens was a consistent 0.2C? Surely they could just subtract 0.2?)
270
Lies, damned lies, statistics??? Where did we start?
Somebody else said the difference for max temps is 1 degree. Is the 0.2 degrees for average temps?
80
The BOM comment on Glaisher vs Stevenson is mentioned with the pdf of the BOM document. This was over one year. Extraordinary detail in this blog from a man who has clearly been publishing on this subject of long term Australian temperatures for over 20 years.
60
Is it just me or is there a wave period of about 100years showing on this temp record.
20
You need a few cycles to see a wave. Just as people left the 1890s off and changed the scale to create the rapidly climbing effect, the full pattern will emerge only over hundreds, even thousands of years. Jo’s recent graph of temperatures over 9,000 years showed that the current trends are very minor. Even 1,000 years is not enough. There are many cycles at work with the sunspots, orbit, nutation, even the trip around the galaxy before we talk about flipping magnetic poles. While the BOM tries to look for effects so small that moving a screen slightly is significant, much larger forces are at work as with the recent ice age where the Greens beloved glaciers covered all of Europe only 22,000 years ago. It was no one’s fault that they melted.
Actually the melting glacier story is mad. The IPCC story was that if the Indian glaciers were gone, there would be no water in the Ganges? The water comes from ice melt, so the idea is that no glaciers, no ice melt, no Ganges? It is beyond silly logic like melting sea ice which does not matter at all to sea levels. No one thinks these things through. Save the Polar bears!
100
TdeF, thanks for this.
The area where the Ganges rises is shown at the map at this link.
That area is euphemistically referred to as The Third Pole, and the thought that this would melt is just beyond stupid.
Note the River across the top, the Yarlung Tsangpo, well that’s in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and that river becomes the Brahmaputra as it enters India, and then the Jamuna in Bangladesh, where it flows into the Ganges which also rises in the Himalayas.
A simple Google Earth search will show that the area where these Rivers rise is ice bound virtually year round, especially along the length of the Yarlung Tsangpo. All glaciers flow into these Rivers. The minimal flow (with respect to overall amount of ice) is when the melt begins, and then the ice builds straight back up as the cold approaches.
Incidentally, note all the River systems in this area, which flow into those main Rivers.
The Indians are damming these with Hydro schemes like there is no tomorrow, and at around the same rate that the Chinese are doing Hydro inside China. Just in the North East of India alone along the Brahmaputra and its Tributaries, there is currently more than 170 hydro schemes being put in place for more than 60GW of Nameplate, as seen at the map at this link with each small square indicating a new Hydro project, and that’s just in the Brahmaputra area.
So, quite obviously, the people at the sharp end here, India, don’t believe there will be any large scale glacier disappearance at any time in the near future, or even the distant future as a typical large scale Hydro plant has a 50+ year life span.
Tony.
110
All interesting. Thanks.
However what I am trying to say is that the high altitude rain and snow does not stop because glaciers melt. The Green logic is that if the glaciers melt completely, the water is gone. This is nuts. For the glaciers to remain constant in size year to year, the ice has to be continually replaced but concepts of equilibrium are beyond them.
So the Greens want the glaciers to continually give water without getting smaller? The only way that happens is continuous replacement of ice melt. So when and if the glaciers are gone, as has happened thoughout europe, the rain and snow which feeds the glaciers which in turn feed the rivers will still be there. In fact they will really need the dams to provide continuity and prevent floods. As former Victorian Labor Premier and primary school gym teacher Steve Bracks said, dams don’t make water. With profound and perverse logic like this, Greens struggle just to make sense.
60
I agree with you here TdeF.
Have a look at the map at this link, and it’s from the wonderful Ice Age Now site. This shows the Earth’s land map during the Ice Age.
Now, I know it’s a Mercator Projection Map, but find Italy in the middle of the Mediterranean and draw a horizontal line across the map. Everything North of that was under ice.
When it all finally melted, the sea level rose 394 feet. (say, maybe that’s where Robyn Williams got his 100 metre sea level rise this Century from)
I’m willing to bet that when they finally do find Atlantis, there’ll be a couple of thousand coal fired power plants nearby.
Tony.
80
Come on Tony, it’s only 2,525km in length running through what looks like tropical rain forest for most of the lower regions.
00
“…rely on input from credentialed researchers in the relevant field. We feel this is important in providing readers with reliable information based on quality peer-reviewed research”.
Reminds me of the story of when Schindler’s List was first screened in Moscow, and the Russian soldier found the slave workers near the end of the film and declared ‘You have been liberated by the forces of the Soviet Union’, the Moscow audience burst out laughing.
180
Jo Says
That I concur with. But what nobody can dispute is that the high temperatures were much more catastophic for the people of the time than any heatwaves in the last couple of decades. As the MP said
There is no need to get every major economy on the planet to abandon fossil fuels if people can easily adapt to the changing climate. In Australian heatwaves that means being to go inside and turn up the air conditioning. Abandoning fossil fuels will make electricity supply unreliable and unaffordable to many people. If climate change ain’t happening (or is trivial) the “cure” is worse than the “disease“.
270
In 1896 many people outside urban areas would have had a deficiency of water supply. On a hot day in dry areas wetting your hat or a bit of rag will cool things substantially. But some people didn’t have enough water to do that. This would have increased mortality rates.
90
I’ve seen the reports in the micro-filmed records of The Age. Deaths due to heat were included in the weather reports of January 1896. Don’t forget they people in central and western NSW probably had no electricity, which means no electric fans, refrigeration or air conditioning.
