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

Our BoM electronic thermometers are “purpose designed”. We’re not sure what purpose.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology collects one-second records and can turn them into newspaper headlines. In contrast, the UK averages its readings over one minute, and the US over five. Obviously longer averaging could slow the latter down in the PR stakes (if that was their aim).

Hypothetically old glass thermometers just wouldn’t be as good at generating headlines. They take a lot longer to respond to bursts of hot air, sometimes missing short heatwaves completely (the kind that last less than a minute). It’s potentially quite an unfair race to run the two different thermometers in the same competition. It all depends on the handicap applied to the faster electronic ones.

In 2015 Bill Johnston warned that the introduction of electronic sensors in the late 1990s was artificially warming the records and asked the Bureau for data from the two different kinds of instruments side by side. The Bureau said they throw that data away (as you would). Lately, Jen Marohasy asked the Bureau for the manufacturing specifications and the Bureau said it’s all fine, the electronic thermometers were ‘purpose-designed’ to the Bureau’s specifications. We just don’t know what those specifications are exactly. No documentation. No data. (Send in your best guess.)

When it comes to publishing handicapping procedures, horse Racing Victoria lays it out: 

“All racing participants, as well as the general public, have every right to gain an understanding into the way in which their horse is handicapped. … In all instances, Handicappers must be able to provide logical and reasoned explanation for their decisions made. “

We can only hope our BoM should aim that high.

Don’t miss a great Spectator piece this week from Jennifer Marohasy on her quest to find out whether our BoM meets international standards, and whether our new thermometers are fit for purpose (and comparable to our old thermometers):

More hot days — or “purpose-designed” temperature sensors at play?

For about five weeks now the Bureau have been obfuscating on this point. There is ‘more than one way’ of achieving compliance with WMO guidelines they write in a ‘Fast Facts’ published online on September 11 – after I wrote a blog post detailing how their latest ‘internal review’ confirmed they were in contravention of international standards.

The Bureau has been insisting for some time that they don’t need to average because they have sensors with a long response time, which actually represent an average value, that is the same as the time constant for a mercury thermometer.

How this is achieved in practice was detailed for the first time in a letter from the new head of the Bureau Andrew Johnson, last Friday.

The letter explains that all the sensors the Bureau uses have been ‘purpose-designed’. I had been requesting manufacture’s specifications, but instead, I received this advice that it’s to Bureau specifications and, by inference, there is no documentation. To be clear, there are also no reports detailing the laboratory and field tests that explain how the custom-built devices have been designed to ‘closely mirrors’ the behaviour of mercury thermometers including the time constants – to quote from Dr Johnson’s letter of last Friday.

 I am not blaming the sensors for being so responsive, just the Bureau for pretending one-second spot-readings from their purpose-designed sensor are comparable with instantaneous readings from mercury thermometers – while providing no proper documentation.

Read it all at The Spectator.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (77 votes cast)
Our BoM electronic thermometers are "purpose designed". We're not sure what purpose., 9.6 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yczd2sdp

157 comments to Our BoM electronic thermometers are “purpose designed”. We’re not sure what purpose.

  • #
    Pauly

    A totally meaningless response from the BOM. If sensors are “purpose built”, they must be built to a specification. That specification must be a document published by the BOM. It should also include test methodologies that the BOM will use to evaluate any proposed unique solution, and those test procedures should include performance criteria, and acceptable variance.

    If the sensors were bespoke, the BOM must have undertaken its own testing, to verify and validate both the manufacturer’s claimed performance criteria, in a laboratory setting, and the performance criteria in a typical field setting. These test reports and the specifications would have been the key BOM documentation supporting a decision to switch one of the most critical sensors in use by the BOM.

    It truly amazes me how the BOM appears to have “lost” all these key documents. Because that would suggest they actually have no data about these new sensors’ performance, at all!

    I’m not sure what is worse. Incompetent bureaucratic obfuscation, or the potentially accurate statement that they truly have no documentation on how these sensors work.

    492

    • #
      Roger

      I don’t find it at all amazing that BOM have ‘lost’ all of the documentation and other key documents.

      Climategate revealed that UK climate scientists deliberately deleted and destroyed temperature and other data to prevent it being scrutinised.

      [Snip. Imply with care, OK? ]…

      41

      • #
        Roger

        Thanks Jo, it was a statement of fact rather than an implication and you’re correct; qualifying it by ‘I’m not suggesting this applies to BOM, but ……’ would have clarified it.

        30

    • #
      James Bradley

      As I’ve written before – the way the BOM chooses to use temperature intervals makes no difference. The one second micro burst temp spikes have always been. The spikes are not increasing in magnitude and if global warming is all data manipulation and electronic sensitivity then it will all plateau as the next few years show no discernible change and any future cooling change will merely be magnified by the current BOM method. BOM may actually hasten the end of this rubbish by the very efforts to promote it. Hoisted by their own petard.

      272

      • #
        Forrest Gardener

        Very astute observation James. It would still be interesting to determine just how much the BOM has skewed the records by its procedural flaws.

        82

      • #
        Roger

        Yes, but these records have artificially elevated global temperatures and helped fuel warmist fantasies and propaganda whilst providing an ongoing excuse for the destruction of western economies through the imposition of unreliable ‘renewables’.

        They have helped force the impoverishment of the lower income people in Australia and across the globe for marxist aims.

        91

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “As I’ve written before – the way the BOM chooses to use temperature intervals makes no difference.”

        That makes absolutely no physical or scientific sense what so ever! Even daily average temperature is still subject to thermal statistical noise called kTb noise, always limiting the ‘accuracy’ of any measurement where:
        k = Boltzmann’s constant.
        T = absolute temperature in Kelvin.
        b = bandwidth, a derivative term converting energy, both sensible heat and absolute pressure, into a power noise frequency spectrum.
        The value of that term is inversely proportional to the time interval averaging that measurement. Thus:
        By ‘hour’ 24 x the daily RMS noise error.
        By ‘minute’ 1,440 x the daily RMS noise error.
        By ‘second’ 186,400 x the daily RMS noise error.
        That error can be positive or negative for any such interval, but still is a RMS value never a peak error value which can easily be 5 x that rms value.
        The one second measurements are not any physical measurement of ‘temperature’ but only a measurement of the inherent noise error of such measurement.
        To make maters worse the energy function is not linear with absolute temperature but at least a T² function which greatly biases both the error and the mean.
        OPINION: The government paid Climate Clowns have vast mathematical resources that well know the above! These same Clowns keep such knowledge from both the public and the elected administration, in order to greatly increase their financial and political gain from such scam! Such effort can no longer be attributed to mere incompetence or ignorance.:-(
        All the best!-will-

        131

        • #
          James Bradley

          Will,
          You’re talking science while I’m referring to the limits of this type of manipulation by the BOM. To the best of my knowledge science has no part in the current BOM data collection and interpretation service. All that matters is what can be made to appear – and what can be made to appear as warming now has a limit set by the BOM in its one second readings… which can now only plateau or decrease.

          31

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “You’re talking science while I’m referring to the limits of this type of manipulation by the BOM. To the best of my knowledge science has no part in the current BOM data collection and interpretation service. All that matters is what can be made to appear – and what can be made to appear as warming now has a limit set by the BOM in its one second readings…”

            James,
            Your BOM has unlimited resources taxpayer funded to expand the scam indefinitely. Current mass produced cheap micro bolometers can do accurate one millisecond temperature measurement with 1000 times the necessary statistical error in measurement.
            I personally have made measurement with spendy cooled Mg:Te:Cd sensors at intervals of 100 nanoseconds where the only\any error is but the statistical noise variance of what is being measured. This is called “background limited Noise Equivalent Temperature Difference” (bl-NETD), the sensor itself contributes zero to any error, well documented since 1980!
            All the best!-will-

            52

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Surely the temp spikes have been caused by urbanisation of the the meteorological stations. This does not meld with the idea that the ‘spikes have always been there’.
        Regards GeoffW

        51

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        James Bradley says:

        any future cooling change will merely be magnified by the current BOM method

        Are you sure the one second micro-burst temperature spikes are also apparent for temp lows?

        Does the data show downwards micro-burst spikes?

