JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret

The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.

As we have said all along, the all new ACORN wonder-data was not created with the scientific method. Adjustments to Australian temperature data were done with a black box mystery technique that only the sacred guild at the BOM are allowed to know. Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.

It’s a “trust us” approach. Would we let an ASX company audit their own books? Would you buy shares in such a company, or let it inform national policy on billion dollar schemes?

Here is the entire section on replication from page 9 and 10 (below). This is what any semi-skilled PR operative would write if they were trying to justify keeping their methods secret. My translations included.

Ability to reproduce findings

Only BOM staff are smart enough to understand “scientifically complex”  thermometers (this is something that engineers, astrophysicists, aeronautics experts and physicists would not be able to do, is that what they are saying?):

The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public.

Thinly veiled put-down coming:

It would be useful for the Bureau to provide advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis).

It might be more “useful” if the BOM staff provided their personal exam results in fluid dynamics, heat flow, mathematics and statistics. Or even just their resumes? We’ll find people who outscored them. OK?

Here’s the statement that no one has replicated the Australian temperature set:

The Forum felt that reproducing the Bureau’s ACORN-SAT daily analyses would be a very onerous task, and advice was supplied at the Forum meeting day that, while international groups have provided independent data homogenized at the monthly time-scale, no groups other than the Bureau are known to have attempted to produce or analyse an homogenized daily data set for Australia. One option would  the Bureau to work with local and international collaborators with the appropriate skill set to broadly assess the ACORN-SAT daily homogenisation methodologies.

Here is the statement that no one can replicate them because only the BOM knows how it was done (my bolding):

The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.

The process can’t be “automated” — which means it can’t be described by a set of rules other people, or other computers could follow. It’s a bit of a red herring: skeptics have never demanded “automation”. We just want explanations. The crux of science is replication, not automation. If ad hoc judgements were part of the process, they need to be recorded and their impact on the numbers included in the processing from raw data to final product. Justifications can come afterwards; let’s first establish what happened.

These are weak and vague promises here for something that is not just a basic tenet of science, but should be obligatory for government funded work as well. (Bolding all mine):

The Forum recommends that the Bureau work towards providing robust code that supports a level of automation that allows sensitivity analyses to be reasonably undertaken by independent parties.

What “independent re-analysis”? There is no independent analysis of all of ACORN.

This goal could be pursued through a careful documentation of existing code and feedback from the independent re-analysis recommended in the preceding paragraph.

The Bureau would like to help but it costs too much, and skeptics will have to pay more for answers from these tax-funded workers:

While the Bureau expressed willingness to support end-users who wished to reproduce findings or conduct independent analyses using the ACORN-SAT data, subsequent follow-up on such intentions may have significant resource implications. It is thus recommended that the Bureau limits the amount of assistance it provides end-users and includes a statement on the ACORN-SAT website that while reasonable assistance may be provided by the Bureau, extensive assistance could not be provided without an appropriate at-cost charge. Such limitations are likely to also limit the ability of end-users to replicate ACORN-SAT findings, but the resource implications of offering open-ended support to end-users may be substantial.

The Bureau of Meteorology Budget was 344.2 million in 2014-15. The Australian climate is a national crisis, but the Bureau can’t employ one person to answer questions about its secret methods?

When will the BOM start to behave as though the climate is important? When will the Greens demand science be done properly for the sake of the environment?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (191 votes cast)
If it can't be replicated, it isn't science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret, 9.6 out of 10 based on 191 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ojsb6as

222 comments to If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret

  • #
    Dennis

    When they are put under the spotlight and their funding stopped

    260

    • #
      aussieguy

      …They take taxpayer’s money. As such, they are servant to the people. It seems the BoM need to be reminded of that simple fact. The people must have access to their methods. I don’t give two crap about their excuses. I want to know how they produce their bloody numbers!

      It means there must be some sort of process to keep BoM responsible for what AND how it produces the information they publish.


      Fundamentally, this is about responsibility and accountability. If one cannot display such traits on their own accord, then one will face it from an external force. Like a new policy, audit, review, etc.

      Simple fact of life:
      If you cannot govern yourself with responsible behaviour, then someone is going to govern you until you do!

      (A perfect real world example is in Sydney. People used to drink responsibly. Then it started getting out of hand. Someone got killed by a “coward’s punch”. So the state imposed Lockout laws in trouble-spots of Sydney city. Now, alcohol-fueled violence has dropped by 40%.)


      As I said many moons ago about Govt depts facing inquiries to their integrity or questionable conduct: They will try to drag this out with weak excuses and hope we’ll give up questioning them of their behaviour. Don’t ever back down. They take our money. They are accountable to us! Its a test of patience.

      161

    • #
      Brute

      The fact that they produce documents like this shows that they already feel under the spotlight. Otherwise, they would not corner themselves so stupidly. As Jo says, if it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science. Anyone with a scientific background, no matter how limited, knows this.

      80

  • #
    Timboss

    The raw data shows a warming. Homogenized data shows a warming. The planet’s warming.

    987

    • #

      You failed to understand the point being made here,

      The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.

      701

      • #
        Timboss

        You failed to understand the point being made here. The raw data shows a warming.

        17

        • #

          Tim, inane strawman point. The warming doesn’t correlate with CO2. Doesn’t happen when the models said it should. You don’t specific time frames making your argument a pointless bumper-sticker type of reasoning. Yawn.

          111

        • #
          Brute

          Dear friend, Timboss.

          First, the data does not say why there is warming.

          Second, the data has been manipulated to show a degree of warming that was not there before the manipulation.

          Third, the manipulation does not follow scientific standards, turning “raw data” into “dubious data”.

          Fourth, the data does not show that CO2 causes warming.

          Summing up, the data shows that you fail to understand the point.

          70

    • #
      James Murphy

      Tell us then, is the warming within natural variability, or not?

      541

    • #
      Scott

      You mean the hocuspocus magic “black box” method shows the planet is warming….
      RSS and UAH show temperatures are flat.

      These are open and transparent satellite (no human recording errors involved) data sets where all methodology is described and explained. I know that UAH even publishes for the public record its adjustments and on what basis they are made.

      AND OH BTW, RSS is run by people who actually believe in CAGW! At least their data is honest.

      This entire terrestrial data set manipulation (Snipped) will hopefully finally expose the fraudsters for what they are. The scientific process is being set back decades by their malfeasance.
      The sooner the better this is uncovered – then scientists will have a long way to go before the public will finally trust them again.

      BOM is as complicit as all the UK and U.S. Agencies and it is literally a crime.

      642

      • #
        Anne Ominous

        Don’t forget the literally millions of radiosonde balloons, which don’t show the presence of the requisite “hotspot” that would be necessary for CO2-driven warming.

        Sure, there was a paper that said if they tortured the data enough, and added in other data, they could show a hotspot. But the methodology is questionable to say the least.

        161

        • #

          Take one balloon, launched by 6-8 really excited “warmists” jumping up and down, running around and just as happy as kids at a parade and generating all together lots of hot air that rises just at the same time as the balloon , add one thermometer to the balloon and there you go a “hot” spot, qed.

          00

    • #

      You definately failed to grasp the problem here. IF it cannot be replicated, it is not science. This is no more science than reading goat entrails. And if the adjustments don’t matter, then pray tell, WHY are they making them. If you think about it at all, you will realize just how rediculous that statement is. It’s like saying I spent 5 hours adjusting the carburater on my car and there was no difference in performance. I’m going to do it again next week, just because I can. Makes no difference, but I can do it, so I do.

      643

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I looked on the BOM website, for the disclaimer that, “No Goats were harmed in the process of producing this data set”, and I couldn’t find one.

        So I think you have solved the riddle, Sheri. It is no more than a make-work scheme for witch doctors!

        Mind you, they deny it.

        In seeking confirmation, I telephoned the BOM on two occasions, and spoke to both Mumbo and Jumbo, and they both warned me that they would poke the bone (well, actually a green stick, because they are vegan) in my direction, if I continued to question further.

        So there you have it.

        502

        • #
          Dennis

          Was the the Dreamtime Department?

          30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          There was a movie called “Men who stare at goats” which was the US Armys attempt to use occult mysticism and remote viewing to give soldiers an “edge”…

          I find the BOM mumbo jumbo they call “science” of similar vein …..

          But wait – hasnt the Vatican just out-done the BOM by officially swallowing a swimming pool of CAGW Kool-Aid?
          How could 1.2 billion people be wrong? ( I recall my grandmothers wise old saying of “If all your mates were dumb enough to jump off a building, would you do it too?” )

          /sarc

          191

    • #
      lemiere jacques

      well…at best the global temperature from station show warming not the planet..
      add the ocean…and we don’t know if the “planet” is warming or not.

      41

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The flawed data shows a warming, Bastardized data shows a warming. The sky is falling.

      161

    • #
      TedM

      “The raw data shows a warming”

      Timboss it’s called UHI.

      231

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        …except when Anthony Watts published his research into it, the result was the opposite of what had been claimed.

        You *do* have some actual research to back up your assertion, don’t you Ted?

        120

        • #
          TedM

          You don’t need me to point you to research on UHI Craig.

          111

        • #
          James Bradley

          Craig,

          If you insist:

          “You *do* have some actual research to back up your assertion, don’t you Ted Craig?”

          If only you could get hold of the elusive ‘BOM adjusted data set’ I’m sure you could prove your point.

          171

      • #
        TedM

        Add to my previous comment Timboss….the NASA/GISS record shows warming for the continental USA, however the USNCR record; the state of the art sites specifically established to monitor temperatures shows the continental USA warming.

        Craig may wish to explain this without UHI or adjustments affecting the NASA/GISS record.

        31

        • #
          TedM

          OOPS!!!!

          “… however the USNCR record; the state of the art sites specifically established to monitor temperatures shows the continental USA warming.”

          Should have read… however the USNCR record; the state of the art sites specifically established to monitor temperatures shows the continental USA cooling.

          70

        • #
          The Backslider

          James Hansen showed us way back in 1998 that the USA had in fact cooled since the 1940′s right up until 1998 and showed us a nice graph from GISS data to illustrate it. Look it up.

          Are you telling us that the USA has warmed since 1998,or when?

          10

      • #
        Ceetee

        UHI, we spoke about that 10 years ago, even before ‘climategate’. I suppose with the advent of satellites they had to find another way of devolving knowledge and discovery. They behave like crooked bookies. Here in NZ I have a strong suspicion the official record is not particularly reliable either. The meme rules and even politicos you just know are skeptics are meek and conciliatory when a journalist’s mike is shoved in their faces. Cowardice everywhere. The future of left wing politics is in the hands of journalists everywhere and by God don’t they know it.

        40

    • #
      Manfred

      A trendless interval with NO statistically significant WARMING for the last 19 years.

      131

    • #

      Tim, true, the raw data shows a warming, …and then a cooling, a warming and a pause, and that’s the problem isn’t it? The warming zones in the raw data are at the wrong times and rates and don’t fit with the CO2-theory.

      301

      • #
        Ceetee

        None of it fits Jo but that doesn’t seem to phase these people. I try to do my bit, a bit of persuasive and gentle probing here, a correction there but people hear what they want to hear. People love their preconceived ideas and their prejudice and when their supposed ‘betters’ tell them that science backs these ideas it’s bloody hard to get through to their better nature. Some people seem to be smart enough to at least accept the doubt but smarter people will try harder to dissuade them. I know people who I consider to be intelligent who unthinkingly parrot the 97% figure at me without the vaguest sense of irony. It’s just gang warfare now. Its so bad that should some eminent person find a cure for cancer tomorrow and the very next day confess to being an outright AGW skeptic they would be vilified by the great and the good for their ‘lousy’ science. It’s not about science, you won that battle years ago. It’s all dirty, mucky, depraved, deceitful politics now.

        101

    • #
      Skeptik

      Was that he “we are 38% certain” statement?

      40

    • #
      RB

      I suspect that changing all the station temps to dead flat lines wouldn’t do much to the final results and the homogenisation just makes the individual station data march to the same tune.

      20

    • #
      Kiwisceptic

      Except that it doesn’t. The raw data shows no warming at all for close to 20 years. It only confess under duress; that is, the data only shows warming AFTER it’s been tampered with. Sorry, I mean ‘adjusted’.

      00

  • #
    Jim from Maine

    Maybe a better question is:
    When will the BOM start to behave as if they work for the people?

    461

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      What?

      They’re Public Servants.

      They don’t work for anybody.

      360

      • #
        Skeptik

        They’re Public Servants.

        They don’t work for anybody.

        Fixed.

        313

        • #
          Stupendus

          I’m sorry, I am an Australian public servant, I do work, I am ashamed that some of my fellow public servants are acting to give us a bad name. All it will take is one person with a sense of actually abiding by the Public service code of conduct to come forward with the truth (and accompanying emails and data) and the whole house of cards will come falling down, sure a lot of people will lose their jobs, but the way the government is making cuts lets get rid of the criminals, come on come forward and save your job and have some ethical standards, you will probably end up running the place.

          351

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            That’s stupendous, Stupendus.

            My play on words is that they’re independent – supposedly.

            However, it would appear that some are not. They’re committed activists. The APS has been politicised in some areas, generally by the left and green.

            BoM, appears to be one that has succumbed. There are others.

            What’s the Auditor-General doing to deal with the corruption of national datasets?

            Bugger all, it would seem. A solid Effectiveness Audit would go a long way to sorting them out.

            The review by the BoM appointed Technical Committee is proof positive that the BoM has something to hide.

            Accordingly we must not let up on them.