40
The BoM claim all their original un-homogenized data is available on their website – that’s just not true – there are many stations where daily data is missing despite there being monthly data.
280
Yes. I tried to look at 1944 for Wilcania that has data from 1879 but only has daily records on BOM from 1957.
A news report had Tibooburra with 4 days at 111°F in Nov 1944 but the data in BOM ignore some of the days because it was written in twice. I noticed the old Adelaide site of West Tce had a lot of temperatures of 42.2°C or 42.8°C in the earlier years so its not unusual to have the same reading to 0.1°F. Removing these reduces the average temperature for the month by a lot.
90
Raw data from the BoM site does show large (1 to 2C) steps down in annual maximum temperatures in some of the records (have a look at Cape Otway Lighthouse for a clear example) around the end of the 19th century.
It is therefore very likely that SOME of the thermometers were reading too hot back then.
If you accept the above statement then it follows that many of the heatwave records were probably coming from those “faulty” thermometers. The BoM are doing a poor job with ACORN-SAT (which feeds into global temperatures such as HADCRUT), over-estimating 20th century warming, but it is probably going too far to claim that the late 19th century was warmer than today in South East Australia.
313
Comments closed already, with a multitude of comments removed.
That’s known as “conversation”?
The Trenberth thread was still running last time I looked.
130
I’ve seen this problem before. It’s only a “conversation” for as long as it praises the authors of the article.
Try to remember that it’s your taxes funding the website.
160
Exactly, such actions simply equate to propaganda or indeed a contrived ‘Conversation’ for the same purpose.
The antonym of conversation is listening for propaganda it’s truth, government want you to listen to their truth and nothing else.
110
There is another interesting article at the British section of the Conversation. Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London has a piece – How does the IPCC know climate change is happening?
It seems the Mark Maslin seems to take the most extreme IPCC position. He has responded to one of my comments already. My comments are also at BishopHill.
40
Kevin,
I have also left the good professor a little reply –
Professor Maslin,
I believe your statement concerning radiative gases – “without their warming presence in the atmosphere the Earth’s average surface temperature would be approximately -20°C” to be the gravest scientific error in the history of science.
Normally that figure is given as -18C (255K), for “surface without atmosphere”. This is the result of standard SB calculation for a near blackbody in a vacuum receiving around 240 w m/2 of constant radiation. The problem here is not the calculation, but the underlying assumption of “near blackbody” where e=a and indeed the application of those equations to intermittently illuminated SW translucent liquid materials that convect.
71% of the surface of our planet is ocean. The first problem is that while in situ measurements (measured within the radiative Hohlrumn of the atmosphere) for IR emissivity of water return e=0.96 this is apparent, not effective emissivity. It should also be noted that these measurements are near nadir. When background IR is reduced and full hemispherical effective emissivity is considered, a figure below 0.7 is closer to reality. With SW absorptivity near 0.92 and IR emissivity below 0.7, liquid water is clearly a SW selective surface, not a near blackbody.
The second, and far greater problem is SW translucency. Here five simple rules for SW translucent materials apply –
For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –
1. If materials are solid, constant SW illumination will result in close surface temps for A & B with average temp of A higher than B
2. If materials are solid, intermittent SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A also higher than B.
3. If materials are liquid and convect, constant SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A higher than B.
4. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittent SW illumination will result in higher temperature differential (both surface and average) between A & B than condition 3.
5. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittently SW illuminated and deeper than condition 4, temperature differential between A & B will be greater again than condition 4.
The bottom line is that liquid water is an extreme form of SW selective surface, not a near blackbody. That the 255K “surface without atmosphere” figure should actually be above 335K for the oceans. This means that the net effect of all atmospheric processes (excepting pressure) is surface cooling.
In reality, the sun heats the oceans, the atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. Instead, given 1 bar pressure, climate models all show the atmosphere slowing the cooling rate of the oceans not accelerating it and consequently they all fail.
20
Someone on this website challenged me to go to the “Conversation” and argue with Trenbeath. Well, I tried and tried, and tried again. No joy, they just ignored me.
10
In the early days there were no dams or weirs to keep the rivers flowing through the drought. There was no irrigation or town water to keep the town gardens and parks alive (and cooler), or the farms watered. In bad years the rivers ran dry and nothing stopped the whole country being stripped completely bare. Chances are it really was hotter in those days. People are apt to forget the massive engineering that went on to open up and make the inland fertile. They forget that without the upstream dams that store the water from flood years the Murray and Darling would dry to a string of waterholes during the drought.
251
But Phil????
That would mean admitting that human influence on local environments can achieve a positive, triple bottom line outcome!!!!!
🙂
100
“2. Not all thermometers were Stevenson screens in 1896, therefore none of the early readings count. The presence of non-standardized records renders the others useless. Who knew?”
So with all of our technological knowledge it is impossible to find a method that can bring these important readings in to the records. There is no science to do this? How did they develope the Stevenson screens, and what comparisons were made back then?
“3. Since some thermometers were older types called Glaisher or Greenwich Screens, their data is unusable, even though there are decades of temperatures comparing the two types of screens and they are remarkably similar.”
Again do we not have the science to recalibrate these reading to make the comparible to the recent data set? Are we so bereft of technology that it really can not be done?
4. “Even though Stevenson screens were installed across Australia between 1880 – 1910, since they were new (ahem), they were likely to be warped and cracked, and therefore not acceptable. After that date they were better maintained (except they still needed a lot of downward adjustment).”
Which Stevenson screens were recorded as warped or cracked? Has anyone done the research to find out the effect of warped or cracked Stevenson screens on the instruments? Is there no research funding available to do this?
I find these justifications amazing.