        20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Sam,

          I didn’t say there were any. Only that the current method of using 1 second readings while seeming to increase temperature anomalies has a limit. Temperature decreases will be magnified in contrast and noted by all and sundry.

          31

          • #

            There is noise on the cold side too, but it’s smaller than on the hot side, AND it occurs at a time of day when there is not as much turbulence. There is much more variation in temp of air packets during the heat of the day. Add to this the odd clipping of low side temperatures (eg Thredbo and Goulburn) and there is much reason to believe electronic thermometers might cause a long term trend rise.

            Remembering also that the past has been non-randomly cooled, against the likely Urban Heat Island effect, and also — probably — against the trend to electronic thermometers.

            I personally doubt the cooling trend — should it come — will be exaggerated downwards. There are a whole bunch of people trained to find reasons to adjust for aberrant “must be wrong” signs of cooling. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, all you need is confirmation bias.

            112

            • #
              Konrad

              I have to agree with Jo on this one.

              Reading at 1 second intervals with a sensitive thermocouple will bias diurnal temperature readings to the hot side. This is not a question of statistics, but radiative physics, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.

              During the day, wind speeds are higher and disparate surface materials with very different responses to SW are being heated by solar radiation, maximising the problem.

              During the night, wind speeds are lower and radiative cooling of most surface materials are very similar and their conductive cooling almost equal, minimising the problem

              That is to say that during the day the air being measured will have many anomalous hot gusts, but during the night, air will have a more averaged temperature (few cold gusts).

              Take readings with unmodified Rosemount RTDs at 1 second intervals and you will read hot compared to mercury thermometers. It’s basic physics, the science is settled.

              Maybe Mr. Johnson of the BoM can explain exactly what BoM specifications the off the shelf Rosemount 78S thermocouples were modified to comply with? I’m guessing the BoM is packed so full of it, that it is spewing out Johnston’s mouth.

              For you see, “INSTRUMENT TEST REPORT NUMBER 624” is now in the public domain, and is now archived off-line. The report supposed to justify the -10C lock on readings from the Rosemount 78S RTD. The report that doesn’t mention any BoM specific modifications of the instrument. Oh dear …

              30

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              “There is noise on the cold side too, but it’s smaller than on the hot side”

              Correct Pretty Lady!
              For some RMS variance from mean the outward ‘peaks’ from ‘mean’ must be greater than inward peaks to ‘mean’. It is the power series bias from absolute zero that distorts the mean, RMS error, and the peak error.
              Again: The high powered government paid scammers understand such; but revelation to us serfs would severely limit profit!

              41

      • #
        Alfred

        James Bradley,

        What you are saying is entirely correct. However, in the interval while this is being sorted out and shown for the hoax that it is, the entire electric system will have been destabilised and the costs to the consumers inflated enormously – which is happening already. We just don’t have the time.

        We need real data now.

        51

      • #
        Bill Johnston

        This issue is very important James. I have found all over Australia, that electronic probes (and small Stevenson screens) cause data to be skewed upwards. While the mean or median of pre vs. post AWS data can be the same, the warm end of the data spectrum is systematically biased-high.

        This produces an increase in the apparent frequency of extreme temperatures WITHOUT there (necessarily) being a trend in the dataset mean.

        For the last decade, messaging from the Bureau is that temperature extremes (record temperatures) have increased (think of their most recent climate statements and of all their red and purple colored maps). Although it takes a bit of detailed analysis; the real story is that these extremes are caused by upper-range bias in the instrument.

        But wait there’s more. Added to upper-range bias is that the Bureau has warmed many sites by ploughing close to the screen; spraying out the grass; installing wind-profiling radars on concrete or gravel pads just over there (Canberra, Ceduna, Mildura, Devonport, Tennant Creek, Carnarvon, Adelaide AP, Sydney AP and more); gravel mulching; sealing roads nearby; leaving screens unserviced for up to a year beside dusty tracks and so on.

        Small changes in albedo, evaporation even in low rainfall areas, and in heat storage in the landscape are sufficient to cause fake increases in extremes and artificial warming of Australia’s temperature.

        Cheers,

        Dr. Bill

        92

    • #

      It’s a bit like Victoria’s speed (erm, safety) cameras. They are supposedly properly calibrated and cannot male any errors, until it’s revealed they are not and that they do.

      150

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “Purpose built” like some do with their online dating profiles, yes the Weinstein’s will have to meet the suitors eventually but the objective is successful.

      60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pauly:

      meaningless and evasive. If they had done the comparison between the 2 sorts why didn’t they keep the data? That would have stopped any arguments immediately on release. That leads to the conclusion that either the BoM did NOT do a comparison or that they DID and it proved that the 2 were not giving the same readings.
      As for the claim that their sensors are the same as glass that is garbage (term used to get past MODs). A Pt resistance thermometer has a fast response and for a bare probe probably an accuracy of ±0.25℃. A stainless steel sheath increases the response time and the accuracy, but the limit with standard types seems to be ±0.1℃. Do they use extra thick stainless, or a ceramic sheath as a ‘condom’ to reduce sensitivity?
      The fact that they can’t or won’t answer questions leads me to doubt the competence of the management in the BoM.

      180

      • #

        Graeme No.3. You have hit the nail on the head here. All scientific instruments have an error. Correct reporting of results, should include the error, or confidence level, into the result. This was common practice when I worked as a Lab Tech in the food industry.
        In the climate field, you basically never hear of the confidence level, only the hyperbole!
        So, what are BOM and their ilk reporting? The actual recorded result? If so, that should include the confidence level. Or, if they really want to get sneaky, they could report the recorded result, plus the confidence level! Now, I wouldn’t expect they would do that!
        But, if they reported, say, that the max Temp for a particular location was 43.5, and it was a record, they would go with that, and everyone will be in awe! On the other hand, if they reported that the max temp was 43.5 +/- 0.25, then it wouldn’t mean so much. It may, may not be, a record per se!

        60

    • #
      Kneel

      star comment The trick to this will be the old “follow the money” one.

      That is: if BoM got these devices manufactured, then there must be acceptance testing of the basic design -
      “proof” that the design does what is is supposed to do, is comparable to existing devices etc etc. Without this, the manufacturer will not be given an order for the full production run.
      We need that document.

      There must also be at a minimum a “batch” test on each shipment of these devices when they arrive from the manufacturer – without this, the manufacturer will not be paid. Someone had to sign off on them being paid. This person is likely not technically minded, and so would insist that someone who was had signed off that they were both fit for purpose and manufactured to the required standard, based on actual testing.
      We need that document.

      If either or both of these documents are not available, then I would suggest that at best BoM is in breach of its duty of care to the government, and at worst in breach of at least one federal regulation regarding sourcing from, and payments to, private companies. Since this involve money, accountants, auditors etc who care not what the devices are and how they operate, will have more than a few harsh words to say, so they WILL exist. It will likely be difficult to obtain said documents – likely, you will need an “insider” to supply appropriate document search parameters, or you will end up with a “no documents match” reply, and a back and forth of further requests then labeled as “unfair”, “waste of time”, “fishing expedition” etc.

      292

      • #
        sophocles

        Kneel, that’s how it would be done, were it being done properly. If they were truly professional, they would and should be able to just present the documentation and all necessary information. Instead, they’re saying shhh! It’s a Secret! which is so amateurish.

        I’m amazed by it. I’m beginning to wonder if a staff member’s child read the March 1999 Scientific American which contains an article (The Amateur Scientist, pp 84-85) about “A Homemade High Precision Thermometer”, and is sourcing such equipment for the Bureau for their pocket money. The BOM’s secretive approach is suspicious. In the absence of hard evidence, the only safe approach, given all the errors, measurement woes and data problems, is to assume that their approach is thoroughly amateurish. It should be a matter of pride for them to be able to present all the documentation, all the calibration data, Original Equipment Manufacturer etc to be able to say they’re doing it right. Openness, because it is backed by evidence, is professional.