            Letters to the Minister responsible is a start. Letters to the Editor are also good. A letter to the Auditor-General expressing dismay would also help.

            132

    • #

      That’s a good question. Considering worldwide, most elected leaders seem to ignore those who elected them, my answer would be “No time soon.”

      141

    • #
      Jon

      They are under control of
      of international Marxism ?

      101

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The influence of idiology of “whatever kind” is strong in the world these days.

        There seems to be strong competition to out-righteousn everyone else.
        The “greenest” this and that; is the evidence I put forward for this conjecture.

        51

        • #
          Jon

          Antroproghenic ideas have been controlling us since the dawn of Antroproghenic time. It’s just adaption of story and wrapping that changes. We are born sinners and have to be controlled by the few selfapointed “enlightened”. £

          31

      • #
        aussieguy

        It is the pursuit of this so-called “One World Govt”. (Where the United Nations is the HQ). It is their grand utopia for the world. Climate Change happens to be the mechanism to try to enact that change. To deceive people into volunteering for this utopia. Remember, the masses outnumber the architects of this grand plan. So they must coerce people into it. (Whether by fear mongering or by emotional bullying).

        Unfortunately for them; truth, honesty, integrity, and character seems to get in their way. Not to mention time. Time is always the enemy for those who deceive others. The truth always wants to get out…No matter how much one tries to bury it. Deception always becomes a load too heavy for those who practice it.

        71

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    (I seem to have a habit of posting comments less than 20 minutes before Jo posts a new article. So repeating my earlier comment which is now on topic….)

    In my brief scan, figure 4.1 was the money shot, which shows:
    “the difference in mean temperature anomalies between the homogenised ACORN-SAT and unadjusted AWAP datasets”.
    Conventionally in English and mathematics, the “difference between A and B” is calculated as B-A, so this is a graph of AWAP – ACORNSAT, which starts with ACORNSAT being less than AWAP and later converges to zero.
    Since AWAP is “unadjusted” data, this means ACORNSAT has cooled the past but not the present, which must therefore add warming to the trend.

    It all seems quite straighforward, I don’t know what you skeptics were complaining about. /sarc

    Remember they are not really altering the truth, that’s just a “concern” and a “perception”:

    address public concerns about the Bureau’s rationale for adjusting the raw data, and to counter the perception expressed within unsolicited submissions that the raw data represent ’truth’ while adjustments seek to alter that ‘truth’.
    The Forum strongly endorses the view that the raw observations, like almost all measured quantities, are potentially subject to both random and systematic variation and that such statistical variation must be taken into account in analysing the temperature record. Any analysis or presentation of climate data which ignores this feature of the measured raw data is likely to be misleading.

    The role of expertise is going to be important. If every adjustment had a statistically defensible basis, how would any of us know. They are correct that raw is not necessarily more accurate than adjusted if raw was affected by factors other than the real world quantity being sought, in this case regional/global average temperature.

    Why do I get the feeling that nothing BoM says will satisfy anyone here? We’re going to have to hear an ‘OK’ from some outside statisticians before it pleases anyone here; so much poison in the well already.
    And yes, as Jo says, independent replication goes a long way.

    324

    • #
      bobl

      Not really Andrew, what I would like to see is a database with raw temps, and a set of adjustments either as stored procedures or simple offsets along with the explanations for each adjustment. The adjustments could then be applied to the raw data to produce the final product and because each adjustment is kept separate from the data they are easilly removed if subsequently shown wrong. This is how it SHOULD have been done, clearly there aren’t any automation engineers at the BOM or CSIRO.

      112

      • #
        bobl

        How the hell could anyone red thumb that!

        70

        • #
          Peter C

          Motivation of red thumbs is obscure bobl. Red thumbers rarely explain.

          However if someone such as yourself makes an observation which is either patently true or insightful and which also undermines that ACGW narrative,, then 1 or 2 red thumbs are just about inevitable. Hence getting a few red thumbs should be seen as scoring a goal!

          On the other hand if you get 20 red thumbs you gave probably scored an own goal, and very likely there will follow some comments trying to put you straight.

          113

          • #
            Ceetee

            Thats a good point Peter C. I can’t for the life of me understand the motivation behind the Red Thumb. This isn’t the Coliseum.

            41

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            I note that at this moment no other “skeptical” commentator has received 4 or more red thumbs like my comment above.
            I know I’m supposed to ironically see that as some sort of accolade but I don’t.

            If there are some red-thumbers out there who know how to type, not just click red thumbs, can they please explain which aspect of figure 4.1 I have misinterpreted, whether they understand how much “poisoning of the well” has occurred already, how external replication is not necessary for this particular product of this public institution, or in detail which other aspect of my comment has been so upsetting to them.

            You may think skeptics are not capable of learning, but if you say nothing then you are maintaining that problem.

            102

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Hi Andrew,

              For a long time I’ve thought the whole approve/disapprove thing was unnecessary. If you like what someone has said, tell them so. The means to reply is right there to be used. And if you don’t, then the same thing applies, perhaps more so, since as you point out, it would be very good to know the reason for the disapproval.

              On the other hand, the red thumb bombers prefer the darkness of anonymity to the daylight of plain, straightforward speaking. And to me that says they aren’t confident enough in their position to stick their necks out by speaking up.

              This business of debate is a lot like the tortoise; it only makes progress when it sticks its neck out — a favorite metaphor of James Bryant Conant.

              32

              • #

                I ask again why anyone cares in the least about red and green thumbs?

                34

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                There are a lot of people who read web sites, such as this one, because they want to better understand what is happening in the world. Not all of them feel confident enough to join in a conversation between people who they see as having firmer, or better informed opinions, than their own.

                If you take the time to notice, a humorous comment draws more thumbs-up, and a troll attack draws more thumbs-down. People feel confident voting in such obvious matters. When commenters are being serious, then the thumbs tend to reflect the degree by which the reader understands and agrees, or disagrees, with the point being made.

                So, I have always thought of the thumbs as being like a nod or shake of the head from ‘the audience’. Has my explanation helped the silent and invisible reader? Or has it merely just increased their confusion or disagreement?

                And yes, thumbs can be gamed by tribes of unwashed and ill-informed pre-pubescent children, but that tends to be obvious when it occurs, because the whole group must have a click, to remain part of the tribe, and we end up with a silly number of votes, that can be ignored.

                20

              • #
                Konrad

                Sheri & Rereke,
                sometimes the red thumbs do serve a purpose, ie: “when you are taking flak (but no one is scrambling a fighter) you are over the target”.

                On a previous thread I have received a glorious total of 93 red thumbs, but not one critical comment. Not one!

                Within Jo’s house rules, people are free to debate, so when you get a storm of red thumbs but no counter argument, this can be taken as direct empirical evidence that those who fear your argument have no coherent scientific counter argument.

                When I say “the oceans are an extreme short wave selective surface that would heat to 335K were it not for cooling buy our radiatively cooled atmosphere, therefore AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility” no one, but no one (out of 7 billion!) has a scientific counterargument and the red thumbs (sans rational counter argument) are just empirical evidence of this.

                Personally I would treat the comment free red thumbs as an ego boost, but that 93 ain’t so hot. (It was just the same ~20 IP addresses clicking and the thread had been linked from Andrew bolt’s blog).

                45

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Rereke,

                If someone is not certain enough to make a comment then how can they be certain that a green or red thumb is the appropriate response? That’s the whole problem as I see it. If you can hold your own then identify yourself and enter the debate. Otherwise, silence is the best option, not cheap, anonymous mouse clicks.

                Better yet, if you’re uncertain about something do as I’ve done numerous times and ask for clarification.

                21

              • #

                Rereke and Konrad: I think you’re extrapolating to things not in evidence–for example, that you are on the right track. As Konrad noted, the same IP addresses can click over and over. People can randomly click the thumbs just for the fun of it. It doesn’t have to be a group thing. Sure, I may click a thumb now and then, but if I really care, I make a comment. People can comment completely anonymously as far as readers are concerned (yes, the blog owner knows the email and IP address), so not wanting to comment for fear of being wrong doesn’t seem likely. People seem to feel free to bully, insult and generally behave like savages online elsewhere. Why fear commenting here? (Obviously, there are moderation rules here, but if anonymity empowers people to be rude, why wouldn’t it allow them to ask questions?) Roy makes a good point about how does one know which thumb to click if they don’t understand the comment enough to comment.

                I do thank you for answering and not just clicking a thumb! ;)

                11

          • #
            Bobl

            At the time it was the only comment with a red thumb but was simply about a plainly evident need to separate data and adjustments. If someone thinks raw and convolved output data without the transformation in between is enough, then they obviously have never done anything even approximating engineering or computer science. I am not complaining about the red thumb per se, rather I am genuinely surprised that anyone could disagree with the approach I put forward.

            10

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    The three most serious issues are:

    · Australian Climate Observations Reference network – Surface Air Temperature data (ACORN), marketed by the Bureau of Meteorology as homogeneous (free of non-climate impacts such as station moves and equipment changes) are demonstrably NOT homogeneous.
    Step-changes can easily be pinpointed using serial statistical tests, and linked to specific causes, including site changes, changes in data precision, processing, and in particular the introduction of automatic weather stations in the 1990’s.

    How many examples of inhomogeneous ACORN data does the Bureau need, before they admit there is an inherent and serious problem in its homogenisation methodology?

    · Multiple lines of evidence show the Bureau’s automatic weather stations are biased-high relative to the thermometer record.
    That bias is the main reason for Australia’s apparent temperature trend. Automatic weather station data also underpins the climate industry’s recent focus on extreme value analysis, and trend-in-extremes, as cover for the apparent hiatus.
    How many examples of trend-bias, directly related to AWS over-reporting of upper-range temperatures, does the Bureau need in order to admit there is a problem?
    · Recently digitised so-called raw historic data (mainly pre-1957) have been changed during the digitisation process. Recently digitised modern data (post about 1990) and current daily data are homogenised to agree with the AWS record. The Bureau has erected data-access barriers, including not databasing thermometer data, discarding the paper-record without scanning them, and making certified real data prohibitively costly to access.
    How does the Bureau justify the cost of collecting thermometer data that they don’t archive and make available; and how will the Bureau retrospectively handle the fallout, when the realisation strikes that warming in Australia has been confected by the way data are managed?

    392

    • #
      David Maddison

      If the BOM have been destroying old paper records without scanning them surely this is must be a breach of something in the Public Service Act, not to mention a breach of the scientific method? Is there no one in the BOM that can be held responsible?

      00

      • #

        David: Don’t know about the BOM, but in the US records of all types of records have been disappearing since 18 minutes went missing in Watergate. There was the Rose Law Firm record shred, Hillary’s private email server, “missing emails” that were only missing until the heat was off, Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra affair, etc. There has never been a prosecution for any of this. The closest ones ever gotten were convictions for lying to Congress. At this point, if we jailed everyone who lied to Congress, we’d have full employment building and maintaining prisons. Rarely does anyone ever get censured (a meaningless “punishment” anyway) or called on the carpet. Government seems immune from the rules the rest of society lives by, even in so-called free nations.

        00

  • #

    Jo-wanted to make sure you saw this post claiming that “denialists are at the end of their tether”? https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2015/06/the-pope-and-the-planet-waiting-for-francis/

    Somehow from the tenor of this post, I do not think you are the one lost in a void of fantasy desperate for a lifeline back to reality. Also no one thinks the pope is part of a conspiracy. They believe he is painfully deluded on this issue with a need for better advisors.

    We also need to purge that phrase “climate scientist” or recognize that it is a ‘social’ science, not a physical one.

    211

  • #
    Jennifer Marohasy

    There are some big admissions of incompetence reading between the lines of the report. I’ve made a first quick analysis here… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/06/response-to-yes-minister-report-by-ron-sandland/

    364

  • #

    Trust is a really vital factor in government and public administration.
    It is the natural inclination of the ordinary people – such as myself – to trust that governments, and government funded bureaucracies/organisations are working to the highest scientific standards when dealing with a simple question like, “What is the temperature record of various sites in Australia?’
    We, the people actually want to trust our governments and government funded organisations like the BOM.
    But trust should never be taken for granted by these people – these servants of the people, these public servants. They really have to earn the trust and demonstrate that they can be trusted. They cannot just live off their reputation.
    Refusing to make the basis of their adjustments open to scientific inquiry, and refusing to allow independent scientists to audit their adjustments in a process of replication, is definitely not a move designed to build trust. When the public loses trust in the credibility of a government bureaucracy, they don’t just get annoyed, they get angry.
    For BOM! If you want to gain the trust of the scientific community and the public at large, you have to ‘lift the veil’ on the way you do these adjustments.
    For the Federal Government. How about forcing the issue by requiring a truly independent review/audit of the BOM – a review/audit that is resourced and is given adequate time to drill right down into the detail. After all, if a government funded bureaucracy is found at some future date to have been capricious in its handling of data – such as to mislead scientists and the public at large – it will reflect on you. The public will start to lose trust in you too. Better to be ahead of the game and audit the BOM.

    232

  • #
    Tim Hammond

    Put simply, they chance the data to what they think it should be.

    And they base what they think it should be on what fits their theory.

    And the say sceptics are anti-science?

    212

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Yes and like high priests of an apostate religion they then proclaim that only they can read and understand the scriptures/data. They will tell us what it means and what we must do.

      190

      • #
        Peter Miller

        There is truly a scary amount of what you describe above in the world today, from ISIL to the pseudo-religious Christian cults that infest the deep south of the USA and of course, let us not forget the high priests of the alarmist cult from Cook to Mann and sadly so many others.