What they have said is that our science and technology is so poor that these older temperature records can not be fixed to come into line with the later ones. Apparently no technological fix can be applied to temperature data prior to 1910 as our science is so poor we don’t even understand how a Stevenson screen works, and can therefore not adjust for it being absent. Or that our statistical methods so lacking in tools that these important records can not be remodeled to fit with present day methods (no that that is my preferred choice).
No, the money is wasted on politically driven drivel instead of real research to maintain historical records in a way that keeps the relavent for all time.
210
If there is so much concern on the quality of thermometers, why not rely on satellite data for temperature anomalies. The satellite thermometers are more accurate than the surface ones and reclaibrated every 8 seconds according to Roy Spencer.
150
Kevin
IMO satellites are great for the larger areas, especially where no humans or thermometers exist. On current records you are probably correct when looking at continental and the countrywide variations but in the small locals it is the thermometers that tell the true story.
Besides this is about maintaining the history. Does not the UK Met Office often brag about having a continuous record of Central England temerature from 1659?
(http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/climate-datasets ). It is in fact a huge fake! Mainly compiled by Gordon Manley ( http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/part-1-central-england-temperature-timeseries-and-manley-papers/ ) – with work from many others; during 1950s,60s and completed in 1974. It is in reality a ‘cut and spliced’ record from many UK locations, thermometer types, and has numerous adjustments (only some documented) to make them all fit together. So yes, Britain’s Met Office has a temperature dating from 1659 but it is a tainted record. Attempts by warmists have (thankfully) failed to further pollute this record.
Why can not BOM attempt the same trick or acknowledge and maintain all the records, back as far as possible. You’ll never know what treasures are there for the future science unless they are preservered.
80
Kevin,
Accurate historical records shows not just trends, but if it is historically long enough the cyclic nature in the patterns of weather. With this knowledge better forecast can be made. Not keeping these historical records in the mix truncates your database for accurate forecasting.
130
Satellites do not utilise thermometers. Satellite data has been altered for orbital drift and decay. So how did Roy S remodel the data?
111
Satellites do measure temperature, with a high accuracy platinum resistance device, every 8 seconds. You can find Roy discussing this if you search before you speak.
80
There is a huge difference between making precise adjustments for known errors and deviations, and making ideological wholesale trend adjustments because you don’t like the data.
But being as you obviously have zero scientific or engineering understanding, I can accept why you show such profound ignorance in this area.
50
You infer precision without knowing the alterations? That’s blind trust not scepticism! But that’s your wont, amen!
09
Gees, more equine excrement.
There nearly enough now for a whole paddock !
00
I have an open paddock! Restrained by neither money nor belief: proclaiming the value of science!
You keep up the crap and I’ll maintain the corresponding “pat” downs. Call it definitive defecation
06
sillyfilly,
God, I just can’t stand you people.
You rabbit on about the Science as your God, and fail so utterly to look beyond the blinkers which cover your eyes.
You claim for sure and certain that you know the problem is CO2 emissions, and yet, you fail completely to see that those in power, even those you put there to solve the problem are not even bothered about shutting off the main source of those emissions.
If the problem is as bad as you so religiously believe, why are your people not even bothering about stopping those emissions.
You’ve got no idea have you?
Please bugger off. You’re of zero use here. Go somewhere where they agree with you, and try, please try to open your eyes.
Tony.
70
“I have an open paddock! “
Minus several kangaroos. !!
“proclaiming the value of science”
Of which you know basically nothing
“Call it definitive defecation”
That’s all you have to offer.. excrement and donkey pats.. !
00
And here’s a wiki link, that truly illustrates the worth of your very best posts. !!
A donkey with verbal diarrhea !
00
‘Restrained by neither money nor belief’
Nor by rational thought.
00
Translation – he is living off his parents and cannot get a job.
00
Melbourne had a Stevenson screen operating in the 1860’s. Sydney followed but can’t recall date.
Adelaide had one in the 1880’s and another on Mt. Lofty, so ‘peer reviewed” article available. They also ran a Glaisher screen on the same site for years for comparison.
Qld. had several Stevenson screens by 1890 at latest.
The only State where you can definitely say didn’t have Stevenson screens was WA where they installed a number in the SW from 1896 to 1905.
It is nonsense for the BoM to claim there is no reliable records before 1910, because they were founded in that year. Indeed, looking at their recent record you would wonder whether there is any reliable records AFTER 1910.
260
They are circling the wagons. They no longer can win on the facts, and when they try to tamper with them and are called out, they do not even have plausible sounding excuses. So what is left?
Restrict the questions to what they approve of only. It is happening in most far left sites. Some, like SkS and such have been doing it for a long time. Others like (apparently) the Conversation and LA Crimes just started recently (within the past year or 2) as the questions became more than they could answer.
240
They certainly will not stop until forced to do so.
160
Circling the wagons? Like driving around the outside of them? 😉
As Jo said, the BoM is more concerned about defending its entrenched position than about being open. I can see the logic. If we find that holes can easily be punched in BoM data or processing then the credibility of the establishment will go down the gurgler and with it lots of funding.
110
There is a glaring inconsistency in the BoM’s position here, on the one hand they won’t touch data before 1910 (too unreliable), but at the same time they say that recent warming in Australia is unprecedented.
The only consistent position for climate science is to say that we don’t have a clue what temperatures were before 1910. I think that can be pushed back a bit in Australia, and earlier in a few other locations in Europe and USA, but forget about claims for knowing the “global” temperature history for past centuries.
130
Sounds like same old same old… …excuse, dodge and divert attention, all the while keeping on as usual.