        The SciAm design uses a proper Pt (Platinum) probe as the RTD (Resistance Thermal Detector) and a digital multimeter. The multimeter measures the resistance of the RTD. Platinum’s resistance varies linearly with temperature, so this is a nice simple, easy to assemble device. The standard RTD for most thermometers is 100 ohms although 1000 ohm one could be sourced which would make this easier still. It still has to be calibrated by `zeroing’ it to the triple point of water (0.01 °) so a triple point (liquid/ice/air or slushy ice) cell will be needed.

        A 100 Ohm RTD would increase its resistance by 0.385 ohms per degree Celsius (which is why I mentioned the 1000 ohm RTD: it would be 3.85 ohms per deg C). The platinum sensors typically change resistance at the rate of 0.00385 ohms per ohm of resistance, hence the 0.385 ohms for a 100 ohm RTD and 3.85 ohms for a 1000 ohm one. The linear relationship makes converting the measured resistance to temperature easy.

        If you think about converting electronically so the digital readout is directly in degrees C, and build that in, then you have an even more useful instrument. Then you will be able to go into competition with the BOM. If you document yours properly, you could really argue the toss with The Tossers.

        All up, it would cost whatever you can buy a digital multimeter for – $10.00 or up – and whatever the RTD costs, say $100 – $200 or so, and whatever it costs for batteries for the multimeter. I would anticipate the RTD being the most expensive part to source. The electronics is now nothing much. Just remember to change the batteries :-) .

        I’ve thought about making one for myself since discovering this article. If you can source the article through a library, (or maybe on http://www.sciam.com) enjoy, and maybe if you have a go at it for yourselves, you would be able to make some real noise for the BOM …

        90

        • #
          Graeme#4

          At $100 each, if they have purchased more than 100, then they have to go through AusTender, as per their own rules. This would leave a formal paper trail.

          20

          • #
            sophocles

            Would that paper trail be discoverable through any FOI (Freedom of Information) Act? If so, someone should chase it.
            I can’t,

            30

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        If either or both of these documents are not available, then I would suggest that at best BoM is in breach of its duty of care to the government, and at worst in breach of at least one federal regulation regarding sourcing from, and payments to, private companies. Since this involve money, accountants, auditors etc who care not what the devices are and how they operate, will have more than a few harsh words to say, so they WILL exist. It will likely be difficult to obtain said documents….

        And that is the job of the Commonwealth Auditor-General.

        30

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Yep, they would be in breach of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, as per their own website.

        30

      • #
        bobl

        It’s much easier than that, the request just needs to obtain all tender materials and supplimentary documentation supplied to suppliers for the supply of temperature measuring equipment from blah to blah plus blah. These materials MUST be retained, we know they exist.

        Jo, tendering in the government is done according to the GPG (Government Procurement Guideline) and is enforced by the department of finance – find anomalies in compliance in there and there WILL be an enquiry. The GPG can be freely downloaded. Read it and request materials the GPG says must exist. A tender specification is one of those things even if it just the make and model of what they want to buy (last I read it the GPG only manages diversity of supplier, not diversity of manufacturer).

        20

    • #
      New Chum

      If BOM and the manufacturer had Quality Assurance there should be documentation.

      81

    • #
      Graeme#4

      More than that. As a Government agency, surely BOM would have had to issue a formal supply contract. And surely a copy of this supply contract can be obtained through the FOI laws? I doubt that such a contract could be held to be commercial-in-confidence.
      Also the device itself will surely have markings that can be Googled to obtain more information – I often do this. Does anybody have access to a Screen using this device?

      40

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Thinking about this further, surely BOM would have to follow established government procurement procedures that I thought would have included sending for requests for bids to more than one supplier with device requirements, evaluating these bids and selecting a supplier. And this is not a one-off – I would have thought that there would be an ongoing supply contract for replacements.

        50

      • #
        Graeme#4

        More research: all BOM procurements >$10k must go through AusTender. So when looking at “Planned Procurements”, BOM-053 is for “Digital Sensors – Temperature and Wind”.

        50

    • #
      richard verney

      A totally meaningless response from the BOM. If sensors are “purpose built”, they must be built to a specification.

      And

      I am not blaming the sensors for being so responsive,

      I do blame BOM. this is simply poor and unacceptable quality control and raises severe questions as to the integrity of the scientific approach they are adopting which casts in to doubt all their findings.

      These sensors should have been purpose built so as to near as possible replicate the thermal response (lag and sensitivity) as that of the LIG thermometers that they were replacing.

      the platinum resistance thermometers should have been cased in material that gave them the same thermal properties as that of the old LIG thermometers that they were replacing.

      There should have been detailed laboratory testing of different casing materials so that the laboratory response was the same as the old LIG thermometer.

      Since they are housed in smaller enclosures than the old Stevenson screen type enclosure, the new enclosure also has a different thermal response. This again would require testing and adjustment to either the casing of the platinum resistance thermometer, or to the screen design.

      They needed on site testing (5 to 10 years) where each system was run in parallel to check that they had as near possibly the same sensitivity and lag, before the old system was replaced.

      We now have two different data records. The two should never be compared with one another. We have a series of data that covers the LIG thermometer period and ends when those LIG thermometers ceased to be used. We have a new series of data starting with the platinum resistance thermometer and covering only the period when platinum resistance thermometers are being used.

      51

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “We now have two different data records. The two should never be compared with one another. We have a series of data that covers the LIG thermometer period and ends when those LIG thermometers ceased to be used. We have a new series of data starting with the platinum resistance thermometer and covering only the period when platinum resistance thermometers are being used.”

        You seem to be promoting the scam of local temperature (indicator of local sensible heat) as having some meaning beyond that of local measurement!

        What total nonsense! Any aggregation (average) or even some differential of spatial\temporal measurement can have no meaning whatsoever, without detailed meaningful description of such mathematical operations.
        What you promote is the same scam for financial gain.

        11

        • #
          richard verney

          I do not see how anything that I wrote could reasonably be construed as

          promoting the scam of local temperature (indicator of local sensible heat) as having some meaning beyond that of local measurement!

          I am just commenting upon the article. Anyone who has read my comments will know that I hold the view that the time series thermometer reconstructions are meaningless and tell us nothing of substance since at no stage during the time series is like ever being compared with like. I am forever debating this with the likes of Mr Stokes and Mr Mosher.

          The data set that was used to compile say the 1880 anomaly is not the identical set used to compile say the 1920 anomaly, or the identical set used to compile the 2016 anomaly. Given the way these reconstructions have been compiled, with no like for like measurements, we simply do not know whether today is any warmer than it was in 1940 or 1880.

          I frequently suggest that we should select the best 200 stations (those where there is absolutely no changes in land use or impact of urbanisation) and retrofit those stations with the same type of equipment as was used in the 1930s/1940s, eg., the same type of screen painted with the same type of paint, the same type of LIG thermometers as were used at each station in the 1930s/1940s, calibrated using the same historic method as employed at each station, and then observe using the same practice and procedures as was used at each station (ie., the same TOB as applicable at each station) so that we can obtain empirically observed modern day RAW data that can then be compared with the station’s own historic Raw data without any adjustment whatsoever.

          I am wholly against making some “aggregation (average) or even some differential of spatial\temporal measurement” whether on a country or hemisphere or global scale,

          We should simply compare each station with itself and then note the number of stations that show say – 0.2degC, – 0.1 degC, 0 degC, + 0.1degC, + 0.2 degC change.

          I am against using any fancy statistics, just make a number of like for like direct comparisons.

          One does not need thousands of stations to test whether a well mixed gas may be impacting upon temperature. 200 point by point comparisons taken from well sited stations would quickly give us an indications whether there has been any significant warming from the late 1930s/early 1940s and that would cover the period when some 95% of all manmade emissions have taken place.

          11

          • #

            “I frequently suggest that we should select the best 200 stations (those where there is absolutely no changes in land use or impact of urbanisation) and retrofit those stations with the same type of equipment as was used in the 1930s/1940s, eg., the same type of screen painted with the same type of paint, the same type of LIG thermometers as were used at each station in the 1930s/1940s, calibrated using the same historic method as employed at each station, and then observe using the same practice and procedures as was used at each station (ie., the same TOB as applicable at each station) so that we can obtain empirically observed modern day RAW data that can then be compared with the station’s own historic Raw data without any adjustment whatsoever.”

