What is it that worries me about what the BoM and CSIRO tell us about climate change?

Commenter Chris asked me, in a comment at my last essay, what are your concerns over BoM reporting or data use? I had intended to write about something else, but it seemed sensible to deal with this issue at once. I have written about the Bureau before (here, for example, and here), but to this direct question there is a straightforward reply. I’ll deal first with the more general issue of BoM (Bureau of Meteorology) reporting, and note first that it is directly linked, as anyone who reads the website will see, with CSIRO’s biennnial reports on the State of Climate. So my response to Chris covers both government agencies. And I’ll repeat a statement I’ve made before: I am not criticising the staff or the leaders of all the sections of these large agencies. My criticisms are directed at those who report to the Australian public about the vexed issue of ‘climate change’, and those who approve such one-sided reporting.

Four years ago the Bureau told us that the previous year was the hottest in Australia’s history, and much else that was scary as well. I dissected those statements at the time, and wrote, I don’t think that this is what the Bureau of Meteorology should be doing. And you have to ask whether this drum-beating is being requested by the Minister, or instead the action of enthusiastic staff who are firm believers in the orthodoxy and know that no one will pull them into line for what is shoddy work. It is reminiscent of the IPCC, which produces its Statement for Policy Makers months ahead of the full report, which has the qualifications and uncertainties (if at all) that the Statement itself lacks.

I am still of that opinion. Now, to see what the Bureau actually does in the climate-change area, you need to go to the relevant part of its website, and keep scrolling through a section called ‘Climate Change in Australia’ (a joint effort by the Bureau and the climate change people at CSIRO). You’ll come to a section on global climate change, and you’ll read this: Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. In this regard, human influence on the climate system is clear.

Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, first of all, ‘model studies of temperature change’ should not give anyone confidence in ‘the magnitude of global warming’. The data are not good much before the satellite period (1979 to the present). The models have consistently over-estimated the importance of CO2, and have not estimate real change well at all. Nor should we have any confidence in their capacity to provide accurate pictures of climate in the future. ‘Climate feedbacks’ presumably refer to ‘climate sensitivity’, and there is huge disagreement about whether they exist at all, or if they do, about whether  they are at all higher than 1. And how much human influence there is, compared to natural variability, is not at all clear, even though I expect that burning fossil fuels, making cement and clearing forests will have contributed to whatever warming has occurred. There is no suggestion in the Bureau’s sentences that there is any doubt at all.

Second, the second paragraph relies on that overstated first paragraph, while its final sentence is a political statement, not a scientific one. Why, I might ask my local MP, is the Bureau engaging in one-eyed scientific reporting and issuing political statements that have a poor evidential base? Well, I would ask her, if the moment were appropriate. This is not what the Bureau is for. I said that in 2013, and I say it again. But we have only got to global climate change. Keep scrolling, and we come to ‘Is Australia’s climate changing?’ Apparently, according to Australia’s Climate Observation Network (ACORN), Australia’s average temperature has risen by about 0.9 degrees C in the last century. Whether we should be alarmed at such a gentle increase is not clear. But we know from the global section that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or something bad will happen. This section says nothing about that, though the tone is sombre.

Apparently heatwaves have increased since 1950, and rainfall has increased since 1970, in both cases ‘across large parts of Australia’. Dear old ‘sea level’ c0mes in for a broad-brush treatment too: Global mean sea level increased throughout the 20th century and in 2012 was 225 mm higher than in 1880. Rates of sea-level rise vary around the Australian region, with higher sea-level rise observed in the north and rates similar to the global average observed in the south and east. I can’t easily find anything that would support the 225 mm increase. We know that Fort Denison has been at about 8-9 mm per century, and Fremantle is much the same; they are in the south, but what they tell us is in no way comparable to 225 mm.

Similarly, a statement that ‘Sea-surface temperatures in the Australian region have warmed by 0.9°C since 1900’ begs for supporting data and methodology. To learn that this statement relies on ERSSTv.4 does not fill me with any confidence. A statement in the global section that the acidity of the oceans has increased is just rubbish. The seas remain alkaline. It is not clear even that there has been a slight reduction in that alkalinity across the oceans.

In this section the Bureau calls upon its colleagues, the climate people in CSIRO, and refers readers to the 2014 State of the Climate Report, which is another joint effort between the two agencies. Since the 2016 Report is available, I’ve been to that. Those who have read the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC will find in this Australia summary lots of familiar statements and projections. As with the IPCC, you need to read a lot of contorted prose carefully. There are qualifications in the Technical Report, but they do not appear in the broad-brush prose of the State of the Climate Reports. Indeed, this 2016 Report seems to me couched in a kind of anxious prose, which stops just short of telling us that we are doomed if all of this keeps going.

Above all, in what I have read there is a clear reluctance to say, in the Report area, that there are lots of uncertainties in all this. Australia may or not be getting warmer, or at least parts of it may be. The sea levels might or might not be rising in an unusual fashion (there is actually nothing I could find that pointed out that seas have been rising slowly and steadily for the last few thousand years). There might or might not be a worrying level of decline in alkalinity. You can find some of this in the Technical Report, but the ordinary reader won’t go there.

Now to the use of particular datasets. The Bureau created ACORN, at least in part, to provide a high-quality data set in which some (it says more than half, but I can’t tell) of the stations go back to 1910. These data have been homogenised. The readings for Alice Springs, for example, are qualified by the stations closest to it. Since Alice Springs station covers about 7 to 10 per cent of the continent it will be clear that its closest stations must be a long way away. And indeed they are. The changes in data for a number of stations, like Alice Springs, Rutherglen and Brisbane were much discussed a few years ago, and I wrote about them at the time too. You will find a good analysis by some sceptical workers on Jo Nova’s website (here and here for a start). (Read what the criticisms were, don’t just balk at the website. Jo Nova is pretty savvy, in my opinion.)

The Bureau was reluctant to explain, and issued a bland statement about how all this was done to highest international standards. As I have said so often, why do it at all? The obvious reason is that there is a (political) need for ‘data’ that show that the earth is warming, and if we could measure the trend we would know what is in store for us. I think it goes back to James Hansen in 1988, but I don’t know when Australia started going down that track. John Howard, while remaining a sceptic throughout, nonetheless set up the Australian Greenhouse Office in 1998. Maybe it started after that innovation.

So we’re back to the beginning. I think these efforts are quite misguided, and they involve government agencies in activities that are not scientific but political. In my opinion they shouldn’t be doing it. Their job is to provide government and the people with accurate knowledge about their sphere of investigation, in this case weather. ‘Climate’ is a thirty-year abstraction, and thirty years is a convention anyway. A couple of hundred years would be more sensible.

I said all this four years ago, and I say it again now. They don’t seem to learn, and that makes you think their commitment is more than just political, though a political commitment would be explicable. After all, it is impossible to work out whether the Australian Government even understands what the issues are. So those responsible in the agencies might well think, why not just keep plugging away at the orthodoxy.





  • JohnM says:

    I think there are two groups within the BoM. One does pretty good work with short-term forecasts and with the analysis of events. As an example take the Special Climate (surely Weather!) Statement “Exceptional heat in southeast Australia in early 2017” which describes how a High in the Tasman Sea and an upper level pressure ridge brought some heatwaves to Sydney in January and February (and that David Karoly’s claims reporting in the German Press about the heatwaves being linked to manmade warming were utter “crap”, as a former PM might say ).
    In contrast to these sensible people in the BoM there are a collection of religious nutters who might as well be on the streets with their sandwich boards saying ‘Repent. The end of the world is nigh.” Not an ounce of evidence from any of them but it’s a lucrative business that attracts funding. And it gets big expensive computers on which to run the same failed climate models that others like them around the world run and have them claiming “the end of the world is really nigh, … really, really nigh … soon now.. soon …”.

  • Chris Warren says:


    It is not desirable to take a point such as BoM’s ” Observational and model studies of temperature … together provide confidence in the magnitude (etc)” and then reduce this to just your ‘model studies of temperature change’.

    The confidence is not based on models by themselves but on models TOGETHER with observations.

    When you look at models together with observations you find that they are as accurate as could be expected. This is discussed at length here:

    https://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projecti ons-accurate.html

    It seems that the predictions made by Easterbrook and others demonstrate substantially weaker understanding of climate mechanisms than mainstream scientists.

    However there may be a tangle of issues with pre-satellite data. Nonetheless the message from satellite data, and Mauna Loa data seem to corroborate the more general statements the BoM has made. I see no reason why the current near 40year satellite trends (near 60yr for Mauna Loa) should be expected to reverse under Business As Usual scenarios.

    The worst news is to be found in the shorter periods of satellite measurements (near 20yr) which show a dramatic cooling tendency at the outer edge of the atmosphere (approx 40 km high) of, at least, 7C per century. I cannot think of any mechanism causing this except GHGs and therefore of no mechanism that will reverse this extreme heat trap effect.

    This suggests that mainstream scientists and bodies such as BoM and CSIRO need to be much stronger in their statements.

    So our politicians (and others) must ask – what happens if present trends continue?

    • Ross Handsaker says:

      “I cannot think of any mechanism causing this (cooling tendency at the outer edge of the atmosphere – approx 40 km high) except GHGs and therefore of no mechanism that will reverse this extreme heat trap effect”.

      Given that in the stratosphere (10 km – 50 km) the temperature increases with height a change in the energy received at the top of the stratosphere could be such a mechanism, but the GHG involved would be ozone, not carbon dioxide.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, Ross, but you have to allow for chrissie’s cognitive bias.

        Here is what even his mate Gavin at Real Climate admits:

        “Less ozone leads to less absorption of ultra-violet radiation from the Sun. As a result, solar radiation is not converted into heat radiation in the stratosphere. So cooling due to ozone depletion is simply reduced heating as a consequence of reduced absorption of ultra-violet radiation. Ozone also acts as a greenhouse gas in the lower stratosphere. Less ozone means less absorption of infra-red heat radiation and therefore less heat trapping.”

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, you say ‘The confidence is not based on models by themselves but on models TOGETHER with observations.
      When you look at models together with observations you find that they are as accurate as could be expected.’

      Which observations? You send me to SS, which I have pointed out before is a most worrying source for anything to do with ‘climate change’, for good reason. As demonstrated here.

      Chris! This stuff is five years old!! And it is impossible to deconstruct. And it doesn’t use satellite data at all! And you’re the one who takes great notice of satellite data (I’m with you on that.)

      For heaven’s sake, are you trying to persuade yourself? You won’t persuade anyone else with such a weak argument.

    • David says:

      Your point about models is quite right. No data set will contain tomorrow’s temperature. Clearly models are required to predict. You would think this would be obvious, but apparently not.

  • JimboR says:

    Oh dear. where to begin? How about with the chemistry. You write:

    “A statement in the global section that the acidity of the oceans has increased is just rubbish. The seas remain alkaline. It is not clear even that there has been a slight reduction in that alkalinity across the oceans. There might or might not be a worrying level of decline in alkalinity. ”

    Firstly, what the scientists are actually worried about is that increased CO2 levels may lower the pH of the ocean. Forgetting about oceans and climate change for a moment, lowering the pH of a solution is absolutely increasing the acidity of the solution. It matters not whether you’re lowering it from 10 to 9 or from 5 to 4, you are increasing the acidity. You could instead say (in both of those examples) you’re increasing the basicity. What you can’t say is you’re lowering the alkalinity. Any saltwater pool owner knows that pH and alkalinity are measures of two different parameters. Dissolving CO2 in pure water lowers the pH (makes it more acidic, or less basic) but makes no difference to the alkalinity.

    That same pool owner knows that calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is easily soluble in his saltwater pool even though the pH of the pool water is slightly basic (anywhere from mid 7s, to low 8s if it’s been neglected). The lower the pH (regardless of which side of 7 it’s on) the easier it is to dissolve CaCO3. The reason the pool owner adds CaCO3 is to _increase_ the alkalinity.

    Back to the oceans and climate change. Coral and a bunch of other critters are pretty much made out of CaCO3. The lower the pH of their surrounding waters the more soluble they become (the number 7 is irrelevant). So if anything, the lower pH will cause the ocean alkalinity to go _up_ as more coral dissolves. I suspect the increase in alkalinity would be so small as to be negligible and is not the concern. The concern is all those CaCO3 critters finding themselves in lower pH waters than they were “designed” for.

    So next time a RWNJ tells you: “the acidity of the oceans has increased is just rubbish. The seas remain alkaline” ignore them. What they actually mean is “the acidity of the oceans has increased is just rubbish. The seas remain basic”, and the first part is still wrong, lowering the pH is exactly increasing the acidity. The only significance of the number ‘7’ is that it’s the pH of pure H2O.

    If you don’t like the chemistry than a simple analogy might help. Imagine there’s a temperature that everyone agrees is the most comfortable for us. I think for years thermostats got set to 21C so let’s go with that (I’d probably vote for 24C but I’m a Queenslander). Imagine it’s a 40C day, and a change comes through and the temperature drops to 28C. The wife says “ahh at last it’s cooled down”. The equivalent response of the RWNJ above would be “no it hasn’t cooled down, it’s just got less warm, we can’t say it’s gotten cooler until the temperature drops below 21C”. It’s such a trivial nitpick as to be meaningless (and to make you want to bang your head against the wall).

    • JimboR says:

      “You could instead say (in both of those examples) you’re increasing the basicity.”

      should read:

      You could instead say (in both of those examples) you’re lowering the basicity.

    • JimboR says:

      “The reason the pool owner adds CaCO3 is to _increase_ the alkalinity.”

      should read:

      “The reason the pool owner adds CaCO3 is to _increase_ the hardness”

      (clearly not enough proof reading on that one).

    • David says:


      I see Jimbo’s comment here and I agree with him

      Your argument is just semantics. For example we refer to a serum pH of 7.1 as acidotic. But yes a pH above 7 is alkaline. However 7.1 Is less than the mean of 7.4.

      Regardless of what you decide to call a pH of 7.1 it will kill you.

    • David says:

      Jimbo the CSIRO are so clueless they don’t understand pH.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      ‘Oh dear. where to begin?’ Well, Jimbo, might I suggest you take a deep breath and ask yourself two questions.

      First, what is the point DA is making here?

      Second, how do I, Jimbo, want to respond, and why?

      I actually don’t need a lesson in chemistry, even for swimming pools (I’ve owned two). The point I was making was really simple: talking about ‘ocean acidification’ is either ignorant or tendentious. The pH of the oceans moves from acid to neutral to alkaline or basic. The hydrogen ion concentration of an alkaline solution which is experiencing a lowering of pH does move in the direction of acidity, but it will not become acidic until neutrality is reached and then passed. Indeed, if you Google up ‘Ocean Acidification’ you’ll find that the term came into use around 2000. It did not exist before.

      It’s like talking about a warming of Antarctica (setting aside questions of measurement data). Antarctica is frozen, and remains frozen even if a sensor reports a slightly higher temperature. It’s not getting ‘warmer’ because it hasn’t stopped being frozen. To use these terms without being aware of the baggage shows one is ignorant, or wants to suggest something. And that is why I said that the BoM document was putting out rubbish. It is rubbish, and those who wrote it must have known. But they wanted to make a point that was consistent with the rest of the overblown stuff they were putting out.

      And to finish with your last paragraph, we are not talking about a housewife expressing relief at the lowering of the day’s temperature, but about a government scientific agency saying things that are technically sloppy in order to suggest something bad.

      Now why was it that you wanted to respond?

      • margaret says:

        I note that Jimbo says ‘wife’ and Don says ‘housewife’ 🙂

        This was written four years ago also … the ordinary reader is concerned. The ordinary reader has never looked after a pool.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/climate-catastrophe-to-hi_b_ 4089746.html?

      • David says:

        Don if I tell you that my tea is getting colder most people will understand what this means, without engaging in all this contorted analysis you are putting yourself through.

      • David says:

        “…talking about ‘ocean acidification’ is either ignorant or tendentious.”

        This statement says more about you than BoM. All sorts of professions have an understanding of pH. (E.g. cooks, farmers, mechanics, allied health, manufacturing)

        In my opinion you would make a better contribution to public debate if you did not automatically assume that everyone understands less about any given topic than you.

        Just for the record what year did you stop studying chemistry at school?

    • JimboR says:

      “I actually don’t need a lesson in chemistry”

      I beg to differ. And I need an ascii smiley-face sequence for someone banging their head against the table. When will I ever learn not to engage with Don on science or maths… it’s futile and frustrating for all involved.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        No, you need to re-read what I said above. If you want to take part in serious discussions you need to lift your game, and deal seriously with the points being made, not simply assume that you know better — especially if you can’t actually show it!

