S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Right out of the gate with an ad hominem attack!
I’ll also wager 50 euros you didn’t even read the article.
- Status
I’ll also wager 50 euros you didn’t even read the article.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
You never hear about them throwing out data or testing instruments when it advances thier ideological cause, or affect s thier career necessity. A reading 10 degrees high would be touted as the golden calf, denier killer, settled science. And used to control people through fear and guilt.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Yes.
THAT’S IT???
That would invalidate an entire study and any other study based on it that doesn’t make the necessary correction------which none of them do because they all just want easy government grant money.
Translation:
Instrumentation errors = not bogus, but here’s my Australian mainstream media news source that says it’s hot outside. Therefore, give up your freedom because government will take care of you…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You would lose that bet. And I did not criticize the bad article based on its coming from the Daily Caller. I criticized the Daily Caller for publishing a bad article. So no ad hominem attack either.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Drawing conclusions from what you don’t hear is a fallacy. Just because you have not seen a story about something does not is does not happen, especially when that something is not remarkable enough to report on.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I guess it’s just a complete coincidence that we get alarmist prophesy every time Phoenix is hot in the summer, but if the Great Lakes freeze over, it’s an anomily.
Is it getting harder for you to defend the ideology or are you a true believer?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No, it’s getting harder in general for left-wing Catholics and Christians to keep being loyal to entities such as American universities and the Democratic Party and put God first. So what they have to do is come up with these lame excuses and double-standards.
So they will increasingly get angry and resentful over this.
It’s all they have.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I wouldn’t know. I am not an alarmist.
I do not defend an ideology when I defend scientific truth.
It is not loyalty. It is recognition of excellence based on evidence.
I wouldn’t know. I am not loyal to the Democratic Party.
It is only your prudential judgement that those who believe climate change is a fact are not putting God first. I think Pope Francis would disagree with you there.
S
St_Francis
Guest
If you look at what I wrote, I asked two neutral questions, and mentioned suspicions in a conditional sentence.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
In that case, we are in agreement.
S
St_Francis
Guest
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
super luigi,
there is no evidence for the cabal of collusion.
what are the conspiracy theorists in your country saying? or writing in articles like that.
this is what they are writing
- instruments recorded minus 10
- the minus 10 was taken out of the record
- this must be a plot either in favour or against climate change
1.the instruments failed. why? perhaps a great big kangaroo crashed into them, it happens.
2. the anomolous minus 10 reading had no confirmable validity. especially since no where else seems to have recorded the lowest temperature on record ever for Goulburn
3. Goulburn’s lowest ever reading was minus 6 , way above minus 10
4. we dont predict climate change based on one thing.
and then yes, and not part of the above topic, but still very relevant .
Australia has recorded its hottest winter ever, based on BOM instrument readings over the entire continent.
in some places , Australia has recorded its driest July ever too. This is mid winter. this is when we get our rain.
so what do the predictions say for the coming summer-
drought, hot, bushfire complexes hazadous to life.
ABC is a goverment run media service , as is BOM.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
isnt the weather crazy atm.
beautiful blue sky and really warm sun.
Early spring on the cards now. one month early. And the snakes are already out.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
i am always very tolerant of you monte. especially in the hope of honing your scientific critical thinking skills to using bonefide irrefutable proofs.
Goulburn has its own website, google it, nice place.
But it has never ever fallen below minus 6 +- a decimal value.
ever!
ps that first article is incorrect . lets call it a reporter not checking her facts about the lowest recorded temperature
and using data about minus 10 that BOM cannot verify due to instrument failure.
If I have a piece of equipment that is acting dodgy or failing , am I going to use that data or discard it?
heres an example.
i had a newborn foal suffering hypothermia, the vet interns tried taking its temperature at 3 am . no temperature, new thermometer, again no temperature, third new thermometer, still no temperature . now at this point we were in a vet hospital, no power, flooding around us, massive electrical storm outside. we were working by torchlight.
left foal with the vet interns and went back out into the weather to continue moving stock to high ground.
later that day the mum was reunited with her new born foal, The chief vets explained to us all why three thermometers stopped working…
they did not register in the range that hypothermic foal was in at that point.
we all said ahhhhh.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
A few years ago, a concerned citizen in the USA began a project to “audit” the official temperatures.
****1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. ****
Did not come out well for the official temperature takers.
Very embarrassing.
Here is one of the semi-final reports:
surfacestations.org
**More than 70% of the instrument locationss read more than 2Cº above the actual temperatures. ** What good is that if your computer models show ONE degree over one hundred years??? Your instrument is TWO degrees above before you even start. So your basic data is WAAYYY off. As a result, the conclusions will be so are off that they are not only unreliable but are actually the wrong way.