            Richard, a problem with such a comparison is that 51.5% of all temperatures recorded at ACORN stations across Australia from 1957 till 1972 metrication were rounded to .0F (e.g Palmerville 96.5%, Wilson’s Prom 92.2%). Similar proportion would have been rounded at non-ACORN stations. The proportion was probably higher before 1957 and it was still an average 18.7% from 1973 to 1997. It could be assumed that all temps recorded now by their replicas in the same locations would probably be recorded to the correct decimal. True, the proportion of .0F recorded in the 1930/1940s could easily be calculated for each station and the same proportion rounded with the measurements in their respective replica stations.

            Of course, then the question would be should all those .0F modern recordings be rounded equally both up and down so that there was no bias on the eventual average? And if so, on which hot or cold days? My view has long been that a majority were rounded down, or truncated. A typical farmer on a cattle farm, hopefully with his glasses on, maybe in dim morning light and in a rush to bring in the herd, would see the mercury somewhere between 57 and 58, for example. More than half their collective recordings were rounded and I’m fairly confident that many (certainly not all but even 55% creates an average bias) would prefer to write 57F because that seems fairly accurate and honest, whereas 58 seems an exaggerated error if you either couldn’t clearly see or didn’t really care if it was 57.4F, 57.6F, 57.7F or whatever.

            AWS electronic sensors at least record each second to the exact decimal, albeit seemingly without adequate averaging for LIG comparison, smaller screen enclosures, etc, and creating spurious extremes (and also warming the means, in my opinion). On the other hand, the LIG F thermometers of old were read by fallible humans, not microchips, and more than 50% rounded what they saw to create a probable cooling bias through truncation.

            Comparing historic with modern thermometer readings is like comparing apples with oranges, both riddled with mould.

            01

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The solution to en masses exposure of this global warming scam is so close yet no one quite gets there. Climate gate should’ve got there. Whistleblowers in the US should’ve got there. Inquiry into the BOM should get us there. There is no doubt that there will be an instance , an event , a prosecution , a revelation where perpetrators of this scam ( and there are tens of thousands of co conspirators involved) will be brought to account. There are global warming operatives in all major influential institutions whether that is in government, the judiciary, media, religion , academe, education, major corporations,public servants, banks etc. Some are unwitting disciples who have been poisoned ,by drinking the global warming Kool Aid whilst others are the high priests who are orchestrating their global socialist agenda for their own nefarious purposes. It is only a matter of time before the dam ,wall breaks and the global warming insiders turn on each other. Like an embezzler who uses co conspirators to facilitate their criminal activity cracks eventually appear in the story so that the lies become more difficult and less convincing until one day perhaps all is revealed and the night mare is over. So many vested interests have kept the scam going for such a long time but I feel the day of reckoning is coming and it may be sooner than you think.

    311

    • #
      Dennis

      I am looking forward to the day of reckoning.

      230

      • #
        Manfred

        Lies have short legs, one second spot readings notwithstanding. The CAGW theory doesn’t appear to have persisted longer than most but it clearly appears more pervasive for many reasons well understood and equally well articulated on this site.

        According to Wikipedia Eugenics ran in recognisable form for about 60 – 80 years with policy invasive intensity, and Phlogiston presided for a century or so until, as Wikipedia states with extraordinary prescience (considering CAGW),

        Experienced chemists who supported Stahl’s phlogiston theory attempted to respond to the challenges suggested by Lavoisier and the newer chemists. In doing so, phlogiston theory became more complicated and assumed too much, contributing to the overall demise of the theory. Many people tried to remodel their theories on phlogiston in order to have the theory work with what Lavoisier was doing in his experiments. Pierre Macquer reworded his theory many times, and even though he is said to have thought the theory of phlogiston was doomed, he stood by phlogiston and tried to make the theory work.[19]

        UN pre-defined “climate change,” an unfalsifiable belief that makes no attempt to resemble the inconvenience of a testable theory is now as a complex ideologically, theologically, politically conflated scientivist polemic. It is become the author of its own unsustainable demise, the inevitability of fooling some, some of the time, but not all, all the time.

        What worries me is that the UN and Papal anchored date of 2030 is a date of policy coalescence, seeing the implementation of the UN “sustainable” transformational agenda. The Pope opened of the 70th General Assembly in September 2015 when this agenda was adopted.

        The real question it seems to me is, will it matter whether the Trojan horse of climatism is DOA?

        120

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “What worries me is that the UN and Papal anchored date of 2030 is a date of policy coalescence, seeing the implementation of the UN “sustainable” transformational agenda. The Pope opened of the 70th General Assembly in September 2015 when this agenda was adopted.”

          Very nice\accurate assessment of the current state of ‘human organization’ upon this wonderful planet “Earth?”. The disorganized earthlings with pitchforks and torches, along with other fine creachers, critters, varments, and others disorganized by intent; may have something else in mind!!

          “The real question it seems to me is, will it matter whether the Trojan horse of climatism is DOA?”

          If the UN “sustainable” transformational agenda succeeds, Climate Clowns are long past. Only the few nomenklatura plus sufficient serfs to provide needed ‘services’ shall remain. Francis still thinks he is nomenklatura! OTOH if GOD prefers ‘organization’ on this Earth; Roaches are highly viable!

          40

        • #
          Roger

          Children, now adult, have been forced to undergo global warming indoctrination for the last 20 years or so.

          I don’t know about Australian education, but in the UK and apparently in the USA teaching has avoided or dumbed down critical reasoning or critical appreciation. Alarm about ‘global warming’ is probably part of the reason that we now have ‘generation snowflake’ .

          30

          • #
            richard verney

            The ironic thing is that these children have not witnessed any global warming these past 20 years, since, but for short lived ENSO spikes, there has been essentially no significant/
            measurable change in temperature during their lifetimes!

            20

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “Children, now adult, have been forced to undergo global warming indoctrination for the last 20 years or so.”

            The only out from that is to have “parents” accept the role of ‘parent’ 100% responsible for the eventual outcome of any ‘offsprout’, intentional or not. Each ‘parent’ must take on the the responsibility for the eventual outcome of each wonderful (full of wonder) idiot (unable to provide for self) infant. That same infant (provided for) must within 90 days learn 95% of ever to be learned….. all from ‘attitude’ of parent(s)! Folk get your ‘attitude’ correct before affectionately ‘screwing each other’, PLEASE!!

            30

    • #
      joseph

      . . . . until one day perhaps all is revealed and the night mare is over.

      And we have a day mare?

      Sorry, couldn’t resist . . . . .

      50

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “Sorry, couldn’t resist . . . . .”
        I prefer superluminal unicorns with unknown sexual preference. :-)

        40

    • #
      Michael in Brisbane

      What you are waiting for, Zigmaster, is another January 1st 2000. That was the day the Y2K alarmism came to an abrupt halt when no planes had fallen out of the sky overnight and all computers were running normally.
      It would indeed be great to see the end of this CAGW hoax!

      121

      • #
        Another Ian

        Michael

        The “reconsile” part of the dos version of quicken did go ack willy in my experience. Seemed to have its own calender function which didn’t.

        51

      • #
        Roger

        What I never understood was that all it required to test this ‘hypothesis’ in advance was to advance the OS clock to 11.59pm 31st December 1999, wait a few minutes and see what happened.

        Nothing would have been found to fall over.

        61

        • #
          rollo

          Roger says….

          all it required to test this ‘hypothesis’ in advance was to advance the OS clock to 11.59pm 31st December 1999, wait a few minutes and see what happened.

          Yes this was done with with just about everything that had a clock, but panic merchants everywhere insisted on having their Y2K.

          71

        • #
          OldGreyGuy

          The bandits who made out big on the Y2K “crisis” were the big 5 consultancy firms and their risk management practices. The basically sold an assurance program to Boards and Govt who basically had their insurers telling them if they didn’t manage the risks to at least an acceptable standard then there would be no insurance payouts if something went wrong. The only problem with that was that there really no standards for this at the time.

          I was working for a very large database vendor at the time and were constantly being contacted, often by the same people acting for different clients for statements and verification of applications etc. most of the questions were clueless and so were their staff. There was obviously a whole lot of unnecessary analysis and reports being written and presented to clients who were paying big 5 consulting rates.