  • bryan roberts says:

    “The reason the pool owner adds CaCO3 is to _increase_ the alkalinity.”

    Funny that I have never been told to add calcium carbonate to a swimming pool, though I have added hundreds of gallons of chlorine.

    • bryan roberts says:

      … and hydrochloric acid.

    • JimboR says:

      Yes, in a typical saltwater+chlorinator pool, the pH tends to creep higher hence the need to regularly add HCl to make it less basic (more acidic). The target pH is in the mid to high 7s, so still slightly basic. Mine easily creeps up to 8.5 or higher if I don’t stay on top of it. Meanwhile, the alkalinity tends to drop down, hence the need to regularly add buffer (typically sodium bicarbonate) to get that back up.

      Unrelated to all of that, you need to keep the calcium hardness up, especially if you top up with tank water, or your city has very soft water. For that you can use Calcium Chrloride or Calcium Carbonate (note my correction above as to why you add CaCO3… I had ‘alkalinity’ on the brain when I went to type ‘hardness’).

      The take home message from all this pool chemistry is that CaCO3 can be dissolved in a solution with a pH > 7 (i.e. a basic solution). So if you’re made out CaCO3 and stuck to the bottom of the sea bed there’s nothing special about the number 7. When Malcolm Roberts tells you relax the ocean is still alkaline (he means basic, i.e. the pH > 7) it’s of little consolation.

      • chrisl says:

        It is completely ridiculous to compare adding a very strong acid (HCl) to a very small body of water to adding a very weak acid to a very large body of water(the oceans)
        Why doesn’t CO2 make your pool more acidic?

      • JimboR says:

        The pool chemistry was used to demonstrate two facts:

        1. pH and alkalinity are measures of two different parameters (Don has confused them into one)
        2. for the purpose of dissolving CaCO3 in a solution with salts there’s nothing magic about a pH of 7

        Any other inference is yours, not mine.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Jimb, your use of a swimming pool as an example is pointless.

          Cool oceans absorb CO2, warm oceans emit CO2.

          How will the oceans become more “acidic” from increased atmospheric CO2 if it causes warming?

        • David says:

          Alkalinity and pH, that is interesting Jimbo I did not know that.

          Good to learn something.

  • David says:

    Don your problem is that you start off writing a nice essay. And then instead of continuing with some nuanced discussion of trends and confidence intervals you get to the 5th paragraph, and you kind of lose it.

    “Now, first of all, ‘model studies of temperature change should not give anyone confidence….. ”

    And you go on and begin to sound like Nev and SD, and that’s not good.

    For example this.

    «Nor should we have any confidence in their capacity to provide accurate pictures of climate in the future. ”

    You are very dismissive.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      ‘You are very dismissive’ Yes, justifiably so, for the reasons set out in the essay.

      • David says:

        Well if you moved beyond your year 9 maths you might appreciate some of the complexities that the BoM and the CSIRO deal with.

        Your arguments are heavily reliant on adjectives, which are not scientifily testable.

  • JimboR says:

    “As I have said so often, why do it at all? ”

    And I have often answered: because it improves the quality of the data. There are countless experiments and studies out there that demonstrate how effectively.

    “The Bureau was reluctant to explain, and issued a bland statement about how all this was done to highest international standards. ”

    My recollection of their response after pressure from a senate enquiry, is quite different. I would paraphrase it as:

    “We don’t have the resources to train every RWNJ on the internet on how to do our jobs. Here’s the before and after data, and here’s the source code to the algorithms we run on it. All bugfixes gratefully accepted.”

    It doesn’t get much more transparent than that. As far as I know, they’re still waiting for input.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      No need to strain your recollection. Here is the Bureau’s response:

      ‘Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.

      Our role is to make meteorological measurements, and to curate, analyse and communicate the data for use in decision making and to support public understanding.

      To undertake these tasks, the Bureau employs highly skilled technicians and scientists and invests in high quality monitoring equipment.

      The Bureau measures temperature at nearly 800 sites across Australia, chiefly for the purpose of weather forecasting. The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) is a subset of this network comprising 112 locations that are used for climate analysis. The ACORN-SAT stations have been chosen to maximise both length of record and network coverage across the continent. For several years, all of this data has been made publicly available on the Bureau’s web site.

      Temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds (eg. trees casting shade or influencing wind), measurement methods and the relocation of stations (eg. from a coastal to more inland location). Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for prior to analysis.

      Adjusting for these biases, a process known as homogenisation, is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice, to ensure that climate data is consistent through time.

      At the Bureau’s request, our climate data management practices were subject to a rigorous independent peer-review in 2012. A panel of international experts found the Bureau’s data and methods were amongst the best in the world.

      The Bureau’s submissions to the review were published on the Bureau’s website, as were the findings of the review panel.

      The Bureau’s methods have also been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

      Both the raw and adjusted ACORN-SAT data and the larger unadjusted national data set all indicate that Australian air temperatures have warmed over the last century. This finding is consistent with observed warming in the oceans surrounding Australia. These findings are also consistent with those of other leading international meteorological authorities, such as NOAA and NASA in the United States and the UK MetOffice. The high degree of similarity is demonstrated in Figure 1 (above).

      The Bureau strives to ensure that its data sets and analysis methods are as robust as possible. For this reason we place considerable emphasis on quality assurance, transparency and communication. The Bureau welcomes critical analysis of the Australian climate record by others through rigorous scientific peer review processes.’

      You may be satisfied with this bald and empty response. I wasn’t, and aren’t.

      • chrisl says:

        ” The Bureau welcomes critical analysis of the Australian climate record by others through rigorous scientific peer review processes.’
        “We place considerable emphasis on quality assurance, transparency and communication”
        These two statements by The Bureau contradict each other

      • David says:

        How would the BoM go about placating someone who does not accept the concept of a mean temperature?

        Your homogenization concerns are over blown, you have found 2 stations out of 800 to support your argument. Homogenization only describes a process where the custodians of the data are including controls (eg station move, ) that the modeller would include if they were analysing the raw data.

        As long as the changes are documentmented it’s no different to reporting a de-seasonslised trend or a running average.

        Your brother could explain this to you.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          My brother is not necessary in this case. I accept the ‘concept’ of mean temperature, though it does not have the same reality as, for example, mean height in a group of boys.

          The Bureau would have won my support if it had set out its own explanations for the changes that taken place with temperature data at the places cited, Alice Springs, Rutherglen and Brisbane for a start, and shown how they’d dealt with the criticisms of the team that showed their work at Jo Nova’s website. It didn’t. Said nothing. Dismissed these objections with a wave.

          But of course this is not a problem for you. You believe in the BoM just as you believe in climate change. It doesn’t matter what data, what arguments, what evidence is put before you — if it doesn’t follow your script, it must be wrong. What, do you imagine, would change your mind about all this? No, I think you’ve told us before. Critics would have to provide an alternative theory that was no less plausible, and better backed by data, than the current orthodoxy… Until it happens, you’ll sit there smugly, knowing that you’re right. And even when it appears, you’ll know it’s wrong.

          • David says:

            Don! I am not going to be persuaded by issues that may or may not exist around 2 out 800 weather stations.

            Morassey and Nova? claims that the BoM is systematically falsifying the data is rubbish!

    • JimboR says:

      Here’s their latest status report on implementation progress of the panel’s recommendations (or at least the latest I could find – March 2015).

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/9-ACORN-SAT-T AF-Status-of-BOM-response-to-IPR-recommendations.pdf

      Curiously, many of the things you rail against were pushed on them by the independent review panel, for example:

      When the ACORN-SAT dataset is released,
      the release package should include not only technical
      details of the dataset and the temperature trend
      estimates derived from the set, but also careful
      explanation and interpretive commentary about what
      the data series says about long-term temperature
      trends in Australia with a particular focus on the
      differences and reasons for the differences from
      other datasets.

      They really can’t win. But I guess the independent review panel is also in on the “Minister needs us to find some warming somewhere” plan.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        A classic sideways move, Jimbo. Neither the report I provided, nor yours mentions the disputed stations, provides reasons why the data were changed, or answers the objections put forward by critics. What we have is something else altogether.

        Homogenisation does not ‘improve the quality of the data’, Jimbo. It changes the data. Questions of improvements arise when you want something from them. Your riposte does not answer my objection at all, as is so often the case.

      • JimboR says:

        Don, see my earlier comment:

        “We don’t have the resources to train every RWNJ on the internet on how to do our jobs. Here’s the before and after data, and here’s the source code to the algorithms we run on it. All bugfixes gratefully accepted.”

        See also recommendation A6:

        A6. The Bureau should include sufficient station
        metadata within the public ACORN-SAT station
        catalogue currently under development, to allow
        independent replication of homogeneity analyses for
        individual ACORN-SAT stations.
        A6 Status: Completed.

        Everything you need is there, go your hardest. If you expect the BOM to spend their resources responding to every RWNJ glitch discovery at every individual site then you’re sure to continue to be disappointed.

        “Homogenisation does not ‘improve the quality of the data’, Jimbo. It changes the data. Questions of improvements arise when you want something from them. ”

        Yes, in this case the actual temperature at particular times, i.e. you want the data to truthfully reflect reality.

        Don you seem to have this blind faith in raw sensor data that I suspect reflects your lack of experience in dealing with such data. So as well as maths and chemistry we can add engineering to the skill set you need to work on if you wish to make a useful contribution in this field. If AIrbus had the same blind faith in raw sensor data that you do, planes would be dropping from the sky constantly (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ ao-2008-070.aspx)

        Basically, shit happens, and you’ve got to learn to deal with it as best you can. Your approach seems to be:

        . ignore obvious glitches and pretend like they reflect reality
        . call the whole endeavour off because there are glitches in the data, so just wait and see

        I can’t think of any field (at least not in the hard sciences and engineering) where that’s an acceptable response. Have the BOM managed to identify and repair every glitch in their datasets? Obviously not. Do those glitches make any difference to their long term warming claims? Probably not (just take any of your examples above and consider that one). Do those glitches tell us the raw sensor data is not perfect? Certainly, but we already knew that. Is the adjusted data a better reflection of reality than the raw data? Almost certainly as shown by multiple experiments and studies. Is the adjusted data a perfect reflection of reality? Certainly not, as demonstrated by the glitches that still exist.

        When you’re making decisions based on risks, you have to use the data you’ve got. That data will never be a perfect reflection of reality so you should take that into consideration, and you should certainly be prepared to change your decisions when better data comes along. Generally, as the better data does turn up, it gives them cause to think things are even worse than the earlier data suggested.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Jimb ol’ feller, I know you have a persuasion to the warming culture but you really don’t need to pursue it to the point of pain.

          Has it not occurred to you that the world’s climate gatekeepers are of the same persuasion as yourself as evidenced by every correction, krige, adjustment, homogenisation and general revisit of any of the hard data.

          Why would the world have warmed only 0.6c in 1999 but today when it has not warmed any measurable additional amount since that time, the warming as calculated by these same gatekeepers has nearly doubled.

          You don’t notice anything Orwellian?

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Jimbo, last time. Your long and contorted response doesn’t deal with the point. It would be easy for the Bureau to show what had happened. They didn’t. The people who complained and criticised are taxpayers. The BoM exists on taxpayers’ money. The BoM is providing data which seem to be wrong. It says they’re not wrong. And won’t go any further.

          I don’t think that is a satisfactory state of affairs.

          • Chris Warren says:


            Is this:

            “The BoM is providing data which seem to be wrong. ”

            just based on Jo Nova’s stuff or Marohasy’s crazy statement that BoM deleted the hottest day from their records ( archive.is/uSHSr )?

            There are claims that 1,000 BOM station data are wrong – but noone can find any.

            It seems that Nova and Marohasy represent the true unsatisfactiry state of affairs.

          • David says:

            The old, “I am a taxpayer” trope. Don you will find that taxpayers exist on all sides of any given argument. And as a taxpayer and I do not want the BoM wasting my taxes, responding to every thought bubble that is dreamed up by RWNJs who check the BoM data set for a hobby.

        • JimboR says:

          “It would be easy for the Bureau to show what had happened. ”

          But once they did that, there’d be another and another. As a taxpayer, I think their response is spot on. I don’t want my taxes being spent on them responding to every RWNJ on the interwebby… that would be an infinite sink of taxes. Far better to answer in a way that covers that query and all future query: “here’s the data, here’s the source code, go your hardest, excuse us while we get on with real work”.

          In any case, there was a senate enquiry and an independent review panel set up to decide how they should deal with all these issues. That report above shows how well they’re doing against those recommendations (quite well in my view). Fortunately, there was no recommendation that they should answer every RWNJ post on the interwebby. If you don’t like that, take it up with the independent review panel.

          I’m curious though, do you think the independent review panel is also sipping from the “must find some warming for the Minister” coolaid, or do you think they’re independent of that pressure?

  • Colin Davidson says:

    From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alkaline
    (?l?k?-l?n, -l?n?)
    1. Of, relating to, or containing an alkali.
    2. a. Having a pH greater than 7.
    b. Having a relatively low concentration of hydrogen ions.
    3. Of or relating to a common disposable battery made of zinc and manganese dioxide.

  • Patrick says:

    This may be of interest to some.


    • Patrick says:

      The graph of outgoing longwave radiation from the top of atmosphere is at the 29 minute mark. These are satellite data.

      • Chris Warren says:


        It is not easy to make much sense of this without the source.

        Do you know the data source for the Red, Green and Blue lines.

  • Doug Hurst says:

    Whether or not the seas are becoming more or less acidic is a matter of English expression as much as chemistry. To become more acidic, the seas must be acidic now – and they aren’t.. Something cannot become more or less so unless it already is that something. So logically, a change in Ph can only make the seas more or less alkaline, but cannot change acidity that does not exist.

    This is not pedantry. It is a counter to the deliberate misuse of English as part of the climate scare campaign. Rising acidity sounds far worse than reducing alkalinity – especially when the actual figures are show no problem.

    Ergo, I support Don’s comments on this matter.

    • chrisl says:

      Doug Hurst
      Not only does CO2 cause a barrier in the atmosphere that wont let the heat out(greenhouse), it also causes the oceans to go from alkaline to acid . All at 400 parts per million and rising rapidly to 402 parts per million.
      *Some of the above may be alarmist claptrap.

      • JMO says:

        Chrisl Have you any idea what this CO2 “barrier in the atmosphere that wont let the heat out”?. Please let me inform you.

        CO2 has 3 100% absorption lines in the infrared (ie what we feel as “heat” these absorption lines are at 2,8, 4,2 and 15 microns. (just aside the visible spectrum lies between 0,4 to 0.7 microns).

        As Earth’s radiation into space has an absolute cut of at 4.90-5 microns, CO2’s first 2 higher energy lines are irrelevant so only the 15 micron absorption line lies within Earths radiation in to space and it lies on lower energy level outside the bulk of Earth’s radiation (which 8-13 microns) . Have you heard of black body radiation, well to cut it short, 15 microns is the peak wavelength emitted from a black body at a temperature of 193K, that is – (yes MINUS) 80 degrees C. CO2 freezes at -78.5 C into dry ice, it is also the air temperature at Vostock station in Antarctica during July/August. Some heat barrier!!

        Please check for yourself. Google “Wien’s Displacement Law calculator” then type in 15 microns in the wavelength box and press enter. Then please inform me how CO2 is such a heat barrier to cause catastrophic global warming.

        Further CO2’s 15 micron line has a spectral line (+/_ 1.5 micron) whereas a black body spectra stretches out across much larger part of the IR spectra . Think of a 100 watt incandescent bulb V a 18 watt fluro (or even lower wattage LED), the former will burn your hand were as the later will feel merely warm., And finally H20 vapour absorbs 60-65% of the 15 micron line anyway – plus a LOT more across the IR spectra (it is 40X-50X CO2) and in far far higher concentration than a puny 400pmm. So again please clarify your statement about CO2 cause a barrier in the atmosphere that wont’t let the heat out”and please do not refer to conventional authority.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps our warming and cooling periods since 1900 could just be a variation in cloudiness brought on by changes to the PDO. Dr Roy Spencer looked at the PDO changes and temp and found a good correlation for most of the warming and cooling periods over that time.
    While the PDO is not a temp index the variation in cloudiness is an observation that seems to have reasonable correlation with temp changes since 1900. Certainly the later model studies all show much less sensitivity to increases in co2 emissions. IOW natural variation might cover most of the temp change.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natu ral-response/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our BoM, like all the other gatekeepers, fake it.