        124

  • #
    Fox From Melbourne

    “ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention.”
    So ACORN-SAT is riddled with Observation Bias. Just how much did this cost us again and continues to cost us? Question dose the person hiring these Scientists at BOM have a clue about Science at all?

    142

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Bloated bureaucracies, like the BOM, are the same the world over, their decision making processes are supposedly transparent, but only as long as you promise not to look.

    Even the bureaucrats rarely understand, of fully follow, the correct methodology and will definitely resist at all costs any outside attempts to expose their methodologies to the bright light of day.

    Inefficient, wasteful and totally unfit for purpose, the BOM is no different from hundreds of other bureaucracies around the world, the problem for us is the BOM is deliberately and methodically churning out alarmist propaganda from blatantly tortured and therefore misleading data.

    202

    • #
      Dave in the states

      They are bureaucracies, it is what they do. There is a lesson from history about bureaucracies that could be applied.

      During WWII the US Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance was extremely powerful and extremely arrogant. They were convinced that the weapons systems they researched and developed were the best and resisted any efforts by any body to deliver constructive criticism. But the Bureau was wrong about several things, and no bigger scandal was the torpedo failures.

      After Pearl Harbor, reports started coming in that the torpedoes were faulty. They passed under their targets without detonating, didn’t run straight, failed to detonate if they did by luck directly hit the target, or in some cases circled around and sank the ship that had fired it. The Bureau said: “No, no there is nothing wrong the torpedoes. You just don’t know how to use them. You need better training. They have been tested in our labs by our scientists and we know they are good.” But their lab tests were of each sub-system in isolation and the results were not repeatable in the combat arena using the whole torpedo in real world conditions. It went on and on. Finally, after nearly two years the admiral in charge of American submarines had had enough of the Bureau’s excuses and set up and conducted his own simple experiments. He quickly found the faults and proved the Bureau wrong. Then the Japanese Merchant Marine was quickly sent to the bottom.

      240

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        But their lab tests were of each sub-system in isolation and the results were not repeatable in the combat arena using the whole torpedo in real world conditions.

        Does this remind anyone else about the “proof” of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” in labs?

        140

        • #
          Konrad

          The truth is there are no lab tests proving CO2 to be a “greenhouse” gas.

          There are lab experiments, some simple enough for the lay person to replicate, that show that CO2 can both absorb and emit long wave infrared radiation. But this just tells you the radiative properties of CO2, nothing more. It certainly doesn’t tell us the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere.

          On the other hand there are repeatable empirical lab experiments, some simple enough for the lay person to replicate, that show that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere cannot possibly be surface or atmospheric warming.

          55

          • #
            JohnOH

            Actually there were some tests done, by the Mythbusters….but their “tests” used a small greenhouse and (73,510 ppm) to get just under 1 degree Celsius increase over the control CO2 before and after. Unfortunately, their greenhouse had a roof, and in real life, earth radiates heat into outer space….so it wasnt conclusive… but really wouldn’t you measure oceanic temperatures? As that moderates the planets heat and ANY increase there would be conclusive, except fro these pesky ocean current transmitting hear to the far corners of the earth.. It seems that weather scientists are little more than doomsday snake oil salesmen for the big global warming scam… and off course quite few will benefit as we run around screaming” The sky is falling”
            The Mythbusters fail
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

            12

      • #
        Len

        They did some trials in the Albany harbour in WA with these malfunctioning torpedoes in WW2 to sort them out.

        30

    • #
      Debbie

      It is definitely a case of ‘same s**t different day’!
      They are producing loads and loads of contradictory data, lots of contradictory information but it is NOT particularly useful or transparent.
      ‘Independent authorities’ such as BoM are basically setting their own rules, writing their own contracts and marking their own homework.
      They don’t/won’t answer direct questions.
      They work hard to NOT answer direct questions.
      They are scarily unaccountable.
      They act as if they have a monopoly over the weather/climate due to legislation.

      102

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    We need to prepare for the day the house of cards collapses. Historically,a variety of religious groups have prophesied the apocalypse, to be left floundering when the golden hour passes uneventfully. But they have been fringe groups outside the mainstream, thus the ensuing issues have been of clinical interest only. Governments of this nature have generally dissolved into unconditional surrender. It appears that global warming will fail, however, with its adherents still very much in positions of authority. I fear a lashing out at the “enemy” with difficult consequences for the rest of us. In the US recently, we had a bureaucrat from the EPA note that he could ride into town, crucify a couple of high profile examples, and everyone else would fall into line (paraphrase). When we expose an agency, we should also consider disbanding it based on fear of retribution. Think about all the damage done to corporations by disgruntled employees, and the precautions they must now take to separate someone.

    111

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Meteorological data collected by public employees are public data, public property.
    Imagine if highway workers, railroad workers, and airport workers damaged and destroyed the public infrastructure it would be called terrorism or willful destruction of public property.
    I cannot see any difference between destroying bridges, highways, railways, and airports than destroying public weather and climate databases. Good scientific data are as important to scientists and weather forecasters, climate analysts, and public decision making as bridges are to travelers on a nation’s highways.
    These government workers who damage or destroy public data are just as much criminals as those who destroy infrastructure.
    If I were an Australian, I would want to see the BOM transitioned from a government agency to a private corporation with performance standards and fiduciary responsibility for collecting and maintain true and accurate databases and these responsibilities would subject such companies to fines and prison sentences for destruction and corruption of databases.

    142

  • #
    Mike Smith

    In other words, it’s a fabrication; a work of pure fiction masquerading as science and designed to support their political agenda.

    Australians need to get angry and reform the BOM.

    152

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    star commentOK so a while ago (many years back,before I became the big cheese) I used to do a lot of audit work , boring humdrum ,repetitive ,but here’s the point :-
    You arrived at an answer, a conclusion that was validated all the way though the system so that your resulting statement was incontrovertible. There was zero room for error or fudging , the damn thing added up and made sense and balanced or you had to go back to where the error was created,. So I feel the love from you all regarding accountants ,and of course how boring we are ,but we got things right , we did not make shit up , reputations of big companies were at stake so you had to be right.
    I could have saved hundreds of man hours by suggesting that an error of £100 was insignificant, write it off, but as we accountants know , it might not be a £100 error , it might be a million out one way and 999,900 the other ,or a serious or combination of errors leading to an erroneous result. The point is , once you start playing with figures (data) you are screwed ,because the actual is the actual ,no matter what you might think .If previous data does not exist or match up to critical view , just bin it and report that the data is crap , what Accountants cannot do , is homogenize data is if that is a substitute for fact. It is not , it is invention and not worthy of distribution.

    Star from me. Thanks! – J

    582

    • #
      Debbie

      Well said!
      BoM and so many other ‘independent authorities’ are not accountable for their reporting and conclusions.
      They don’t have to be right….they just need to pretend they’re ‘not necessarily wrong’.

      102

    • #
      me@home

      R451, agree and may I add from the perspective another (lapsed) accountant even a trial balance seemingly in perfect balance does not mean that it is free from error.

      50

  • #
    Robert O

    There may be valid reasons for changing the original temperature measurements, overgrowing of sites, changes in equipment, shifting locations and of course the Urban Heat Island effect of lots of concrete and tarmac, but when the estimate of the global temperature change is less than a degree celsius since the Mini Ice Age anyhow it requires some solid evidence that the changes made are both real and necessary. And this is the weakness of the homogenisation process; are the changes to the original data meaningful, or are they producing some abberation?

    Against this background of homogenisation of land-based data there are the satellite data which cover both the land masses and the oceans and which are not showing any changes to temperature. What data should we believe?

    Then there is the other dilemna that there is no significant mathematical correlation between global temperature, which is static, and levels of carbon dioxide which are rising. Not a very good reason to sign up to some deal in Paris on Carbon abatement based on pretty shonky science that seems to be accepted by our politicians. The old adage “if in doubt throw it out” should be applied in view of the amount of money involved.

    212

  • #
    Skeptik

    If only BOM staff are smart enough to understand “scientifically complex” thermometers then let the BOM provide an “expert” and the original data and in a controlled environment replicate their own work. That way it can be discovered the methods used and exactly how accurate the adjustments are.

    72

  • #
    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

    It is thus recommended that the Bureau limits the amount of assistance it provides end-users and includes a statement on the ACORN-SAT website that while reasonable assistance may be provided by the Bureau, extensive assistance could not be provided without an appropriate at-cost charge.

    Let’s follow that thought for a moment. Presumably the Bureau have the necessary (highly skilled) people who understand this adjustment process sufficiently to apply it as new raw data comes in. But because (in the pleading at least) such people are rare, one must assume there is not a large excess, such that if outside parties requested and paid for the support the Bureau would have to hire and train new people, or re-assign and train existing employees. And in any case highly skilled people tend to be senior and therefore approaching retirement.

    Any responsible organization would have a plan to train new people to fill this critical role. One assumes this would encompass written training materials, certification tests, continuing education requirements, etc. All this should be a legitimate subject of an FOIA request: how do the BOM train and certify people in this critical process? If they do have such materials, they also should be discoverable via FOIA. If they do not, then the question must be asked how the BOM could have any confidence in their adjustment process if it is so complicated it can’t be explained to outsiders and they have no formal process to explain it to themselves.

    160

    • #
      Debbie

      Yep!
      An easy way to save money and ‘serve the public’ is to focus on providing what the public expects…clear & useful public information!
      BoM seems to have lost the plot.
      They would be worth every cent we pay them if they could provide such things as reasonably accurate regional seasonal forecasting…as one example.
      Perhaps even if we knew they were actually working on improving such things as accurate regional seasonal forecasting?????
      Telling people who work out in the real weather/climate/environment such things as ‘Australia was whatever % wetter/hotter/ colder/ drier than average in(insert whatever day/ month/year)’…may be an interesting statistic but if that’s all they conclude it’s not particularly useful!!!

      112

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      good point

      30

  • #
    Ruairi

    The B.O.M. must know more than the rest,
    To set science so cryptic a test,
    In their method devised,
    To have past temps. revised,
    So confusing the smartest and best.

    182

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Science may yet be hiding many secrets but the tickle up and down my spine tells me the secret adjustments of the BOM aren’t among them.

    Science has another attribute I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere. Science has a sense of shame, something not possessed by those who keep their data and methodology secret because they fear being found out.

    82

  • #
    TedM

    I am just too flabergasted by the arrogance, pomposity and duplicity of the BOM to know just what to say, other than there must be a very powerful force driving the global warming agenda.

    142

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … there must be a very powerful force driving the global warming agenda

      Look no further than the UN bureaucrats – power without representation – every politician’s wet dream.

      120

  • #
  • #
    Aussiejohn

    Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    81

  • #
    Peter C

    BOM Technical Advisory Forum!
    Forum means open discussin as in market place. They are not a forum because they decided to restrict themselves to limited terms of reference, hence an enquiry or commission.

    Also they noted that there were 20 unsolicited submissions. Unsolicited sounds like unwelcome submissions. I made one of them.

    In end end the unsolicited submissions were brushed off and not considered in detail.

    120

  • #
    handjive

    The Forum, chaired by Dr Ron Sandland formerly of the CSIRO, concurs with the Bureau that:

    “There is a need to adjust the historical temperature record to account for site changes, changes in measurement practices and identifiable errors in measurement… ” (marohasy)
    ~ ~ ~
    weatherzone, January 21, 2015:
    BoM withdraws advice Alice Springs recorded its hottest day ever, blames faulty thermometer
    . . .
    “Logic” dictates that “There is a need to adjust modern temperature record to account for identifiable errors in measurement …”

    72

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    As someone said in the last thread, measuring the temperature is not easy.

    While I agree with the statement I am tempted to put it another way.

    Measuring the temperature is actually the least of our problems with the equipment that has been available over the last few hundred years. Accurate readings to at least + or – one quarter of a degree have always been accepted.

    What is NOT easy is to define what you have measured.

    The many confounding factors such as shading, humidity, wind speed to name a few are just not able to be recorded and accounted for in the reading.

    Then we have the mother of all variations in measurement, the change from one device to another.

    It is inexcusable from a scientific point of view to “blend” data . Both data sets should be on the same plot and notes used to indicate the different origins of the data shown.

    Then the reader can decide for themselves just what importance they give to outliers or to sections of the graph that seem to be anomalous.

    The BoM system is obviously designed to tell a story and not to provide a document for others to “extract” the scientific meaning of the data.

    KK

    112

  • #
    Graham Richardsk

    By the way are we not now officially in an EL NINO cycle according to the BOM.

    The western regions of Qld are having great rain so I guess that ol’ El Nino is being naughty and has gone walkabout.

    60

  • #
    Earl

    Every time I hear or read something involving the BOM, it reminds me of a Russian proverb, or joke. I know not which it is, however it sums up the BOM most eloquently, and is particularly prophetic.
    It is a conversation between two people,
    #1 I understand that Boris Spanski from Moscow is a famous racing car driver.
    #2 That is correct, but he is not from Moscow, he is from St. Petersburg.
    #1 Really.
    #2 And his name is actually Ivan Ivanovic.
    #1 Oh.
    #2 Also, he does not drive a car, he races a bicycle.

    Those are not the numbers, these are the numbers.

    51

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    The BOM’s secret science and now a Papal Encyclical.

    ITS OFFICIAL – CAGW IS A RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE!

    110

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      Just went to http://wattsupwiththat.com to find a guest post “Is The Catholic Church Burned By The Sun Again?” by Dr. Tim Ball.

