Global warmed up: Study finds temperature data systematically fudged upward

[Strychnine]

I like your alternative and 100% agree on the contributions. Huge waste of money. I also like term limits on congress and bumping presidential term to 6-7 years and reducing limit to 1 to further reduce money/focus spent on elections.

However, I don't think this solves anything on the resource waste front, it just moves dollars from lobbyists back to corporations. Sure, more jobs, more economy is good, but it doesn't help with Americans being so damn wasteful.

You'll comment on the merits of things that will likely never happen, but skate right past posts that ask real questions about how economics of these pie-in-the-sky plans would actually play out?




Also, it happened again...

Australia Weather Bureau Tampered With Climate Numbers

ByJohn Nolte
August 1, 2017


The Daily Caller reports that for the second time in a just a few years the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has been caught red-handed tampering with climate temperatures as a means to make a "slight cooling trend to one of 'dramatic warming' over the past century."

Back in August of 2014 the Australian BOM claimed that there was no bad faith behind the decision to "modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.” Nevertheless, the effect, according to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who holds a PhD in biology, was a “dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.”

"Homogenization" is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.

This latest scandal is even more serious, one in which the BOM has been forced to admit that incorrect temperatures were logged. Naturally, the agency is blaming faulty equipment but Marhosasy is pushing back. According to the Daily Caller she told reporters that the BOM's claims of faulty equipment "are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being 'quality assured' out."

One meteorologist reported watching the BOM data change in real time. Colder temperatures, or temperatures inconvenient to the theory that our planet is warming, either disappeared entirely or were "homogenized" into a warmer temperature.

Apparently "faulty equipment" turned a temperature recorded elsewhere at 5.54 degrees into 13 degrees.

The subtitle of that article was a very valid question. Maybe you can answer it, maybe you'll just wait another week for someone to steer the discussion elsewhere so you can move on...

Wouldn't "honest mistakes" result in an equal number of false warming and cooling readings? And yet, these "honest mistakes" always seem to show the planet is warming. Odd that.

The Bureau of Meteorology Budget was 365.3 million in 2015-16. The Australian climate is a national crisis, but the Bureau won’t publish it’s methods in full, aren’t doing basic quality control checks, and can’t employ even one person to answer questions about its secret methods?

On July 5th I asked many questions, and now nearly a month later, we still have no answers:

… this opens a whole can of worms in so many ways — what are these “limits”, do they apply equally to the high side records, who set them, how long has this being going on, and where are they published? Are the limits on the high temperatures set this close to previously recorded temperatures? How many times have raw records been automatically truncated?

Jennifer Marohasy points out that these stations are used to homogenize other stations which are supposed the best stations used in the ACORN dataset. So when the BOM protest that they are not manipulating the data, it’s obvious that they are.

Graham Lloyd, The Australian

The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.

Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon blew the whistle on the missing data after watching the minus 10.4C Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10.4, stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10 and then it disappeared,” Mr Pidgeon said. He relayed his concerns to scientist Jennifer Marohasy, who has queried the bureau’s treatment of historical temperature data. After questions were asked, the bureau restored the original recording of minus 10.4C to its website. A bureau spokeswoman said the low recording had been checked for “quality assurance” before being posted.

The bureau said limits were set on how low temperatures could go at some stations before a manual check was needed to confirm them. “The bureau’s quality *control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman said.

A similar failure had deleted a reading of minus 10.4 at Thredbo Top on July 16 even though temperatures at that station had been recorded as low as minus 14.7 in the past. That temperature was still blank on the bureau’s website yesterday. The bureau did not respond to questions about how widely the quality control system had been applied and at what upper temperature the cut-off had been set.

Dr Marohasy has evidence of the initial minus 10.4C recording at Thredbo before it was deleted for quality assurance. “This either reflects an extraordinary incompetence, or a determination to prevent evidence of low temperatures,” Dr Marohasy said

The Australian has an editorial position on this also: Bureau clouds weather debate

That adjustment process, known as homogenisation, has got the bureau in trouble in the past. Again, the issue has been one of transparency. The bureau has made a series of changes to historical records across the country. It says it does so to adjust for the movement of a weather station site, changes to surrounding vegetation or results that look wrong when compared with nearby sites. Such homogenisation is not unique to Australia but the bureau sometimes fails to convince when asked to explain the specific local adjustments it has made, especially if these bolster a warming trend. The same goes for any practices that discount cold temperatures.