    If they are not warming the present, they are cooling the past, while all the time conveniently ignoring the warming that is the result of land change where most of the thermometers are situated.

    In 1999 NASA showed 0.6 warming over land from 1880 to 1999.

    It’s fakery at the bakery all the way down:


  • Don Aitkin says:

    A correspondent via email has raised an interesting point:

    ‘It has intrigued me that since cyclone Debbie a new technical word has entered the political/public administration lexicon – ‘catastrophe’. And with the entry of catastrophe, the term ‘natural disaster’ seems to have disappeared. All this begs the question…what is the difference between a natural disaster and a catastrophe? Have natural disasters suddenly stopped occurring and catastrophic events suddenly appeared on our historical horizon?…

    Perhaps of even more interest to you would be Confucian accounts of natural disasters as signs of the corruption of rulers. Apparently the onset of natural disasters gave people permission to overthrown dynastic rulers.’

    To which I suppose we could add ‘witches’ as the explanation for extreme winters in the Little Ice Age. In the context of the times they provided a plausible account of what had gone wrong, and were therefore the orthodoxy of the time, since there did not seem to be a alternative theory that was plausible and well supported by data…

  • Chris Warren says:


    Jo Nova is crazy and demonstrates why one must stick to respectable referred work . At the link you provided, she made a huge fuss over supposed BoM confusion of Max and Min temperatures.

    But when you have a look at the link – it is all gibberish. Nova has simply copied stuff from someone called “Ed Thurstan”.

    Thiurstan claims that data for station 001019 Kalumburu for 19751203 was 23.8 for Max, and 24.5 for Min.

    This looks like fakery to me because ACORN data only starts from 1998.

    The same applies to the next data for Halls Creek – station 002012. Thurstan claims that data for 19140517 was 20.3 for max and 21.2 for min. What nonsense there was no ACORN data collected in 1914 – it opened in 1944.

    Nova needs to clarify this – or withdraw her provocation.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Nova needs to clarify this – or withdraw her provocation”

      I suspect she is more in touch with the real world here than chrissie is with his reasons for stratospheric cooling.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Jo Nova is ”crazy? In what way? She puts out good stuff, and the piece you object to (for what seem to me ignorant reasons) is a good example. In sum,

      (1) She hasn’t copied stuff from Ed Thurstan. He is the author of the essay.It says so. You must have rushed past it.

      (2) You are quite wrong about ACORN, which makes everything else you say pretty silly. Look it up ACORN is a high-quality dataset which the Bureau relies on. It says that more than half of the datasets go back to 1910. That’s set out in the essay above. You must have rushed past that, too.

      (3) The Thurston essay makes a simple point. The Bureau claimed that it had procedures in place to ensure that, in this case, daily minima should not exceed daily minima. Thurstan wrote some code which showed that there were nearly a thousand cases where this was not the case. That’s all. But of course you might wonder whether the procedures were actually followed. You might wonder whether there were other gross errors in the datasets.

      You say that we ‘must stick to respectable referred (you probably meant ‘refereed’) work’. Doesn’t this apply to the Bureau as well? But in any case, refereed work is for academics, in nearly all cases. What we are talking about here is the scientific work of government agencies, which do not, in my experience, use peer-review for their own work.

      Your comment is is intellectually worthless, which is doubly insulting to Jo Nova. She might like an apology, though I doubt one will be forthcoming..

      • David says:

        Well she and her hubby were crazy to bet $20,000 against an AGW induced temperature increase. With three consecutive record years 2014, 2015 and 2016 used to calculate a running 5year average with bets coming to a close in 2020, they are screwed. Just saying.

        I wonder how Brian Schmidt will spend his money?

      • Chris Warren says:


        A response like that will not work.

        Nova’s exact statements were:

        “…when Thurstan double checked ACORN he found nearly 1000 instances where the max temperatures were lower than the minimums recorded the same day.”


        “This raises serious questions about the quality control of the Australian data that are so serious, Thurstan asks whether the whole set should be withdrawn.”

        And the evidence Nova approvingly uploaded was gibberish.

        If you look at station 001019 Kalumburu – you will see every minimum (blue line) is below every maximum (red line).

        See here: https://archive.is/hgE0H

        So the problem for Nova is to give examples of ” nearly 1000 instances where the max temperatures were lower than the minimums recorded the same day.”

        You rather strangely try to assert that:

        ” You are quite wrong about ACORN,” but you gave no example. I can only assume you took my statement (which related to Kalumburu) that data only started in 1998 – as a statement for the entire ACORN dataset.

        If so, this was your mistake as I also noted that the data for Halls Creek – station 002012 started in 1944.

        Please note that 1944 is before 1998.

        I do not know why you have dived-off into all manner of other issues

        • David says:

          There would be millions of temperatures in the BoM data set. If you are correct 1000 errors seems quite small. Less than 1percent

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Why won’t it work, Chris? It is plain, because there is a title and an author, that the essay was written by Thurstan, Jo Nova introduced it with a few sentences, a couple of which you quoted. You still haven’t explained why the link is all ‘gibberish’, or why Jo Nova is ‘crazy’ Do have medical training, or do you simply mean that you don’t think she is right. Pretty strong stuff to level at her without any corroborating evidence.

          I don’t strangely assert anything. ‘You said: ‘This looks like fakery to me because ACORN data only starts from 1998.’ Now you say that I must have misunderstood you, and it is my mistake. Wheee!

          I haven’t dived off into ‘all manner of other issues’. I called you out on error, and gross rudeness.

          • Chris Warren says:


            I do not follow. You say:

            Pretty strong stuff to level at her without any corroborating evidence.

            But the corroborating evidence is her statements:

            “…when Thurstan double checked ACORN he found nearly 1000 instances where the max temperatures were lower than the minimums recorded the same day.”


            “This raises serious questions about the quality control of the Australian data that are so serious, Thurstan asks whether the whole set should be withdrawn.”

            When you look at the basis for this statement you just find a confused jumble of station numbers, temperatures and dates that make no sense at all – gibberish.


          • David says:

            Nova runs a website that supports Notch theory. Whatever reservations one may have for AGW, there is even less to supply Notch theory.

        • David says:

          And to put this whole issue into some perspective. Putting aside the fact that analysis of the temperature trends would most likely be done using the mean rather than the daily min or max, the error rate is tiny!

          At 356 days per year
          140 ACORN satiations
          Approx. 100 years of data

          This implies a data set of 5.1 million daily temperature readings (365 x 140 x 365) , from which some Nova acolyte has breathlessly unformed the world that that on 1000 occasions the daily min > max. They need to get a life! That is an error rate of 0.002%. The BoM should take a bow!!!

          And the most likely cause of this was probably a transcription error where the min was entered for the max and vice versa. If that was the case these 1000 mis-coded readings ( i.e 0.002%) would still reflect the correct trend anyway!!!!

          And Don wonders why the BoM does not down tools to explain itself to every asinine comment posted on the web.

        • David says:

          correction that should be 0.02%, i.e still small

    • NameGlenM says:

      First sign that that you are fearful of being wrong.

  • David says:

    Notch theory. What more needs to be said.
    Novas hubby David Evans is howl at the full moon crazy. All those predictions of cooling have been kicked down the road for another 20 years.

    • JimboR says:

      Oh dear, thanks for reminding me of that… I’d kinda blocked it. Here’s the latest I found:

      “New Science 26: The solar fall and the delay means David Evans’ predicted global cooling could be just around the corner”
      http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/new-science-26-the-solar-fall-and-lag -means-david-evans-model-predicts-cooling-is-just-around-the-corner/

      Does that sound like the religious nutters who gather in a commune somewhere having predicted the end of the world? When it doesn’t happen, they dust themselves off and come up with a new date? That appears to have been from September last year with the comment “We are ramping up the end of this series because we’ve been informed that both of David’s papers will be published in October — one on the error in the climate models and one on the notch delay solar theory.”

      Has anyone got a pointer to the published stuff?

      • spangled drongo says:

        And what does your silly crowing remind you of, jimb luv?

        Could a privately funded opinion be half as ridiculous as the publicly funded, climate botherers consensus on the tropospheric hot spot?

        Or those hundred or so shockingly expensive GCMs that are 95% wrong and getting wronger by the day?

        Or the Mumbo Mann’s dumb [but costly] hokey schtik?

        At least DE’s stuff is at his own expense and may yet happen.

        The above botherer blunders [and there are oceans more] are established, expensive garbage.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And it is because of these blunders that the gatekeepers are forced to resort to their fakery at the bakery.

        Yet the true believers like jimb remain totally convinced.

        Do try to be a little scientifically sceptical, jimb.

        • David says:

          Well, SD, Evans has been predicting falling temperatures for over 15 years and temperatures have been increasing for 15 years. If you don’t believe me ask Evans for his bank statement. He is losing money because of his crazy bet.

      • David says:

        Throughout history men have been known to do all sorts of crazy things for love. And David Evans came up with “Notch theory”

  • Malcolm says:

    I spend some time teaching people doing masters degrees about the criteria needed to establish a cause-and-effect relationships in science, together with the associated statistics. I’ve been reading the climate research literature for many years and there are many aspects involved, most with significant uncertainty, and the aggregated uncertainties mean that all the conclusions made by BoM, CSIRO and all the rest are completely unjustified. The climate system is so complex, chaotic and poorly understood that it cannot be modelled, and predictions of more than a couple of months cannot be made. To establish a cause-and-effect relationship you have to exclude other influencing factors, and of these there are a myriad, listed in Ian Plimer’s book some years ago, and the Watts Up website. The null hypothesis that any slight changes over the past century are due to natural variations stands unchallenged. Judith Curry has come to exactly the same conclusions. The CO2 issue is predominantly of interest from a psycho-social point of view at present.

    • David says:

      Malcolm when you teach your “associated statistics” tour your masters students you might want to remind yourself that aggregated uncertainty (aka the error term) sums to zero. You will find a reference to this fudemental assumption on about page 6 of any stats textbook.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve written about the Concordia Uni study in the past and their AGW estimate of 0.7 c of warming since 1800. They also estimate that OZ’s contribution since that time would be about 0.006 c. So let’s assume that 0.006 c is all caused by OZ’s AGW.
    So if we woke up tomorrow and found that all parties agreed that we would change over to nuclear energy for electricity generation we would probably save about a third of OZ’s TOTAL energy generation and we would be left with a saving of about 0.002 c after we completed the nuclear changeover.
    The impact of that 0.002 c reduction sometime in the future would be swamped by the new fossil fuel generation stations that would be built every month in the developing world for many decades into the future. Can anyone explain to us how this extreme effort would help to save the planet?
    And can anyone offer any other solution that would make any measurable difference to co2 levels and temp at all? Don’t forget that we require a PR study and temp/co2 reduction etc by 2100.

  • JimboR says:

    With regards daily minimums being higher than daily maximums:

    18. Why do some days in the ACORN-SAT dataset have maximum temperatures that are cooler than minimum temperatures?

    This is an artefact of the adjustment process at some locations. The maximum and minimum temperatures are analysed independently, so on a very small number of days where there is little difference between the overnight minimum temperature and the daytime maximum temperature, the small adjustments can mean the minimum temperature is slightly higher than the maximum after analysis. It has no impact on trends derived from the dataset.

    An artefact of the ACORN-SAT homogenisation process is that maximum temperatures very occasionally fall below the minimum. This occurs on individual days of very low diurnal temperature range, at individual locations, and affects less than 0.03% of the records in the dataset. It has no bearing whatsoever on temperature trends.

    Maximum and minimum temperatures are analysed entirely independently for the ACORN-SAT dataset. This is to ensure that the respective time series are as temporally homogeneous as possible. Since they are analysed and corrected independently, and use a quantile-matching algorithm to perform a distributional adjustment, the situation can arise where the corrections to either maximum or minimum temperatures, or both, result in the maximum being very slightly below the minimum on an individual day. This is possible on days where there is little difference between the overnight minimum temperature and the daytime maximum temperature. These days of low diurnal temperature range occur naturally from time to time at individual locations. This is related to specific weather and rainfall conditions, typically either rainy days, or days when the temperature falls sharply near 9:00 am after the passage of a cold front or trough (so the highest temperature of the day occurs near 9:00 am). This small number of cases where maxima fall below minima are a result of the adjustment combined with the adjustment uncertainty.

    It is possible to correct for this in the analysis, such as by placing a limit on the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures, however this would mean that respective time series are not independently adjusted. This type of targeted correction would likely introduce a small but systematic bias to the record. In other words, by solving one issue—a very small number of negative diurnal temperature ranges—we could create another—introducing a small bias into the mean temperature and diurnal temperature range. Taking in a broad consideration of the issues, such as the benefit of treating maximum and minimum temperatures independently, it was decided that the instances of maximum being below minimum in the analysis should be left in the record as a known issue for the first version of ACORN-SAT.

    This issue will be addressed in the next version of ACORN-SAT. In cases where the adjusted maximum is less than the adjusted minimum, both the maximum and minimum will be set to be equal to the mean of the two values. In doing so, no bias to the mean temperature is introduced.

    It is worth noting that the Bureau carried out extreme temperature analysis, namely the frequency of record-setting daily temperatures, while excluding all negative diurnal temperature range results. We found that these instances did not impact on the extremes analysis. Over the last 100 years, record warm observations have increased in frequency while record cold observations have decreased in frequency (see the State of the Climate 2014.)

  • JimboR says:

    With regards Rutherglen, surely this is enough detail of all adjustments made and why:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjus tment-summary-Rutherglen.pdf
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-s tation.shtml

    The Bureau is also publishing fact sheets on all individual ACORN-SAT locations, including adjustment history. It anticipates these will be available by the end of 2017.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Jimbo, you have done well! Thank you for providing the information. If you’d like to provide the same information to us for Alice Springs and Brisbane, that would be wonderful.. Let’s consider what we know now.

      First, the Bureau responded, in time, to questions asked by taxpayers, not ‘right wing nut jobs’, on what seemed valid grounds.

      Second, the response is sensible, if you accept (as I do not) that it is necessary to have a ‘continuous’ record of Rutherglen temperatures from whatever the start year is, or was chosen to be. I would have preferred there to be broken data and new trend lines, for reasons I have set out before.

      Three, the Bureau made changes of some consequence for small shifts in location, while taking note of the readings at stations more than 100 kilometres way. I do understand the process. I simply think it is wrong. We do not need homogenised data unless we are told to have it. It serves no other useful purpose that comes to mind.

      Four, I have offered you space before to provide an essay of 1000 to 1500 words on any aspect of ‘climate change’ that a[peals to you, so that you can show your own standing and acumen in what is, as you would agree, a hotly contested area. Sooner or later critics have to stand up and show what they can do!

      • David says:

        “We do not need homogenised data unless we are told to have it. It serves no other useful purpose that comes to mind.”

        You are wrong.

        Farmers and all sorts of other people use BoM data for planning. The BoM process the data so people can make some use of it. What do you expect each person to develop their own climate models based on screeds of footnotes at the bottom of a raw data set?

        As Jimbo demonstrated the details of the changes are there for people to examine if they wish.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          David, I really wonder about you. Which farmers do you know who use climate models, which tell us what someone thinks is going to happen a long way ahead. The farmers I know, and there are quite a few of them, use weather data, and the Bureau is good at providing it, and indeed getting better.

          • David says:

            Nice post

          • David says:

            What I wrote was that they use climate data for planning. What they don’t want to have to do is have to factor in the implications, if any, of changes in station location etc. So the BoM provides them with homogenised time series that they can use.

  • JimboR says:

    “provide a high-quality data set in which some (it says more than half, but I can’t tell) of the stations go back to 1910.”

    Why can’t you tell? Here’s the station catalogue, and there’s a “First Year of Available Data” field on each one:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Sta tion-Catalogue-2012-WEB.pdf

    Don, just about everything you moan about with regards the BOM they’ve already answered, or are in the process of answering. If you won’t do the 10 minutes of required research you won’t find the answers you seek, and I feel confident that the “research” you do at the dubious sites you hang out at, will never provide you with the answers… it’s doesn’t fit with their position. You need to decide whether your blog is interested in seeking the truth, or just amplifying their position.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Yes, it’s just over half. But very many of the sites have changed over time. See my comment above. Jimbo, we will not agree on all this. You think the BoM is just fine. I think it publishes stuff which is questionable for a supposedly scientific organisation. You think it needs to do what it does (at least, that is my inference). I don’t.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Well spotted (no 18) here:

      I hope Joanne Nova takes note and retracts her posting claiming “nearly 1000 instances”, or maybe, she could amend it to 0.03% technical artefact that has no bearing on temperature trends.

