Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

[vicr3000]

Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

They said it was a Cat 5 cyclone, yet all the wind speeds, sustained and gusts show that it was only a Cat 3.

In addition, the pressure level never got down to a Cat 5.

And regardless of the better building codes compared to Darwin/Tracy in 1974, the damage was no where near a Cat 5.

For a start, the trees still had leaves on them. In all the Cat 5 cyclones in the last 30 years, no trees had leaves

left on them.

In addition, "Data for Middle Percy Island has disappeared from the BOM site, but Jennifer Marohasy kept a copy.

(I’m sure the BOM will be grateful!)..."

Have a read of this.

http://joannenova.com.au/

IN ADDITION

It seems some of the media outlets wewre dissapointed that the damage wasn't worse. That was the impression I got.

Almost like Disaster porn.

Any comments ?

[vicr3000]

Glee

Yes I did.

[vicr3000]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

huh?  the weather is all Labors fault too lol

the Bom did however predict 2 cyclones, they got that right didn't they??

---

Well, the choice was really 1, 2 or 3 Cyclones this season, with a slightly higher chance of 2 cyclones.

So the likelihood of them getting it right was quite high, just by guessing

[debra9275]

pretty good guess, the unusual occurance of 2 cyclones at once though... wish I was that clever

[gleee58]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

huh?  the weather is all Labors fault too lol

or are you saying inacurrate weather forecasts are all Labors fault? 

the Bom did however predict 2 cyclones, they got that right didn't they??

---

No, just using any excuse to bash Labor rather than look at the truth.

[vicr3000]

Did they ever say that we would get two cyclones at once ?

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

Glee

Yes I did.

---

Well it shouldn't be too hard to understand why they increased some and decreased so they aligned with today's standards of measurement.  They developed a comparative dataset which required consistant information as a reference tool.  There is nothing cynical about it.  It is ludicrous to brand an entire organization as corrupt instead of looking at the entire picture.  

[vicr3000]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

It is ludicrous to brand an entire organization as corrupt instead of looking at the entire picture.  

---

You and others do a pretty good job when it comes to the LNP

(Joke)

[vicr3000]

---

gleee58 wrote:

No, just using any excuse to bash Labor rather than look at the truth.

---

Er, Labor signed the desal contracts in Vic.

Anyway, it wasn't a Labor bashing exercise.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

It is ludicrous to brand an entire organization as corrupt instead of looking at the entire picture.  

---

You and others do a pretty good job when it comes to the LNP

(Joke)

---

I do?  Are you sure?

No, that's just another deflection.  Apart from the obvious, the LNP is a political party in Qld that I've never branded as anything.  Compared to the BOM, a scientific authority which employs scientists on merit not a political basis.

[idlewhile]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

It is ludicrous to brand an entire organization as corrupt instead of looking at the entire picture.  

---

You and others do a pretty good job when it comes to the LNP

(Joke)

---

I do?  Are you sure?

No, that's just another deflection.  Apart from the obvious, the LNP is a political party in Qld that I've never branded as anything.  Compared to the BOM, a scientific authority which employs scientists on merit not a political basis.

---

BOM is under an inquiry for manipulating data. Why are they manipulating, removing  or harmonizing data? because it has been corrupted and infested by "global warming" fanatics.

They are under investigation, what, about that sentence, do you not comprehend?