      This bit resonated

      “It came almost exactly 400 years after Galileo was denounced to the Roman Inquisition in the spring of 1615. The Catholic Church only acknowledged the errors of their actions, their last and most negative brush with science, when they forgave Galileo in 1992. Pope John Paul said labeling Galileo a heretic and confining him to life imprisonment was an error. It only took 377 years for the Church to catch up with reality. No doubt Galileo is delighted, assuming he made it to heaven.”

      What else could one say.

      131

  • #
    Apollo

    I have to admit that while I enjoy visiting this site, I don’t always understand the science behind some of the concepts discussed – I do my best but I’m not that smart. But something I simply cannot fathom is how a public institution, like the BOM, which is funded by taxpayers, can keep data and processes secret from the community who funds them. I, along with every other member of the public, own that data, and unless there is a commercial reason that could damage a future economic benefit to the country, every last bit of that data should be available to whoever wants it. In my humble opinion, if you want to keep your scientific methods to yourself, don’t work for the public service, stop sucking money from the teat of the government and raise your own funds.

    142

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Apollo you’ve summed up what every Australian will think once the penny drops on this whole debacle, well said.

      Also don’t ever think your “not that smart”, if you have something to say, say it! :)

      30

      • #
        ROM

        Apollo @ # 30
        I don’t know what you do or did for a living nor is my business to know but I would almost lay odds that the BOM’s many holders of comfortable sinecures could not live or exist without people like you doing your job.

        However I also suspect that you and a very large proportion of the populace but not all, commercial aviation being just one of a list that is reliant on the BOM’s forecasts, could cope very well indeed without the BOM.

        We certainly did without too much trouble some 70 odd or more years ago and even further back in my grandfather’s days of the last part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century.

        As for the climate analysis sections of the BOM, who the hell needs them in any case?
        And for what practical reason as we cant do anything about the climate in any case and won’t be able to for far into the future if at all, ever?

        And as I have asked on this blog of Jo’s, WUWT, Climate etc on more than one occasion in the past;
        Can somebody somewhere please point me to one single major item where Climate Science after a quarter of a trillion dollars being spent on climate science research world wide over the last two decades has actually provided something of a tangible and useable benefit to the community, to society and to the world at large ?

        My only real answer I have ever received for that question was; “It sells newspapers!”

        61

    • #
      Bill

      Very well said, Apollo. You might not have a scientific background but there is nothing inferior about your intellect.

      10

  • #
    • #
      Murgatroyd

      Some problem there. Your link neither mentions Vikings or Greenland.

      They did find grapes growing when they got to Vinland (now thought to be Newfoundland), but they were local american grape species.

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Should BOM employees be sued by citizens who have had local government regulations, insurance policies and other cost of living expenses increased based on climate change based deceptive data?

    130

  • #
    Dennis

    Has this article been emailed to The Vatican?

    60

  • #
    Peter OBrien

    As we all know, in 1989, IPCC Lead Author, Dr Stephen Schneider, said “In order to gain broad based support, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have”.
    How big a step is it from there to add “and adjust past data (which is probably dodgy anyway) to reinforce the perception of what we know to be true.”

    112

  • #
    TdeF

    Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister would be very pleased with this committee. It has achieved its primary purpose, which was obviously to whitewash the BOM of any responsibility for dodgy record fiddling. It is also reminiscent of Starwars. These are not the records you seek. There is nothing to see here. So just move along. So their methods are mysterious, known only to the few and are not to be questioned by the public and they are too busy homogenizing to answer questions anyway. There is also no need to consider the records prior to 1910 from the previous century when stating that Australia is heating rapidly.

    However it is still puzzling that around the world the dramatic increase in resolution by 0.5C in the period 1985-1995 has not been addressed. Unchecked this alone has the potential to change averages by 0.5C, especially if you expect warming a priori. You cannot change measurement technology so dramatically without some consequential shifts, so the warming may be instrumental and has still since stopped. Of course this is just coincidence?

    Even without now officially unexplained and therefore unjustified fiddling, how can you detect warming when records up to this time were only accurate to 0.5C? How can you pick up such small warming when it is tacitly admitted that location changes produce changes of this magnitude anyway, which means that even the most accurate thermometer cannot change the inherent inaccuracy of measuring the temperature of a huge region from only one location for regions of tens of thousands of km2?

    Fundamentally, why is raw data even changed? These were only thermometer readings. Allegedly necessary changes should be made in analysis, not to raw data or potentially wrong theories are built into the data. The first rule of is never to change the data. However a committee knows best. Of course.

    162

  • #
    Niff

    Most of the commentary here is comical….I cannot bring myself to be amused. This stuff is so egregious, so [snip], so appalling that I am astonished that, even an Australian, would utter such crap. Can someone not start proceedings against these people?

    215

    • #
    • #
      me@home

      What a wonderful, intelligent comment. You win the prize for the best today.

      90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Wot?! Ah, gottit. Niff, in his brevity, protests against the levity.

      We are not seriously serious enough, it would seem.

      We are found guilty of treating the whole climate change fiasco as a joke, which is true. But let us not forget that it was the climate scientists, that started the foolishness first.

      81

  • #

    The QRL, delighted with the BoM’s ability to merge Rutherglen with remote ‘neighbours’, would now like the BoM to officially declare that Macksville is definitely in Queensland.

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      As an interesting (or perhaps not) aside, QRL, in the international signal codes, means “Are you busy?” To which the facetious response is QRM, meaning, “I am being interfered with”.

      20

  • #
    charplum

    It would only be fitting that those who use secret methods to adjust temperatures be placed on double secret probation.

    40

  • #
    pat

    BOM is under the jurisdiction of the Australian Govt with the Ministers responsible being Greg Hunt, Minister for Environment & Senator Simon Birmingham, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Wikipedia).

    Jo’s excerpts for this thread are bureaucratic gibberish.

    why is it that a simple matter such as the Category of Cyclone Marcia in February has yet to be clarified by BOM?

    as late as April, we could have:

    8 April: SBS: Human stories behind devastating Tropical cyclones Lam and Marcia
    On a Friday in late February this year, Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Marcia and Category 4 Tropical Cyclone Lam hit northern Australia.
    Living Black journalists Karla Grant and Laura Murphy-Oates travelled in the storms’ aftermaths to the communities of Galiwinku and Milingimbi in Arnhem Land, and Yeppoon and Rockhampton in Central Queensland to get the stories of Indigenous Australians affected by the Cyclones…
    TWEET: NITV: Special Feature #2: extended story from SBS Living Black ‘s Cyclone Special
    When severe tropical Cyclone Marcia – a category five monster – headed for Central Queensland in February, it was small towns like Yeppoon that copped the brunt of the storm.
    With winds of more than 200km/h…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/05/human-stories-behind-devastating-tropical-cyclones-lam-and-marcia

    The Cat 5 lives on elsewhere in the MSM.

    at the time, Jennifer Marohasy questioned the Cat 5 status. Channel 9 got an unsatisfactory BOM response:

    23 Feb: 9 News: Nicolas McCallum: Biologist questions Bureau of Meteorology’s ‘category 5′ modelling on Cyclone Marcia
    Bureau of Meteorology chief Robb Webb dismissed Dr Morahasy’s claim, noting that forecasters were aware of the lesser speed recorded at Middle Percy but Marcia’s strongest winds were to the east of that station.
    Mr Webb said the bureau worked with the US Joint Typhoon warning Center to analyse the data, declaring it at least a category 4 storm…
    http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/02/24/10/14/biologist-questions-bureau-of-meteorologys-category-5-modelling-on-cyclone-marcia

    & what is a layperson to make of this?

    1 April: Rockhampton Morning Bulletin: The day TC Marcia turned into a category 5 monster
    Cyclone Marcia 2015
    Wind speeds February 20, 2015
    Bureau of Meteorology site
    Rockhampton (Airport)
    10.30am 63kmh
    11.00am 65kmh
    11.30am 85kmh
    11.43am 100kmh
    12.13pm 102kmh
    12.30pm 113kmh
    12.50pm 113kmh
    3.00pm 113kmh
    4.00pm 91kmh
    Yeppoon:
    8.00am 63kmh
    9.00am 82kmh
    10.00am 91kmh
    11.00am 130kmh
    12.01pm 148kmh
    12.30pm 156kmh
    2.00pm 93kmh
    http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/the-day-tc-marcia-turned-into-a-category-5-monster/2593883/

    72

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘When will the BOM start to behave as though the climate is important?’

    Its not in their script, but a drop in temperatures would do the trick.

    ‘When will the Greens demand science be done properly for the sake of the environment?’

    They now have a pragmatic man at the helm, nevertheless he is still deeply entrenched in AGW philosophy. So once again we have to wait for the weather to change before they see reason.

    53

  • #
    Bevan Dockery

    The Bureau of Meteorology is a national disgrace. My understanding is that meteorology is a science in which case all methods and practices should by published and publically available. Either we demand this from our Federal Government or we combine the organisation with the Lotteries Commissions and the staff get prizes when their predictions are proven correct and not before.

    One thing is for certain, the surface of the Earth is definitely not homogeneous so there can be no justification for homogenising the temperature taken about 1.5 metres above that surface unless the stations are of the order of a few metres apart.

    83

  • #
    pat

    one other thing.

    if i go to BOM’s cyclone page, i get a “no current cyclones” message, so i click on “previous cyclones” & get a list that begins with Ada in 1970 & ends with Yasi in 2011. BOM can’t list anything since 2011?

    if i look elsewhere for Cyclone Marcia, the best i can get is the following. the Cats on the Map look dodgy to me!

    BOM: Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia
    MAP
    Between 8am and 6pm on Thursday, Marcia underwent a period of extremely rapid intensification, increasing by three categories to a category 4 cyclone in approximately 10 hours.
    On Thursday night it turned almost due south and intensified even further, reaching category 5 at 4am on Friday 20th February. Wind gusts at Middle Percy Island reached 208 km/h as the cyclone passed to the east.
    Severe tropical cyclone Marcia made landfall as a category 5 cyclone at 8am at Shoalwater Bay, north of Yeppoon…
    Category when crossing the coast: 5
    Extreme values during cyclone event (estimated)
    Note that these values may be changed on the receipt of later information
    Maximum Category: 5
    Maximum sustained wind speed: 205 km/h
    Maximum wind gust: 295 km/h
    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/sevwx/qld/qldtc20150218.shtml

    BOM has never updated the above as far as i can tell & no MSM was interested enough to follow up.
    the Marcia Cat 5 legend lives on.

    62

  • #
    The Four Horsemen

    OT - September 25th to September 27th – The United Nations is going to launch a brand new sustainable development agenda for the entire planet. Some have called this “Agenda 21 on steroids”. But this new agenda is not just about the environment. It also includes provisions regarding economics, agriculture, education and gender equality. On September 25th, the Pope will travel to New York to give a major speech kicking off the UN conference where this new agenda will be unveiled.

    It would appear the Catholics have a problem and not just dodgy priests.
    Will this cause Catholics who oppose CAGW to be ex-communicated from the church?

    80

  • #
    Bob

    Alan Watt
    … “Any responsible organization would have a plan to train new people to fill this critical role” …

    Maybe it’s only about `weather’, but it bugs me

    Here in Queensland, take the failure-rate of the BOM’s cyclone-watch; dam flood-watch; rainfall predictions … and it’s evident to me that what used to be “experienced eyeballs” of folks such as lighthouse-keepers and men on and of the land, has become just a computer game. And dare I say it, that BOM-recruited forecasters seem increasingly to be foreign-born. I’m sure they’re suitably degree-qualified for the role and I’m not, but if we old blokes are ahead of them by a breakfast, lunch and dinner, then I could ask where do they get their input of local knowledge?

    There, I’ve said it

    113

    • #

      Bob, The BOM could save a lot of money if it just stopped bothering to collect thermometer data. They only need the one thermometer in Alice Springs and they can use computers to generate the rest of the country.

      273

      • #
        TdeF

        That too would have to be homogenized, until it gave the expected result.

        You can only feel sorry for all those dedicated school masters, railway station masters, post office employees and individuals who spent their lives meticulously recording the precise temperature even from the early 1800′s. Now it is all utterly ignored up to 1910. Why?

        Surely this is dereliction of duty when the new Commonwealth BOM took over from the State records in 1907. Did anyone seriously believe all these records would be ignored? Isn’t the incredible Federation drought extremely significant and relevant in the light of current BOM claims of rapid heating? They were Stephenson Screens in 1890, as good as in 1910.

        England is still proud of its long history of keeping continuous temperature records. Not our BOM. They defend junking critical science facts as part of good record keeping and serious science. So we are dependent in the whole Southern Hemisphere on tree rings from the Northern Hemisphere. That is indefensible.

        133

        • #
          Leigh

          TdeF, don’t think we’re on our lonesome here, fiddling with our historical temperature record.
          England and America are doing exactly the same thing all under the guise of “world’s best practice”.
          That practice highly likely to have been developed by them!
          It is that secret practice our BOM now admits to using.
          Over at wuwt. there’s waves being made, which are getting bigger, about America using the very same “world’s best practice” secret adjusting methodology.
          Of adusting it’s historical temperature record UP.
          Hopefully this addmission in Australia puts a rocket up em world wide.

          00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hmmm.

        A clearly superior methodology in line with politically correct, post normal science, would be to predict what the thermometers should read by running appropriately tuned computer models.

        With the computer model outputs in hand, the actual collection of data would no longer be necessary.

        We can be sure that the modeled thermometer results will be aligned with the correct narrative, – fake, but true.