      But this is not her project.

  • Neville says:

    The UAH V 6 March temp anomaly has dropped to 0.19 c, that’s down from Feb’s anomaly of 0.35 c. That’s the lowest reading since July 2015 of 0.15 c.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for- march-2017-0-19-deg-c/

  • JimboR says:

    Don, you don’t have to take my word for it. Have you read the independent panel’s reviews? If not you can find them here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_repo rt.pdf
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2016_TAF_repo rt.pdf

    They strike me as eight pretty smart people, I’ve attached their brief resumes below. They’ve been tasked to specifically look at the ACORN homogenisation algorithms (as well as transparency and a few other things). They found no evidence of your accusation/insinuation (or whatever word you want to use instead of “claim”) that the BOM use homogenisation to create fake warming to satisfy the minister. I can think of three possible explanations, feel free to add you own:

    1. they presumably receive some consultancy fee for their review efforts and don’t want to miss out on that, so with a wink and a nod from those in the “Minister needs some warming” camp, they go along with it and declare “nothing to see here”. None of them look as though they’d be short a quid and it’s hard to imagine they’d want to risk their professional reputations for a consultancy fee.

    2. the BOM scientists are so good they managed to totally camouflage the fake warming homogenisation tricks from them. Given the reviewers’ backgrounds I think we can strike this one too

    3. the fake warming homogenisation tricks don’t exist, except in your head, spurred on by various RWNJ sites.

    Here’s what the reviewers do find:
    The Forum also recognised that homogenisation plays an essential role in eliminating artificial
    non-climatic systematic errors in temperature observations so that a meaningful and consistent
    set of records can be maintained over time. There is a need to adjust the historical temperature
    record to account for site changes, changes in measurement practices, and identifiable errors
    in measurement. In 2015, the Forum considered that the analyses conducted by the Bureau
    reflect good practice in addressing the problem of how to adjust the raw temperature series for
    systematic errors. To this end, the Forum supported the need for the Bureau’s homogenisation
    process to incorporate both metadata-based adjustments and adjustments based on the
    statistical detection of atypical observations.

    And here’s the folk who wrote that:

    Dr Ron Sandland AM FTSE (Chair)
    Dr Sandland holds a PhD in statistics from the University of New South Wales. His research
    interests concerned applying statistics to solve challenging real problems in areas as diverse as
    growth of organisms, analysis of mark-recapture experiments, ore-reserve estimation and quality

    Emeritus Professor Bob Vincent FAA (Vice Chair)
    Robert Vincent is Emeritus Professor in the School of Physical Sciences at the University of
    Adelaide. His major expertise is in the area of the atmospheric sciences with a background in
    experimental studies of atmospheric processes including the development of radar hardware,
    software and data analysis techniques.

    Dr Phillip Gould
    Dr Gould holds a PhD from Monash University specialising in time series econometrics.

    Dr John Henstridge CStat, AStat, AFAIM, QPMR, FSS
    Dr Henstridge holds a PhD from the Australian National University and is adjunct professor at
    the University of Western Australia. In 1988 he founded Data Analysis Australia which is now the
    largest private statistical organisation in Australia.

    Ms Susan Linacre
    Ms Linacre holds a first class honours degree in Statistics and an Economics degree, both from the
    Australian National University.

    Professor Michael Martin PFHEA
    Professor Martin holds a PhD from the Australian National University where he is currently
    Professor of Statistics in the Research School of Finance, Actuarial Studies and Statistics and the
    Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching.

    Professor Patty Solomon
    Professor Solomon is Professor of Statistical Bioinformatics at the University of Adelaide.

    Professor Terry Speed FRS, FAA
    Professor Terry Speed FAA holds a PhD from Monash University and is a lab head in the
    Bioinformatics division at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Do you have a sceptical bone in your body, jimb?

      The ACORN data can’t be replicated and therefore is potentially a con.

      Yet you are dazzled by the people involved without having a clue as to what’s going on.

      Don’t you remember Climategate and UEA?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Yes indeed, I read the first report when it came out, and the second one some time after it came out.

    It is always useful to look at the Terms of Reference. They are nowhere specified, but one can infer what they were from this statement in the first Report:

    ‘The Technical Advisory Forum (the Forum) was established by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on 19 January 2015 to annually review the development and operation of ACORN-SAT and to comment on further developments over the years 2015–2017.’

    As was mentioned at the time, these ToR do not deal with the issues raised by critics in any specific way. You can infer, again, that some of the recommendations nonetheless touch on these matters, but they are nowhere specifically addressed on the Reports.

    Why so? Well, no Government wants an inquiry into the detail of work carried out by a Department or an agency. Too critical a report would put the focus on the Minister. It is almost a truism of government that inquiries are designed (a) to quieten the electorate, and (b) to provide as anodyne an outcome as possible.
    Having said that, I have to say that the members of the Panel are not known personally to me, but seem perfectly respectable. Terry Speed is an excellent statistician. There is no member of even a slightly critical persuasion, however. But then there rarely is, in such a group.

    My take is that the Panel was set up to do something other than answer the criticisms made by sceptics, and it succeeded in its task.

    Finally, and despite the eminent panel, there is no need to ensure that ‘a meaningful and consistent set of records can be maintained over time’ other than in pursuit of the claim that ‘we know’ that global warming has occurred, and can measure it precisely, even in Australia..

  • JimboR says:

    “It is always useful to look at the Terms of Reference. They are nowhere specified,”

    How about here: https://www.environment.gov.au/minister/baldwin/2015/pubs/technical-ad visory-forum-tor.pdf

    1. The extent of the public availability of the ACORN-SAT information including:

    – Raw and adjusted data;
    – Documentation of data methods;
    – Computer code;
    – Adjustments;
    – Metadata;
    – Inputs and outputs of peer review; and
    – Ability to reproduce findings.

    3. The scientific integrity and robustness of the Australian climate record and the homogenisation process including:

    – Compared to raw (unadjusted) data, how does homogenisation affect the overall climate trend for Australia?
    – Compared to other available data sets how do the trends indicated by ACORN-SAT compare?
    – How does the Bureau’s curation methods compare to other international curation methods?
    – What steps should be taken to document or improve the consistency of decision making for the selection of data periods or stations and of the adjustment methods and decisions?
    -How has the ABS assessed ACORN-SAT as part of the Essential Statistical Assets for Australia?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Ah, but not in the Report. And no mention, as I said, of the specific or even general criticisms made of the ACORN dataset. You are industrious! Why don’t you put on a show for readers — your own essay. Oh, I’ve suggested it before, haven’t I…

  • Chris Warren says:


    After all this, it seems you concern with BOM and CSIRO is more subjective than objective.

    It is also based on accepting some bloggers and rejecting others.

    Suffice it to say that BOM and CSIRO presentations seem consistent with IPCC AR5.

    The figures here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FIN AL.pdf

    are a suitable summary.

    fig 1.4 -temperatures
    fig 1.5 CO2
    fig 1.6 CH4
    fig 1.7 N2O
    fig 1.10 sea level

    Observations of CO2, temperature, sea levvel rise are well within earlier IPCC projections.

    Don’t let unrefereed, partisan, mistake ridden cherry-picking bloggers suggest otherwise,

  • JimboR says:

    Don, I wonder if we’re even reading the same two reports?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_repo rt.pdf
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2016_TAF_repo rt.pdf

    DonA: “It is always useful to look at the Terms of Reference. They are nowhere specified,”… “Ah, but not in the Report”

    How about page 3 in each of those reports?

    You also say: “There is no member of even a slightly critical persuasion” although you don’t know them personally. They don’t seem shy to me, as an example:

    The use of a quadratic functional form carries the risk, if (mis)used to project temperatures
    beyond or before the observation period, of seriously overestimating the change. The
    Forum strongly recommends that the use of piecewise linear fits or nonparametric
    smoothers such as LOWESS be revisited by the Bureau.


    Notably, without adequate standard error estimates associated with these quantities (for any of
    the presented series), it is not possible to assert that these quantities differ by an amount that
    is statistically significant. Thus, the provision of uncertainty information (typically represented
    using standard deviations or standard errors) is critical to understanding and reporting the
    trends of all temperature series. Second, the extent to which each of these series is measuring
    the same physical phenomenon needs to be very carefully communicated in the Bureau’s public
    statements regarding temperature trends/patterns, as the satellite measurements do not (and
    are not meant to) measure air temperatures at ground level.

    I think these eight folk are way more up on the detail than you are (have you even read the source code?). They are also infinitely more qualified than you are to assess the algorithms used. All your moans are covered by the broad terms of reference they were given, and they come to an entirely different conclusion about homogenisation than you do:

    The Forum endorses the view that there is a need to adjust the historical temperature record
    to account for site changes, changes in measurement practices, and identifiable errors in
    measurement. Where metadata indicate that a material change in the temperature pattern is
    likely (e.g. a physical move from a coastal location to an airport some kilometres inland), such
    adjustments are clearly appropriate. However, adjustments are also recommended even in the
    absence of metadata when there is other clear evidence that an observation is an outlier that is
    inconsistent with other measurements at that location around the same time. Thus, the Forum
    supports the need for the Bureau’s homogenisation process which incorporates both metadata-
    based adjustments and adjustments based on the statistical detection of atypical observations.
    Indeed, the Forum noted that when metadata suggested that a change in temperature pattern
    could occur, it would be expected that the statistical algorithm would also be likely to detect
    an atypical observation. Thus, the coincidence of metadata-based adjustments and statistically
    detected inhomogeneities would act as a consistency check for the statistical algorithm. The
    Forum recommends that where breakpoints are identified by statistical means, the Bureau
    should seek to apply them at the specific time at which they are detected, so that, for example,
    breakpoints in annual series are attributed to the year, while for daily series, breakpoints would
    be attributed to a specific day.

    Maybe it’s time for you to once again ponder what you’ve so often pondered:

    “what would have happened if I had done what my brothers did — double maths, physics and chemistry.”

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Jimbo, I’m tired of repeating myself, even if you are happy to do so in your case.

  • JimboR says:

    Don, we have eight extremely qualified folk working in diverse fields involving data collection and analysis. They are quite critical of some aspects of the BOM’s analysis but publicly state (with reputations on the line):

    “adjustments are also recommended even in the absence of metadata when there is other clear evidence that an observation is an outlier that is inconsistent with other measurements at that location around the same time. Thus, the Forum supports the need for the Bureau’s homogenisation process which incorporates both metadata-based adjustments and adjustments based on the statistical detection of atypical observations.”

    You with your year 11-12 General Maths from the 50s, and some simultaneous equations you picked up later in life, say they’re all wrong.

    • David says:

      I thought it was year 9.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      No, I say that there is no need for the homogenisation. They weren’t asked to say whether or not data should be homogenised. That’s what th Bureau does, and they accepted i, and endorsed it. But, I imagine, as technical experts — ‘If this is what you want/think you need to do, then this is a good way to do it.’.

      If they thought there was a real need, then they gave no reason for it.

      I don’t think there is a need, unless one thinks that someone needs apparently continuous ‘data’ about temperatures at one or more points around a place over the past hundred years. I’ve said this before again and again, and won’t repeat myself any more.

      And you were right about the ToR. I rushed past them, a sign that I have too much to do, and am making simple errors. I’ll write about this problem at the next post.

      • Gary C says:

        Both you and Jennifer Marohasy give the impression that the Technical Advisory Forum, which produced the 2015 & 2016 reports you’ve been discussing, was established in response to the publicity about BoM homogenisation generated by Jennifer in 2014. That’s not the case.

        The Forum was established in response to one of the recommendations of an independent peer review of the ACORN-SAT dataset undertaken in 2011. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Technical-Advisor y-Forum

        The Forum was respondinding to the 31 recommendations of the peer review.

        Report 2 from the review puts BoM homogenisation into context.
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT_Rep ort_No_2_WEB.pdf

        The review panel:
        – Dr Thomas Peterson, Chief Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States – expert in data fidelity, international data exchange, global climate change analysis as well as the impacts of climate change.
        – Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist (Climate), National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand – has a PhD in Atmospheric Physics and has worked in the USA, Australia and New Zealand on climate and meteorology.
        – Dr Xiaolan Wang, Research Scientist, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada – has considerable expertise in the analysis of climate trends, extremes and variability. She is at the leading edge of development of methods for climate data homogenisation to enable more realistic assessment of climate trends.

        Note the expertise of Dr Wang.

        The Forum responded to the submissions put by J. Marohasy and others as follows:

        The Forum also received over 20 unsolicited submissions from some members of the public about the dataset. Further, the Forum is also aware that there have been an unspecified number of written correspondences from members of the public sent to the Minister for the Environment the Hon Greg Hunt MP, the Parliamentary Secretary the Hon Bon Baldwin MP and the Bureau concerning the ACORN-SAT dataset.

        Members of the Technical Advisory Forum were appointed to provide advice on the basis of their formal expertise, and the Terms of Reference do not therefore require the Forum to receive or respond to unsolicited submissions. However, these submissions were provided to all Forum members to ensure that Forum members were aware of concerns raised by some members of the public regarding the Bureau’s management of ACORN-SAT during their deliberations.

        The submissions raised some broader concerns about the science of climate change which fall outside the scope of the Terms of Reference for this Forum, and are therefore not addressed in this report (for instance, the validity of climate change and the impartiality of the Bureau in reporting climate trends). However, the Forum is aware of the following issues raised in the submissions:

        • The 1910 commencement date for the ACORN-SAT dataset (even though some records are
        available prior to 1910) and its potential impact on reported climate trends;
        • The treatment of claimed cyclical warming and cooling periods in the adjustment process and its impact on reported warming trends;
        • The potential effects of site selection (such as from urbanisation) and the later inclusion of stations in warmer regions;
        • The treatment of statistical uncertainty associated with both raw and homogenised datasets;
        • The ability of individuals to replicate/verify the dataset;
        • The justification for adjusting historic temperature records;
        • The extent of metadata digitisation and quality assurance in using metadata during the adjustment process;
        • The Bureau’s communications concerning homogenisation and overall data provision;
        • The statistical methods used in developing the dataset; and
        • Comparisons between ACORN-SAT and other datasets.

        While the Forum has not sought to specifically respond to each individual submission, it is however aware of the issues identified within them. To this end, the Forum considers that its recommendations for improving the Bureau’s overall communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data will address what it considers to be the most important of these concerns. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the Forum members, the unsolicited submissions received from the public do not provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the Bureau’s climate records.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Well, that’s what the Minister said, to be sure. Certainly took a year or two to get around to it.

          • Gary C says:

            One of the review recommendations:

            A Technical Advisory Group should be established to meet approximately annually, to review progress on the development and operation of the ACORN-SAT data-set.

            It seems Marohasy’s 2014 publicity got this review recommendation up and running – convenient for the minister. But that doesn’t call into question the integrity of the BoM.

          • Don Aitkin says:


            Read the essay and my comments above again. I strongly object to the political statements in the BoM’s coverage of climate change. About its weather forecasting I have no objection at all. I don’t know what you mean by ‘the integrity of the BoM’.

          • David says:

            This is so typical of you Don.

            Gary C took the time to write a very detailed post that that forensically addresses the issues that surround the BoM’s data management (i.e. he tore you a new one) and in response you offer a meek one line defense.

            This is exactly why the BoM would not want to waste its time responding to unsolicited responses from the public. What would you have the BoM do, run a few courses in statistics, so that the complainant is up to speed?

        • David says:

          A very comprehensive and interesting post.

    • JimboR says:

      “I don’t think there is a need, unless one thinks that someone needs apparently continuous ‘data’ about temperatures at one or more points around a place over the past hundred years. ”

      I think I completely agree with that statement. And while I can’t say I’ve studied it in detail (so don’t quote me) anecdotally at least, homogenisation does seem to increase the warming (compared to the raw data), more often than it decreases it. I think where we differ is that I think the increased warming is a consequence of the homogenisation, whereas you think it’s the motivation for the homogenisation (correct me if I have that wrong, but I think that’s what you’ve been insinuating).

      Thinking back to our Cape Town exchange, I think you’ve consistently said that if there’s a clear break in the data you would end the first time series at the time of the break and commence a new one. I don’t think you’ve said what you’d do next if you were called upon to discuss trends that span the break.