          61

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Between the BOM promoting climate change and its data collection methodology it appears to be obsessed about noise, either the making or creation of.

    161

  • #
    • #

      “Hager compared the two different measurement systems side by side at the GeiInfoAdvisory Office of Fliegerhorst Lechfeld from January 1, 1999 to Jul 31, 2007. ”
      That it has been known for this long what the results would be, shows there is either a high level of incompetence or an interesting “purpose”.
      Hey wait up people figured this out after Hager, he should have looked forward in time and given credit for greater work with less worthwhile result.

      130

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      This is a must read

      One point I found interesting was that the thermal inertia of a Stevenson screen based system is quite large (measured in multiple minutes per degree as I recall). Fancy using an aluminium box instead of a wooden one for the stevenson screen.

      If so, then the second by second fluctuations in recorded temperatures have a physically imposed limit and cannot possibly be correct when they record the kind of fluctuations shown in the BOM records.

      Something is seriously and fundamentally wrong at the BOM.

      120

      • #
        richard verney

        I had not seen your comment, when I posted a comment above that also discusses the different response of the old and new screens.

        I do not consider that many people are alive to this very point, and it is a significant one especially when the new thermometers are being placed near to urban/manmade heat sources such as tarmac, brick buildings and jet planes where just a very short lived gust can bring with it artificially warmed wind.

        20

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Yes, many things are purpose built. BOM hidden or destroyed comparison of old and new temperature data. Purpose for 1 sec measurement to increase the maximum temperature in support of global warming scam.
    Reason record lows are modified to be warmer–purpose driven to promote global warming. Reason BOM won’t open data, documentation, and procedures to public view–might weaken purpose driven data manipulation showing global warming.
    Bureau of Means & Messes & Obfuscation in support of Global warming. New name BOM changed to Bureau of Global Warming Obfuscations and Perfidy. BoGWOP. Has a wonderful bureaucratic sound to it doesn’t it?

    231

  • #
    ScotsmanInUtah

    BOM – just doin’ it my way !

    Frank Sinatra had a wonderful song , and I wonder if the Australian Scientists at BOM are following some nostalgic path which resembles the crooner.

    Science is not what it used to be :(

    121

  • #

    The claimed “purpose” is to match the time constant of an InGlass thermometer. Sadly this theory is flawed. A platinum resistance thermometer may work like a 1 pole RC time constant filter but a glass thermometer has two main time constants. So it will not follow the same exponential decay curve. After a warming transient first is the expansion of the glass. The second interactive filter time is the expansion of the liquid. So both the PRTD and InGlass thermometer will go past mile stones like 63.2 percent but take different paths to get there. This difference allows a very fast spike to be produced by an RTD but be nearly ignored by the glass thermometer, while both behave much the same to a longer event.

    131

    • #

      Used to be able to lift this weight of 2*Pi*F at the link below but did not exercise the muscle. So not today. None the less here are example formula to show how interactive two pole filters will produce a different curve. Also there is an example of filtering both before and after a buffer amplifier which is what the WMO described when they spelled out that the additional averaging should be after the linearization amplification.
      https://neurophysics.ucsd.edu/courses/physics_120/multi-pole%20filters.pdf
      I have already been laughed at for suggesting some of the L effects may be mixed in with the R and C.

      40

      • #

        I read that, Siliggy, and found I could read all the words between the Egyptian hieroglyphics quite well. I looked in vain for ‘frequency equals one divided by the square root of inductance times capacitance’, which is the only bit of that language I knew, unfortunately.

        There appears to be a bit more than meets the eye in these temperature sensing thingies.

        20

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Agreed. I’m no apologist for the BOM but it seems to me that the root cause might be that they made an unwarranted assumption.

      That assumption being that the temperature inside the Stevenson screen changes more slowly than the temperature outside the screen. And how would they ever have tested that assumption when all they had was mercury or alcohol in glass thermometers?

      And if the temperature inside the screen only changes slowly who cares about the platinum sensors being too sensitive. That seems consistent with the “more than one way to skin a cat” defence that the BOM has issued.

      I speculate but it just might be that the BOM has been caught out because it was just too damn smart to bother with mundane issues. It may be just another case of what could possibly go wrong?

      41

      • #

        Forrest note the video in my other reply to you.

        And if the temperature inside the screen only changes slowly who cares about the platinum sensors being too sensitive.

        If the Australian screen lends itself to bursts of internal convection during still wind conditions outside the box, can it turn into a cross between a lava lamp and a solar oven powered random noise generator.

        41

      • #
        richard verney

        Agreed. I’m no apologist for the BOM but it seems to me that the root cause might be that they made an unwarranted assumption.

        But they are not using Stevenson screens, and that is exacerbating the problem.

        There is two issues, and unfortunately they compound.
        First, there is the difference in slow sensitivity between the old LIG thermometer and the quick high sensitive response of the platinum resistance thermometer.

        Second, there is the reduced volume of the modern enclosure which also reduces thermal lag.

        So both changes have resulted in a lowering in the thermal response time.

        This is then yet further compounded by the shift towards more urban stations, which not only have long term bias, but also can be significantly affected by short lived gusts of wind coming over tarmac, or the nearby exhaust of a passing jet plane etc.

        None of these things (eg., gusts over tarmac, or exhausts of jet planes) ever cool. They are a one way bias creating a warming trend.

        all of this is just an example of poor quality science and poor quality control, which any competent objective observer/scientist would readily appreciate will create problems.

        There is no need to be so generous to BOM. It should be called out for what it is.

        21

  • #
    TedM

    I’ve watched the online temperatures at our local BOM weather station on mornings when low minimums have been forecast. I have seen readings change by up to 0.5C in just minutes. I simply do not believe that these instruments and the way that BOM uses the data are trustworthy.

    121

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A sudden gust of wind will alter temperature in a small localised area within seconds, it doesn’t mean the entire district has changed, that’s why plotted averages were invented.

      81

  • #
    manalive

    The pre-1910 data is not included in the record because they are allegedly ’warm biased’ due to poor siting, maintenance etc.:

    [thermometers] … are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences. Such exposures (not to mention the several remarkable instances of thermometers being placed and observed indoors) give results which are not only not intercomparable [sic] and so valueless to meteorology, but which are affected by artificial and secondary conditions, giving misleading values … (Wragge, C. L. 1886).

    Apart from the fact that those problems don’t automatically suggest a ‘warm bias’, if the BOM were consistent the electronic thermometer results would form a separate record from the mercury record.

    91

    • #

      manalive a record of what though? Unfiltered EMR noise spikes, Step changes from multiple undocumented (at least five) probe types, Large screen vs small screen reading change (perhaps half a degree on a hot still day) and etc. What would you call the record? Please not air temperature.

      21

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      manalive October 21, 2017 at 7:00 am

      “The pre-1910 data is not included in the record because they are allegedly ’warm biased’ due to poor siting, maintenance etc.:”

      Part of the intentional scam. Any ‘measurement’ made by folk or machine must remain ‘pristine’ as the best measurement made at that local and time.There can never be any scientific reason for ‘adjusting such measurement’. Even if the guy freezing in his skivvies read the thermometer wrong, That measurement remains the best you will ever get from that location and time.

      The Scam is to promote some worrisome ‘trend’ for political gain, rather than admit ‘we have no clue’!

      30

    • #
      richard verney

      [thermometers] … are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences.

      But some of these old measurements were taken with thermometers housed within Stevenson type screens since there are old Victorian/Edwardian pictures showing this.

      Obviously, anything not measured within a suitable screen should be discarded, but there are some measurements which are not so easily disregardable.

      As regards the observation “others are placed against stone walls and fences” this similarly applies to all modern measurements that are made in urban environs. if one was being consistent one would disregard all modern measurements that could be influenced by UHI or nearby mandmade objects, and use only truly rural data that can have not been influenced by manmade objects/changes in land use.

      31

  • #
    David Maddison

    The BoM “scientific” techniques would fail in a first year university class (at least the way they used to teach science).

