Man-Made Climate Manipulation Down Under

n-koala-a-20140923

Looks like the temps in Australia may have been tampered with!

The Australian Weather Bureau says the issue is with faulty equipment and denies that any manipulation has been occurring.

 

 

From the Daily Caller:

Bureaus Chief Executive Andrew Johnson told Australian Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg that the failure to record the low temperatures at Goulburn in early July was due to faulty equipment. A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit.

Failure to observe the low temperatures had “been interpreted by a member of the community in such a way as to imply the bureau sought to manipulate the data record,” Johnson said, according to The Australian. “I categorically reject this ­implication.”

This is not the first time the Australian Weather Bureau has been alleged to have manipulated temperature data.

Of course, temperature adjustments are perfectly normal to show warming.  Nothing to see here.

 

[Update: Forgot to add link to the original Daily Caller article. Corrected.]

 

10 thoughts on “Man-Made Climate Manipulation Down Under

  1. Temperatures in Australia are measured and reported in Celsius, not Fahrenheit, so I suspected that your source may have come via a chain of articles, and so decided to see if I could “swim upstream” to find an original source in Australia. This was on the assumption that different news providers try to differentiate themselves in the market in various ways, including editorial policy (and guidelines? I’m not sure), and if there’s selectivity, rewrites and/or specific agenda angles that are important to the proprietor of the media, then there is a possibility that the connection of the story, as written/presented after a series of such links, may have drifted away from the information (controversy or whatever) at the source.

    [First side-note, before I continue: Australian Bureau of Meteorology declares July 2017 as hottest on record, especially die to Easter seaboard warmth:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-01/australia-records-hottest-july-on-record-bom-says/8762560 ]

    [Second side-note, to declare my position on the whole Climate Change/Skeptics mess before continuing:

    1. There are too many people on the planet to be sustainable in the long term. I vaguely recall a fairly thoughtful researcher saying that the largest stable human population (i.e. does not deplete non-renewable resources) would be around the 1 billion mark.

    2. As a result of believing in Point 1, I believe that the current 7+ billion people on the planet is a plague, and that, although I deeply regret it, some sort of massive correction will happen over time.

    3. Humans are simply astonishing at their ability to adapt to changes, and so I believe that the decline will be in a time frame of decades, or centuries, not days (unless some massive external event, such as a meteor strike, intervenes).

    4. Humans are also extremely good at exploiting niches in the environment; sometimes, only a mild change to these niches may make them unviable. The resulting disruptive pressure (already seen by the increase in refugees at various border points) is perhaps the biggest worry in the short-to-medium term.

    5. I’m quite skeptical about some of the proposed solutions. However, I’m less inclined to view the world-wide scientific effort, as a whole, as some sort of conspiracy. The scientific arena, like many other areas, has human, non-linear quirks, and sometimes factors that distort it. One example is the pressure on a young scientist to “publish or perish”, versus the extraordinary fees demanded by the big science publishers.

    6. The ozone hole, identifying CFCs as a key damage vector, and changing materials and behaviours is one example where science and the wider community have worked well together. ]

    ———- End of side notes; back to the original topic. ————-

    Jennifer Marohasy has worked at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), and has attended a conference on Climate Change organised by the Heartland Institute while employed at IPA. She worked at IPA from 2005 to 2009 (I’m working from the pdf she released to Media Watch, responding to a series of questions about wetlands in the Murray-Darling River Basin). These organisations are clearly on the “skeptics” side of the page.

    Anyway, back to the source “temperature article”, which I found in the Daily Caller. It references an article in “The Australian”, which is a News Corporation (Murdoch)-owned paper, and, as such, is something that I would refuse to use even as toilet paper. It uses the emotive term “caught tampering” in its opening line of the article. This article is written from a biased angle, and would not meet Wikipedia’s NPOV requirement.

    Marohasey has a vested interest in discrediting the BOM data and existing modelling: She is the lead team member of ClimateLab. One of her team-mates, John Nicol, enthuses about the “potential economic value of long-range rainfall forecasts using artificial neural networks”.

    So, I would not take her word with a pinch of salt; I would hold any of her writings, or even more so the media reporting on her writings, with utmost caution, looking for biased terminology such as “tampering”, where it is possible that a more innocent wording would be acceptable.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The issue itself is how the AWB manages the QC of its measuring system. There was a problem, and the AWB’s response was to change out thermometers. There were other issues at play which the AWB dismissed out of hand despite the evidence it might not have been he equipment.

      It’s entirely possible this is innocent, but there is more than enough evidence to show the AWB has problems with data. The fact the AWB monitoring system is making adjustments in real time with no explanation as the validity of those methods is worth questioning. I’m good with any skeptic questioning the methods, especially if the reasoning for those methods are not transparent.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “There are too many people on the planet to be sustainable in the long term. I vaguely recall a fairly thoughtful researcher saying that the largest stable human population…”

    😂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “2. As a result of believing in Point 1, I believe that the current 7+ billion people on the planet is a plague, and that, although I deeply regret it, some sort of massive correction will happen over time.”