In other words, if you correct a one degree prediction upwards for the two degree error in data, then an essential correction would suggest the actual model results are one degree DOWN.
A lot of the data collection took place at airports and was sufficiently accurate for the purposes of calculating the take off distances needed for airplanes. But it was not sufficiently accurate for scientific purposes.
CERTAINLY not appropriate for policy purposes. There is no way you can decide on global warming if your instruments are that far off.
In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration even has Advisory Circulars describing how the data is to be collected and there is an Advisory Circular with historical data. I will check … maybe some bureaucrat changed the name as his/her contribution to the human record of data.
faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13_chg17_cons_p2.pdf
So, science would demand that the data collection instruments be updated and be relocated away from heat sources such as air conditioning vents.
****1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. ****
Did not come out well for the official temperature takers.
Very embarrassing.
Here is one of the semi-final reports:
surfacestations.org
**More than 70% of the instrument locationss read more than 2Cº above the actual temperatures. ** What good is that if your computer models show ONE degree over one hundred years??? Your instrument is TWO degrees above before you even start. So your basic data is WAAYYY off. As a result, the conclusions will be so are off that they are not only unreliable but are actually the wrong way.
In other words, if you correct a one degree prediction upwards for the two degree error in data, then an essential correction would suggest the actual model results are one degree DOWN.
A lot of the data collection took place at airports and was sufficiently accurate for the purposes of calculating the take off distances needed for airplanes. But it was not sufficiently accurate for scientific purposes.
CERTAINLY not appropriate for policy purposes. There is no way you can decide on global warming if your instruments are that far off.
In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration even has Advisory Circulars describing how the data is to be collected and there is an Advisory Circular with historical data. I will check … maybe some bureaucrat changed the name as his/her contribution to the human record of data.
faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13_chg17_cons_p2.pdf
So, science would demand that the data collection instruments be updated and be relocated away from heat sources such as air conditioning vents.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Sounds like you guys have 2 problems, well 3 actually
- Quality control in equipment acquisition
- Calibration of said equipment
- What type of protocols and equipment and calibration did the said citizen employ? That would be my first question. What validity is there in this data collection. If you are recording airport temperatures, you tend to stick equipment away from man made environments.
Can you imagine the public uproar if your pack of Pringles contained 5oz less then advertised on the box. What causes that type of discrepancy in a FMFG industry ?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Sorry. What is FMFG?
Part of the problem is “encroachment” by other buildings and facilities too close to the temperature instruments. Take a look at some of the photos in the link of the report I posted.
It was “adequate” for aviation purposes. For a hundred years.
To compute take-off distances, you do not need temperatures to read to the tenth of a degree. [But for science, you DO need VERY precise and accurate temperature readings.] When it is HOT, everyone in the aviation business knows that take-off distances will be extended.
It is part of everyone’s training … pilots and tower controllers and airport engineers and designers and managers.
The airport control tower guys/gals read the temperature using remote instruments in their tower cab. If the temperature got too warm, then the airplane pilots might have to not take off because high temps reduce wing lift. [We have that exact problem right now today at our desert airports. Airlines and other pilots have to delay their takeoffs until the weather cools off later in the evening. At other airports, sometimes the pilots have to take off with less fuel to reduce take-off weight and make an intermediate fuel stop. The Air Force often will take off at lower weights and refuel in mid-air, depending on mission parameters.]
Never was a problem … until people began using the data inappropriately.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
I’m Irish so this is a very nice winter for me
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
The BOM loggers are weird. Lots of things can throw it out. Birds and wildlife probably being a big one.
It would be very irritating for people who need to use weather data in software (i.e. me) if they didn’t remove the spurious results, because it would in turn mess up my own results and I don’t have the expertise to say whether or not certain results can be deleted. As an aside, my code broke once because I got a wind speed reading of -9999 m/s. Apparently BOM didn’t see the need to check for spurious wind speed results below 0
I think the reason that people don’t complain when hot temps get deleted is because people aren’t meticulously checking for that, because they have better things to be doing.
It would be very irritating for people who need to use weather data in software (i.e. me) if they didn’t remove the spurious results, because it would in turn mess up my own results and I don’t have the expertise to say whether or not certain results can be deleted. As an aside, my code broke once because I got a wind speed reading of -9999 m/s. Apparently BOM didn’t see the need to check for spurious wind speed results below 0
I think the reason that people don’t complain when hot temps get deleted is because people aren’t meticulously checking for that, because they have better things to be doing.
- Status