    If the specifications of the measuring device are not known, if the validation data comparing it to the technique it replaces doesn’t exist, and readons for one second measurements as opposed to some other interval such as one or five minutes are not rationalised then the data is invalid.

    All of it is invalid.

    It effectively doesn’t exist.

    182

  • #
    David Maddison

    The “bible” of weather measurement is the WMO “Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation”.

    https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_8_en-2012.pdf

    Page 58

    2.1.3.3 response times of thermometers
    For routine meteorological observations there is no advantage in using thermometers with a very small time-constant or lag coefficient, since the temperature of the air continually fluctuates up to one or two degrees within a few seconds. Thus, obtaining a representative reading with such a thermometer would require taking the mean of a number of readings, whereas a thermometer with a larger time-constant tends to smooth out the rapid fluctuations. Too long a time-constant, however, may result in errors when long-period changes of temperature occur. It is recommended that the time-constant, defined as the time required by the thermometer to register 63.2 per cent of a step change in air temperature, should be 20 s. The time-constant depends on the air-flow over the sensor.

    131

  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      Yes seriously. Australia is going backwards in many other areas as well as car manufacturing and electricity generation. While other nations are busily expanding their car production facilities as well as their coal fired power stations, we are shutting down ours. I wonder how long before the penny drops and people wake up to the fact unions and both major parties have been the main driving forces to shut down Australia.

      120

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Might be time to leave Oz….shes taking on water fast….soon the only thing floating will be the greasy pollies…or polly waffles….

        80

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’m hoping someone starts importing Chevs back into Australia, like the good old 60′s and 70′s :)
      We need more Trans-Am’s on the highway. OH, Obummer killed off Pontiac, far-out.

      61

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        “… Obummer killed off Pontiac, …”

        Not exactly.
        A few years ago there was a magazine cover photo of 5 GM autos. All red ones, and, more or less, indistinguishable from each other.
        In the 1960s, Pontiacs, Olds, Chevy, and Buicks were distinctive. Then better mileage regulations brought aerodynamics and wind tunnel experimentation. Such procedures led to the same design, and less marketing need for brands. Now the dashboard has backup cameras, operation metrics, and social media. When they are the same under the paint, why have 5 divisions all competing for the best GPS or safety feature?

        10

    • #
      Another Ian

      Scotsman

      You can tell that wasn’t written by someone 150 km from the nearest reasonable supply point.

      Best of luck with the delivery of on-line shopping too.

      50

    • #
      Annie

      Turnbull weeping crocodile tears…I can think of a word but won’t go further.

      60

  • #
    PeterS

    Yes indeed it’s ironic to see BOM is accelerating the exposure of their own failure by using thermometers that are “purpose designed”. The more they “purpose design” them the sooner they are exposed. However, they still have a long way to go to meet their “temperature target”. Which comes first? Renewable energy target or temperature target? Both are of course bogus so it’s academic.

    101

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Not that I was ever any good at maths but I always had to show how I worked out any equation, no workings gave an X .
    Sick and tired of these shonksters saying trust us you don’t need to see my workings you just need to know the science is in and it’s a consensus.

    150

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Every engineering assignment I did, and end of semester exam was always “show working”. Even if you got the wrong answer, you got marks for what you got right and the examiner would identify where you went wrong.

      Bom are not scientist, nor are they engineers. They are shonksters.

      151

  • #
    Amber

    Thermo-gate … How sad really . So when that 747 blasts off the end of an airport
    those poor little thermometers sitting on molten asphalt must just go crazy .
    I don’t believe a thing these weather fabricators say . NOAA is at the top of the pile of fudge .

    131

  • #
    Timo Soren

    Go after Dr. Johnson. Get a BOM thermocouple. Test it. Show that it does not lag. That proves either he is lying, OR an idiot, both disqualify him from his job. Start firing this D&*kwads.

    101

    • #
      StephenP

      How would a thermocouple in a mercury bulb compare with a thermocouple on its own and a mercury thermometer? Would there be a slight lag in temperature recording help smooth the temperature record and get rid of temperature spikes when a jet engine passes nearby or the sun comes out for ten minutes on an otherwise cloudy day?

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Not temperature but around climatic objectives

    “What crisis? Global CO2 emissions stalled for the third year in a row”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/20/what-crisis-global-co2-emissions-stalled-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/

    40

    • #
      Roger

      Interesting that, isn’t it.

      All are self-reported and the accuracy of them has been heavily criticised.

      But it did occur to me that claiming that CO2 emissions have stopped rising is less embarrassing than say the whole of AGW being shown to have been created from temperature record manipulation …. who knows .

      30

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Jo, i liked the horse handicapping quote.

    Intetestingly, race fixing is illegal.

    Et Te BOM?

    60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      …Interestingly….

      Required caffeine level not yet attained…based in measurement over an hour , using a moving average….

      No electronic measurement required…

      40

  • #

    If we look at what heat can do to Ausralian humans by recalling years such as 1896, 1939, 1908, 1960 and 2009 we will worry less about tricking statistics, which are sorry things at their very best, and we will look to our coal.

    When some suggested that the brutal Sydney heat of 1790/1 was caused by humans (natives burning stuff) Captain Watkin Tench was bright enough to deduce that the cause was north westerly winds blowing off immense deserts somewhere. He had no way of knowing or helping what the El Nino of the early 1790s was doing in India (killing millions) but he would not have been surprised. Have we regressed since Tench?

    Our coal, I said. We must look to our coal.

    130

  • #

    The BOM in Australia does all it can in the gathering, processing and recording of climate data to encourage believe in Global warming / Climate Change, anything short of holding a cigarette lighter under the thermometer. Well, at least I assume that they don’t hold a cigarette lighter under the thermometer, do they?

    91

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I assume that they don’t hold a cigarette lighter under the thermometer, do they?

      We would need to know the specs of such a cigarette lighter and whether or not it was purpose-built. I assume that the purpose-built lighter would have been structured to light cigarettes, or maybe bush fires by an incendiarist, and hence its meteorological application would have been subject to some critical revue before adopting its use for said function.

      60

    • #
      David Maddison

      Well, at least I assume that they don’t hold a cigarette lighter under the thermometer, do they?

      They use a virtual cigarette lighter written in software plus in the “mind” of the BoM public serpent (not a real scientist) whose job it is to alter the raw data (and then dispose of original data) to “prove” the invalid hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

      81

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Well, I for one, would not put it past the green-left activists. It’s straight out of their playbook. The met sites are all known; lat and long is publicly available on the BoM web-site.

      How many activists would you need to corrupt the collection? How many cigarette lighters? How many Get-up members are there and where are they located? How many Greens? How many WWF etc?

      Such an approach could easily be implemented – if it already hasn’t been.

      70

  • #
    Ted O’Brien.

    Expecting that these one second readings would show up in a bigger daily temperature variation, I did a very rough check on our local records, for the old station in town ( up to 1995) and the new one (since 1991) at the airport.

    I ignored gaps and other factors.

    The variation at the old station averaged 14.7 degrees, and at the new 14.4 degrees. So that showed no support for my theory. More work needed.

    60

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    Quote: The Australian Bureau of Meteorology collects one-second records and can turn them into newspaper headline.

    I am interested in the thermal inertia of a Stevenson’s screen system. It should dampen rapid fluctuations caused by things like hot or cold gusts of wind.

    And that should make the abandonment of time averaging pretty much a non-issue.

    Of course the two shoulds should be joined by a third should, namely the assumptions should have been tested.

    And the three should should be joined by a fourth should, namely that the fluctuations should have raised alarm bells.

    Ah, if only my shoulds were coulds I’d be one of them cleymight sighantists.

    70

    • #

      Forrest. The assumptions may change as a complication of intuition gone wrong.
      The Australian Stevenson screen has a double layer at the top. That is a shade roof that air can flow under. The Indian screen has has these two layers vented but enclosed. Three minutes of this video could show how the assumptions may work different from country to country.
      The Australian ceiling would be cooler than the floor but the Indian screen would be the other way around. https://youtu.be/Pg3gJwnlFoQ?t=7m17s

      10

  • #
    D. Steven Fraser

    ‘Purpose-made’ implies documentation of the specs at some point. Companies manufactured these, and there have to be replacements orderable from existing or new suppliers. How about a few sites get visited and read the manufacturer names off of the devices, and pay them a friendly visit to interview them on their robust quality control processes?