        41

    • #
      Peter Carabot

      I hear it every night on the weather report: “Most computer models agree(?) that the High in the byte….” etc.etc. There is no analysis anymore it’s just feed some measurements in a few models and take the average results for “Forecast”!!! B efore S unset!

      11

    • #
      bit chilly

      we have the same issue with the met in the uk.since forecasts switched solely from real time analysis to being computer modeled the accuracy has dropped off a cliff. in some cases even 24 hours out they are wrong.

      00

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Another tawdry demonstration of the baseless pseudo-science that purports to be evidence of failure of the BOM or ACORN. Just like Anthony Watts and the Best reconstructions, the evidence is in.

    Latest news from the Technical Advisory Forum
    “An independent review has endorsed the Bureau of Meteorology’s management of Australia’s official temperature record. The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature dataset (ACORN-SAT), which is managed by The Bureau of Meteorology, is an important part of Australia’s official climate record.”

    “Ability to reproduce findings
    The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public. It would be useful for the Bureau to provide
    advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis)”

    “The need for adjustment
    The Forum endorses the view that there is a need to adjust the historical temperature record to account for site changes, changes in measurement practices, and identifiable errors in measurement”
    Clearly there is a dearth of any substantive evidence in this commentary.

    422

    • #

      For once I agree with you SillyFilly:

      Clearly there is a dearth of any substantive evidence in this commentary.

      The BOM and the advisory panel really have nothing to offer…

      Jo

      193

      • #
        sillyfilly

        As irrelevant as ever….
        You wanted it and now you got it. Pity that!

        [Irrelevant cuts both ways. Another useless comment... Pity!] AZ

        16

    • #
      TedM

      And since BEST used alread adjusted data, it doesn’t carry any weight.

      Just because more than one person organisation say the same thing doesn’t mean it is right.

      103

      • #
        ROM

        And if the BOM had said that a significant cooling is under way as judged by the latest data would Silly Filly have shown up here ?
        Not bloody likely!

        While we are at it and as I understand from her previous posts that Silly Filly is a long time believer in a human created catastrophic warming I would ask her this question, a question the answer to which she and all her fellow believers have now had some twenty odd years to figure out.
        So the following question [ s ] should be very quick and easy question to answer by Silly Filly.
        ___________________
        What, in Silly Filly’s belief should be the correct global temperature that we should be trying to aim for and implement to prevent all those catastrophic events that are ceaselessly predicted to arise from her belief in a humanity induced catastrophic global warming ?

        Or to make it even easier for Silly Filly, how much should the present global temperatures be reduced before she and her fellow believers are satisfied that the dangers of a future climate catastrophe have been eliminated ?

        I await your answer with considerable interest Silly Filly as you are very prominent in climate alarmist circles and no doubt have discussed the above questions at considerable length amongst yourselves and have come up with some answers which you really should publicise on your web site so as to satisfy everybody that you are genuine and not just a agiprop operator of no fixed morality.

        52

        • #
          Peter Carabot

          ROM the answer to your question is very simple:
          We will cease to scare you with predictions of imminent death the day that we have all of your money! As for Optimal Human Temperature we need more more of YOUR money to find that out, in the mean time… What are you doing reading stuff on the web instead of being out there working and making more money For us???

          00

    • #
      me@home

      Silly, thanks for reminding us about the whitewash of the unscientific BOM

      83

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Joanne,

    Does anyone know if the MPs that were briefed yesterday, (some of them who apparently knew of some of the public submissions and also recent material on this website), whether they asked any awkward questions or made requests of the briefers?

    90

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Without resort to external independent reviewers, does anyone believe that even an internal BOM re-calculation of temperatures would correlate with their prior results, even if conducted by the same very expert climate scientist. Or does the dog regularly eat their homework every night?

    82

  • #
    mark

    Data not verified is no data!

    The department that runs climate records within the BoM must have more than one person. How they can have an office that is 100% warmist? Surely, that must be at least one person in there that thinks the method is a shonk.

    72

    • #
      TedM

      In fact around 50% of meteorologists are sceptics. However you would want to keep your job, and that could be quite tenuos if you openly dissented.

      I think you will find that most of the Meteo’s that are CAGW proponents are under 40 years of age. They have grown up on a diet of the stuff. They’ve been fed academic junk food.

      122

  • #
    Keith L

    How about we pass the hat around and pay one of their ‘experts’ to justify ONE single data adjustment. I am sure that would be very revealing.
    For that reason I suspect that they would probably quickly spout some clause that the starting price is $100M or some such thing.
    A bunch of crooks.

    102

  • #
    pat

    o/t but two amusing bits from the Pope coverage:

    18 June: UK Telegraph: Pope Francis and the parable of the plankton
    The papal encyclical on the environment goes far beyond climate change – from saints who talk to plants to the plight of plankton and sponges and the beauty of skyscrapers
    By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
    The text of Laudato Si does all the things it was supposed to do: it warns of doom from man-made climate change, it lambasts politicians for failing to act more decisively and takes aim at the global financial system and the
    plight of the poor…
    He relishes taking a pop at the priorities of many in the comfortable, privileged West who preach an environmental gospel from the safety of their “carefully manicured green spaces” and “ecological” neighbourhoods.
    He is too polite to mention readers of The Guardian but we know what he means…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11683333/Pope-Francis-and-the-parable-of-the-plankton.html

    no demographic will be left behind!

    18 June: Gay Star News: Lord Browne: This time – the Pope is right
    Former BP chief, Lord John Browne, says that industry must lead the way in saving the planet
    I am sure that many Gay Star News readers disagree with the Pope on matters to do with sexuality. But I must confess that his call to action on climate change is right…
    The Pope’s encyclical states that humans have a responsibility to take action because we are God’s custodians of the earth. But here I must disagree with the Pope. It is Gaia Theory that makes the right point. Humans
    are not all that important when it comes to the survival of our planet. It is our own destiny that is in peril if we fail to act on climate change. The planet will survive. Our actions are about self-preservation…
    (John Browne was the CEO of BP 1995-1997 and is currently the Executive Chairman of L1 Energy. He is the author of The Glass Closet, a commentary on the acceptance and inclusion of LGBT people in business)
    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lord-browne-time-pope-right180615

    Wikipedia: L1 Energy is an oil and gas investment company controlled by the Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman, through Alfa Group, and chaired by Lord Browne.
    On 2 March 2015, it was announced that Lord Browne was the Executive Chairman, and would be renouncing his other roles to build a major new oil and gas company from scratch…
    L1 Energy is based in Hamburg, where Browne was born, and its focus will be in acquiring assets in North America and the Far East.

    42

  • #
    pat

    plus a bonus piece.
    btw Reuters had only the headline on their page for this story, in which Edenhofer second-guesses the Pope, EU is silent & IETA is not happy!

    18 June: Eyewitness News South Africa: Reuters: Pope: Emissions trading can undermine climate efforts
    Emissions trading schemes allow polluters to buy and emit carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming.
    Emissions trading is a quick-fix solution which could cause speculation and undermine global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Pope Francis
    said in his encyclical on the environment on Thursday…
    ***Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a consultant to the Vatican in the run-up to the encyclical, said the pope’s comments should not be seen as an outright rejection of emissions trading.
    “The pope is more or less asking scientists to check if this is an instrument which will provide a solution,” he told Reuters.
    Edenhofer speculated that the issue was included in response to concerns from Latin America…
    “I assume it has been mentioned because many people in Latin America are quite suspicious about this market-based instrument,” Edenhofer said…
    ***The European Commission declined to comment but the International Emissions Trading Association said the pope’s view on carbon trading was “out of step” with the views of most economists and analysts.
    The European Union operates the biggest emissions trading scheme in the world…
    http://ewn.co.za/2015/06/18/Pope-Emissions-trading-can-undermine-climate-efforts

    21

  • #
    pat

    a big call!

    18 June: Phys.org: Climate change won’t reduce winter deaths
    In a study that contradicts the received wisdom on health impacts of climate change, scientists say that we shouldn’t expect substantial reduction in winter deaths as a result of global warming. This new research is published today in IOP Publishing’s Environmental Research Letters journal.
    The research team was led by Professor Patrick Kinney of Columbia University in the USA…
    “Most older people who die over the winter don’t die from cold,” Professor Kinney said, “they die from complications related to flu and other respiratory diseases.
    “Unfortunately the holiday season probably plays a part; when older people mix with the younger generations of their families, they come into contact with all the bugs that the kids have brought home from school.”…
    The research doesn’t say that cold can’t be deadly – of course it can – but deaths due to slips and falls, heart attacks while shovelling snow, hypothermia, etc. are anomalies amongst the relatively high number of deaths from communicable diseases…
    We see mosquito-borne diseases emerging in new territories because warmer winter temperatures enable the insects to over-winter in more northerly regions; warmer temperatures can also enable an insect-borne virus to replicate inside the insect vector to be transmitted and cause disease in a human or animal; cases of food poisoning tend to increase with warmer summer temperatures; and airborne pollution and pollen worsen as temperatures rise, causing deaths from respiratory failure.
    Sadly, this research tells us that an increase in summer deaths due to climate change is unlikely to be counteracted by a reduction in winter deaths.
    More information: ‘Winter Season Mortality: Will Climate Warming Bring Benefits?’ Kinney et al 2015 Environ. Res. Lett. 10 064016. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/6/064016
    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-climate-wont-winter-deaths.html#nRlv

    CarbonBrief weighs in:

    19 June: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: Carbon Brief Explainer: Will rising temperatures mean more lives are saved than lost?
    The research, published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, says we shouldn’t expect a drop in winter deaths after all, and that rising temperatures will have an overwhelmingly negative impact on death rates.
    While this is almost certainly true, delving into the literature suggests there’s far more to this topic than headlines like this suggest. Carbon Brief weighs up the evidence…
    A 2014 study by Dr Shakoor Hajat from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) looks at some figures for temperature-related death rates in the UK.
    The paper estimates that around 2,000 people die each year in the UK from illnesses linked to hot weather. By 2050, the authors expect the death toll in the UK to rise by ***257% as temperatures climb higher….
    ***A large part of the increase in hot deaths in the coming decades is down to a growing population. The UK’s population is expected to rise from 63.7m in 2012 to 77m by 2050…
    The population is also ageing, which means the proportion of the people most vulnerable to heat is also growing…
    In the UK, the cold is currently a bigger problem than heat. That is to say, more people in England and Wales currently die from cold in winter than from heat in summer.
    The 2014 LSHTM study estimated that about 41,000 people in the UK die each year in winter from exposure to the cold. That’s about 20 times as many as the 2,000 or so deaths each year from illnesses linked to hot weather…
    A recent study in The Lancet suggests a similar pattern exists across Europe. Collecting data from 13 countries, the authors found the cold kills 20 times as many people as heat…
    ***This topic is almost boundlessly complicated…(BUT CB GOES ON & ON NONETHELESS)
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/carbon-brief-explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost-(1)/

    31

  • #
    Rick Will

    Figure 4.1 on page 17 of the report is the key element of the story for me:
    http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/Scatter_Plot.png
    It is unambiguous in demonstrating how a flat trend can be turned into a rising trend through the magic of homogenisation. This has to be hard for the BoM to swallow and explain.

    62

  • #
    pat

    18 June: Greenpeace Energy Desk: Christine Ottery: Q&A: What’s going on with the UK government halting subsidies for onshore wind?
    So the government has made good on its manifesto promise to halt onshore wind, sort of.
    They have stopped the Renewables Obligation (RO) subsidy for onshore wind a year early, and it will end on 1 April 2016 instead of 2017, putting around 3,000 turbines at risk of being shelved.
    The business community – from electricity utilities to renewables firms, and even the traditionally conservative CBI – have protested that the changes and policy uncertainty will undermine the UK’s credibility with investors in energy infrastructure.
    The policy – and we – are now confused…
    http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/06/18/qa-whats-going-on-with-the-uk-government-halting-subsidies-for-onshore-wind/

    below links to Senate Select Committee List of Recommendations:

    18 June: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Abbott government pledges to appoint a windfarm commissioner in leaked letter
    Exclusive: draft letter from Greg Hunt to crossbench senators details promises made to win their support for renewable energy legislation
    The Abbott government will appoint a “windfarm commissioner” to handle complaints about turbine noise and a new scientific committee to investigate, again, their alleged impacts on human health, in a late-night deal with anti-wind senators over amendments to renewable energy legislation.
    A leaked draft letter from the environment minister, Greg Hunt, to the crossbench senators – obtained by Guardian Australia – details the promises the government has made to win the senators’ support for wood waste to be included as a source of renewable energy – a proposal opposed by Labor but which the government has insisted be included in the broad deal it struck with the ALP to reduce the renewable energy target…
    Many of the crossbenchers pushing the anti-wind farm measures sit on a committee which on Thursday produced an interim report (LINK)…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/18/abbott-government-pledges-to-appoint-a-windfarm-commissioner-in-leaked-letter

    31

  • #
    Rick Will

    I already have proof that 2015 will be the warmest year on record:
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fed-scientists-2015-on-pace-to-be-world-s-6335694.php
    NOAA are predicting it and we know what they can do with the data to guarantee it.

    There is nothing like betting on a sure thing. This outcome will not harm the UN efforts to get their hands on the unlimited funds they desire.

    92

    • #
      el gordo

      Norway is much colder than normal and its summer time in the land of the midnight sun.

      ‘Satellite measurements show that 23 percent of land area in southern Norway is still covered in snow, nearly five times more than normal in June, says senior forecaster Eirik Malnes.’

      NOAA is just making stuff up.