In the USA they’re turning to saying even if it’s not a problem now, [huge] research is needed so we can be ready for any future problem. The science and the data are both irrelevant and have been for a long time.
It’s time for an uprising of those who still know what’s going on and strongarm your government and mine with an overwhelming cry of anger and threaten to vote out those who support this. Otherwise this nonsense will be fought over and over again without end while the measures it proposes get worse and worse.
130
Sorry for this nit: Celsius.
Good point. Thanks. – Jo
10
Has anyone actually set up an experiment to obtain raw data with equipment type used in the late 1800’s to late 1900’s compared against raw data obtained from current technology to compare readings?
100
James I came across a thread from 2008 in Woodwork Forums where a bloke from Ballarat in Vic (my hometown) built his own working Stevenson Screen with results of readings.
Interesting to note is the mention of UHI effects and the La Trobe St BOM weather station in Melbourne’s CBD.
60
Oops, had to add his results were compared to the official BOM station at the Ballarat Aerodrome.
Also worth mentioning is the quality of the wood used to construct the screens would have been better back in the 1800’s including the treatments to maintain the timbers.
70
I believe they are very particular about the paint on the Stevenson Screens.
Something the guy in Ballarat may have overlooked. The modern paints are UV stable and heat resistant.
10
Interesting thought!
00
The odd thing is that other countries and meteorological agencies do not seem to have any huge problems handling temperature records that are way older than 1910. Yes, you may have to correct for different irradiation in older types of screens, but there is lots of data on that problem. And yes, the uncertainty is larger for the very old records. But even so the CET goes back to 1659, De Bilt to 1706, Uppsala to 1722, Stockholm to 1753 and so on, Even Southern Greenland has a temperature series back to 1786 (with a few missing years).
10
Jo,
FYI and not entirely O/T
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/on-the-take-an-impromptu-psychological-study-of-government-science/
20
The measurement technique — whether or not Stevenson screens were used or not, the type of thermometers used or any other measurement variations — doesn’t stop the main global surface records GISTEMP or HadCRUT from publishing records well back into the 1800s from the entire surface of the planet no less.
120
Can we really trust BoM’s data?
This is snapshot of NSW extreme temp page for Sunday, 2nd Nov this year.
1 37.6 Scone Scs
2 36.8 Lostock Dam
3 34.5 Pindari Dam
4 32.0 Yass (Rural Fire Service)
None of those sites were anywhere near those temps for Sunday as I am sure anyone who lives near there could verify. Sounds like the ‘mysterious lost hot day in Bourke’ scenario, Jo.
See here at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/extremes/daily_extremes.cgi?period=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fclimate%2Fextremes%2Fdaily_extremes.cgi&climtab=tmax_high&area=nsw&year=2014&mon=11&day=2
BTW, NSW was supposed to have had the hottest Oct on record last month with a 4.0C anomaly. Only 22 out of 155 sites were 4.0C or above but with some clever infilling of data, the BoM did it.
Check the NSW summary here to see for yourself.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml
130
This fact check fails a simple fact check.
Neville Nicholls and Sophie Lewis seem to be either very ignorant or are deliberately spreading some very bad miss information.
The article says.
This is just not true. They give the example of Sir Charles Todd’s long running experiment at West Terrace in adelaide and even link to photos of that site as I have provided with Jo’s help here.http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/history/west-terrace-termperature-observations.jpg
Notice there are three stands not two.
This comparison experiment did not begin in 1887 as claimed.
NO! in 1887 a Stevenson screen was added to an already running comparison between the round house and the Glaisher stand. The addition of the Stevenson screen showed that there was not much difference at all between the round house maximums and the Stevenson screen.
The Glaisher stand was installed and there is data available from it continuously from from 1858.
That this data exists and has been censored from the best long record in Australia by the BoM can be seen by anyone.
Here is how. Click on the “Recordsearch” link under the title “Search the collection” Here.
http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/search/index.aspx
Up will pop search page.
Put these words in it.
Meteorological observations Adelaide Observatory
Up comes the proof!
If you have some loose change ring the archives with your credit card handy an pay them to digitise some of the record online. $20.90 got me fair chunk of another record that will be rammed in faces soon. These records are also to be found searching similar words at the National Library.
The only place you cannot find them is the BoM online data. What type of “climate researchers” would not know this?
By the end of 1896 Sir Charles Todd was able to declare 1896 to have been be a cool year by comparison to older records (average for the year)!
Lance Pidgeon
100
Here is the censored data for West Terrace Adelaide from December 1862.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/158185056?
50
Ooops that would be 1861.
40
Here is February 1861.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50021718?
April.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50014832?
June
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50083120?
Plenty more there!
30
If you want older from Adelaide (site details not known by me), go to the Archives search again and just these two words finds 1843 to 1856.
Register weather
10
for confirmation of thes search
Carrinton Cottage
20
Ooops again. Crrington cottage.
00
Doh damn keyboard. CARRINGTON.
00
The Sent Message…
The Moving Cursor prints; and, with fonted script,
Moves on: no clever app. nor timely ‘quit’
Shall command it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears rescind a Word of it.
50
Siliggy
Got as far as page 1. Which ‘Series no’ or ‘Control system’/’Item title’ should I be looking at?
Good find, BTW.
10
Ian all that varies and if it has not yet been digitised the there is not much more to see online yet. It is only the subject that matters. Needs to be “Status open” to be digitised without examination.
EG: Meteorological Observations made at the Adelaide Observatory – 28 volumes
Contents date range 1861 – 1907
or
Meteorological observations made at the Adelaide Observatory – 1 June 1858 to 31 December 1859
This one is not marked “open” but could be a good way to confirm the others for the same date.