    In a device such has been described, there is going to be a software spec for the inputs, the outputs and the temperature performance range of the entire device. Components will have engineering specs that address response times to delta-T (temp change) and measurement accuracy. All this stuff exists at the current manufacturers, and also at any company that wants to get into the business of supplying the devices for network expansion. If the specs are robust, the BOM would also have stipulated the acceptance test that would have to be performed on each device, and (at a minimum) reported the results to the BOM.

    110

  • #

    [...] off Jo Nova’s press, the games the Bureau of Meteorology plays with the temperature records. I wonder [...]

    21

  • #
    TdeF

    Changing instruments? Even changing technology? The number of things which can go wrong are many and they all need careful testing and alignment. However the real concern is the increase in precision. If the old thermometers are accurate to man readable 0.5C and the new ones to say 0.01C, there is the core problem of how you connect the old data to the new. This can give a difference of 0.49C, the entire alleged global warming, conincident entirely with the introduction world wide of new themometers. Since then no warming.

    It also raises real questions about the use of very localized measurement when measuring the temperature of a planet, especially in 1910? How is that even possible? Antarctica alone is the size of South America, two Australias. 75% of the earth’s surface is water or ice. We do not live everywhere and thermometers only read very localized temperatures at best.

    The whole business of creating a world temperature from themometer readings in 1900 must be fraught with errors which are at least as big as the minimum reading error of 0.5C. Still we have proven and unquestionable anthropogenic runaway tipping point Global Warming. Really? Not that anyone has actually noticed.

    111

    • #
      sophocles

      we have proven and unquestionable anthropogenic runaway tipping point Global Warming

      Here’s a refutation[pdf] you might enjoy.

      It wasn’t us! Really! Some star did it! Honest! :-)

      The paper has some issues but it’s an interesting read. Enjoy.

      10

  • #
    Ruairi

    The B.O.M. were assigned,
    Thermometers, still undefined,
    Which do not comply,
    With a mercury high,
    Being one-second-spike-heat designed.

    100

  • #
    Another Ian

    BOM is likely safe while this is top news

    “LIBERALS JEER ABBOTT AS THEY MARCH OVER THE ELECTRICITY CLIFF”

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/liberals-jeer-abbott-as-they-march-over-the-electricity-cliff/news-story/203bf86d8c17e5c92c4ef32af1bfcdd5

    70

  • #
    pat

    time will tell:

    20 Oct: UK Express: UK faces MONTHS of SNOW: Sinking polar vortex to trigger COLDEST winter since GREAT FREEZE
    BRITAIN is weeks away from the first major winter whiteout with 2017 shaping up to be the “year of the snowstorm”.
    By Nathan Rao
    Temperatures are forecast to plummet next month as a bitter Arctic blast roars in from the North Pole.
    Snow is forecast as far south as London with widespread frosts, freezing fog and sheet ice threatening misery across the country.
    Warnings have been issued to prepare for what could be the coldest winter since the Great Freeze of 2010/11 when heavy snow and sub-zero temperatures ground the country to a standstill…

    James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather, said Britain will be crippled by several widespread snow events through the season…

    ***Piers Corbyn, forecaster for WeatherAction, said the jet stream is showing signs of diving southwards allowing the polar vortex – a pool of freezing air over the Arctic – to sink across northern Europe…
    “This could affect large parts of the UK between now and Christmas, this is all part of an new era which we believe is going to lead to a mini ice age.”…

    (Ladbrokes) Spokeswoman Jessica Bridge said: “All bets are off when it comes to 2017 being the year of the snowstorm.
    “The temperatures are beginning to drop, and the odds are following suit that winter’s going to be Arctic.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/868795/UK-winter-weather-forecast-2017-snow-long-range-weather-forecast-Met-Office-BBC-weather

    70

  • #
    Konrad

    The BoM’s excuses are a load of hot air.

    If the thermal inertia of the resistance thermometers was such that they mimicked old mercury thermometers, then there would be no need to sample at 1 second intervals. Sampling at 1 minute intervals would be sufficient if that were true.

    This latest BoM excuse just seems concocted to prevent review of data they know to be incorrect.

    90

    • #
      David Maddison

      The WMO recommends 20 sec readings as per my post above.

      41

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      If the thermal inertia of the resistance thermometers was such that they mimicked old mercury thermometers, then there would be no need to sample at 1 second intervals. Sampling at 1 minute intervals would be sufficient if that were true.

      Is your ‘thermal inertia’ the same as sparky ‘time constant’ for the mass-less observable? Yous fluid dynamics folk seem very good at what you do best! Please leave mass-less volume effects to sparkies. We have a hard time interpreting your stuff like ‘UP’!
      All the best!-will-

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    I now find it sickening to live in Australia, a once great country. If it was feasible to do so for me now, I would rather be living in Trump’s America. Australia has almost no hope of being saved and be made great again. America was rescued just in the nick of time from Obama/Clinton, Australia has no such similar hope.

    71

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT but I swear there’s something weird going on with South Australia energy demand , it keeps dropping as the wind generation also drops .

    40

    • #
      David Maddison

      Load shedding?

      31

    • #
      David Maddison

      Or is the data being manipulated? Can we trust it? I no longer trust ANY information from a government or semi-government agency. I assume they are lying unless the truth can be demonstrated. It’s easier that way. Never trust a public serpent, especially BoM ones.

      41

      • #
        robert rosicka

        I think a combination of the two is probably more like it David , that demand is the lowest I’ve seen so far for SA .

        30

    • #
      Konrad

      Apparently demand for SA is below 700 MW in the middle of the day. That’s less than Tasmania.
      What did they unplug??

      40

      • #
        OldGreyGuy

        Holden?

        50

        • #
          Konrad

          I don’t think Holden was sucking down the 900 MW of demand missing from the AEMO’s figures.

          It is more reasonable to suppose that the AEMO is trying to BS the voters yey again. We have clear evidence they have done this before, releasing three consecutive reports that blamed the South Afailure Green-Out on anything but wind farms. “The towers blew down at half their rated wind speed”, “it was the ride-through setting on the wind farms”, “alien invasion”. But the data in the public domain clearly showed that SA was running with 60% unreliables in storm conditions. They were running with scissors. They overheated the interconnecter with multiple subsidy farm over-speed drop-outs during the day, with Snowtown being the final blow, causing a hard fault that overloaded the ACSR transmission cables, burnt them through and brought the towers down. The AEMO cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

          So what is the corrupt AEMO covering up now? That one’s easy. New rules for SA. No more than 25% unreliables powering their grid. Note how the propaganda now says “SA produced enough wind and solar to power half their grid”. They don’t say they actually powered half their grid from wind and solar. Their last attempt cost $375 million in damages to industry. (And because annealing damage in ACSR cables is cumulative, untold millions in damage to their power infrastructure).

          It doesn’t matter how much power SA is generating from unreliables. While they won’t publicly say it, the AEMO now know it is simply too dangerous for SA to run more than 25% of their grid from unreliables. They are claiming SA’s 1600 MW demand is only 700 MW to cover this up.

          40

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Konrad I recently watched the dashboard when warnings were issued by BOM for SA for high wind and storms but at that stage according to the dashboard and widget SA was getting most of its power from wind .
            The AEMO even had warnings about high wind and possible damage to infrastructure in the state , which makes me think they have learned nothing .

            20

            • #
              Konrad

              The AEMO do know what the problem is. After all, they helped create it.

              They are currently mendaciously showing SA demand as 900 MW, with wind and solar supplying half of that. But according to NEM watch, SA is using 1800 MW.

              SA is really only running on 25% unreliables in line with AEMO’s secret new rules that came into force after the SA Green-Out. While only a few cables burnt out during that unreliables failure, annealing damage to ACSR cables is cumulative. The lifespan of all of SA’s transmission infrastructure has been degraded. Back then they were running with scissors. Now they are skating on thin ice. They can’t afford to replace the cables they’ve damaged, therefore they can’t afford a single slip up.