      102

      • #
        Peter Carabot

        Are you saying that Jenny, our meteorologist on the ABC in Queensland is wrong?? She told ME the other night that July 2015 will undoubtedly be the warmest on record EVER!! 16 Days out from the end of the Month!! We are going to FRY!!

        11

      • #
        bit chilly

        look at the sea surface temps they display against those of the danish meteorological society ,they are presenting computer generated nonsense as correct over satellite measured temps.

        00

  • #
    Andrew S

    For some reason – what they’ve done here makes me really sad. The corrections should be documented they should be repeatable and the methodology should be fully published. There’s no transparancy at all. And as numerous people have already documented there are substantial problems with the dataset. Whilst we really don’t know (the bom won’t tell us) its hard not to wonder if they just made it all up. Certainly the errors and the secrecy would seem to imply this.

    Very dissapointed

    62

  • #
    ROM

    There may be the simple Occams razor explanation to the BOM’s secrecy on how and why the adjustements to the temperature record have been made.
    It is quite possible that with a number of individuals working on the temperature adjustments over the last decade and a half or couple of decades or longer, that the rationale and ways in which some or even most of the significant adjustments were made band why they were made at the time by that diverse group of individuals was either never properly recorded or have been lost in the BOM’s files somewhere.

    People are inclined to get on with what they are doing without recording in detail or even recording just what they are doing to the data and why.

    And for this have a read of the Climate Gate’s” Harry read me file” [ http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html ] where the CRU’s Harry is tearing his hair out trying to decipher and understand sometimes with no written records on what was done to the data in it’s processing by the supposed highly qualified [ ?? ] climate scientists.

    random example quoted below;
    ______________________
    Part 35a

    And now, a brief interlude. As we’ve reached the stage of thinking about secondary variables, I
    wondered about the CLIMAT updates, as one of the outstanding work items is to write routines to
    convert CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins to CRU format (so that mergedb.for can read them). So I look at
    a CLIMAT bulletin, and what’s the first thing I notice? It’s that there is absolutely no station
    identification information apart from the WMO code. None. No lat/lon, no name, no country. Which
    means that all the bells and whistles I built into mergedb, (though they were needed for the db
    merging of course) are surplus to requirements. The data must simply be added to whichever station
    has the same number at the start, and there’s no way to check it’s right. I don’t appear to have a
    copy of a MCDW bulletin yet, only a PDF.. I wonder if that’s the same? Anyway, back to the main job.

    As I was examining the vap database, I noticed there was a ‘wet’ database. Could I not use that to
    assist with rd0 generation? well.. it’s not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might
    as well bluff my way into it! Units seem to vary:

    CLIMAT bulletins have day counts:

    SURFACE LAND ‘CLIMAT’ DATA FOR 2006/10. MISSING DATA=-32768
    MET OFFICE, HADLEY CENTRE CROWN COPYRIGHT
    .
    [ lots and lots more of a similar level of gross incompetence ]
    ——————–
    And etc and etc and it gets worse in parts with NO documentation on what was done to the data so as Harry says, in some situations he just makes some data up.

    And this in what was supposed to be the leading climate analysis organisation in the world, the “Climate Research Unit” of the “East Anglia University” [ note it's university academics involved in yet another FU all over again ] run by Phil Jones and the source of the data from which the IPCC drew most of it’s conclusions for the AR4.

    And the CRU has demonstrated in an unchallengeable manner the mess and corruption of the data that seems to be taking place almost universally across all major weather and climate data recording and processing organisations.

    If you accept the Occams razor principle, the simplest possible explanation with the fewest assumptions then the BOM’s current batch of climate data fiddlers, I wouldn’t deign to designate them as “scientists” until they prove they are actually making publicly available EVERY THING they have done and are doing to the data, may quite likely not have any real idea on just how, when and why the data has been changed, who changed it, when was it changed and just and to what extent has it been adjusted / changed over the last decade or more.

    So they refuse to reveal their methods because it would make them look like absolute ignorant incompetent hicks without a clue as to what they are doing if they ever admitted their inner BOM “adjustment secrets” to the public at large.

    In a nutshell, the CRU’s “Harry read me files” has opened the window on the seriously bad and incompetent data handling and processing of the climate science cabal and we shouldn’t expect any higher standards for data handling and processing from the BOM as they all come from the same background and have the same culture across global climate science.

    72

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I agree,

      Given the lackadaisical attitude of the typical government (in it for the paycheck/pension, clock watching) employee.

      The most likely reason is that they have completely ballsed it up, and couldn’t reproduce their own work if their lives depended on it. They probably never expected that they would have to replicate their work- in fact – since they most likely, were not asked to make it “replicable” it never entered their tiny minds too make it replicable.

      “What’s replicability????”

      62

      • #
        ExWarmist

        To the reader with two laptops that down thumbed me twice…

        Do you have a problem with what you see when someone holds up a mirror?

        Too intellectually toothless to mount a counter argument?

        What – never come across a government employee that just wants the benefits and has no interest in actually doing anything of real value with their life?

        Do you recognise yourself in this description?

        51

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Yes “Harry” was an eye opener for me as well.

      I couldn’t imagine that their basic incompetence could be as bad as it has been demonstrated to be.

      It was truly beyond my imagination.

      (As a software engineer (back in the day…) who has written telecommunications software that routinely ran in an “always on” 24x7x365 days a year environment with 2 million customers – it truly boggled my mind when the climate gate emails were released).

      62

      • #
        ExWarmist

        As above.

        21

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The word on the street is…
        they cannot port their old FORTRAN temperature series homogenization program to Java because the first time they run it the GC will collect the program.
        nyuk nyuk

        20

    • #
      Peter C

      Agree with you ROM,

      A history of poorly executed and unco-ordinated adjustments by various individuals with different motivations and purposes seems likely. There is disagreement even on this blog about the validity and/ or methodology of producing and Australian average temperate.

      The Forum however made this recommendation”

      . At a minimum, links to these resources should be made available on the ACORN-SAT pages on the BOM website. The Forum recommends that CSV files be made available that contain time series of max/min temperature records for all 112 sites together with the averaging weights used to calculate the Australian average temperature record. The weights should be provided at each time value to reflect that they may change over time as new sites became operational. This information should allow users to reconstruct the average min/max temperature anomaly series for both the Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP)
      and ACORN-SAT data. Such a provision would facilitate end-user efforts to reproduce at least the principal Australian annual mean temperature anomaly.

      Whether the BOM can actually comply with the recommendation remains to be seen.
      If they can and do comply maybe some people here can get into it

      61

      • #
        Leigh

        Peter, somebody thumb downed your post and I’m buggered if I know why.
        I think the BOM’s read your post and doesn’t like it.

        10

  • #
    ExWarmist

    OT, but the pope is apparently calling for world government to save humanity from man made global warming.

    So MMGW really is religion, or religion really is politics, or politics really is MMGW, or whatever…. I’m tired….

    50

  • #
    pat

    partisan Klein on the encyclical:

    VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT: 18 June: Democracy Now: Pope Francis: “Bold Cultural Revolution” Needed to Save Planet from Climate Change & Consumerism
    NAOMI KLEIN: …And I think a lot of the discussion about the encyclical in the U.S. media cycle has focused and will continue to focus on the impact on Republicans and on climate deniers, many of whom are Catholic. And it is certainly a challenge to that demographic in the United States, because the pope is coming out so clearly on the side of climate science in saying this is real and this is happening…
    It very specifically says that climate denial is not just about denying the science, it’s also about denying the urgency of the science…
    But it also recognizes explicitly the power dynamics in capitalism, which is to say that there are forces within the system that are actively working against change. And that is probably what he’s referring to when he’s talking about how there may be laws, but the laws aren’t enforced. And, you know, indeed the laws are also inadequate, which is also addressed in the document, and it has some very specific calls for another level of environmental law, which is a part of the document that I haven’t been able to look at, you know, closely enough.
    ***And another thing I have to say is, you know, I am—I have accepted this invitation to speak at a conference which is about digging more deeply into the document, because there’s an understanding that it does take time to digest a document of this length, this multilayered, and it requires that kind of deeper analysis…
    And I think probably it’s—the most threatening part of the document is the way that it engages directly with this argument over what it means to have dominion over the Earth, which is the part of the Bible that the climate change denier movement uses most, right? They talk about—and, you know, I’ve been to these climate change denier conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute, and there’s always a strong religious presence there basically making the argument that God gave us the Earth, and now we can do whatever we want with it, and it is blasphemous to say otherwise. So, the document that—the encyclical is very pointed in rebuking that interpretation, and is saying, actually, the Earth is a sacred gift, and it is ours to take care of and steward, and when we destroy it, we are committing sin. You know, here I’m paraphrasing, obviously; this is not my religion…
    And this is intimately related to climate change, because it really was fossil fuels that allowed humanity, or parts of humanity, to convince themselves that we had this godlike power. And climate change is coming and saying, oh, actually, all this time that you were, you know, making the world flat—to quote Thomas Friedman—and acting as if we had these powers, these godlike powers over geography, and that we were really masters of the Earth, that we could treat the Earth as a machine, we were burning carbon, it was entering the atmosphere. And now comes this response that shows us, actually, that we are guests here, and we can be evicted for bad behavior…
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Naomi Klein, your response to what Rick Santorum said?
    NAOMI KLEIN: Look, I mean, it’s just another example of what an awkward situation so many Republicans are in right now. I mean, Marc Morano, a Fox News climate change denier type from the Heartland Institute, you know, is talking about the unholy alliance between the Vatican and the United Nations. You know, you’re not going to out-Catholic the pope. And this is what they’re trying to do…
    http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/18/pope_francis_bold_cultural_revolution_needed

    ***The Conference in The Vatican that Naomi will speak at….download the program for all the participants:

    Save the date: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace & CIDSE Press conference 1st July 2015
    Press Conference with H.E. Cardinal Peter Turkson, Naomi Klein, Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, Bernd Nilles, Holy See Press Centre, Via della Conciliazione 54, Citta del Vaticano, 1st July 2015, 11.30 am
    The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the International Alliance of Catholic Development Organisations (CIDSE) will organise a press conference the day before the opening of their high level conference: ‘People and Planet First: the Imperative to Change Course’ that will bring together Church leaders, Decision Makers, Scientists as well as a wide range of representatives of Catholic and civil society organisations from different regions of the world.
    The press conference as well as the high level conference will focus on the publication of Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter on Ecology and its guidance for the struggle against climate change and towards economies and lifestyles working for people and planet to ensure the well-being of the earth, so that it may provide for the dignified existence of the human person.
    The speakers will also address upcoming key political moments in 2015 such as the Third international conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa in July, the United Nations summit for the adoption of the Post-2015 sustainable development framework taking place in New York in September, and the climate negotiations towards COP 21 in Paris.
    Download attachments:
    Save_the_Date_Press_Conference_1_July.pdf
    ***Programme_CIDSE_PCJP_July_conference_as_of_18_June_2015_for_CIDSE_website.pdf ttp://www.cidse.org/newsroom/pontifical-council-for-justice-and-peace-cidse-press-conference-1st-july-2015.html

    51

    • #
      ianl8888

      Amazing – well, sort of

      The arch-deacon, the person at the very pinnacle of global superstition, is pontificating on the moral accuracy of science

      Looked at objectively, it’s actually astonishing in its’ ironic, incoherent illogicality. But the public debate, such as it is, is not about aspects of science, but rather to convince (coerce) sufficient of the population to accept large, unnecessary imposts on their standards of living and loss of sovereignty

      And anyone who points this out is labelled “cynical”. Yet the propagandists are the cynical ones, as always

      60

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. It is no accident that sceptic sites keep winning the “Bloggies” awards. There is nothing quite like them for massive traffic, rich debate and genuinely open peer review.

    ‘Following Steven McIntyre on tree rings, Anthony Watts or Paul Homewood on temperature records, Judith Curry on uncertainty, Willis Eschenbach on clouds or ice cores, or Andrew Montford on media coverage has been one of the delights of recent years for those interested in science.

    ‘Papers that had passed formal peer review and been published in journals have nonetheless been torn apart in minutes on the blogs.’