“Register of the temperature, rain and evaporation of Adelaide (Carrington Cottage) September 1853”
00
Thanks
00
This one could be fun.
“Daily temperature extremes [four volumes containing records of monthly extremes in temperatures and relative humidity at observations stations throughout Western Australia]
Contents date range 1903 – 1937”
00
“what matters is that Australians no longer feel they can trust the BOM to give them the whole story about the climate”
or the ABC for that matter
60
Jo, this is probably your best post, not so much for defending George, but for your discussion of the historical temperatures. The money quote: “Australians no longer feel they can trust the BOM to give them the whole story about the climate.”
And I’m with Graeme No. 3 above- you can’t trust the temperature record AFTER 1910 either.
I try very hard not to go anywhere near the Conversation. It lowers the standard of science, debate, and civility by several percent.
261
So true Ken. With a whole raft of issues with ground based temperature measurements taken in modern time, such as the urban heat island effect (eg, measurements taken near airport strips), relocating and removing from the list for unexplained reasons, etc. I feel the whole saga of using ground based thermometer readings is a total wast of time. The only way I would take them seriously is if they only used measurements consistently taken from the same place for about 100 years away from man-made structures, and in those cases use the raw values regardless of the method of measurement. The better way of course is to rely only on satellite readings but they only go so far back. When so called scientists can use a variety of statistical methods to alter the data to suit any number of different outcomes and make it look as though it’s legitimate, it’s no longer scientific. It then becomes more of a con.
81
Ken what’s your knowledge and thoughts on the actual dimensions and construction of Stevenson Screens?, specifically in relation to the possibility of different airflow or volume in the screens and the effects this might have on temperature readings.
When searching for standard dimensions I noticed quite a difference in sizes between various screen plans/drawings, including the use of plastic in construction, apologies if you have posted this information already.
00
Yonniestone. A Stevenson and a modern AWS next to each other give wildly different results so I suggest ignoring any modern data more recent than about 1979 and using the satellite data instead.
10
Hi Yonniestone, not sure. I did have this info but on a previous computer I think. Google Stevenson screen specification BOM, go with the BOM specs. Plastic? Surely not. Painted/ unpainted/ different types of paint rather than whitewash, all apparently make a difference under different conditions. And apparently size does matter. Apart from that see Siliggy’s comment.
20
Yonniestone
If you do the above NAA search with the words
General Plan Thermometer Screen Cabinet
You will get a digitised plan of Stevenson screen from 1943.
10
Siliggy thanks for the link and the email, very much appreciated cheers.
10
You aren’t game enough to put your analysis to independent and appropriate scrutiny! You linked me to some personal site: fair enough, here we go!
AWAP is the your baseline data, yet you compare it to ACORN without any proper adjustment for non-climatic factors. You agree the long-term trends are consistent as does the BOM (you link the analysis). The rest is a sham abuse of the data by not comparing like with like. Statistically inept!
05
Yep, BOM are not game enough to put their analysis to independent and appropriate scrutiny…..
…. despite it all be tax-payer funded.
30
BOM have done it, I’m sure Ken will follow suit. Isn’t there also a review by Parliament coming, and they’ll all find the same as they did in the UK & NZ courts. The BOM passes all the tests. The “sceptics” fail again.
09
You don’t seem to understand the word “Independent”.
..as in not on the alarmist trough !!
30
Thomas Peterson – NOAA, NCDC.. who are responsible for most of the warming in the USA. Leaders of the US warmist agenda.
David Wratt – NIWA.. In bed with BOM on the mal-adjustments.
Xiaolan Wang – Environment Canada.. Seriously??? Loves to homogenise.. so long as it creates a warming trend
Independent .. like a horse’s ***!!
10
Thomas Peterson – NOAA, NCDC.. who are responsible for most of the warming in the USA. Leaders of the US warmist agenda.
David Wratt – NIWA.. In bed with BOM on the mal-adjustments.
Xiaolan Wang – Environment Canada.. Seriously??? Loves to homogenise.. so long as it creates a warming trend
Independent .. like a horse’s A*** !!
31
Reviewers: Ok BOM, have you CREATED a warming trend?
BOM: Yes, we managed to cool the past quite considerably, dumped any really hot stuff by pretending we didn’t have old data etc etc etc
Turned an overall cooling trend into a warming trend to match all your adjustments.
Reviewers: OK, you pass.. let’s all go down and get a soy decaf latte !!!
20
Sillyfilly, please go away. I’m no longer amused by your drivel It was funny for awhile to watch you thrashing around in deeper water than you knew. It has ceased to be funny. You, yes, you Sillyfilly are killing human beings. That is unforgivable. Damn your eyes.
10
“non-climatic factors”
You mean like the warmist agenda.??
Yep, the BOM data set really is a shambles !!
And their statistical manipulations truly are INEPT !!
21
Using precisely the same data and methodology as BOM. Like with like. That’s why BOM compares Acorn with AWAP- because it is supposedly ‘raw’. This is discussed in CTR-050. I can replicate annual trends: Acorn over 30% greater than AWAP for mean- but monthly and seasonal trends have not been released by BOM yet. Why don’t you do an independent scrutiny, then tell us what you find? No, easier to continue hand waving.
30
Before Jen spat the dummy over another matter (and went fishin’) I was hunting down the possibility that Bathurst gaol had a Stevenson Screen installed during the 1880s or 1890s. Dr Marohasy said its important, but at the moment my attempts to discover the truth have come to a dead end.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
40
Sorry.
the station was set up in 1858 so that would NOT have been a Stevenson (developed in 1864).