              30

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “It doesn’t matter how much power SA is generating from unreliables. While they won’t publicly say it, the AEMO now know it is simply too dangerous for SA to run more than 25% of their grid from unreliables. They are claiming SA’s 1600 MW demand is only 700 MW to cover this up.”

            Correct Konrad,
            The Scammers are on the run. Let them crawl under rocks to later reappear. or now stomped into grease spots in the dirt to be paved over. Maybe? :-)

            30

    • #
      Joe

      Nah,I think that makes sense robert. Most of the wind generators in SA have now been retrofitted with large grid powered motors to drive the blades when needed. They got the idea from the sneaky cyclist racers with electric motors concealed within their frames.

      30

    • #
      RickWill

      The temperature is 18C. It is Saturday. Most rooftop solar panels will be near perpendicular to the sun around 1pm. Cloud cover is modest to low.

      All that means that the air conditioning demand is low due to mild temperature, more specifically, no air-conditioning running in premises not occupied on weekends and rooftop solar is going about as well as it can apart from some cloud cover – peaking around 70% of capacity today. And base load demand is dying due high cost of power.

      The base load on the grid in SA is likely lower than 500MW these days and the minimum occurs through the middle of the day because a large proportion of the actually load is not seen by the grid. The peak will be up around 3300MW so there is a huge range. It can be reasonably argued that SA no longer has base load. The minimum demand is only a small fraction of the peak demand.

      On mild, clear weekends further into summer the load may even get below 500MW this year.

      30

      • #
        RickWill

        South Australia now has way more installed wind and solar capacity than the actual load. With such large variation in generation there needs to be massive overcapacity to supply more than 20% of the market share. SA has enough capacity to supply 40% but is now limited until the stability issues are resolved.

        South Australia is a good example of an unrenewable future. The grid is in decay. It is cheaper to supply loads from local collection and generation than using the grid. There is all that installed wind and grid scale solar doing nothing to meet the State load right now. Even the gas output is exceeding the demand and excess being exported to Victoria. If there was no link the gas would be running for stability reasons and the wind probably throttled despite its miserly 112MW output, which is all exported at present so customers in other States can transfer their payment for LGCs to SA.

        The Victorian link makes SA appear better than it otherwise would be. Costs would be considerably higher and reliability considerably lower if the link did not exist. I am still forecasting a Jay to Dan phonecail in early February next year. Or maybe as early as late November this year.

        60

  • #
    pat

    20 Oct: Weather Channel: Sean Breslin: Mentions of Climate Change Removed from EPA’s Climate Change Page, Environmental Group Finds
    A new report from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative found the EPA’s current climate change website is a shell of the website that was in place (LINK) during the Obama administration, and the words “climate change” are nowhere to be found. The new website focuses primarily on energy policies, but does not mention climate change – not even in the URL of some subdomains, which used to contain addresses like “epa.gov/climatechange” and “epa.gov/climate-impacts.”

    “Large portions of climate resources that were formerly found on the previous website have not been returned, and thus have ultimately been removed from the current EPA website (though many of these resources can still be found in the Jan. 19 snapshot of the EPA website),” EDGI said in a statement obtained by EcoWatch. “The new website launch was done without an accompanying news release and the decision not to include particular climate resources was not explained.”…

    The study said the EPA has removed at least 15 references to climate change on the new home page, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The EPA’s previous climate and energy website was 380 pages; the new website, devoid of references to climate change, was cut down to 175 pages, EDGI found…

    “I think it’s very alarming,” Adam Parris, leader of the Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay in New York, told the New York Times…

    ***”The previous administration’s web pages are still available by clicking the large link plainly visible on the banner at the top of EPA.gov,” an EPA spokesperson told weather.com in an email.
    https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2017-10-20-epa-removes-climate-change-from-website

    Gina McCarthy quote from NYT, which I can’t access – my monthly quota of free articles is up:

    “There is no more significant threat than climate change, and it isn’t just happening to people in far-off countries — it’s happening to us,” Gina McCarthy, who served as administrator of the EPA under President Obama, said in a statement to The New York Times. “It is beyond comprehension that E.P.A. would ever purposely limit and remove access to information that communities need to save lives and property. Clearly, this was not a technical glitch, it was a planned shutdown.”

    20 Oct: Reuters: U.S. EPA to shrink response time for permit requests: Pruitt
    by Ernest Scheyder, Bryan Sims
    THE WOODLANDS, Texas: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will cut response times to permit requests to within six months by the end of 2018, part of the agency’s goal to reduce regulations and delays, Administrator Scott Pruitt said on Thursday.
    The move comes as President Donald Trump pushes to shrink the size of government and cut regulations, especially on the coal and oil sectors.
    “Regulatory uncertainty is the biggest reason why the U.S. economy isn’t growing faster,” Pruitt said in a panel discussion at the Texas Oil & Gas Association’s Lone Star Energy Forum just outside Houston.

    The EPA has in some cases taken several years to review some permit requests. Pruitt said cutting that response time was a key goal when he took office earlier this year, a task he delegated to Henry Darwin, his chief of staff and a former staffer at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    “It can be done. It’s just a matter of having the process in place to achieve results,” said Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general…

    In his remarks to the crowd of oil and gas executives, Pruitt said he did not see his role as having to chose between the economy or environmental stewardship.
    “One of the greatest challenges we have as a country is to ask the question, ‘What is true environmentalism?’” Pruitt said. “Why can’t we be about jobs and growth and environmental stewardship?”…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-epa-pruitt/u-s-epa-to-shrink-response-time-for-permit-requests-pruitt-idUSKBN1CP00R

    30

  • #
    Jopo

    I would think that NATA accreditation is a must for the measuring equipment that is used for public purpose. BOM actually do make mention of NATA in a observations policy document read somewhere before.

    Any ad hoc piece of equipment that is calibrated for this supposed time constant which does sound absurd for a 1 second reading and used in public policy decision making must be done by NATA accredited personel with supporting documentation. Well that is my take on it. And I have some exposure to NATA

    I know that Police have to be NATA accredited with their in house testing of equipment. Or of the personal (company) that certify the said equipment. You go to a court trying to convict someone with a piece of equipment that is tested by someone that is NOT NATA accredited or has not followed a NATA accredited documented process to calibrate it. you will be shot down in court!

    Testing methodology would be documented along with the accreditation paperwork for the said product.

    That is my belief

    10

  • #
    Mark M

    Intermission.

    On the hottest day in 14 years, Deputy Dawg gets to enjoy the cool comfort of the Sheriff’s icehouse as Vince and Musky attempt to infiltrate it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMDTo2morpI

    30

  • #
    Doonhamer

    The other Weinstein link.
    Figures getting massaged.

    20

  • #
    John Robertson

    Had Enough Yet?
    Simple question for our citizens who refuse to vote.
    Good enough for Government is a substandard product.

    Interestingly Nav Canada quietly replaced all airport sensors in the early 2000s, as the early 1990s electronic weather stations were unfit for flying purposes.
    Did some research into the sensor specs and calibration problems..seems Nav Canada cannot accurately measure the complete temperature range, -50C to40C seemed to exceed the calibrated range of the devices used.Requiring calibration every six months, to accurately capture the Summer/winter ranges.
    And as for calibration records??? Har har, once again Good Enough fer Govt.

    Later I looked at response times, mercury in glass versus platinum resistor..Sad and grotesque .
    Mercury in glass has a time to measure temperature rise of approximately 2 minutes and six to ten minutes to measure a temperature drop( from memory).
    Platinum resistor ..seconds either way.
    Now think of those minutes just before a thunder storm breaks, when the air temperature spikes and then the storm breaks…Mercury in glass does not respond, electronic device= New Record.Unprecedented I tells yah.

    Then the 0.9C deviation as measured by the German University, funny how the inherent error upward of the chosen measuring system exceeds the calculated increase in global temperature…we could be cooling and our “Good enough fer govt” systems could not say.
    This whole fiasco is an unholy mess.
    Government committees are prime demonstrations of Fools and Bandits running unchecked.
    Perhaps the backlash will decimate our Parasitic Overlords.
    There is nothing the collective can do through bureaucracy that will enhance any individuals life..except the individual claiming to be “helping”.

    10

  • #