      Taking a really simple example, imagine a graph with time along the x-axis (0 to 100 years) and “units” along the y-axis (0 to 100 units). There’s a nice straight line that goes from the bottom left corner (0,0) to the top right corner (100,100) and you’re tasked with commenting on the average growth rate of units over the 100 years. 1 unit/year you instantly respond with very high confidence.

      Now take that same graph, but for all the readings from 50 years onwards, subtract 10 (i.e. push the right hand half of the graph down by 10 units). So you’ve now got a sawtooth graph, two parallel lines one from (0,0) to (49,49) and the other from (50,40) to (100,90). Let’s also assume that some big event occurred right at that time (installation of a new pump, devaluing of a currency, opening of a new dam, reunification of Germany, a roof being built over a sensor… whatever suits the scenario being measured). So you now have your two distinct time series, each with a slope of 1 unit/year, and again you’re asked the same question.

      There are two possible answers that spring immediately to mind: 1 unit/year OR 0.9 units/year. Which answer would you give, and how would you combine your two time series to get that answer?

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Thank you for this post and the question. To the question first. I don’t think I would be using numbers in my answer. I would probably say something like, ‘It looks as though there was a steady increase throughout the period. There is a break in the graph at the fiftieth year, which is a pity, but the long-term trend looks robust.’

        I had this problem a long time ago in the agricultural economics area, where the BAE was always refining its data. ‘Grains’ would add a new product (sorghum,eg, imagined example) and the BAE would stop the old trend and start a new one. I was forced to use words. In any case all these measurements are rather rough, so that over-precision is silly. I’m sure you could find something that that was not rough. But that’s my response.

        I don’t know what goes on in the climate area of the BoM (or of the CSIRO). All I know is that the texts I objected to are there in print. Somebody senior approved them. They are political, it seems to me, and that is not what government agencies are for. But things have changed since I was young, and even since I was a senior public servant myself, thirty years ago. My own Minister was careful not to ask me to do anything that would have been regarded as ‘political’, given that what I was doing was strenuously objected to in parts of the country anyway.

      • JimboR says:

        “To the question first. I don’t think I would be using numbers in my answer.”

        OK, so now your boss asks you to forecast what the value will be at time t=200 years. Presumably with the first graph, you’d predict that it will be 200 units? What answer would you give with the second graph?

        (Don’t be put off by the long time base, we can change it from years to months, days or hours if you prefer).

        • Don Aitkin says:

          I’d say that, assuming ceteris patios, the value at time T=200 is likely to be around 200 units, probably a little less. I always need context for these statements. I know only too well how rough data usually are in the real world, hence the ceteris paribus caveat, and the world ‘likely’.

        • JimboR says:

          Excellent. So we’re still in agreement. I too would include your caveats, and my most likely prediction for t=200 would be 190. My reasoning would be that the slope of the line has been 1 unit/year for the last 100 years (apart from an instantaneous measurement glitch where it was infinitely negative) so I’m going to go with that slope for the next 100 years and predict that it’ll be 100 units higher than it is at t=100. 90+100 = 190.

          What a lot of sceptics want to do (like the Cape Town guy) is incorporate that t=50 glitch into their long term slope trends. They argue that because of that massive and understood drop at t=50, the average slope of the first 100 years was actually 0.9 units/year, not 1 unit/year, and that we should proceed with that for future forecasting. So they would predict 180 for t=200 (90 higher than at t=100).

          I’m happy to incorporate the one time drop into all future readings which is why my answer is 190 and not 200, but I’m not happy to let the one time drop influence my estimate of the slope going forward, although I concede it increases the uncertainty of my predictions going forward.

          How you prevent that one time glitch from adversely impacting on your long term slope trend (turning a 1 into a 0.9) is merely an implementation detail. The BOM use homogenisation, whereby they effectively subtract 10 from all the data points to the left of the glitch, pushing the left half of the graph down to line up with the right half. But you, me and the BOM all get the same answer of 190 at t=200. The only people to get 180 are the people who want to pretend that the glitch has to be honoured and is a genuine reflection of that underlying signal.

          The BOM go one step further to ensure that’s not the case before they eliminate it. They look at a bunch of neighbouring stations at around t=50 to ensure they didn’t see a similar glitch.

  • Neville says:

    Chris I’ve been looking at the trends at all levels of the Stratosphere, using the RSS tool. Moving from LStrat through to C 25 in the NH , all the trends show some areas of warming as well. Particularly in some of those areas of the NH where co2 levels have been at the highest levels. I don’t think this helps your case and I think this trend movement is probably due to some recovery to ozone levels in the stratosphere. Ozone levels were depleted in the stratosphere and would have first caused some cooling but the RSS trend maps now point to warming in some of those areas of the NH.

    According to the data ozone depletion was the highest over the SP, but now some warming can be found around the SP area( in strat) and some of the strongest strat cooling trends are found in this area and SH as well. But the SP hasn’t warmed in the TLT or the TMT according to RSS data over the last 38+ years. So this also looks like ozone depletion causing the cooling in the SP strat and as ozone is slowly restored some more warming in the strat should be observed here as well.


  • Chris Warren says:


    Is this right?

    “all the trends show some areas of warming as well.” What is your data?

    C14 – Global, -7.61 century; NH, -9.15; SH, -6.07
    C25 – Global, -3.95 century; NH, -3.63; SH, -4.26

    C13, C12, C11, C10 are similar but less dramatic

    TLS is also negative (ie not warming).

  • Neville says:

    The RSS temp anomaly for March has been posted. TLT V 3 for March is 0.35 c down from 0.44 c in Feb. TMT V 4 for March is 0.39 c down from 0.59 c in Feb. TTT V 4 for March is 0.48 c down from 0.67 c in Feb.
    These anomaly temps are much higher than UAH V 6 TLT that was 0.19 c for March down from 0.35 c in Feb.

  • Chris Warren says:


    The TLS trend layer (just over most CO2) has almost zero warming trend.

    If you look at the history tab, for other layers by latitude box chart – you will the overall trends at other levels.

    The real overall trends are as I indicated.

    When dealing with systems with a lot of variability, it is best to base yourself on the main growing trends and not minor declining trends.

  • Neville says:

    Chris ,ozone depletion is greatest at the poles, so we would expect more cooling in that area. Look at map trend for next levels c10 and c11 and you’ll notice much more NH strat warming trends at those levels, but away from NP. Give it time and more warming will develop in NP region as the ozone recovers. Likewise in SP region as well.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Ozone does not have sufficient quantity, change in quantity or radiative effect (or global spread) to be driving these changes.

      The radiative forcing can be seen at fig SPM.2 here:


      Clearly, the cooling impact of stratospheric Ozone is minor.

      As I have said before, it is best to base your understanding on the major trends and not try to exclude these for the sake of minor trends that are overwhelmed in reality.

      The cooling is due to a growing heat trap so that heat is accumulating below, and missing above. This is based on theory and observations, not politics.

      • Don Aitkin says:


        Please don’t use anything in the SPM as evidence for anything. It is a political document, not a scientific one. If you must use the IPCC reports, go to WG1. But I’d allow SPM2 because it comes from WG1. You did notice that level of scientific understanding columns, didn’t you? Nothing much is known about water vapour, solar irradiance or aerosols. In other words, there is a lot of uncertainty in all this, which you’ll find scattered round WG1.

        These uncertainties are certainly part of ‘the major trends’ you refer to. I don’t think there is much ‘reality’ there to ‘overwhelm’ anything.

        • Chris Warren says:


          You must simply stop tagging various outputs of reputable science, whether BOM, CSIRO, IPCC (whoever), as political.

          If they were political, there would be alternative science, at the same level of authority, that would contradict their positions.

          Vexatious tagging like this is itself political.

          The points I made are also in AR4 WG1 final report ch 2. around p132.

          The reality that is overwhelming is the trends shown by satellite measurements proceeding through different layers of the atmosphere, particularly those below CO2 trap and those above.

          These trends exceed the uncertainties.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Chris Warren says:

            April 6, 2017 at 9:01 am


            You must simply stop tagging various outputs of reputable science, whether BOM, CSIRO, IPCC (whoever), as political.”

            Yes, Don, you simply have to understand that there is a “scientific” consensus that believes these people can do no wrong.

            You only have to look at how they were exonerated in the Climategate enquiries.

            Simply by calling peer reviewed witnesses.

          • Don Aitkin says:


            I don’t think you understand the ‘political point’ at all. But consider this BoM statement (in the essay above): ‘Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.’

            Now ‘future global a regional climate change’ is based on GCMs. The IPCC has already said that the big models can’t yet be applied to regions, though it has hopes. No matter than CSIRO has such a model. The fact is that models have not shown the requisite skill in short-term prediction to give us confidence about their skill at the long term. What follows after ‘indicate’ is a guess. ‘All components’? The SRES report said there was no indication that CO2 emissions are linked to extreme weather.

            And you think all this is an output of ‘reputable science’? Which bit or bits?

            And the last statement…’limiting climate change… is straightforwardly political. If you can’t see that, you don’t what politics is all about.

          • Chris Warren says:


            I well understand politics including the politics involved in raising this accusation against science.

            Statements such as “Limiting will require X, Y, Z ……” in the case of global warming are no more political than the same statements made to limit flooding, disease, road accidents and/or domestic violence etc.

            The need for each is not political, however the response may be political, BUT any opposition, as in the case of cigarettes, can well be overly political.

            The needed response to climate change is based on science, reason and the rights of humanity – politics must follow.

            You have looked at political “responses” and confused them for originating “causes’.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            You really don’t get it, do you. ‘Limiting climate change’ (if we know exactly what that meant, and I don’t) is a POLICY decision. The BoM is not a policy agency, but a scientific one. Substantial reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, a POLICY, require government action in an area that has major effects on everyone. It is not the province of a scientific agency to tell governments what to do in policy areas, let alone to tell citizens that the agency has such a view, as though it has some special competence in a political area.

            Moreover, there aren’t going to be any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, here or anywhere else, because of those flow-on effects. So it’s political rhetoric as well. It is now long past the time (2009) when governments might have acted in that way. ‘Climate change’ now is an inconvenient phrase in all developed countries, and ignored in places like China and India, where the priority is rapid economic growth.

            Ah well. your position is so entrenched that you can’t, or won’t, see the world for what it is. Good luck.

          • Chris Warren says:


            I have had over 30 years experience in policy sections of different Commonwealth Departments. Policy is completely different to politics except, arguably, where a Minister sets expectations based on their politics.

            The Minister heading the BOM’s portfolio may set expectations based on their party politics – but the product from the BOM is not, in any sense of the word, political in itself.

            Cabinet decisions may be political, but the work of most subsequent agencies’ work is not. There have been a few rare cases of politicisation of public services. Andrew Wilkie stood up against one such incident.

            The BOM is doing whatever their Minister expects and this may well include a policy function. If this is one of their functions then the Head of the agency will include this in duty statements. This does not exclude government experts given advice in more ad hoc instances – replies to correspondence, contribution to briefs, on inter-departmental committees, to Parliament inquiries or to Parliamentary Library and so on. Anyone making comments to the media will be specifically delegated to do so and will be suitably skilled so they do not introduce political themes.

            The public service generally has a Code of Conduct and other instruments that ensure impartiality. Any accusations to the contrary need more basis than subjective swipes by those who themselves are well-steeped in running their own political response to global warming.

            If you have problems with BOM, then you should blame the Minister and/or Cabinet.

          • JimboR says:

            Well it’s certainly the BOM’s obligation to provide us all with advice on meteorological matters. Whether it’s advice to move your car under shelter because hailstones are coming, or advice to reduce your CO2 emissions in order to reduce the impact of climate change, they’re required by act of parliament to provide such advice. I’ve followed both those pieces of advice without first checking with any government minister for a policy position.

        • David says:

          Don, you are banging on to CW about the BoM making political statements like this.

          “Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”

          This sentence outlines what the the BoM thinks “will” happen not what the BoM thinks “should” happen.

          If the health department says a BMI greater than 30 is a risk factor, is that political?

          Or speeding increases probability of car accident.

          As often is the case your arguments are poor.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            David, what is it about the phrase ‘Limiting climate change will require…’ that you do not understand?

          • David says:

            I understand. To me a political statement would be something like

            “To limit climate change the Government should,…..”

            The BoM is stating what they see as a fact.

            It is true that facts do have political implications. But I don’t think facts should be supressed because they have political implications. It is not East Germany.

            Should the AMA be prevented from stating that smoking causes cancer, because of the political implication?

  • Neville says:

    Chris here’s just a few problems with your theory of CAGW.
    1. There is no tropospheric tropical hot spot over the equator. In fact no sign of it for over 50 years in balloon and now Sat data.
    2.There is more cooling in the SH and SP in LStrat than in the NH and NP regions. This seems to fit in with ozone depletion and now some recovery. In fact 2.4 times more cooling in SP compared to NP and 1.2 times more cooling in SH compared to NH. Using RSS tool.
    3. There has been a much lower trend in the strat data since 1995 although co2 levels have risen sharply over the last 22 years. This points to a partial ozone recovery and doesn’t support CAGW theory.
    4. El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions both produced much more warming in the early RSS Strat data and NATURALLY distorted the earlier RSS record. Higher temps then to lower levels today that shows a faster strat cooling trend than would otherwise be the case.

  • Chris Warren says:


    I have no theory of CAGW. Science based on observations demonstrates AGW beyond being “theory”.

    Whether this ends in catastrophe is entirely moot.

    There is a tropical hot region at around 300 hPa as noted by Christy here:

    Radiative forcing of ozone is insufficient to explain the cooling although it may be part of the explanation.

    I do not know what “strat data” is meant to refer to.

    Volcano impacts have been addressed by Tamino. In general volcanic CO2 warming is countered by aerosols cooling to finally produce net cooling.

    Or as explained elsewhere [Department of Geologic Sciences, San Diego University],

    “The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.”

    If they distorted anything, they would have produced more cooling in the earlier data.

    According to US government sources:

    “Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere — most of it is removed within several days to weeks — and has little impact on climate change.”


  • Don Aitkin says:

    For Jimbo at 9.47

    Good try, but the Bureau’s statement surely is not asking you to reduce your own CO2 emissions, but a statement that Government has to do something to produce these significant and substantial reductions. The Bureau did stop short of suggesting a carbon tax or its equivalent, which does leave the reader wondering what exactly it has in mind.

  • JimboR says:

    I think they’re simply offering advice, as required by the act.

    . move your car under cover if you wish to avoid hail damage
    . move to higher ground if you wish to avoid flash flooding
    . reduce CO2 emissions if you wish to limit climate change

    Which bits of their advice you, I or the government choose to follow is surely a matter for you, me and the government. I choose to follow their advice (on all three) but I’ve no desire to influence whether or not you do. I’d probably make sure you knew of their advice, if I saw you’d left your car in the driveway I’d say “Hey Don, the BOM reckons hailstones are coming” but what you do with that advice is your choice.

    Likewise, the government gets to decide whether it follows their advice. Come next election, we all get to review the current government’s choices, review policies and attempt to elect a government that will (or won’t) follow their advice.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is a good example of denialists inserting their own evidence to generate controversy. They also pile their presentation with the same words we are getting from Neville and Drongo accusing professional scientists of



    Our climate pseudo skeptics are the same.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Is that really the best response you can muster, chrissie?

      What all the religious warmers here fail to get is when they can be so unsceptical of a theory for which they can provide no proof, and be completely prepared to destroy peoples’ capacity for survival to “rectify” this “problem”, they are quite prepared to deny that they or any others of like mind are anything other than normal in their outlook.

      This is simply the ultimate proof of denial in their attitude.

      So it is natural then that they will never see any flaw in the attitudes of likeminded gatekeepers.

  • David says:

    So Don if writing
    ‘Limiting climate change will require…’

    a terrible political over reach, do you also twitch in your sleep when the AMA writes.

    ‘Limiting lung cancer will require…’

    • Neville says:

      I’m fascinated David about how you think OZ and the OECD countries can limit climate change. How can we do this and when will we see the results of our actions? By 2100, or 2500 or 3,000 or………..? All the really big heavy emitters ( non OECD) couldn’t give a stuff and you’ll note that even the Rudd, Gillard govts exported record tonnages of gas, coal and iron ore to any country that wanted to buy.
      Just proves again what HIPPOS these con merchants are, but probably escapes your lack of understanding. But please tell us how, when and by how much WE can change the climate?

      • Chris Warren says:


        This is a real problem. But it is difficult to address when we have so many denying the science.

        It may be the case that nothing can be done and GHGs will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

      • David says:

        Nev try and focus.