Might have been a ‘Roundhouse’ type, like early ones in Sydney (Centennial Park). There was much enthusiasm for Stevenson screens in the 1880; Clement Wragge is reported to have installed a 100 in Qld. between 1887 and 1902, so it was likely that one was installed around 1890, if only to stop Wragge sniping at NSW.
20
Thanks G I’ll follow up the local newspaper in the hope of finding something solid. Of course Blair Trewin (snr bureau official) could save me a lot of trouble, he knows everything.
‘On the specific Bathurst Ag case, observations go back to 1909 but digital daily data in the Bureau’s database only go back to 1966, so the 1939 observations won’t be picked up on the web pages.
‘There are plenty of stations for which this is the case (a good indication is if the number of years of record for mean maximum temperature is more than the number of years for record highs, days over 30 etc.).
‘The thing which is a bit different for Bathurst Ag is that I digitised the max/min temps for 1909-65 from there myself when I was doing my PhD (but these have never gone into the Bureau database), so the 1939 observations are on my old Melbourne Uni web page.’
20
Graeme,
Our local weather recorder got a complementary copy of the BOM history – I’ll have to borrow it back to get the title.
It definitely records the enthusiasm of the South Australian met crew for Stevenson screens – and as SA had the NT makes me dubious of the claims about when they met Darwin.
More when I know more.
00
Questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Open Letter – 4th March 2014
Despite the claimed unreliability of pre-1910 temperature data, the Bureau contributes to an international program, coordinated by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which calculates annual average temperatures for Australia back to 1850.[1]
This information is then used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate warming over the last 160 years.
This seems incongruous and inconsistent and should be explained. It undermines the contention that pre-1910 data is unreliable.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/questions-for-the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology/
90
Just posted –
The Conversation blog in discussing “was the 1896 heatwave wiped from the record?” – wipes BoM 1996 peer reviewed finding from the records
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3396
more to come
40
I’ve posted this before, but I think it’s worth repeating.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-strange-death-of-the-themometers
In the last 25 years there has been an accelerating reduction in thermometer counts globally with the pace of deletion rising rapidly in recent years. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today.
40
I was shocked (although I guess I shouldn’t be these days) to discover NASA sometimes re-touches Mars images to accentuate the “red”.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Blue_Bird_Color_01.html (not a great article but it makes the point)
I guess Im just surprised that they feel they need to do it. What is this fascination in science today with conforming to public expectations rather than just presenting the facts??
90
Answer: Government funding.
130
I’m as perplexed as you.
It seems to me, from discussions with friends and acquaintances, that the general public just accepts the multitude of lies it is told without question. The GP are constantly told that what they are being told is from “experts”. Perhaps the previous post on psycology can answer that.
None of my friends and aquaintances believe me on the AGW/CC issue whereas all of my scientific collegues do. What goes on here? I’m at a loss to figure it out.
30
One could conclude:
1/ Lack of interest, lack of care.
2/ Lack of critical thinking.
3/ They don’t trust your comments since they conflict with other “experts”.
4/ They’ve never looked into the criticism of the science.
5/ They are incapable of evaluating criticism of the science.
6/ They just don’t care.
20
“I was shocked (although I guess I shouldn’t be these days) to discover NASA sometimes re-touches Mars images to accentuate the “red”.”
There is a – supposedly true – story about some NASA PR guy who asked their Planetary Science people for a color image of Venus. Answer: “Sure thing, which color do you want it to be?”.
Astronomical note: Venus is almost pure white.
10
Over my career as an Analytical Chemist I have been the Chief/Senior Chemist for several NATA accredited laboratories. One of the requirements has been to calculate the uncertainties of various measurements to come up with an uncertainty for the final result for a 95% confidence limit.
Two questions:-
1) Does the BoM hold any accreditations?
2) Are there published uncertainties for both the current satellite technololgy and the older ground based thermometer technology?
Mark Twain is often quoted as writing, “there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies AND statistics”.
I know that I could, if I wanted to, appease my bosses by juggling statistics but I would rather tell them the truth.
From my perspective I find the BoM’s lack of recognition of temperature data prior to 1910 without clear scientific reasoning disturbing. If they are accredited I believe that they should be stripped of that.
R-COO- K+
Potassim salt of an aliphatic acid.
Born to be a chemist.
60
Bother, I need to learn to type. Two typos at least on that post.
30
You can’t construct a national data set from sparse records. There are those constraints (as well as others like Stevenson’s) on earlier data, so BOM utilised the best baseline data to implement the national record. Simple and successful!
19
This is nonsense. There is enough data going back to at least the mid 1800’s to have a very good idea of climate and temperatures back then.
We know for certain that all of our “hottest day” records are from this period.
40
How much data do you need?
20
I guess it depends how accurate you want your results to be?
00
Yet GISS and CRU apparently has no problem doing just this on a global basis since the 1800’s, despite most of the planet having a much sparser station network than Australia. As a matter of fact Australia probably has the best coverage in the whole SH.
10
You cannot do it using made up records either.
00
Don’t worry about it, we got the point.
00
The Oodnadatta record of 50.7 is matched by Mildura on 7 January 1906. Mildura was all new and I assume had the best of everything, including a Stevenson Screen. In January 1896 it only got to 48.9.
40
And here’s why you don’t see that record anymore, Brian. All based on Deniliquin’s temp some 300kms (ATCF) away – which of course, must have been correct.