The official record must be accurate and trusted. Otherwise, claims of historic extremes — the hottest winter day! — only mislead and public policy gets corrupted. Even if the bureau does have all the answers, it needs to do a better job of taking the public — sceptics included — into its confidence.

[mschmoyer]

We have a LOT of over regulation, and its very detrimental to what you'd like to see happen. But I do offer an alternative, and its doing away with retardery in government. Here's what it all boils down to, if you really want to get your way: End campaign contributions. You kill all the straight up bribery that these scumbags are taking/giving, and you'll see whatever the people actually want always at the forefront. Is that too big of a task? Is that too much to ask? Well then give up now, cause its the only thing at the root that will fix it all. The rest will forever just be more retardery. Round and round in circles.

As for Tesla, I like almost everything he's doing. Any of his detractors are doing nothing but spewing hot air, until we know how things are finally going to go down. Until he either wins or loses, which hasn't happened yet. While the electric motor is way better than the 1800's technology internal combustion engine, I'd question where its going to get its power. Granted due to the efficiency its going to need a lot less power than IC engines.

I like your alternative and 100% agree on the contributions. Huge waste of money. I also like term limits on congress and bumping presidential term to 6-7 years and reducing limit to 1 to further reduce money/focus spent on elections.

However, I don't think this solves anything on the resource waste front, it just moves dollars from lobbyists back to corporations. Sure, more jobs, more economy is good, but it doesn't help with Americans being so damn wasteful.

[Gasser64]

Don't disagree we have some over-regulation. However, you simply say regulation is bad but offer no alternative. Industry only aligns with profits, not the good of mankind (or the US). We should use regulation sparingly, but not be afraid of the word IMO.

Also speaks to voting for more educated scientists/economists/etc that career politicians. They would tend to regulate more based on facts that to woo a political party. Vote for smart people.

We have a LOT of over regulation, and its very detrimental to what you'd like to see happen. But I do offer an alternative, and its doing away with retardery in government. Here's what it all boils down to, if you really want to get your way: End campaign contributions. You kill all the straight up bribery that these scumbags are taking/giving, and you'll see whatever the people actually want always at the forefront. Is that too big of a task? Is that too much to ask? Well then give up now, cause its the only thing at the root that will fix it all. The rest will forever just be more retardery. Round and round in circles.

As for Tesla, I like almost everything he's doing. Any of his detractors are doing nothing but spewing hot air, until we know how things are finally going to go down. Until he either wins or loses, which hasn't happened yet. While the electric motor is way better than the 1800's technology internal combustion engine, I'd question where its going to get its power. Granted due to the efficiency its going to need a lot less power than IC engines.

[46Tbird]

That's great. I'm happy to be investing in Tesla. I'd rather give him money money to lose than most other people.

So, because you personally approve of Elon Musk's initiatives, you give him a blank check with my tax dollars?

Do you also approve of what Ener1, Solyndra, and Beacon did with taxpayer-guaranteed loans for clean-energy products?

If you approve of the federal government hand picking winners in what should be a competitive and open marketplace, then you can't really call yourself a capitalist.

[Strychnine]

Why not put in writing what is already happening? Adds a little accountability if it suddenly turns un-profitable. Push industry to forge ahead just a little faster. Show that the country/gov't is committed to the idea.

So if a business is unprofitable, but you've legislated its operations into existence... who pays to keep it going when the market wants something else? Businesses have fixed costs - salaries, utilities, etc that must be paid to stay operational.


What would you do if your boss one day said, "mschmoyer, things have changed. I can only pay you $8/hr. I know you need $20/hr based on your number of kids, wife's work situation, mortgage, etc, but you are actually required by law to keep working here, sooooo... you're not allowed to do anything else. See you tomorrow!"
When you apply the logic to a single person it sounds a lot like socialism... or even slavery if you want to be really SJW about it. But if it's a corporation, without a single face attached to it, it seems that you're ok with it?
I mean, he's just pushing you to forge ahead, right? He just wants you to show that you're committed to what you were signed up to do! Back to work, comrade!


And what does "accountability" mean to you, anyway? Fines? How do you punish a business that's already operating in the red without putting it even further away from solvency?