        My post is not about what I think can be done about AGW. It is about what I think constitutes a political statement. The BoM has made a statement of scientific fact, which may or may not be true. Political statements address what we SHOULD do.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “The BoM has made a statement of scientific fact, which may or may not be true.”

          How do you have that, davey?

          So you’re sceptical about their adjustments, too?

          You’re improving!

        • PW1202 says:

          David, a FACT is always true and not “which may or may not be true”. Good heavens, do you need training in the English language ? Do you have a dictionary on your bookshelf ?

          If you believe a FACT “which may or may not be true” to be true, then please write to every dictionary compiler and tell them to delete the word FACT and its meaning. There is a contradiction somewhere in there – see if you can spot it !

          While you are at it, look up STOLEN (as in the STOLEN Generations). Many aboriginal children were REMOVED (look it up !) for their own good welfare (8 year old girls with syphilis may well have been STOLEN however).

          You should be in politics David.

          • Chris Warren says:

            O dear, o dear o dear …..

            Playing word games are we? The last recourse of scoundrels.

            What some deem as facts may not be for others, and may, in fact, be false.

            Political facts are notoriously questionable irrespective of the word “fact”.

            Maybe you should spend more time looking up the word POLITICS and SCIENCE.

            A bit of growing-up would not go astray.

      • David says:

        I can not tell “how, when and by how much we can change the climate?” The truth be known I am not that optimistic. either. A do nothing for the time being approach, would make perfect sense for a selfish 70 year old. But I do not want to age like you, Nev.

  • Neville says:

    Speak for yourself Chris, I’m not denying the science. I think there should be some warming from more co2 emissions, but will that be a problem? So far it’s difficult to say it’s a problem.
    But let’s say for argument’s sake we all believe in your CAGW, then how will that change anything?
    Even Shorten’s clueless Labor party will still export as much FFs as the Coalition would so they’re just hypocrites like this silly con merchant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqZvpRjGtGM IOW they couldn’t give a stuff about “the greatest moral challenge of our generation” at all . And yet the donkeys still vote for these liars and fra-dsters and are quite happy to see them waste billions $ down the drain for no measurable change to temp, co2 levels or anything else.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Can you try to make a point without your usual spittle?

  • Neville says:

    Marg, a part of the earlier flowering is called the UHIE . Kyoto 1850 pop was about 270,000 and today is about 1.5 million. More paved roads, concrete, more air cons etc. But importantly 1850 was the end of the LIA and we’ve had some warming since then as well.
    So what would the flowering times have been during the HOL C optimum when the earth’s climate was much warmer than today? And the HOL OPT lasted for many thousands of years.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Another gatekeeper famous for exaggerating temperatures is our darling ABC. At their one o’clock temp report they are certain that the mean max is 2c lower than the max for the day even though the max can occur any time between 10 am and 3 pm and proudly and loudly pronounce that the temp is above average even when it is often below.

    Up until recently they had been using a much cooler, higher elevated Brisbane station on the terrace which has been extinct for over 20 years and it took several phone calls to get them to reluctantly use the correct station.

    It’s amazing that those of the warming persuasion can never see this desire for fakery at the bakery by so many of these gatekeepers.

    • David says:


      To convince anyone that this “observation” is remotely consequential you need to provide some details. When, where and how often? See how you go,

      • spangled drongo says:

        Davey, tune in to 612 at one o’clock any week day you like and check their lies for yourself.

        I realise, of course that you won’t find ABC cognitive bias necessarily “remotely consequential” but others might.

      • JimboR says:

        “Davey, tune in to 612 at one o’clock any week day you like and check their lies for yourself.”

        That all sounded a bit too Casper Jonquil for me, so I tuned in today (Wed 12/4) for the 1pm new bulleting and all I heard was that forecast maximum temperature for Brisbane today was 28C. That seems to match what the BOM are forecasting for Brisbane today. As far I could tell, the ABC aren’t adding any “lies”, they’re just re-broadcasting what the BOM has already forecast.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Davey, tune in to 612 at one o’clock any week day you like and check their lies for yourself.”

          Jimb, following the one o’clock news, particularly if the regular presenter [Kelly Higgins Devine] is on, when she gives the 1.00 temp reading for Brisbane she uses a fictitious expected temperature for one o’clock which is up to 3c below mean max for that particular day of that particular month even though the BoM shows that the max for any day can often be any time between 9 am and 4 pm.

          EG, when the mean max for April is 27.2 and she tells us just after the one o’clock news that: “the temperature in Brisbane is now 26 degrees which is 2 above average” when it is really 1.2c below average, the cognitive bias starts to grate after a while.

          • David says:

            Damn you SD, you have discovered our warmist plot.

          • margaret says:

            That is on a par with the war of the worlds broadcast … shhh … mass panic could ensue.

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0617_050617_warworlds. html

          • spangled drongo says:

            Some people can’t see the wood for the trees…

            Doncha luv how the true believers can’t hear propaganda for the religious message.

          • margaret says:

            Yes, off-topic, but … we can all take what we like from what we choose to watch and hear and read, and most of us become very attached to our ideas and positions.
            “More to the point, we live in a time in which the ability to create deceptive simulations, especially for television, has become essential to the exercise of power. And the inability to see through these deceptions has become a form of powerlessness. Those who let themselves be taken in by the multiple deceptions of politics, news, advertising and public relations, are doomed, like the more gullible members of the radio audience in 1938, to play a role in other people’s dramas, while mistakenly believing that they are reacting to something genuine.”

          • JimboR says:

            “A few days’ sampling [mostly without the benefit of KHD’s wisdom] ”

            Actually, that’s entirely without any ABC wisdom. That’s all sourced directly from the AWS station in Raymond Park, before Aunty has had any chance to add any spin.

            Drongo I concur that 11 data points is well less than ideal, but it’s still 11 data points more than you’ve brought to the party. We’ve got 11 data points on one hand, and your waters on the other… well no because they’ve already spilled over the floor.

            Thanks for your sailing anecdotes, but maybe you should go hang out in Raymond Park at 1pm and 3pm (or just trust the AWS readings like I do). I’m not at all surprised they’re different from what you feel in a stiff breeze out on the bay. KHD isn’t reporting on your sailing temperatures, she’s reporting on the temperatures at Kangaroo Point and using a much more precise instrument than your waters.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, in case you hadn’t noticed, this discussion is from my comment on April 8, 2017 at 12:41 pm and following that I mentioned about KHD making up varying and inconsistent mean maxes to suit her religion.

            So you’ve lot the plot.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Anyway, marg, davie, jimb and chrissie, shouldn’t you all be out marching today?

            Oh, you ARE!

            Nuthin’ like a good march to affirm that consensus.

            Can you spot the 3% yet that disagree?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Don’t forget, you white males will have to change your appearance at the march today:

            https://heatst.com/politics/march-for-science-organizers-dont-want-bil l-nye-as-leader-because-hes-a-white-male/

          • JimboR says:

            “So you’ve lot the plot.”

            Yes, sorry Drongo, my bad… not really sure what happened there. The thread was getting so ridiculously long that it was getting tricky following the connecting lines. It’s probably a good indication that the discussion is not really progressing. I’ll continue to rely on reliable, calibrated thermometers in Raymond Park for my data, and you can continue to rely on whatever it is you rely on.

            Should you ever find any verifiable _evidence_ of your accusations against ABC Brisbane, I would be genuinely interested in seeing it, assuming you’re prepared to share. Everything else is just Caspar Jonquil rants to my ears…. only his version is more entertaining.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Keep listening to Kelly and all will be revealed.

          • JimboR says:

            Alas, I really don’t have the time. My spot checks suggest it’s all legit and your claims are baseless, but I’d love to be corrected. That will need testable evidence…. not _feelings_ about how cold you are while sailing in the afternoon.

            I’m picturing something more like:

            . yesterday she said X, you can hear it here:
            . the BOM data says Y, you can see that here:

            X and Y contradict each other.

            Without testable data, you’re just Capsar Jonquil to me.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So, where are YOUR testables, jimb?

            Like how 3 pm is the same as 1 pm?

            Is that in your data, your water or your imagination? Dying to know.

            You’re the one who’s arguing so you’ll just have to pay attention to your favourite aunt.

            But it’s simple maths, jimb. Just subtract her “above normal” amount from the mean max.

            Even you can do it.

          • JimboR says:

            You’re not turning this one back on me Drongo. You made the claim about biased 1pm temperature reporting from the ABC, I took the time to test that claim as best I could and found it to be baseless. If you have some data that demonstrates it, I’m all ears.

            Hard data Drongo… dates, times and temperatures… and recent enough that we can listen to it to ensure you’re not just making it up. It needs to be void of opinions and feelings… it needs to be factual and verifiable… until then you’re just Caspar. Your opinion about 3pm means, 1pm means and max means is all just that … opinion. Put it aside, and show us the bias with measured data.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Get real, jimb. I made the claim about KHD calling a variable, low mean on a daily basis for years and you not only have blithered ever since, you have sampled about two days of her reports to try and falsify a decade of mine.

            If you call that “testing the claim as best you could” then it’s time you gave it away.

            Like your silly argument against my claim of 1 pm being warmer than 3 pm.

            My claim is so obviously right and if you think yours is then you should supply the hard data.

            But you simply know you can’t so you just blither.

          • JimboR says:

            “Like your silly argument against my claim of 1 pm being warmer than 3 pm.”

            Against? I’ve actually supplied data that supports that claim, which is more than you’ve done. My 11 day sample has now turned into a 12 day sample and supports it even more. All data comes from the AWS, no ABC spin involved:

            3pm mean 25.1C (c.f. long term April 3pm mean of 25.5C)
            1pm mean 25.3C
            max mean 26.8C (c.f. long term April max mean of 27.2C)

            We now appear to be running about 0.4C below average, and if I were a betting man with just that data to go on, I’d guestimate the long term 1pm mean at 25.7C.

            “My claim is so obviously right and if you think yours is then you should supply the hard data.”

            I had a great chuckle over that. You skeptics should get that made up into a t-shirt! You’ve not provided a single ounce of evidence… not typed in a single number! Your claim is “obviously right” to you so doesn’t need supporting evidence.

            Back to your ABC show… I’ve not seen any evidence that they claim the 3pm mean is higher than the 1pm mean. You’ve deduced that from what you’ve heard. If you told us exactly what you heard, we’d be able to tell you where you went wrong…. my suspicion is you don’t understand how rounding works (and that the 1pm and 3pm means are a whole lot closer to each other than you _feel_ they should be).

            And back to your mis-use of the law of large numbers. Here’s one statistic from my 12 data point sample I think you’ll love: the mean _time_ for the daily maximum is 12:59PM… doesn’t get much closer than that! That is the law of large numbers at work and strongly supports your claim that the daily maximum (at least in April) bounces around 1pm.

            I asked my year 10 niece if she could explain why the mean time of the maximum converges on 1pm while the mean maximum remains significantly higher than the 1pm mean. She took all of about 2 minutes… sketched a little graph and came back with a brilliant answer. Can you Drongo? Maybe you shouldn’t have skipped out of school early? Perhaps you could take some classes now and fill in those gaps?

          • JimboR says:

            Drongo, I just took the mean of every April 1pm measurement at Brisbane (40913) from 1/4/2000 to today (26/4/2017). All up that’s 532 measurements as there were four missing measurements: 10/4/02, 20/4/05, 8/4/10 and 21/4/17. The result: 25.7C. All data was sourced from the BOM with no ABC involvement.

            So averaged over the last 18 years of April days in Brisbane we have:

            3pm mean: 25.5C
            1pm mean: 25.7C
            max mean: 27.2C

            I’d say it’s your _feelings_ that are broken, as predicted by my 15 year old niece above. I’m not surprised the ABC file your correspondence alongside Caspar Jonquil’s. School girls are better at this stuff than you are.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You went to all that trouble jimb, to show that 1 pm is warmer than 3 pm?

            But what you couldn’t show is my claim of KHD’s unreliability of what “normal” 1 pm temps are which is what I was complaining about.

            EG, today her claim was 26c and it can vary by as much as 3c.

            “Temp is 23c which is three below normal”.

            So after all that you still have work to do.

          • margaret says:

            I suggest you take up knitting and calm down Casper, JimboR’s niece is the future.

          • spangled drongo says:

            I’ve already said that if there was one month of the year when 1 pm and 3 pm temps would be closer it would be April.

            So now jimb, all you have to do is calculate the other 11 if you want to correctly make your argument.

            And knowing the BoM it might pay to check their 3 pm mean as well.

          • spangled drongo says:

            That’s OK marg luv, you just concentrate on getting your soul in order:


          • JimboR says:

            “You went to all that trouble jimb, to show that 1 pm is warmer than 3 pm?”

            As far as I can tell, you, I and the ABC all agree on that and always have. I’ve even been posting my small but growing daily sample that demonstrates it nicely, i.e. I’ve been supplying data the _supports_ your position on that. I thought the dispute was more down to the magnitude of the difference. You bizarrely think the the 1pm mean should be hugging the max mean due to your mis-application of the law of large numbers, a problem that year 10 school girls can help you with.

            “EG, today her claim was 26c ”

            Which is correct, right? And it’s also the same result you gave us on April 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm when you wrote

            “KHD on auntie today was claiming 26c as the 1 pm mean”

            In fact, whenever you get specific and quote exactly what she said and when she said it, you get the same result I get (and the BOM gets). A long term April 1pm mean of 25.7 which she sometimes rounds to 25 and sometimes to 26 depending on the temperature she’s comparing it with. I think your entire complaint is down to you not understanding her rounding rules.

            “and it can vary by as much as 3c.”

            Do you remember when? It’s been 25-26 since I’ve been listening for the last couple of weeks, and that’s also what you’ve been reporting whenever you get specific. She was on holidays for the first few weeks of April, right? So presumably you’re talking about April 2016? If you’re talking about a month other than April then of course it varies across months…. that’s known as seasons Drongo…. some months are warmer than others.

            It’s your complete lack of detail on what she reports and when, that makes your claims untestable (and in my view, unlikely). Whenever you do include detail such as “today she said….” you demonstrate that she’s reporting it correctly.

            “I’ve already said that if there was one month of the year when 1 pm and 3 pm temps would be closer it would be April.”

            I think you’re trying to rewrite history there Drongo. You wrote:

            “She’s claiming the 3 pm mean as being the same as the 1 pm mean for April. How does that strike you?”

            Given we know that the April 3pm and 1pm means are 0.2C apart, and she rounds the anomaly down to whole degrees, I’d say the answer to your question is: It strikes me as correct. Drongo, to the nearest degree, 25.5C and 25.7C are the same.

            When my 10, 11, 12 sample sets consistently guestimated the April 1pm mean as 25.7C you said:

            “All we need now is for you to have enough data to catch up with my “feelings”.”

            So I went back 18 years, for the life of the station, and turned my 12 datapoint set into a 532 datapoint set, and the result is still 25.7C. The data is never going to catch up with your feelings because your feelings are wrong. They’re based on silly bay side observations like:

            “And 1 pm having the same mean as 3 pm? Oh dear!!! You should take up sailing, jimb, where you’ll discover that at 1 pm it is often difficult to stand in the hot sand to rig but at 3 pm after the “doctor” arrives, a two sweater solution is barely enough.”

            While her observations are based on a precision instrument in a park in Kangaroo Point. One is factual, the other is feelings.

            “So now jimb, all you have to do is calculate the other 11 if you want to correctly make your argument.”

            My “argument” is that you’re yet to present any evidence to support your claim that the ABC are doctoring their 1pm temperature report. I don’t think that requires me to do anything.

            “And knowing the BoM it might pay to check their 3 pm mean as well.”

            Checked, for April at least, and it came out to 25.5C just as reported.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Let’s face it jimb, the 1 pm mean data you have processed is but a tiny fraction of the data needed to show the true difference between I pm mean and max mean.

            Not long ago you were claiming WRT this true difference: “the more you add the worse it gets”, “the deficit gets bigger every day”, so at least you have learnt something.

            When you have carried out the same tests for some serious long term sites you will be even more convinced how wrong your original “feelings” were.

            But this argument is mainly your construct. Mine is that KHD and auntie are very inconsistent in their claims as to what is the 1 pm mean for any given month and they change it to make the weather as warm as they feel they can get away with.

            Not to mention actually using the wrong, defunct, more elevated Brisbane site to help their argument until it was pointed out.