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/383
20
More of the same rehashed nonsense. All these heat records circa the great federation drought and the extreme EL Nino of the late 19th century are recorded in available BOM data records. The problem with people here is that they don’t understand the requirements for a NATIONAL temperature record. The South-East Aus. region may have been impacted severely but what about the rest of the country. We need records that are long-term, reliable and spatially relevant, the BOM has done a great job in getting relevant data back to 1910. Even BEST agrees on the long-term trends. We now have the national record it is reliable and fit for purpose. The feeble excuses will continue as the great unwashed attempt to deny the integrity of the records and continue to fail in those attempts
223
“More of the same rehashed nonsense.”
Yes its all YOU have, apart from more of the meaningless donkey braying.
The so-called national record is a load of semi-digested horse poo.
A jumble of maladjustments, lost and invented data.
It really is meaningless and irrelevant.. just like you.
102
SF could you please Homogenize your comment?, we’re a bit slow around here, thanks.
40
I just wish Pasteurisation was also available to keep infection from the science. “A bit slow around here”: now that’s a euphemism for the ages!
015
“to keep infection from the science.”
Yep, climate science sure is rotten with infection.
Glad you finally admit it.
Bots like you help to maintain the disease.
91
SF, oh dear I forgot about a warmists’ lack of ability to grasp satire, don’t try to comprehend and just stick to laughing at old people falling over and such.
Sorry for the confusion and remember it’s not me it’s you.
71
Open mouth to change feet, repeat!
19
Why, how many hoofs can you fit in your mouth at one time.?
At least one seems to be permanently inserted… more often, its 2. !
You seem to have a serious case of FEET in mouth disease.!!!
31
And we really don’t need a minute to minute description of your daily routine !!
21
Don’t you think your username is an insult to the Equus genus everywhere?
On topic a basic question for you, if Nicholls and Lewis are so sure of the BOM’s method why wouldn’t they jump at the chance of an inquiry to publically prove all those stupid science deniers wrong?
61
Solution – SF keep mouth closed.
00
This only tells us that you’re happy to accept the BoM data and records, and that you think we are nit picking details.
You’re allowed to believe that, and I’m sure everyone is grateful that you (and we) are allowed to come up with our own judgements.
Time will tell who was more correct. And I do hope you stick around when we finally get into the BoM data and adjustments to find out how it was all done.
Perhaps it’s not all “your wrong and I’m right”. But a mixture of both in there. I’m just lookoing forward to finding out.
100
More like BEST guess.
50
It only exaggerates summer maxima trend by 200% over AWAP which is supposedly “raw”.
They can’t even publish a consistent set of explanations for adjustments at their 6 example sites.
Is that what you mean by reliable and fit for purpose? Oh that’s right, it’s fit for the purpose of scaring children and gullible people like you.
51
As she said…… fit for purpose. ! 🙂
Reliable????? … nope, not unless printed on quality toilet paper. !
31
Yes Ken.
What purpose does SF think it is fit for?
What purpose does producing a NATIONAL average serve?
It’s an interesting statistical exercise, but what else does it do. . . or who is it helping for what particular purpose?
It doesn’t serve a particularly useful purpose for us farmers & I don’t think most other people who live and work with the weather/climate such as in industries like mining, construction, transport, logistics etc etc think it’s particularly useful or fit for any of their purposes either???????
60
It is designed to implement a national, spatially relevant temperature series for the first time. Local issues can be accessed locally(all the records are there raw and un-adjusted). Issues like AGW need to be evaluated over proper long-term periods. Now we have ACORN and like the USHCN network, it’s fit for purpose. The BEST surveys confirm the accuracy and integrity of the data.
Remember Anthony Watts proclaiming his belief in the outcome of the upcoming reviews by BEST. Then when it came out against him, disclaimed the evidence. Such is the nature of the beast! Wouldn’t last 5 minutes in front of a judge!
010
So you’re a legal expert now as well? You really should refrain from your theatrics as it only further solidifies everyone’s impression that you don’t have a clue.
40
“So you’re a legal expert now as well”
Expert on everything..
not bad for a high school drop-out !! 🙂
20
Not interested in anyone’s belief SF, including Watts’s.
Am interested in the evidence.
????? ‘Proper long term period’????????
20
BEST but not best and worse than the uncorrupted radar measurements.
00
“The BEST surveys confirm the accuracy and integrity of the data.”
BEST does no such thing. Best is run by yet another bunch of rabid alarmists sucking deep on the climate trough money.
Their methods follow the same agenda driven methods as GISS and HadCrut, but enhanced by even more ineptitude.
All they did was prove just how bad those methods are.
Watt’s mistake was actually believing that Muller was in any way sceptical or interested in the truth.
00
Gees, they even had to hire a non-scientist mouthpiece called Mosher to try to sell their waste of a product.
00
Clearly that is exactly the purpose.
30
The Berkeley Earth site shows two stations for Rutherglen …
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/
No wonder BEST shows a warming trend.
Homogenised warming multiplied by homogenised warming equals “long-term trends.”
20
Fixed it for you. Unlike your demonstrated lack of understanding it’s a safe bet that the bulk of those commenting here understand the requirements better than you do. They just don’t sound like a ditzy cheerleader when they explain themselves.
40
So when can we expect to see the published paper that explains the detail of each adjustment made to the original data, the consideration given to each of the original readings, and decision making process that led to the conclusion that an adjustment was required, and the detail of each individual adjustment?
That should shut the sceptics up, I should think. And it would also acknowledge, and show respect to, all of the Post Masters, and other dedicated professionals, who diligently took the most accurate readings they could, given the equipment available, sometimes in appalling weather conditions.
60
In their rushed attempt to explain this at 6 example sites, they can’t even get their own adjustments right!
