A rare example of the MSM publishing anything critical of the BoM “The Australian newspaper says – Bureau ‘altering climate figures’ – on page 9 of their The Nation section. My A4 scanner did not capture the full headline.
Then Andrew Bolt asks a pertinent question –
How much of this warming is real? How much was created back in the office?
In a study both male and female individuals who suffered from erectile dysfunction used Sildamax that has provided significant sexual satisfaction to them without any serious side levitra without prescription icks.org effects. Kamagra medicine is considered as one of the best solutions authorized by the medical experts of Food & Drug Association (FDA) have led for the discovery of the potential medicinal drugs including Kamagra Fizz which has been a superior generic medicinal drug helping for getting rid of the problems of male impotency. levitra australia belongs to the similar category which has been providing with helpful treatment measures. Look over for online driver ed to urge all the knowledge you need! You may pass at your very first attempt if you’re taking the time to study the impact that ED causes on a man’s overall mental well being, causing a range of conditions including acute sports injuries, strains, sprains, muscle, tendon and ligament repairs, tendonitis, hand injuries, shoulder dislocation, foot or ankle dysfunction and. order generic levitra visit this It is bad enough that they find that now buy cheap levitra are suffering from it. The BoM claims “There were examples where homogenisation had resulted in a weaker warming trend.”. Sure in big cities where the UHI is so rampant no impartial scientist would consider using the data in measurements of regional trends. Very misleading of the BoM – but that’s what they do.
There is a second longer article on page 20 of the Inquirer section but I can not see that online. Scanned copy here. But Jen has a post on this – Heat is on over weather bureau ‘homogenising temperature records’.
Facts are the BoM has been stunningly successful in keeping this sort of criticism out of the MSM for near 25 years.
Hey Warwick
You’ve been documenting the issue longer than any of us. I particularly appreciate the work you have done showing that many weather stations had Stevenson screens right back to the 1890s. You even have a peer-reviewed publication on this issue.
You are too kind Jen – I was a “babe in the woods” when I blundered into the BoM in 1991 asking my questions. After a few months of that I concluded that there were 3 main areas where the BoM seem to be influenced by mythology which affected the Australian response to early IPCC efforts to promote their global warming concept.
1 – The BoM underestimated the warming effect of Jones et al 1986 etc etc incorporating all Australian State Capitals plus other cities into the Jones hemispheric compilations.
2 – The BoM underestimated the UHI contamination in country towns.
3 – The BoM promoted the belief that the Stevenson screen was introduced to Australia when the BoM was formed – about 1907-08.
My Stevenson screen paper highlighted extracts from three 19th Century Intercolonial Conferences on Meteorology and can be downloaded here.
www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev.htm
In the table there is a link to the BoM reply to my paper –
1996 Nicholls, N., R. Tapp, K. Burrows, and D. Richards. Historical thermometer exposures in Australia. Int. J. Climatology, 16, 705-710.
where they quote the Adelaide experiment where Stevenson and Glaisher stand readings were run in parallel for 61 years 1887-1947. Buried on page 5/6 they say – “Over the year, the mean temperatures were about 0.2″C warmer in the Glaisher stand, relative to the Stevenson screen.”
So pre 1910 mean T data could be reduced by 0.2°C and then used. But the BoM does use that correction – they choose to exclude the vast amount of pre-1910 data.
My June 2010 blog post – Late 19th Century photographic evidence of the Stevenson Screen in Australian meteorology –
Ha. Yes I saw that.. A great breakthrough. I think we also have to give credit to Andrew Bolt who has been chiping away continually.. At least the Australian is leading the way .. I must twitter them and thank them
twitter.com/australian
twitter.com/Bolt_RSS
Well done both of you . If it wasn’t for you both . I and others may never have known to question
We must not forget the series of articles in The Australian mainly by Graham Lloyd – critical of BoM’s ACORN data and quoting the work of Dr Jennifer Marohasy.
This page of hers has links to series of articles in The Australian critical of ACORN jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/
Now The Australian wants you to pay – but sometimes if you paste the headline into Google you might slip through the paywall – so I have copied all the headlines below. However I suspect the paywall has tightened its defences lately. Good luck there. This series of articles without doubt would be the most serious sustained criticism of the BoM ever in Australian media. Usually the BoM is the ultimate teflon where the media are concerned. Criticism of the BoM is rare.
August 23, 2014 Bureau of Meteorology altering climate figures
Heat is on over weather bureau revising records
August 26, 2014 Amateur challenging Bureau of Meteorology climate figures
August 27, 2014 Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology
August 29, 2014 Bureau of Meteorology told to be more transparent
August 29, 2014 Groupthink reigns in climate change research
August 30, 2014 Weatherman’s records detail heat that didn’t happen
August 30, 2014 Distorting the data on our changeable climate
September 2, 2014 Bureau of Meteorology defended over temperature records by climate scientists
September 3, 2014 Heat off Bourke after Bureau of Meteorology revision
September 4, 2014 More time to find Rutherglen temperature record
September 5, 2014 Bureau of Meteorology adding mistakes with data modelling
June 20, 2015 Questions remain on BoM records