    Matt Ridley / Quadrant

    70

  • #
  • #
    pat

    18 June: CIDSE: Press release: CIDSE echoes the Pope’s call for global solidarity to fight climate change and inequality through the encyclical “Laudato si’”
    A conference organized by CIDSE and Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on 2-3 July in Rome will provide a platform for further discussion about the encyclical, more information below…
    However, the Pope also sees opportunities for social transformation in addressing the climate crisis – opportunities that were missed at the time of the financial crisis but must now be seized…
    http://www.cidse.org/newsroom/press-release-cidse-echoes-the-pope-s-call-for-global-solidarity-to-fight-climate-change-and-inequality-through-the-encyclical-laudato-si.html

    so much worth noting in the following, but Goal 19 is my favourite:

    PDF: 44 pages: Beyond 2015: Putting People and the Planet First – Business as Usual is not an Option
    CONCORD (European NGO Confederation for Relief & Development): Beyond 2015 European Task Force – Recommendations for the Post-2015 Framework
    EUROPEAN TASK FORCE PROPOSED GLOBAL GOALSSUMMARY TABLE
    Goal 19 : Zero corruption in all spheres
    http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Putting%20People%20and%20Planet%20First.pdf

    11

  • #
  • #
    pat

    in jo’s previous thread “A mess of adjustments…”, i posted a link to a HuffPo piece by Nitya Rajan – “Former NASA Astronaut Say ‘Aliens Probably Know We Exist’”. Today it’s an even bigger NASA cast! MSM are such CAGW tools:

    19 June: UK Daily Mail: Mark Prigg: There IS alien life out there: Nasa administrator says he believes we are not alone in the universe
    Charles Frank Bolden Jr., the Administrator of Nasa confirmed he believes there is life outside of Earth.
    Facing readers from First News for the newspaper’s Hotseat show on ***Sky News, he was asked if he believed in aliens by 10-year-old Carmen Dearing.
    ‘I do believe that we will someday find other forms of life or a form of life, if not in our solar system then in some of the other solar systems – the billions of solar systems in the universe, he said…
    It comes just days after former astronaut, John Grunsfeld, said that aliens may spot humans from afar from the changes we’ve made to Earth’s environment.
    ‘We put atmospheric signatures that guarantee someone with a large telescope 20 light years away could detect us,’ said Grunsfeld at the Astrobiology Science Conference in Chicago.
    ‘If there is life out there, intelligent life, they’ll know we’re here…
    Grunsfeld who is now associate administrator for Nasa’s Science Mission Directorate, added: ‘Are we alone?’ is the biggest driving question.’
    In April, Nasa’s chief scientist Ellen Stofan we could find evidence of extraterrestrial life in 20 to 30 years.
    ‘We know where to look, we know how to look, and in most cases we have the technology.’
    Jeffery Newmark, interim director of heliophysics at the agency, added: ‘It’s definitely not an if, it’s a when.’…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3130345/There-alien-life-Nasa-administrator-says-believes-not-universe.html

    whilst most of us know they are talking about microbes, there are plenty who are seeing little green men in all this talk.

    again, this is all timed to coincide with the Pope’s encyclical, and meant to scare the wits out of everyone. MSM are total CAGW tools.

    11

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      “Former NASA Astronaut Say ‘Aliens Probably Know We Exist’”.

      They make such authoritative assertions without the slightest evidence. There are aliens out there and they probably know we exist. Or, the climate is warming and 97% of scientists agree.

      What is the difference between one and the other?

      NASA sent men to the moon. What has happened since? They evidently lost their grip on what evidence is, about midway between the two when Apollo 13 went south and haven’t recovered since. I always expected better from an organization whose mandate was to use science and engineering as their tools to explore and advance our knowledge. Instead we get… …well, I guess there’s no need to name it.

      At least “a former NASA Astronaut” doesn’t speak for the whole organization, not officially anyway.

      From Pat’s link…

      Admitted more work was needed on developing toilets for Mars mission

      Looks like an engineering job too tough for the present NASA, now designated by president Obama to be the science ambassador to the Islamic world. Perhaps we should stay home and solve our more pressing problems, like, say, how to get a crew to and from the International Space Station without begging a ride from a country that has turned decidedly unfriendly.

      00

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable FT piece, from start to finish:

    19 June: Financial Times: David Gardner: An activist Pope puts his faith in science
    Mobilising the rock-star popularity of Francis is like dropping a boulder in a pool full of pebbles
    The first clue was not the dense white smoke billowing from the Vatican chimney, announcing a new Pope. It was that Pope’s choice of name…
    It is at once a work of moral theology enjoining Catholics to renounce a consumerist culture fuelling environmental degradation that disproportionately hits the poor and vulnerable, and a massive endorsement of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. Its timing, ahead of December’s UN climate summit in Paris, is impeccable. Mobilising the rock-star popularity of Pope Francis — at the head of a notional flock of 1.2bn Catholics and with more than 20m followers on Twitter — is like dropping a boulder in a pool full of pebbles.
    Climate change sceptics are dismissing the pronouncement as faith-based science. Most Catholics will probably welcome it as the alignment of faith and science, placing deniers on the wrong side of a contemporary Galileo debate — the revenge of the 17th-century astronomer whose observation that the Earth orbits the sun the Inquisition declared heretical…
    Though his Laudato Si encyclical sounds at times “Yes We Can-ish”, it is a fair bet this Francis will profoundly influence the climate change wars.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/09fc3f92-15ae-11e5-8e6a-00144feabdc0.html
    (David Gardner is International Affairs Editor at the FT, which he joined in 1978. He has been Chief Leader Writer, Middle East Editor, and an FT correspondent in Europe, Latin America and South Asia. He writes columns, commentary and analysis, mainly on the Middle East.)

    which Catholics? how many Catholics? one Bishop?

    19 June: SBS: AAP: Heed Pope on climate, Catholics urge PM
    Tony Abbott’s views on fossil fuels, renewable energy and climate change differ strongly from those of Pope Francis, but Catholic bishops believe the prime minister is not beyond redemption.
    Australian Catholic Bishops Conference president Denis Hart thinks the Pope’s groundbreaking encyclical on climate change should prompt the catholic Mr Abbott and other political leaders to re-examine their positions…
    Archbishop Hart says Mr Abbott’s past views should remain there.
    “I think we have to take comments as of today rather than as of yesterday,” he told reporters in Melbourne on Friday.
    “That’s why I’m suggesting that our leaders should analyse the situation and look at what the pope’s seeing.
    “This is the whole point of the encyclical – he wants us to see things in a new light.”
    Mr Abbott did not speak about the encyclical during his visit to north Queensland on Friday.
    But senior Liberal Malcolm Turnbull says it was written by a man of global moral leadership.
    ***Asked whether he and the prime minister should give great weight to the Pope’s view, Mr Turnbull told the ABC: “I think everyone will”.
    The Australian Conservation Foundation described the encyclical as a game-changer…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/19/heed-pope-climate-catholics-urge-pm

    SMH’s Lisa Cox (with AAP) has: Government ***Catholics will give ‘great weight’ to Pope’s climate views: Malcolm Turnbull
    Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said ***”everyone will give great weight” to Pope Francis’ major encyclical on the environment, including Prime Minister Tony Abbott…

    21

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    JoNova.

    Oh boy, I don’t even want to comment on your accusations of scientific misconduct.

    I will say one thing, your definition of the “scientific method” is wrong.

    [Harry, can you provide us with your definition for comparison with what you think Jo's is?] AZ

    18

    • #
      James Bradley

      Harry,

      What goes up must come down, and the more desperate the data adjustments rise the harder real data will bring it down.

      62

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        James Bradley,

        you are assuming the increasing trend in the temperature is not real.

        The converse applies: the more the temperature rises the more difficult it becomes arguing Global Warming is a hoax.

        13

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes Harry,

      Put your money where your mouth is, and enlighten us with your definition of what the scientific method should be. Your eager fan would love to know … ?

      21

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Rereke Whakaaro.

        There is a saying that an argument present with no evidence, can be refuted with no evidence.

        JoNova has not presented any evidence that she know what the “scientific method” is, she has merely claimed that the BOM did not follow the scientific method – when she does provide evidence this I will provide a definition for comparison.

        13

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Jo is making the claim, so it is up to Jo to provide evidence that she knows what the scientific method is. How about a citation or two?

      I do know the scientific method does not say another group has to be able to replicate a dataset exactly – that is a “straw man” argument. What another group has to be able to do is replicate the RESULTS. Referring to the dataset as “wonder-data” etc is just a childish insult.

      I don’t think Jo’s use of the term “scientific method” even applies here, has she justified her usage? To me what the Australian BOM has done is make observations which they find consistent with the scientific theory of Global Warming.

      The summary of the BOM TAF report contains this paragraph:

      “The Forum concludes that ACORN-SAT is a complex and well-maintained dataset. In fulfilling its
      role of providing advice on the ongoing development and operation of ACORN-SAT, the Forum also
      concludes that there is scope for improvements that can boost the transparency of the dataset
      and increase its usefulness as a decision-making tool.”

      24

      • #

        The scientific method means one uses clearly defined procedures, clearly defined data, clearly defined methods. All must be share with other researchers for replication studies. The results have to be within statistical error limits. If the BOM will not shate data, methods, etc, they are NOT doing science. It’s not proprietary data. The BOM is not a corporation with secret methods that cannot be shared due to market concerns. Refusal to share the methods and data is evidence that they are NOT doing science.

        If the data and methods are not shared, one has no more reason to believe the results than to believe a psychic reading tea leaves. Most pseudosciences operate this way. They say something like “a university study shows herb B cures gout”. Often, there’s no name attached to the university, so one cannot check. Results of the study are not readily available or are incomplete. The study can only be interpreted by the researchers. One sees this very often in psychic phenomena. The mind reading subjects cannot replicate the results with any other reseacher. Subtle clues by the researchers are alerting the subjects to correct answers, whether intentional or not. Everything about what the BOM is doing screams pseudoscience.

        53

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Sheri,

          “The scientific method means one uses clearly defined procedures, clearly defined data, clearly defined methods.”

          Do you have a citation for your claim? Or is this your opinion only? What does “clearly defined” mean?

          Also, who says the BOM has refused to share – was it JoNova? I have founds papers on the BOM website discussing the homogenisation, I have found two different datasets without even trying. If I wanted to replicate their results, I cannot see any obstacles.

          The rest of what you say is just building a straw man and making false analogies – charlatans use this dishonest rhetorical method often.

          34

          • #

            Greg K put a link in comment #75. I am including: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/designing-experiments-using-the-scientific-method.html. It gives a clear explanation of how the scientific method works (It’s pretty much the same as Greg K’s but in simpler language.)

            I checked the BOM site. There are papers that describe adjustments for some sites (I did not find a full database for all years and all temperatures). These adjustments are explained as “statistical”, “merge”, etc. There are no equations to explain the “statistical” changes, unless I missed them. The “merge” and “move” notes do list nearby stations but again, no equations for how they arrived at the new value. Without the math and the methods, no one can tell why the changes occurred.

            You gave a wonderful example of rhetoric in your last comment—a clear illustration of what charlatans do. Thank you for doing exactly what you accuse others of. That says mostly all we need to know about you.

            53

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Sheri,

              I know what the scientific method is in general. What I still haven’t seen is JoNova definition of the scientific method, and how she think the BOM has not followed it. All we have from JoNova is a claim.

              I still have not figured out what you mean by your “wonderful example of rhetoric” sentence. You appear to be making a claim without justifying it.

              I stand by my claim that you used a straw man and a false analogy. Your “straw man” is you are inventing something that you say the BOM should have done, then criticised them for not doing the thing you invented. This is misrepresentation. Your false analogy is comparing the BOM to a psychic reading tea leaves, and psychic phenomena in general.

              23

              • #

                Have you read other posts on Jo’s site? In case you missed this one: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/the-scientific-method-in-61-seconds/

                You really don’t understand why not releasing the methodology used in calculations means you are not doing science? If you really know what the scientific method is, you know the answer. If you don’t know the answer, then you don’t know what the scientific method is.

                If I have to explain my statement, it indicates you won’t understand the answer. (I’m not trying to be mean here. It’s just the way it is.)

                My “straw man” is the scientific method. Clearly, you do NOT understand the scientific method if you’re making this claim. I invented nothing. Wow, that’s a whole new take trying to make a straw man out of a defined process. Kudos. Not everyone can pull that one off.

                It’s not a false analogy. The BOM working without releasing ALL of the data and calculations is exactly what pseudoscientists do. Check out any of the “we hate religion and paranormal” skeptic sites and you’ll see this. Only the researchers of the phenomena have access to the data and results. The results cannot be replicated, a necessity in science. The analogy stands.

                43

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Sheri,

                JoNova can post all the links to old Richard Feynman videos that she wants (the link does not work by the way). It still doesn’t mean she has justified her claim. She also needs to explain what hypothesis she thinks the BOM is proposing, and what experiment they did to verify or falsify it, and how they mucked it up. Her claim sounds like a straw man.

                You are claiming I do not understand the scientific method – justify that claim.

                Your claim the BOM are engaging in pseudoscience is false. It is an attempt at an insult, a straw man and the old “guilt by association” gambit. Poorly executed I must add. You even contradict yourself – you say they did not divulge “… ALL of the data and calculations …”, so you are implying they released SOME of the data and calculations. Really what you are saying is you are personally ignorant of all data and calculations they used; this does not mean that the BOM did not use data and calculations at the time.

                You also appear ignorant of this conclusion from the report:

                “The Forum concludes that ACORN-SAT is a complex and well-maintained dataset. In fulfilling its
                role of providing advice on the ongoing development and operation of ACORN-SAT, the Forum also
                concludes that there is scope for improvements that can boost the transparency of the dataset
                and increase its usefulness as a decision-making tool.”

                It’s funny that people bring that Feynman video up from time to time. Towards the end he cautions about people writing in and telling him how to do his job, he gives good advice on that.

                23

              • #

                No, my claim that the BOM is engaging in pseudoscience is only false if the BOM has released ALL data, ALL algorithms and ALL information on their data adjustments. No, I am not saying I am personally ignorant of that data being released. I am saying that no one has produced the data, yourself included. You conveniently left out any links to the alleged data on the BOM site, which I take to mean it’s not really there or you would have linked.

                You’re very good with throwing out claims of logical fallacies. Too bad you can’t or won’t produce actual data. That would be science. Guess you don’t have any science?

                It does not matter what the report says. It only matters if the BOM releases ALL the data and calculations so the adjustments can be examined for validity by others. An audit does not take the place of replication in science. No one can replicate the BOM’s claims of warmest years without knowing how they arrived at that claim. That claim and others must be reproducable and transparent to be science.

                I’m sorry if you don’t like Richard Feyman. Perhaps my link to “The Scientific Method for Dummies” would have helped. It was pretty clear how it worked.

                There is no hypothesis involved here. We are past that step. It is the refusal to share the data for verification and replication that fails the scientific method. (That is partly why I don’t think you understand the scientific method—you are talking about an hypothesis when we’re at the verify and replicate step. The other reason is you are not providing data, etc to back up your claims. You are just throwing out claims about logic and reports. Address the actual problem–lack of data released by the BOM.)