00
Sillyfilly, you talk of nonsense. Well I WILL talk of nonsense. GLOBAL WARMING, WHAT GLORIOUS NONSENSE. I’m tired of shooting goldfish in a barrel. Go away silly filly. Please, fellow bloggers. Stop doing what I have just done. DON’T FEED THE TROLL.
00
Then stop posting it.
00
One thing we can take from all this -Every scientific theory that can’t be qualified by proof has to be treated with disdain.
We have to now develop our intelligence to take in all manner of subjects and ideas,we can no longer trust anything that comes from the scientific community,”Peer review” is nothing more than an old boys network to keep them employed.
Who can believe anything any more, is procuring gas through fracking dangerous or not,I don’t know if it is or not but I am 100% certain that we won’t be told the truth about it.
As for the weather/climate I know enough about it to know that we are fed lies and that the govt knows that we are being lied to,that the scientific community knows that we are being told lies,but those who can make a change haven’t/won’t.
One thing that I do know is that there is a God and I found that out by going straight to the source,I prayed and received an answer so powerful that I can not ignore it.
James 1:5-6(KJV)
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
The easiest thing in the world but very few will take it..why – Ignorance is bliss.
Some won’t like it,I don’t care,I can live with it.
41
I don’t think it’s as bad as that. If you’ve ever followed the fear of fat, cholesterol, and other memes on the news, you’ll know that they come up with an opposite study from the previous one, every other year.
So if you only believe one study, you’ll be wrong. That much is obvious.
30
panzerJ
Hallujah my friend.
I have numerous church going protestant type friends even ministers of religeon who won’t listen to me, they are so convinced, via main stream media (MSM), the BoM, CSIRO and their church leaders that what the “media” says is gospel. Most protestant churches are the same. Uniting Church and Church of England are the worst but even my own place of worship the W…….. Community Church is pro “man made warming” amongst other controversial social issues with which I disagree.
As I quoted in another post on this site, I feel like John the Baptist “crying as one in the wilderness” when trying to convince them that AGW/CC is a scam., a hoax, lies etc., etc..
R-COO- K+
Potassium salt of an aliphatic acid.
Born to be chemist.
But having said that, my chemistry background demands scientific proof and the opposition camp it’s just not forthcoming.
50
bother must really read posts before committing.
“But having said that, my chemistry background demands scientific proof and FROM the opposition camp it’s just not forthcoming.”
R-COO- K+
Potassium salt of an aliphatic acid.
Born to be chemist.
30
I read this blog and thought of this image of one of today’s 100+ year newer stations.
http://www.surfacestations.org/images/MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg
From here.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
If you have not viewed this volunteer site, you should.
40
Let me get this straight: A thermometer from the past cannot be trusted…but a flipping TREE RING (!!!!) is gospel???!!!
My gosh, these people have their snouts so far in the trough, it’s shut off the oxygen to their tiny lizard brains…
161
That’s an interesting perspective. Thanks.
50
Subtract one red thumb. I am in a blackout and there’s something wrong with the thumb machine this evening anyway.
Sorry!
20
The thumb machine is a bit out of sorts….isn’t reacting most times I try….sometimes I try again and get the duplicate vote notice but the count hasn’t gone up from either attempt.
00
Bl___y h__l, is Sillyfilly for real or is she playing “devils advocate”? I find SF’s comments so none-sensical as to be imbecilic. And I’ll bet I’m not alone.
For the record sillyfilly, what are your qualifications?
R-COO- K+
Potassium salt of an aliphatic acid
Born to be a chemist.
80
I have asked often what trough the SF swills from…
either it is too thick to understand, or too embarrassed to answer.
60
Ron, what I have found is those like SF are extremely immature and without manners. But they are so convinced of how witty and clever their babble is that nothing you, I, or anyone on the web says can get through to them that everyone perceives them as an ignorant child so infatuated with what they think is a new idea that they simply will not shut up until everyone else tells them how wonderful it is.
40
Massive attention deficit syndrome.
Poor child ! 🙁
30
We had a Government PR wonk, on this site, a while ago. A bit like Sillyfilly, in terms of quoting from a song sheet, but a little more conversational in style, although just as acerbic.
40
I dunno, I would have classed SF more as “very basic”, or “highly caustic”.
Except its more likely to stain a loo, rather than clean it.
10
[SNIP!]
[Doug, and all your sock puppet entities. STOP. STOP. STOP. I am “this close” to blocking your obsessive, off topic repetition completely. I don’t want to, but every single day you waste a minute of my time because I have to snip, read or edit material that has NOTHING to do with the topic, and is a repeat of what has been said before. A minute a day is 6 hours a year you waste. That’s 6 hours I could spend with my kids or use to write a useful article. STOP. There will be no more warnings. I have asked you too many times. The next OT comment you make will be your LAST on this site.— Jo]
30
I wonder which part of STOP he doesn’t understand?
40
Doug Cotton???
Desperate crossing to the disparate.
Well done.
10
I would love, love to tell him to stop. He might be bleeding a bit when I’m through.
00
Regarding Jennifer Marohasy:
We did not have access to a broadband connection until fall of 2008. Thus, I did very little on the internet. One of the first blogs I started reading – because of the author’s clarity of expression and scientific training – was Jennifer Marohasy. And I am a few miles away in the Great State of Washington, North America. Go figure!
80
The UK Met Office. Another organization basing predictions on CO2…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/11202650/Millions-for-the-Met-Office-to-carry-on-getting-it-wrong.html
10
The BOM on Friday during Vic Country Hour claimed there were no weather records of any consequence before 1900. Records were only anecdotal from that period
00