Homogenization of Temperature Data By the Bureau of Meteorology

“None of these organizations will say or explain what they are doing or are being vague when asked. Raw data is being removed from public scrutiny and no one knows if it is actually being destroyed. Officially they are providing no scientific basis for making these adjustments.”

“Once you start introducing reasons to make adjustments then it becomes too easy to use them as an excuse to adjust everything to suit a purpose. It becomes easy to allow for political interference. Political interference should be impossible.”

Welcome to the political, pseudoscientific world “man-made” global warming…

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Brendan Godwin

Background

I worked for Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology – BOM for 2 years from 1973 to 1975. I was trained in weather observation and general meteorology. I spent 1 year observing Australia’s weather and 1 year observing the weather at Australia’s Antarctic station at Mawson.

As part of it’s Antarctic program, Australia drills ice cores at Law Dome near it’s Casey station. On our return journey in 1975 we repatriated a large number of ice cores for scientific analysis. The globe’s weather and climate records are stored in these ice cores for the past 1 million years approximately.

Australia’s Antarctic program went by the name of Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition or ANARE for short. This is now known as Australian Antarctic Division or AAD. Returned expeditions formed a club called the ANARE Club of which I have been a member since 1975. Members have…

View original post 2,046 more words


Why CSIRO and BoM Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”

CSIRO.jpg

 

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is the federal government agency for scientific research in Australia. It was founded in 1926 originally as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry.

In the field of climate science, the CSIRO leans staunchly towards the alarmist side of the climate debate. One example shows the CSIRO using sea level rise figures far in excess of even the (warmist) IPCC.

The Australian reports:

In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.

In its latest 2016, State of the Climate report, the CSIRO indulges in a blatant cherry-picking exercise to further push their agenda that human emissions are causing the climate to change.

They fail, however, to inform you of their chronic list of failed predictions from previous SOC reports.

This is why scientific organisations like CSIRO and BoM have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about the global warming climate change. Too many reputations are now at stake.

Andrew Bolt, yet again, sets their record straight from their own records! …

•••

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology this week published their latest State of the Climate report:

Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability.

Strangely, the report fails to explain why past predictions by the Bureau and the CSIRO of a permanent drought turned out so wrong.

Here is the Bureau, quoted in 2008:

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones….

“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent…”

Here is the Bureau’s Jones in 2007:

As Jones wrote to the University of East Anglia the year before: “Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse…”

Here is the CSIRO, quoted in 2009:

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…

”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal. ‘

‘In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

Yet, with floods and rains and filling dams is so many states, an author of this latest report gets a very soft interview from the ABC’s Fran Kelly, who also fails to note an astonishing bit of cherry-picking that discredits the whole report.

The report’s authors present this alleged evidence of man-made climate change hurting us:

Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11% since the mid-1990s in April–October rainfall in the continental southeast. Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997.

Note the strange decision, given our rainfall records go back more than a century, to pick apparently random and inconsistent dates – 1970 and 1997 and “mid 1990s” – as a base point from which to measure declines in rainfall. Note further that this decline is curiously only in patches of the country, and then only in – again – inconsistent periods, “May–July ” and “April–October”.

These are classic tell-tales of cherry picking – tricking to find some arbitrary period that can produce a statistical and scary decline which you can then present as troubling evidence that global warming is drying up our rains. (Even then, none of this comes even close to showing the “permanent” drought the agencies once claimed were leaving our cities desperately short of drinking water.)

This trickery becomes even clearer when you check the Bureau’s rainfall records for the whole past century or more. Amazingly, the impact of man-made warming becomes impossible to detect.

Here, again, is what the State of the Climate report says:

Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

But here is the Bureau’s own record of rainfall for southern Australia:

1.jpeg
Rain – southern Australia

Judged over the century, then, there is no evidence at all of rainfall decline.

Again, from the Bureau’s report:

In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.

Rainfall in the south-west is indeed declining, and has done for most of the past 120 years, the first half of which almost no scientist would blame on man’s emissions, which even the IPCC says only had a real effect after World War 11:

2.jpeg
Rain in south west

State of the Climate’s authors also claim that “Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997”.

But the longer record for the south-east again shows no historic change:

SA No historic change.jpeg
Rain in south east

Once again, a decline from the unusually wet 1970s, but little sign of change over more than a century.

And for the continent as a whole, more rain, not less – and certainly no permanent drought:

Aus rainfall.jpeg
Rain Australia

And as for the Murray Darling, that the Bureau once said was on “the verge of collapse”:

4.jpeg
Murray Darling

This is disgraceful. The Bureau and the CSIRO must explain why they have fed us such scares.

 

•••

CSIRO / BoM Related :

See Also :


Wash-out: Warmist Bureau’s Drought Prediction Fail

609203-readers-039-flood-photos

Floods Hit Victoria (Source : Herald Sun) 

Yet another alarmist scare out of the warmist Australian Bureau of Meteorology, wrecked by Mother Nature.

Either that or they put way too much ‘faith’ in their junk-in, junk-out computer models.

The litany of failed, alarmist predictions is why scientific organisations, such as the BoM, have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about global warming climate change.

The ‘Meteorological Office’ used to exist as a corrective to scaremongering, not any more.

•••

From Herald Sun

Floods? Near-record rainfall? I’d like the head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology to explain why his 2008 prediction of a “new climate” of drought turned out so wrong.

 

2008:

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.

2016:

Winter was Australia’s second wettest on record – just missing out on a new high by a couple of millimetres, leaving many regions already sodden.

“It’s about as wet as it has been in the past 110 years [of records] across Australia,” David Jones, head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology, said.

•••

Related :


Real World Data Sinks The Great Global Warming Swindle

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

CGafZRMUcAAm1Y4

•••

via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because their argument is unsound

Mark Steyn on the despair of the warmists:

The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:


The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.

As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds:

That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.

Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.

UPDATE

Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?

Jo Nova:

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said…

If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%.  Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.

Atmospheric scientist John Christy contradicts our Bureau chief:



Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’

•••

See also :


More From Deniliquin

Real Science

Deniliquin has not only cooled since the 19th century, but the frequency of very hot days has also dropped dramatically.

ScreenHunter_7164 Feb. 15 07.52

BOM ignores all pre-1910 temperatures, because they don’t fit the global warming narrative.

ScreenHunter_7135 Feb. 14 07.45

ScreenHunter_7136 Feb. 14 07.48

View original post