            Do you really believe that auntie, who doesn’t have one conservative main stream broadcaster [let alone a climate sceptic] and produces crap on their science shows like “the oceans could rise 100 metres this century” is innocent of this warmist alarmism?

            Less than a week and you are an expert on KHD?

            Keep paying attention, jimb, and the penny will eventually drop.

          • margaret says:

            The last post should be played on the bugle – that was awful.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Be honest marg, you would probably think it was awful no matter what it was played on.

          • margaret says:

            You’re wrong. But that was Anzackery to me. My allegiance is to Remembrance Day and the signing of the armistice.

          • spangled drongo says:

            What is Anzackery exactly, marg?

            Stop being a PC pedant. Neither of them “glorify” war.

            They both simply pay respect to those who suffered to make us safe.

            Incredible bravery under horrendous conditions in so many places over a great period of time at such huge personal expense.

            Lest we forget, not let’s we forget, you disillusioned girl.

          • margaret says:

            Blah blah blah – more ‘decerebrate rigidity’ of the Malcolm Roberts variety.

          • JimboR says:

            “Not long ago you were claiming WRT this true difference: “the more you add the worse it gets”, “the deficit gets bigger every day”, ”

            You need to check the context on that. I was talking about the _cumulative_ deficit after describing what would have to happen to the cumulative deficit if you ever wanted the 1pm mean to converge on the max mean. I stand by those comments, and you clearly still need to get a year 10 high school student to explain it to you. The cumulative deficit can only go in one direction, because the 1pm reading can never be larger than daily maximum. The law of large numbers cannot help you; it requires swings and roundabouts to do its magic… but you only get swings.

            “But this argument is mainly your construct.”

            That is delusional. I said KHD is comparing the daily 1pm measurement against the long term April mean 1pm measurement (25.7C), and was doing so accurately in the short time I’d be listening to her. You dragged in all this nonsense about 3pm means and max means, and I’ve shown it to be completely bogus. So now maybe we can all agree to forget about 3pm means and forget about max means, and concentrate on what KHD does: compare the 1pm daily measurement with the long term 1pm mean measurement for the month it happened in. For the month of April, that number is 25.7C.

            “Mine is that KHD and auntie are very inconsistent in their claims as to what is the 1 pm mean for any given month”

            You’ve only provided two hard bits of evidence there:
            “EG, today her claim was 26c ” April 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm
            “KHD on auntie today was claiming 26c as the 1 pm mean” April 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm

            and both of them demonstrate she’s doing it correctly. If and when you post an example of her getting it wrong, somebody might pay some attention to you. Everything else is Caspar Jonquil on steroids.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Do stop with the cherry picking of the choice bits, jimb.

            Two bits of data and you’re away with the fairies.

            And you better stay listening to KHD for a decade or so if you are so slow to get the auntie attitude.

            Looks like it will take that long if you haven’t got it by now.

            But I suppose it’s always possible that with religious faith it may never happen.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Blah blah blah – more ‘decerebrate rigidity’ of the Malcolm Roberts variety.”

            Not enough gender fluid for you, marg luv?

          • JImboR says:

            “Two bits of data and you’re away with the fairies.”

            Alas, it’s the only two bits of data you’ve offered, and they don’t support your claim at all. What happened to this promise Drongo?

            “Davey, tune in to 612 at one o’clock any week day you like and check their lies for yourself.”

            You’re now telling me I have to listen every day for a decade in the hope of catching her make a mistake? Sorry, I’ve better things to do. I think your claim is busted. Feel free to raise it again if you ever find any evidence.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes, jimb, that’s all it takes for a cherry picker to get the message – two bits of data.

            How good is that?

            You may have noticed that I didn’t specify how long you might have to wait so you’ll just have to be patient.

            After all, those 100 m SLRs don’t come along every day, jimb, so you have to treasure them when they do and auntie, being what she is, will always deliver. She can’t help it. It’s in her DNA.

            But don’t give up. Be scientific. Give it time and pay attention.

          • margaret says:

            “They both simply pay respect to those who suffered to make us safe.”

            The respect and the suffering I buy but the making us safe? There’s a case for that definitely in WWII but WWI sadly decimated us as a nation because we were still “British” despite the promise of Federation and our incredible progress as a country.
            If like me you have two grandfathers who served in WWI and returned as broken men, then you know that we should not have been there and the war for civilisation was a sham.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Marg, I’m sorry to hear about your grandfathers but they probably would not have wanted to miss the chance to defend their country. That’s the way it was and you are wrong to apply 2017 ideology to 1917 problems. Some of my ancestors came here after being “snotties” [midshipmen] and lieutenants in the battle of Trafalgar. Some were in cavalry regiments in the Indian Revolution, Hussars in Crimea, [ I have one great grandfathers’ commission {Cornet, the lowest commission in the cavalry} hanging on the wall in front of me signed by Queen Victoria]Sudan, the Boer War, long before the official Anzacs.

            But it was expected that if you were a member of the British Empire you did your bit. And I never met anyone who wanted it any other way regardless of cost. I was a member of my local Lord Roberts Army shooting team for the best shot in the British Empire. It was a great experience for a young fella and you got to realise that war was a reality.

            There was no “sham” about Australia’s involvement in WW1. We’d have been occupied and in a hell of a pickle if we had lost.

            The Australian towns that were reduced to girls, goats and glass bottles was a small price to pay.

            People simply knew the price and were well prepared to pay it.

            They had done it so many times before.

            World wars only ended with the threat of nuclear extinction. Possibly only temporarily.

            Puts the stupidity of “climate change” into perspective.

          • margaret says:

            The grandfathers couldn’t have been more different – one was about 17 and a runaway from his home in Duns, Scotland who found himself at the Battle of Jutland as a boy sailor and the other was a 28 year old Sydney man working happily at The Hive in retailing when he was sent a white feather. He became a stretcher-bearer on the Western Front as he refused to bear arms. He was at Fromelles.
            I think neither thought about the ‘privilege’ of serving their country.

          • JimboR says:

            “But don’t give up. ”

            Too late, I already have. There’s nothing to see here apart from another unfounded Caspar Jonquil rant about bias at the ABC. Drongo, I think you and Caspar both have way too much time on your hands. Have you considered taking up a hobby? Margaret made a great suggestion at April 26, 2017 at 6:16 pm.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “But don’t give up. ”

            I meant paying attention, jimb, not blithering.

            That way I can have less interruption in my many hobbies.

        • JimboR says:

          Alas, not today. Let me know when she’s back and doing it again, and I’ll tune in again to check it out. If it is as you’ve reported, I agree it’s very bizarre.

        • JimboR says:

          Drongo, my bad. They are doing their temperature report a few minutes into the show. I was listening out for it in the news bulletin and didn’t hang around long enough to hear what you’re referring to. BTW, you can listen to previous episodes here: http://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/afternoons/episodes/

          Unsurprisingly, I completely reject your analysis of what they’re doing. In particular:

          “when she gives the 1.00 temp reading for Brisbane she uses a fictitious expected temperature for one o’clock”

          No, she gives the 1pm reading taken at the Brisbane station in Raymond Park just 10 minutes earlier. For example on 10/4 the BOM’s 1pm reading for that station was 27.7C, she reported 28C. On 11/4 the BOM’s 1pm reading was 24.9C, she reported 25C.

          “EG, when the mean max for April is 27.2”

          Your the only using the mean max. She’s using the mean 1pm temperature. Why you’d expect her to compare the 1pm temperature with the mean max is beyond me. That is guaranteed to introduce a cooling bias (except on the rare occasions where the max does land at 1pm), of about 2C by the looks of it.

          Doing some spot checks on their episodes, it looks like the mean they’re using is somewhere between 25C and 26C. They appear to always round the anomaly report _down_ to the next lowest hole number, so 4.6C above gets reported as 4C above and 3.7C below gets reported as 3C below. I would have thought rounding the anomaly towards the mean would appeal to a non-alarmist like yourself. At any rate, apart from those small rounding errors their reports are self-consistent (even without BOM data to reference) on the episodes I checked.

          I can’t immediately confirm the 1pm April mean for that site, but the 3pm April mean for that site is 25.5C, so they would appear to be in the right ballpark. Note that’s almost 2C lower than the max April mean for that site (27.2C) that you bizarrely think she should use when benchmarking the 1pm observation.

          “the cognitive bias starts to grate after a while.”

          Indeed. Alas, there’s a lot of it in this forum… I’ve kinda’ learned to live with it.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, How do you asses the 1 pm temp as being at least 2c below mean max when the daily max can occur at 1 pm or either side of 1 pm by a number of hours?

            Do you really think a 3 pm mean can be higher than a 1 pm mean?

            You’ve convinced me about cognitive bias on this forum.

          • JimboR says:

            “How do you asses the 1 pm temp as being at least 2c below mean max when the daily max can occur at 1 pm or either side of 1 pm by a number of hours?”

            Drongo, I’ve genuinely no idea what you’re asking there, can you perhaps rephrase the question? Here’s an example from 3 recent April days:

            Date 1pm Max
            10/4 27.7 29.0
            11/4 24.9 27.1
            12/4 26.5 28.3
            mean 26.4 28.1

            If I were commenting on that first 27.7C 1pm reading, I’d say it was 1.3 above average (27.7 – 26.4 = 1.3). All of those ABC reports you complain about are based on the 1pm column, they’re not looking at or discussing daily maximums or maximum means, but for some reason you are.

            “Do you really think a 3 pm mean can be higher than a 1 pm mean?”

            I don’t think I claimed that, did I?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Do you really think a 3 pm mean can be higher than a 1 pm mean?”

            I don’t think I claimed that, did I?

            Jimb, you just said that the 3 pm mean was 25.5 yet they are using a 1 pm mean of 25 or even less on some days.

            For a bit of background on temperatures in near-coastal cities like Brisbane in the warmer months: under average conditions the mornings are still and warm quickly until a sea breeze comes in which can be any time between 10 am and 3 pm. At the coast it comes in almost certainly by 2 pm but inland it can be a little later. Naturally this varies with wet and/or cloudy/stormy conditions when strong gradients apply but I am talking long term averages.

            1 pm is around the hottest time of day on average, yet the ABC at 612 choose to claim 1 pm is 2-3c below mean max.

            This is one of their peak listening periods so it is a good time to make an alarmist point and they do it every day.

            Do you know how they calculate the 1 pm mean?

            Particularly prior to AWS?

            It has to be by using a lot of assumption. AKA homogenisation.

            Brisbane has two stations listed and the ABC used to use the Brisbane Regional Office which was in an elevated position on the Terrace, showed cooler temps but has been defunct for over 20 years. It gave them even better propaganda.

            When I pointed out to them that it was defunct they reluctantly switched to Brisbane and upped the 1 pm mean a little.

            But still nowhere near where it should be which is at or very close to daily max.

          • JimboR says:

            “ABC at 612 choose to claim 1 pm is 2-3c below mean max.”

            When have they ever claimed that? They don’t mention the mean max at all. They compare today’s 1pm reading with the mean April 1pm reading and report whether it’s above or below and by how much.

            “But still nowhere near where it should be which is at or very close to daily max.”

            Well it wasn’t on those three April days I quoted above. The 1pm mean of those three days was 1.7C below the max mean for those three days. I’m not suggesting three days is large sample, but there was nothing particularly unusual about those days.

            Don’t forget Nyquist’s theorem. The maximum for the day is potentially quite short lived. The AWS samples for that every second, and the old mercury min/max capillary tube thermometers sample for it continuously. By comparison, Katherine Feeney checks her thermometer once per day at 1pm. The chances of her seeing anything like the maximum is close to 0. Those three completely un-extraordinary days listed above demonstrate that nicely.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “ABC at 612 choose to claim 1 pm is 2-3c below mean max.”

            “When have they ever claimed that? ”

            When they claim that eg 29c at 1 pm is 5c above “normal”.

            Or that 25c at 1 pm is “normal”.

            But when it is below their “normal” it rarely gets mentioned as being below “normal”.

            Now Jimb, I’m waiting for your explanation of the true 1 pm mean.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, I should have added the line ” when that 1 pm 29 or 25 turns out to be the max for the day, which can often be the case.”

          • JimboR says:

            Date 1pm Max
            10/4 27.7 29.0
            11/4 24.9 27.1
            12/4 26.5 28.3
            13/4 25.2 26.7
            14/4 25.2 26.8

            mean 25.9 27.6

            Drongo, you’re the only one here talking about daily maxes (although I’ve included them in the table to show how ludicrous your claims are for five consecutive April days). When the ABC say:

            “Or that 25c at 1 pm is normal”

            They’re not referencing mean max at all. Actually, in all the episodes I’ve listened to they use the term “average” not “normal”, but either way, they’re comparing that 25C reading to the 1pm mean which is unrelated to the mean max.

            “But when it is below their “normal” it rarely gets mentioned as being below “normal”.”

            I’ve never heard the regular host, but the stand-in uses the exact same sentence when the anomaly is above the mean as she does when it’s below; she merely changes the word “above” to “below”.

            Drongo, you’re the one claiming their 1pm mean is wrong, you need to demonstrate that. That’s going to need some data and some algorithms to show why it’s wrong. The most you’ve given us so far is your _belief_ that it must be wrong because you _feel_ it should be closer to the daily maximum. None of that is factual or data based. Your feelings don’t demonstrate anything, and the five consecutive days above demonstrate your feelings aren’t a reliable reflection of reality.

          • JimboR says:

            14/4 25.2 26.8

            Drongo, that 26.8C maximum yesterday happened at 1:33pm, so she missed it by just 33 minutes and yet her 1pm reading was 1.6C lower than the daily max. Nyquist Drongo, Nyquist!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Poor ol’ Drongo,

            Can’t even listen to the radio without getting all-confused.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, what I’m saying is that over the long term the 1 pm temp is so close to the max that to claim that the 1 pm temp is 2-3c below max is puerile and displaying a definite bias.

            If you live in the real world you know that there is always lag in the warming effect of the sun ie it is always warmer after mid day than before it if there are no other influencing circumstances. That is why the sea breeze comes in strong in the afternoon if you live near the coast. Check the Freo Doctor effect and every other city in that situation.

            It seems the BoM and the ABC have cooked up this low 1 pm mean simply to make a very biased point.

          • JimboR says:

            Drongo, you prefer to feel it in your waters, I prefer to use thermometers. Probably better to share your feelings with your wife, and bring some data to this discussion.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Sorry, jimb, but you have been listening for just a few days and you think you have it sorted.

            You say you haven’t even heard Kelly H-D yet but somehow you’re an expert.

            When she tells you eg, that the temp at 1 pm is “26c which is one above average” or “29c which is five above average” and that “average” is 27.2c you don’t have to be a genius to work out the cognitive bias. No matter how cold it is she very rarely mentions it if it is “below average” should it get below their fake average.

            Like you too, her maths aren’t consistent, just her bias.

            But keep listening, I’m sure the penny will drop.

          • JimboR says:

            Date 1pm Max
            10/4 27.7 29.0
            11/4 24.9 27.1
            12/4 26.5 28.3
            13/4 25.2 26.7
            14/4 25.2 26.8 (1:33pm)
            15/4 24.9 26.7 (12:45pm)
            mean 25.7 27.4

            Drongo, I know you’re not big on the theory, but just consider the mathematical impossibility of this statement:

            “over the long term the 1 pm temp is so close to the max that to claim that the 1 pm temp is 2-3c below max is puerile and displaying a definite bias.”

            In just those six days in the table above, the cumulative difference between 1pm measurement and the maximum measurement is already 10.2C (or 1.7C per day). Every time we add another day into the table, that cumulative difference is guaranteed to get bigger (or stay the same in the case where the maximum falls precisely at 13:00:00). It can never get smaller. I’m a big fan of the law of big numbers, but your “over the long term” doesn’t help you at all in this case.

            You seem to take some solace in the fact that the maximum temperature can occur either side of 1pm but that is also irrelevant. Whether the maximum happens at 12:45pm or at 1:33pm, the one thing you can be sure of is that the 1pm reading will be lower. The maximum is the maximum regardless of which side of 1pm it lands. After just six days, you already have a cumulative 10.2C deficit in the 1pm summation. Vs the maximum summation. The only way the 1pm mean can converge on the maximum mean “over the long term” is if that deficit converges on 0 “over the long term” and that can never happen. That deficit gets bigger every day (or stays unchanged on the days where the maximum lands on 13:00:00 precisely). The more days you add in, the worse it gets.

            “you have been listening for just a few days and you think you have it sorted.”

            Drongo, it was at your invitation that I ventured in here. You promised:

            “Davey, tune in to 612 at one o’clock any week day you like and check their lies for yourself.”