                33

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Sheri,

                again you are asking me for “data”. I don’t have to produce any data. I am still waiting for JoNova to justify her claim that the BOM do not use the scientific method.

                more straw men. You must get bored with them. Also a couple of non sequiturs. And attempting to move the goalposts.

                I am calling it a day with you. I really don’t care to discuss anything with dishonest people who attempt rhetorical tricks. Toodles.

                [Keep on pushing it, Harry and you'll end up in permanent moderation. You do have to produce something to support your position and skeptics do not. The reason has been explained to you more than once. And since you claim Jo doesn't know what the scientific method is, you should begin with my request to see your definition of the scientific method. Then there's something to talk about.] AZ

                23

              • #

                Mr. Rhetorical Trick: I’m fine with that. You clearly have no interest in discussing this, only to throw out accusations and make demands. I have better things to do.

                23

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Moderator.

                What can I say? I asked that JoNova explains her claim that the BOM have not followed the scientific method. JoNova giving a definition of the scientific method she is using to criticise the BOM would be a good start. The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim.

                I did not produce a dictionary definition of the scientific method as it is readily obtainable. I did ask that JoNova define what hypothesis the BOM is proposing, and what experiment they performed; that is a partial definition of the scientific method that I provided.

                I am not sure what you are getting at with “You do have to produce something to support your position and skeptics do not” – are you suggesting skeptics are not required to support their position? If you mean JoNova is just expressing an personal opinion then OK, I was just expressing my personal opinion as well.

                If you feel that I have contravened the forum policy in some way then that is fine – it is not my forum and “free speech” does not imply you are obligated to allow my comments. But I do ask that you provide the documentation of your policy in the spirit of fairness.

                12

              • #

                Ah, the old “give it to me in writing so I pick apart word by word what you wrote” ploy. There is no attempt to actually discuss or defend one’s position. How cute. It’s a favorite amoung those who do not understand climate science, logic and science in general. Comes straight from the troll’s handbook (sorry, no link available—don’t want to help those already lazy individuals by giving them more cut and paste material). I’d love to see if you move to Step 2, but I’m not sure I have the time to stick around and I’ve seen it so many times, it’s bor-ing now.

                12

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Sheri,

              You wrote:

              There are no equations to explain the “statistical” changes, unless I missed them. The “merge” and “move” notes do list nearby stations but again, no equations for how they arrived at the new value. Without the math and the methods, no one can tell why the changes occurred.

              You didn’t miss them because they aren’t there.

              From The Summary of the Enquiry Panel:

              The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public.

              They don’t think others are smart enough to interpret and evaluate complex equations. It’s as though they want to convince the general public and especially their critics, that they and they alone, are capable of comprehending statistical equations and computer algorithms. Bullocks!

              What they are is presenting themselves as private owners of the methods not unlike Coca Cola and their recipe.

              Hello! You people are public servants paid from public finds and answerable to the public.

              Then . . .

              It would be useful for the Bureau to provide advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis).

              The Panel gives these clowns ‘carte blanche’ to decide who will look at the data and methods and who won’t! :o

              You can’t make this $hit up!

              Abe

              10

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Sheri,

          While I admire your tenacity and could find no fault in your responses to Harry’s comments, I would like to make an observation in the spirit of constructive criticism.

          There are people in all walks of life that carry around a set of blinders which only allow them to see the world from their own, narrow perspective. I’ve found that the best way to conduct a conversation with them, if and when the need arises, is to just look at what that narrow focus is and then politely but forcefully put an obstacle in front of them.

          To wit:

          Harry Twinotter: Type (copy and paste also works) the following question into the search box of the google home page . . .

          when using the scientific method properly, how important is it to be able to reproduce an experiment independently?

          . . . as is with no quotes. Now look at the first two items on the list. These are the first two items I get:

          Reproducibly from wikipedia:

          Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by someone else working independently. Reproducing an experiment is called replicating it. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

          Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive from Nature:

          Every once in a while, one of my postdocs or students asks, in a grave voice, to speak to me privately. With terror in their eyes, they tell me that they have been unable to replicate one of my laboratory’s previous experiments, no matter how hard they try. Replication is always a concern when dealing with systems as complex as the three-dimensional cell cultures routinely used in my lab. But with time and careful consideration of experimental conditions, they, and others, have always managed to replicate our previous data.

          and . . .

          It is true that, in some cases, no matter how meticulous one is, some papers do not hold up. But if the steps above are taken and the research still cannot be reproduced, then these non-valid findings will eventually be weeded out naturally when other careful scientists repeatedly fail to reproduce them. But sooner or later, the paper should be withdrawn from the literature by its authors.

          At this point, Sheri, Harry Twinotter must either retract his position and agree with the thrust of Jo’s O/P or continue to argue senselessly and be ridiculed out of existence.

          Hope this helps. ;)

          Abe

          PS To Harry Twinotter: The jig is up. :o

          11

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Just-a-guy.

            “There are people in all walks of life that carry around a set of blinders which only allow them to see the world from their own, narrow perspective.”

            Yes indeed, Just-a-guy, yes indeed. It is a mark of good character to accept your own advice first, before trying to project it onto others.

            OK I will try you about the scientific method: what was the BOM’s hypothesis, and what experiment did they perform?

            02

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Harry Twinotter,

        You wrote:

        I do know the scientific method does not say another group has to be able to replicate a dataset exactly – that is a “straw man” argument. What another group has to be able to do is replicate the RESULTS.

        The process of homogenization is used to adjust the raw data to suit some purpose. For the moment, I’m not interested in discussing what that need is, or whether it’s valid, warranted, accurate, etc.

        All I’m interested in right now is the fact that the raw data is changed through some process.

        Now, if the raw data is changed into some new data, then the new data are the results of the process.

        So you agree that the results need to be reproduceable, as quoted. If so, why aren’t you joining in and demanding that these results be reproduceable?

        You wrote:

        Jo is making the claim, so it is up to Jo to provide evidence that she knows what the scientific method is. How about a citation or two?

        LOL! Common knowledge does not require citations. It’s like asking someone to give a citation to prove that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. The scientific method is common knowledge to any eigth or ninth grader onward. Nice try, doesn’t fly! ;)

        Now that the rational rebuttal is over and you’ve been proven wrong by logic, let’s move on to the personal observations

        Your attempts at obfuscation won’t work. You really should give it up. You look silly, ignorant, and to be honest, pathetic.

        Abe

        The jig is up.

        11

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Just-a-guy.

          Lots of insults and unjustified comments. What “jig is up”?

          “The process of homogenization is used to adjust the raw data to suit some purpose.” Yes it is, my understand is the process of homogenisation is used to remove non-climatic influences from the dataset. If someone thinks that purpose is wrong, they can say why and I think it would be a good discussion.

          I disagree that the scientific method is “common knowledge”. This is demonstrated by the misinterpretations of the scientific method I have been seeing.

          If someone wants to replicate the BOMs results they can. There have been a number of studies done on homogenisation, I think the BOM refer to some on their website. If someone thinks the scientific method dictates exactly the same results are obtained, then they better provide a citation for that as it is not my understanding.

          I assume people commenting have read the TAF report. So they will be familiar with this quote from it:

          “In light of the importance of the integrity of this dataset in understanding long-term climate trends affecting Australia, the Bureau initiated an independent peer review of ACORN-SAT dataset in 2011. The peer review expressed overall confidence in the Bureau’s practices and considered its practices as among the best in the world”.

          03

          • #

            And there it is—Step 3. Love it!!!!!

            21

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Harry Twinotter,

            You wrote:

            If someone thinks the scientific method dictates exactly the same results are obtained, then they better provide a citation for that as it is not my understanding.

            The citations have been provided. In response to them . . . wait . . . you didn’t respond to them. All you did was cherry-pick some comments about your behaviour without addressing the issue at hand.

            Here are the two links once again.

            Reproducibly from wikipedia:

            Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by someone else working independently. Reproducing an experiment is called replicating it. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

            Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive from Nature:

            Every once in a while, one of my postdocs or students asks, in a grave voice, to speak to me privately. With terror in their eyes, they tell me that they have been unable to replicate one of my laboratory’s previous experiments, no matter how hard they try. Replication is always a concern when dealing with systems as complex as the three-dimensional cell cultures routinely used in my lab. But with time and careful consideration of experimental conditions, they, and others, have always managed to replicate our previous data.

            and . . .

            It is true that, in some cases, no matter how meticulous one is, some papers do not hold up. But if the steps above are taken and the research still cannot be reproduced, then these non-valid findings will eventually be weeded out naturally when other careful scientists repeatedly fail to reproduce them. But sooner or later, the paper should be withdrawn from the literature by its authors.

            Do you now concede that reproducibility is a requirement of the scientific method?

            Abe

            10

  • #
    Mervyn

    It’s “KIWIGATE” all over again.

    At least Jim Salinger of NIWA got the sack over his inexplicable NZ temperature data adjustments that nobody could explain and nobody could even produce.

    Here in Australia, it sounds like a similar data fudging [snip] to create an enhanced warming trend. But make no mistake, this is scientific [snip].

    [Please avoid the words I snipped. They add nothing to the debate. Thanks.] AZ

    52

  • #
    Peter Carabot

    They will N EVER come clean! They’ve been called liars and con-artist day after day on every single website and blog, still, they refuse to sue! Probably because in court they will have to produce all the documentation, methods and records that the Defense will require for the case!!
    Looks like a con job, smells like one it is One!!!
    Despicable!!

    60

  • #

    [...] get through paywalls. Jo Nova is on to the pathetic BOM Technical Advisory Forum report too – If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret Share [...]

    20

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    The report sets a high bar by explaining that the data set for Australia cannot be easily replicated again with its corrections.
    So what.
    In auditing one selects a random set of indices, eg transactions,in accounting and check them out.
    Areas with the most possibility for bias or fraud are targeted.
    Its not economic to check every one.
    The same could be done for our temperature data sets, held by the BOM.
    If they are biased it is in our National interest to correct them.
    It was this process done by independent researchers that raised the unanswered questions in the first place.

    00

    • #

      It’s certainly better than just accepting the data, but accounting audits are not the end-all for finding mistakes. The random variables may not find the errors. I worked for a company that was audited and less than 2 years later went bankrupt. The audit failed to find the clever accounting being used by the director. Everything looked fine in the sections they looked at.

      10

  • #
    Steve Richards

    I find it surprising that the forum considers it a problem for ‘outsiders’ to replicate the adjustments due the the amount of ‘professional expertise required by those outside of BOM.

    Surely all the adjustments have now been done, embedded into the software that is run every day or month.

    It is not an ongoing task (or should not be!).

    These adjustments need to given the light of day so that they can be checked for errors, wrong assumptions and general efficacy.

    10

  • #
    Warren Latham

    The Australian tax-payers should demand their money back.
    It seems they too have been conned.

    Perhaps a barbeque should be arranged with a few public [snip] on the weekend: just a bit of fun for the children …if the weather is nice.

    10

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “BoM a publicly funded group of militants”

    This is one of those articles that is perhaps the saddest and most disturbing.
    The BoM is paid for by ordinary people and therefore the work that is carried out by these public servants is done so without the protections of information that normally accompany a regular business.

    I detect in the attitude of the BoM the same level of arrogance (a rather distasteful British trait) that is exhibited by the folks at:-
    CRU, UEA, GISS and elsewhere….
    When I listen to the rants of Gavin Schmidt (GISS), who regards his work as the only serious scientific research and refers to those who criticize his results as people who “know nothing”, I can only feel astonishment that this type of “narrow minded” person is allowed to work and abuse such a position.

    Luckily here in America we have a very good political system which allows oversight and can correct such “out of control” behavior.

    A salute to the wonderful Science writers who are doing a fantastic job in rebutting and correcting the misinformation that is the scourge of the today’s media.

    I look forward to the next election 2016 – “Defund the UN and IPCC”

    10

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    I wrote this about Gavin Schmidt but these climate guys are all alike.
    .
    .
    Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
    (most sorry Kiki Dee)

    I got no troubles at NASA
    I’m a rocket nothing can stop
    Survival’s always the first law
    And I’m in with those at the top

    I heat up
    I cool down
    A site I don’t like I discard it
    The high and the mighty can frown
    So say what they want they reward it

    Man is the measure
    Of all things that be
    The Progressive Alliance
    And Post Normal Science
    Say I got the data in me

    I work in the mists and the fogs
    By methods that none can review
    To hide like a fox from the dogs
    The premise of all that I do
    The thermometers all want skilling
    If their readings are not alarming
    As the early ones all need chilling
    So the later ones all need warming

    Man is the measure
    Of all things that be
    What Protagoras said
    Onto Nietzsche led
    So I got the data in me

    The truth’s a consensus of thought
    We agree to agree about
    A joy for so long we have sought
    Our minds ever free of all doubt
    We are born uncertain of heart
    And live in fear of things unknown
    Consensus is truly the start
    Of our souls becoming our own

    Man is the measure
    Of all things that be
    To Progressive drums
    The Superman comes!
    And I got the data in me

    I heat up
    I cool down
    A site I don’t like I discard it
    The high and the mighty can frown
    So say what they want they reward it

    Eugene WR Gallun

    11

  • #
    Greg K

    A quick primer on the scientific method

    http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

    At the very least you don’t bodgy up your data to make it fit your hypothesis except, of course, if it’s for the good of the great , unwashed uneducated masses who aren’t capable of understanding that it’s for their own good.

    20