[AnthonyS]

That's quite a stretch saying Tesla taking on big oil and gas.... you and everyone else in the world is free to not use any energy at all. You Tesla nuthuggers..... Go 100% green today! I dare you! You can start by smashing your computer which is largely powered by coal.

[mschmoyer]

You mean the losses Musk is dumping on the taxpayers through his grants from the federal government?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...531-story.html

That's great. I'm happy to be investing in Tesla. I'd rather give him money money to lose than most other people.
That wasn't the point though, regardless of where the money is coming from, he's taking a HUGE risk right now to buck the trend and take on oil/gas and big car manufacturers. The Tesla 3 looks like a hit, Car&Driving calling it the next biggest thing since the iPhone, and other brands are rapidly looking into electric now. It may pay off for Tesla. Either way, there's not many example like this of someone forgoing easy profits to make a disruptive moral choice.

Problem is, it exists in many areas where it has no business being.
You've also got the that the unnecessary regulations' effects on the entities'...

Don't disagree we have some over-regulation. However, you simply say regulation is bad but offer no alternative. Industry only aligns with profits, not the good of mankind (or the US). We should use regulation sparingly, but not be afraid of the word IMO.
Also speaks to voting for more educated scientists/economists/etc that career politicians. They would tend to regulate more based on facts that to woo a political party. Vote for smart people.

[Gasser64]

Not in all cases no. But I also don't believe the absurd conspiracy theories people come up with and think regulation in moderation is useful.

Problem is, it exists in many areas where it has no business being. This is well known. There are areas, that don't see any type of benefit from regulation, but the retarded government felt the need to stick its nose where it didn't belong regardless. And in so doing, costs the taxpayer even more money. Every government undertaking is going to cost money, especially since they can't seem to go buy a pack of gum for less than $1200.

You've also got the that the unnecessary regulations' effects on the entities' ability to acquire profit, thus costing jobs and even more tax money that would have been paid as a result of those jobs. This is how government operates. Shooting themselves, and everyone else in the foot. When they come to help, expect things to get worse and a good deal more stupid.

[Forever_frost]

Not in all cases no. But I also don't believe the absurd conspiracy theories people come up with and think regulation in moderation is useful. With industry, we know where their compass is always pointing (profits). Look at the losses Elon Musk is taking to try to buck the trend...

You mean the losses Musk is dumping on the taxpayers through his grants from the federal government?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

[mschmoyer]

You trust the government to choose the moral high ground?

Not in all cases no. But I also don't believe the absurd conspiracy theories people come up with and think regulation in moderation is useful. With industry, we know where their compass is always pointing (profits). Look at the losses Elon Musk is taking to try to buck the trend...

[SBFORDTECH]

Your saying industry will choose the moral high ground? I don't think so.

You trust the government to choose the moral high ground?

[mschmoyer]

I would say we need to keep the Federal Government out of "industry" as much as reasonably possible. Half of the issues that this country faces is either directly or indirectly attributed to an overreaching FedGov.

There's a profit to be made in "renewable energy", so let industry have at it so the politicians can focus on the "important" things like Transgenders in the Military and the California Delta Smelt.

Your saying industry will choose the moral high ground? I don't think so. Only if it is profitable. What device do we have to steer humanity to do the "right" thing instead of the "profitable" one if the need arises from this or any other large-scale issue?

We do need new amendments: balanced budget and term limits for congress. And then we need to repeal some too. Outside of that we needs way less govt interference in almost everything.

Agree, agree. Possibly repeal some yes. Gov't needs to interject where the majority agrees some issue requires the moral high ground despite being unpopular or unprofitable.

[AnthonyS]

We do need new amendments: balanced budget and term limits for congress. And then we need to repeal some too. Outside of that we needs way less govt interference in almost everything.

[Gasser64]

Where would the constitutional authority be for the government to regulate ... environment?

I'm all about constitutional authority, but at some point you do have to realize that we will face things they didn't imagine in 1700s. Same thing for now vs 2217. We could use several new amendments.

That the whole Erin Brockovich thing is a good example. I'd hang poisoners right next to politicians, for the crows to have a nice human eyeball for lunch. Feed the crows! Think of the poor crows! Those human eyeballs they're missing out on, could be a good source of nutrition for them.

[SBFORDTECH]

Where would the constitutional authority be for the government to regulate business and environment?

The general welfare clause is severely abused.