            I’ve been doing just that, day after day, and am yet to find any lies. The only thing revealed by this entire exchange is that you have a deeply flawed understanding of means, sampling frequencies and maximums. You rely on your _feelings_ and they’re letting you down. Maths will give you a much more robust perspective.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, of course 1 pm can’t ever be at the max on average but for you to claim that the more days you sample the wider the gap gets is completely the reverse of the truth.

            The longer you sampled the 1 pm temp the closer it would get to the day’s mean max because it is that part of the day which is the hottest.

            If you believe [rightly] in the law of big numbers keep doing it for a few more years and decades jimb, before you make any more claims.

            For the ABC to claim that it is 2-3c below mean max is a biased argument.

          • JimboR says:

            “of course 1 pm can’t ever be at the max on average”

            And therein lies the rub with your plan to use the law of large numbers to get you out of your bind. In just the six samples we’ve taken so far there’s been a fairly consistent 1.7C bias against your argument. The law of large numbers says that if you’ve just been unlucky then given enough samples you’ll eventually roll six samples that have a similar bias in the other direction and it will all balance out to zero. But you can never roll those readings, because the 1pm reading can never be greater than the maximum reading. This game is hopelessly rigged against your position simply by the definition of the word maximum.

            The one thing conspicuously absent from your claim of lies and cognitive bias is evidence. You’ve not offered a single ounce of data. It’s all just feelings….. nothing more than feelings….

          • spangled drongo says:

            “It’s all just feelings….. nothing more than feelings….”

            And there I was, jimb, thinking you were one of the few rational proggies here.

            What odds would you give me that 1 pm wasn’t the warmest hourly period in the day over the last 100 years?

            And when you can easily assess that the ABC are using 1 pm averages that are 2-3c lower than mean max, do you truly believe that this is born out in fact simply by your 5 day sample?

            “It’s all just feelings….. nothing more than feelings….”

            Do you “feel” it is possible, jimb, that our ABC, with experts like Robyn Williams making science reports that state “sea levels could rise by 100 metres this century” and other science show experts like Will Steffen and Dr Paul Willis who make alarmist statements that ignore peer reviewed literature, that this institution which doesn’t have a single conservative mainstream reporter could just be applying their usual bias?

            Or do you “feel” they are perfectly balanced in their reports on climate?

            I’m just dying to know how you “feel” about our Auntie’s historic performance on this balance.

          • JimboR says:

            “What odds would you give me that 1 pm wasn’t the warmest hourly period”

            Drongo you need to remember the maximum can be very short-lived:
            15/4 24.9 26.7 (12:45pm)

            On that day it occurred just 15 minutes before 1pm and it still missed it by 1.8C.

            “And when you can easily assess that the ABC are using 1 pm averages that are 2-3c lower than mean max, do you truly believe that this is born out in fact simply by your 5 day sample?”

            The long term April mean max is 27.2C, the ABC’s quoted long term 1pm April means seems to be in the 25.5-26.0C range (I can’t be more specific because of the way they round the anomaly down to the nearest degree), so your 2-3C claim is a stretch.

            I see nothing in the 6 days of data I’ve been monitoring that seems at odds with what they’re reporting…. in fact I’d say the last 6 days have been surprisingly “average” by that measure. I can’t compare your data with their claims (or your claims) because you haven’t provided any data…. only feelings.

          • spangled drongo says:

            ” you need to remember the maximum can be very short-lived”

            It is almost always very short lived, jimb, awa sometimes being a sudden spike but that doesn’t change the facts.

            The 1 pm period is the warmest period of the day and the ABC claim that it is on average 2-3c cooler than the mean max is simply biased bunk.

            Today we had a 1 pm temp that was 2.2c below mean max because of sudden cloud cover but the average must be taken over a very long term.

            I don’t pretend to know what that exact 1 pm mean for each month is but it is more than our warmist ABC will admit to. And BTW, when you hear them telling you eg that 28c is 4 above average you can soon work out what their figure is [not that it is consistent but it is consistently too low].

            When they have such past form on lies and exaggeration in this regard, why would you believe any of their figures that involved climate data?

            You can’t be serious that your claim of 6 days represents “average”?

            Or is that just your own “feeling”.

          • JimboR says:

            “It is almost always very short lived, jimb, awa sometimes being a sudden spike but that doesn’t change the facts.”

            Actually, that’s precisely the point. Read up more on Nyquist and then explain to us how a single reading taking precisely at 1pm every day, is ever going to find that “sudden spike”.

            “The 1 pm period is the warmest period of the day”

            Period? There is no period involved. They take a single reading at precisely 1pm. If the daily max happens at 12:59 or 13:01, then the 1pm reading is lower. On Easter Saturday the daily maximum happened 15 mins before 1pm and the 1pm reading was 1.8C lower.

            “You can’t be serious that your claim of 6 days represents “average”?”

            That’s not what I said. Re-read it and if you’re still having trouble understanding it, yell out and I’ll attempt to re-phrase.

            Data Drongo… data! Everything else is just feelings. Dates. times and measurements at 1pm and daily maximum. Use the raw data from the Raymond Park AWS to show us how they’re wrong. You can tell us you _feel_ they’re wrong as often as you like, that won’t make it any more true.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, I always knew you were smart enough to agree with me.

            All we need now is for you to have enough data to catch up with my “feelings”.

            I’m going sailing for a few days so I’ll catch up when I get back.

          • JimboR says:

            Very unconvincing Drongo. I’m not surprised they file your correspondence right alongside Caspar Jonquil’s. But I am perversely curious… what do your waters tell you is an appropriate gap between the long term April 1pm mean temperature and the long term April max mean temperature? 1C? 0.5C? 0.1C?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Not as much as your half baked stats are happy to tell you about 1 pm temps, jimb.

            If you can’t see that the period either side of 1 pm is the warmest period of the day [eg from noon to 2 pm] and therefore on long term average 1 pm would be as warm as any fixed point of time of day then you are a lot dumber than I thought you were.

            And for the ABC to claim it is cooler than mean max by 2-3c is simply promoting a biased POV.

          • JimboR says:

            “If you can’t see that the period either side of 1 pm is the warmest period of the day [eg from noon to 2 pm] ”

            I could believe that.

            “and therefore on long term average 1 pm would be as warm as any fixed point of time of day”

            And even that.

            The point is the daily maximum isn’t a fixed point of time of day. It jumps around all over the place, and by attempting to sample it at a fixed time every day, you’re pretty much guaranteed to miss it every day, and even when you get near it temporally you’re still likely to miss it thermally. Yesterday for example, the max (26.0C) happened at 12:05pm and even the 12pm reading missed it by 0.3C and the 1pm reading missed it by 1.1C.

            How is it that your waters can so confidently tell us the ABC is wrong, and yet not tell us what’s right? Feelings… nothing more than feelings…..

          • Chris warren says:

            Drongo is not qualified to make such statements:

            “…you are a lot dumber than I thought you were.”

            Judging by its understanding of simple, simple radio broadcasts, Drongo’s demonstrated stupidity is record breaking.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb, you just answered your own question.

            If you sample the 1 pm [warmest hour of the day] often enough you will get a temp that is closer to the mean max than any other hour of the day.

            And I’ll give you a tip: it’ll be a lot less than 2-3c cooler.

            You just need to keep at it, jimb, and you’ll see the light.

            Or feel the warm, as the case may be.

          • JimboR says:

            “Jimb, you just answered your own question.”

            No, let me repeat my question since you seem to have missed it: what do your waters tell you is an appropriate gap between the long term April 1pm mean temperature and the long term April max mean temperature? 1C? 0.5C? 0.1C?

            Drongo imagine you’re a punter and you notice that the horse in starting gate number 1 wins more often and the bias is statistically significant, so your betting strategy might be to always bet on the horse in box number 1. Over the long term that may well be a winning strategy, at least compared to always betting for the horse in starting gate 2. Another punter’s approach is to always bet on the winning horse. He waits until the race is finished and declared, then travels back in time, and places his bet on that horse. His winnings are going to completely dwarf yours no matter how long you both gamble. On a really good day, you’ll both bet on the same winning horse, the rest of the time he wins and you lose.

            That’s the odds you’re playing here. This game is totally rigged against your position. No matter how often you play, the 1pm mean will never converge on the max mean, it will instead converge on the 1pm mean. Your position is statistically ludicrous, intuitively ludicrous, and empirically ludicrous. Your waters have well and truly broken on this one…. we just need someone to fetch a mop.

          • JimboR says:

            CW: “Drongo is not qualified to make such statements:”

            Drongo lives in the “real world” and apparently qualifications are frowned upon there. Spare a thought for the unlucky ABC Brisbane staffer assigned to responding to Drongo’s correspondence. I bet there’s a high turnover in that position. I’m reminded of Caspar Jonquil calling the Civil Aviation Authority to complain that his laundry taps were leaking.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You’re starting to blither like chrissie and the ABC now jimb.

            Nothing to do with making bets or feelings but they will “converge” as in railway lines into the distance, but never meet.

            When you finally understand that roughly equally either side of 1pm is on average the hottest time of day all you need is years of data to narrow it down. The more you get, the narrower the gap.

            But time’s on your side, jimb.

            Keep up with the obs and even you can improve.

          • spangled drongo says:

            KHD on auntie today was claiming 26c as the 1 pm mean which is 2c above some of her previous calls.

            They haven’t got a clue, just lots of disciples.

          • JimboR says:

            “KHD on auntie today was claiming 26c as the 1 pm mean which is 2c above some of her previous calls.”

            Get us some dates and we might believe you. At least since I’ve been listening this month, they’ve consistently claimed both 25C and 26C are average. (and 21C as 4 below average). See my earlier comment about their rounding algorithm. I suspect their 1pm mean is somewhere between 25 and 26 and they always round the anomaly down. Following those rules, they’ve been entirely consistent since I’ve been tuning in. Your 2-3C claims are exaggerated, and your inconsistency claims suggest you don’t know how to round.

            You do realise these averages are in a monthly bucket right? I would expect her March 1pm mean to be significantly higher than her April 1pm mean. The March max mean for Brisbane is 29.0C Vs 27.2C for April. The March 3pm mean is 27.2C Vs 25.5C for April.

          • margaret says:

            In 2016 I went to the Ripponlea studios to see Mad as Hell live …


          • spangled drongo says:

            “The March max mean for Brisbane is 29.0C Vs 27.2C for April. The March 3pm mean is 27.2C Vs 25.5C for April.”

            Gee, you catch on quick, jimb. Now wakey wakey. She’s claiming the 3 pm mean as being the same as the 1 pm mean for April. How does that strike you?

            And this is on one of her “warm” days.

            If you pay attention you will hear a lot worse.

            As I said she’s not consistent but she’s consistently alarmist.

            So when you have been listening to her for a dozen years or so like I have you might have a better handle on it

          • JimboR says:

            “The more you get, the narrower the gap.”

            Show us the maths Drongo, show us the maths… help us to understand what seems so obvious to you.

            “So when you have been listening to her for a dozen years or so like I have you might have a better handle on it”

            Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of tuning in every day, but how about from here on in, whenever you think you’ve found a discrepancy report it here. If you do so within a day or two of hearing it, we can all listen to it via the catch-up service to confirm your claims.

            “She’s claiming the 3 pm mean as being the same as the 1 pm mean for April. How does that strike you?”

            Not as alarming as it does you I suspect. Drongo since you won’t supply any data to support your position, I have to rely on what little I have, which is just the last 11 days at Brisbane. I’m not proud of that as an indicative sample space, but unless you bring some data to the party, it’s all we have. In any case, here’s what they say:

            3pm mean 25.3C (c.f. long term April 3pm mean of 25.5C)
            1pm mean 25.4C
            max mean 27.0C (c.f. long term April max mean of 27.2C)

            Those 3pm and max numbers are a surprisingly good fit with the long term average and suggest to me that the last 11 days average together have been about 0.2C cooler than the long term April average.

            If I were a betting man, from that data, I’d guestimate the long term April 1pm mean at ~25.6C…. perfectly consistent with what the ABC are reporting. You need to contemplate why the last 11 days have been so unlucky for your 1pm _feelings_, while simultaneously being so unusual at 3pm and at the daily maximum.

            Margaret: “In 2016 I went to the Ripponlea studios to see Mad as Hell live”

            I’m very envious. I bet that would be a very entertaining place to be!

          • JimboR says:

            while simultaneously being so unusual at 3pm and at the daily maximum.

            should read:

            while simultaneously being so unexceptional at 3pm and at the daily maximum.

          • spangled drongo says:

            A few days’ sampling [mostly without the benefit of KHD’s wisdom] of most likely the mildest month of the year and jimb is sold on Auntie’s philosophy.

            Is that science or religion, jimb?

            And 1 pm having the same mean as 3 pm? Oh dear!!!

            You should take up sailing, jimb, where you’ll discover that at 1 pm it is often difficult to stand in the hot sand to rig but at 3 pm after the “doctor” arrives, a two sweater solution is barely enough.

            But keep paying attention and even putting your head out the door occasionally and after a decade or so, who knows?

            Yes marg, JL in his old age shows us all there is yet hope for the climate religious.

          • spangled drongo says:

            The ABC until recently were comparing the latest hot hole temp recording site in Brisbane which has only been in existence for the last 18 years with the old long term recordings from a much more elevated and cooler site.

            They were rather put out when I led them down the paths of righteousness but they did put their mean maxes up a bit.

            It was only their religion that stayed the same.

  • David says:

    DA @ 7.39 “I strongly object to the political statements in the BoM’s coverage of climate change. About its weather forecasting, I have no objection at all.”

    What you object to is the publication of scientific conclusions that have implications, which are at odds with your own political views. Bottom line is that your concerns have been noted, considered and then dismissed. Quite rightly too.

  • David says:

    To SD, Don & Nev

    For all your hand waving there are 100s of km of bleached coral that don’t agree with your analysis of AGW.

  • spangled drongo says:

    After all the damage from ex TC Debbie, today I did some exploring of flood levels reached and in parts of SEQ where there were levels not seen previously [not that 180 years of flood records covers much of the history of flooding in this country] but it was nevertheless very informative.

    It was therefore very interesting to see that climate change is actually working in our favour but BoM and CSIRO don’t seem to talk about it:


  • spangled drongo says:

    “Hear the pennies dropping”.

    I wonder if CSIRO are listening:


    And The Con half understands the problem:

    http://theconversation.com/tobacco-tax-hikes-are-great-so-long-as-your e-not-a-poor-smoker-75211

  • spangled drongo says:

    Interesting that what the gatekeepers are telling us today is what we were being fed in 1947. Only then it was a 10 degree rise:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Screen-Shot- 2017-04-16-at-4.45.13-AM-down.gif

  • margaret says:

    http://www.nature.com/news/james-lovelock-reflects-on-gaia-s-legacy-1. 15017

    Is climate change going to be less extreme than you previously thought?
    “The Revenge of Gaia was over the top, but we were all so taken in by the perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice-core analyses [from the ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, studied since the 1980s]. You could draw a straight line relating temperature and CO2, and it was such a temptation for everyone to say, “Well, with CO2 rising we can say in such and such a year it will be this hot.” It was a mistake we all made.
    We shouldn’t have forgotten that the system has a lot of inertia and we’re not going to shift it very quickly. The thing we’ve all forgotten is the heat storage of the ocean — it’s a thousand times greater than the atmosphere and the surface. You can’t change that very rapidly.
    But being an independent scientist, it is much easier to say you made a mistake than if you are a government department or an employee or anything like that.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    “For most Australians on Jan 7th the heatwave averaged somewhere around 35C, not 40.3C. The extra 5 degrees is produced by a form of area weighting to average the thermometers over the entire nation.

    How many thermometers have 100 year records? Just 16.

    To have any legitimacy with a new record, the BOM needs to publish its methods that explain how temperatures can be calculated every day over a hundred years from weather stations that in many cases didn’t exist. How else would we know it was a reasonable effort? We all know that tweaked black-box statistics could be used to achieve meaningless records that drive news headlines. Of course, the BOM wouldn’t stoop that low, would they?”

  • Don Aitkin says:

    What follows is an example of what I had in mind, though it is American, and thus in the context of American politics and government. From the Daily Caller, but before that the Wall Street Journal:

    ‘Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.
    “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.’

    There’s more, and you can see it at

    : http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/former-obama-official-says-climate-d ata-was-often-misleading-and-wrong/#ixzz4fUT3DjUj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.