    STAHP! 😂

    Liked by 1 person

  4. OK, criticising “vaguely recall” is quite valid. Unfortunately, I cannot cite a reference. And your follow-on ridicule of me, for something based on an assertion that I’ve not given strong grounding for is reasonable. Fair enough. I decided to lay my cards on the table, knowing that different sites attract different shades of opinion on various topics, and that I was likely to be criticised at this one.

    Are you willing to lay out your position in any detail? I came up with my position partially as a result of wanting my kids to survive and thrive in a very uncertain world, and items 1 and 2 were my starting point. My advice came down to not wishing for no change, but to become adept and adaptible to surviving in the face of change, and, in particular, that living in a risk-free world is utterly impossible, so work on being good managers of risk, rather than trying to wish-away or to avoid risk (in an unreasonable fashion).

    I apologise, profusely, in advance if a hypothetical question regarding you talking to your offspring is offensive due to your personal circumstances… it was the only way I found that worked for me: To try and extrapolate from today’s situation to some decades in the future, and what to say today to my kids, that might be relevant in helping them have success down the track.

    If you are not willing to share your position, I can fully understand that; the question has a possibility to reach down deep into areas of your core values and conscience that you may not want to share. But an explanation of why you find my statements ridiculous would be interesting, and I promise not to get into a flame-war; I’d just briefly post a thank-you in gratitude.

    Like

    • I find your position either ridiculous or sinister. Would you include your friends and family in the population correction you discuss?

      Humanity is incredibly far above the natural carrying capacity of the earth. We have modified the carrying capacity of the Earth using energy and technology. This adaptation is obviously not infinite, but it has phenomenal power. Further, predictions of human population collapse keep failing. (see Malthus – Ehrlich) Perhaps you have not noticed that more affluent societies reproduce less often. Countries in Europe are facing declining populations.

      We can make a high population sustainable by embracing technology and rejecting the organic and anti-GMO Green movement. Our hero should be Norman Borlaug, not Rachel Carson. Recognize that the predominant interest of humans is in humanity, not in some pseudo-religious Gaia figure. Nature is red in tooth and claw – if it had a personification, it would be a monstrous predator longing to devour my flesh.

      Renewable energy is a joke. It is rarely available in quantity, (and large hydroelectric is hated by Greens) and it will not be able to arrest climate change. The only non-polluting solution is nuclear. We could easily power the world for centuries off of uranium. Thorium could last us millennia. That should give us enough time to get fusion rolling. With plentiful energy, we can geoengineer the climate, mass-produce food, and produce vast amounts of fresh clean water. If you are serious about tackling climate change, you need to be building nuclear reactors left and right. Nuclear is an excellent choice even if climate change is false, as it does not emit other pollutants. A coal power plant actually emits a level of radioactivity from natural isotopes that would get a nuclear plant shut down. I’d be happy to debate the issues of reactor accidents, nuclear waste, and security. These are solved problems. The only unsolved problem for nuclear power is years of Green scaremongering.

      That said, my view of most climate science is similar to your view of News Corporation papers. (I suppose you only read the Manchester Guardian?) Climate scientists act like a religious order preventing dissent, and altering the data to support their conclusions. No conspiracy, just groupthink. “Everyone knows” the climate is getting hotter due to CO2. If the data disagrees, that must be an artifact of the collection process or a confounding factor. Scientists can behave remarkably irrationally when their grant money is involved – I work at a major US research institution and I have seen it in action. I even suspected in my own research group when I got my degree.

      Fundamentally, I believe humans adapt and overcome. Western civilization in particular has established its clear supremacy, to the point that the ancient cultures of Asia emulate it. We need to focus on moving to other worlds, exploring other niches, and expanding. Obviously, we can’t abandon ethical principles in the process, but the Greens belong there, debating Christians and Communist, not trying to claim the mantle of scientific progress.

      Liked by 2 people

      • As promised, a simple thank-you for taking time to respond and explaining your position. There’s quite a bit that I agree with; I could tackle a couple of minor things, but will hold my tongue, except for the following paragraph:

        On the nuclear front, I’m curious about how much strontium-90 is produced by the various energy alternatives (including coal, and/or manufacturing plants for solar cells, and/or waste disposal, etc). It is treated in the body like calcium, but is a strong beta emitter, and has a half-life of 28 years — and is a good candidate for damaging DNA, perhaps seeding bone cancers. Nasty stuff.

        Like

        • Your premises are wrong. Strontium-90 is only waste if you do not make use of it. It can be used in larger-model radioisotope thermal generators, irradiators, and sealed-source radiation therapy (brachytherapy)

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Sigh. Me again, with a link to a story that’s not exactly on-point, but is certainly close to the starting pessimistic assumptions I made. This is a story that has appeared in the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) news headlines in just the last few hours:

    “Earth Overshoot Day: We used a year’s worth of resources in seven months”:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/earth-overshoot-day:-today-the-earth-goes-into-the-red/8770040?pfm=ms

    * Core I7 laptop, heater going, living on what was once high-quality arable land, but now you can cross the entire suburb merely by leaping from rooftop to rooftop.

    Like

    • Just a bit of advice:

      You keep changing your email address for each comment. I don’t have a problem with you commenting on here and sharing your views under the same handle, but I’m not going to keep approving every comment. Stick with one email address and feel free to share your thoughts.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s