@lightningdance wrote:Thanks for posting Icyfroth, I don't think anybody is denying that humans make a difference, their actions make a difference but a new peer reviewed study exposes the BoM as getting it totally wrong and being out by at least 31%.
SOME of Australiaโs long-term temperature records may contain faults introduced by the Bureau of Meteorologyโs computer modelling, according to a widely published expert.
David Stockwell said a full audit of the BoM national data set was needed after the bureau confirmed that statistical tests, rather than direct evidence, were the โprimaryโ justification for making changes.
Dr Stockwell has a PhD in ecosystems dynamics from ANU and has been recognised by the US government as โoutstandingโ in his academic field.
His published works include a peer-reviewed paper analysing faults in the bureauโs earlier High Quality Data temperature records that were subsequently replaced by the current ACORN-SAT.
Dr Stockwell has called for a full audit of ACORN-SAT homogenisation after analysing records from Deniliquin in the Riverina region of NSW where homogenisation of raw data for minimum temperatures had turned a 0.7C cooling trend into a warming trend of 1C over a ยญcentury.
The bureau said it did not want to discuss the Deniliquin findings because it had not produced the graphics, but it did not dispute the findings or that all of the information used had come from the BoM database.
Faced with a string of examples of where the temperature trend had been changed after computer analysis, the bureau has defended its homogenisation ยญprocess.
It has said that while some ยญstations may show anomalous ยญresults, the overall record showed a similar warming trend to that of other interยญnational climate ยญorganisations.
Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ยญbureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling.
โThe discontinuity at Deniliquin is not seen in the raw data and so must have been introduced by the homogenisation process,โ he said.
Asked to comment on Dr Stockwellโs findings, the BoM said it โdoes not routinely comment on unpublished third party ยญresearchโ.
In his peer-reviewed paper on BoMโs former High Quality Data set that was replaced by ACORN-SAT, Dr Stockwell said warming may have been overstated by 31 per cent.
The quality of the ACORN-SAT data has been defended by David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, and Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at the University of NSW.
The bureau has said adjustments were made to records after comparison with other sites and to take into account changes in ยญlocation or instrument.
.
They overstated warming by 31%....... goodness..... that's a significant amount of bull**bleep** to be called out on....
@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:
@lightningdance wrote:Thanks for posting Icyfroth, I don't think anybody is denying that humans make a difference, their actions make a difference but a new peer reviewed study exposes the BoM as getting it totally wrong and being out by at least 31%.
SOME of Australiaโs long-term temperature records may contain faults introduced by the Bureau of Meteorologyโs computer modelling, according to a widely published expert.
David Stockwell said a full audit of the BoM national data set was needed after the bureau confirmed that statistical tests, rather than direct evidence, were the โprimaryโ justification for making changes.
Dr Stockwell has a PhD in ecosystems dynamics from ANU and has been recognised by the US government as โoutstandingโ in his academic field.
His published works include a peer-reviewed paper analysing faults in the bureauโs earlier High Quality Data temperature records that were subsequently replaced by the current ACORN-SAT.
Dr Stockwell has called for a full audit of ACORN-SAT homogenisation after analysing records from Deniliquin in the Riverina region of NSW where homogenisation of raw data for minimum temperatures had turned a 0.7C cooling trend into a warming trend of 1C over a ยญcentury.
The bureau said it did not want to discuss the Deniliquin findings because it had not produced the graphics, but it did not dispute the findings or that all of the information used had come from the BoM database.
Faced with a string of examples of where the temperature trend had been changed after computer analysis, the bureau has defended its homogenisation ยญprocess.
It has said that while some ยญstations may show anomalous ยญresults, the overall record showed a similar warming trend to that of other interยญnational climate ยญorganisations.
Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ยญbureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling.
โThe discontinuity at Deniliquin is not seen in the raw data and so must have been introduced by the homogenisation process,โ he said.
Asked to comment on Dr Stockwellโs findings, the BoM said it โdoes not routinely comment on unpublished third party ยญresearchโ.
In his peer-reviewed paper on BoMโs former High Quality Data set that was replaced by ACORN-SAT, Dr Stockwell said warming may have been overstated by 31 per cent.
The quality of the ACORN-SAT data has been defended by David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, and Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at the University of NSW.
The bureau has said adjustments were made to records after comparison with other sites and to take into account changes in ยญlocation or instrument.
.
They overstated warming by 31%....... goodness..... that's a significant amount of bull**bleep** to be called out on....
The CSIRO was bastarrdised by Labor, they were corrupted to produce the figures Labor wanted and now they need to be gutted of the left dogma and mind set and go back to science, after all that's what they get paid for, not to be a mouthpiece for the Labor party and rent seekers riding the money train of junk science.
@boris1gary wrote:
@lightningdance wrote:This is the type of hyperbole that the deniers clutch with a death grip:
See, it's this type of response that makes this whole argument useless. It becomes a ranting place and any sensible debate turns into mud slinging and name calling. Goodbye.
lightningdance wrote: peanut gallery" comments the "deniers" abuse dogma from the chattering classes to know what I think because I'm coming from an educated opinion.
This science has been turned into a political fight when it should have stayed in academia and science, sorted out there, but "Rudd" looking for relevance, made it political and the leftists can't move on and leave it to the experts.
mmm....name calling and mud slinging
It's beyond stupid that our world class CSIRO has had it's funding slashed, shame the Minister for Science couldn't have done something.
Name calling and mud slinging?? hostile much?? and you would know more than anybody about name calling although I see you have been curtailed a bit in that department........sooo funny 
