• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK's Met Office Abandons Data for Models

Do you believe we live in the same climate as we did in the year 1900?

If no, do you believe we should use data from the year 1900 when trying to predict the number of severe storms, floods, tornadoes, etc, for the 2018-2025 range?

Flooding will get worse, like it always has as mankind restricts the natural flow of rivers and streams. The rest... unlikely change in any significant way.
 
We should not exclude data from 1900.

When it's irrelevant to the calculation being made, it should be excluded. Do you agree?
 
That's just expedient nonsense. There are many orders of magnitude difference between Jurassic and now compared to 1979 and now (which would essentially be now and now).

But you're not arguing 1979. You're arguing 1900. You're claiming there's no change since 1900 now?
 
I'm claiming the 1900 data (and the 1979 data) remain relevant.

They do, but not to everything and anything climate related. If I'm trying to predict the approximate number of severe storms Ohio can expect in 2018, data from the Jurassic era is less useful than data from 1980. Do you understand why that is?
 
How about 1800?

1200?

65 million BC?

Depends on the question you're trying to answer. If the older data were not relevant for at least some questions then there would not be the field of study called paleoclimatology.
 
They do, but not to everything and anything climate related. If I'm trying to predict the approximate number of severe storms Ohio can expect in 2018, data from the Jurassic era is less useful than data from 1980. Do you understand why that is?

Please stop presenting the Jurassic era. You only make yourself look desperate. I would say Ohio data would be relevant as far back as they are reliable and reasonably precise.
 
Depends on the question you're trying to answer. If the older data were not relevant for at least some questions then there would not be the field of study called paleoclimatology.

. Of course the data is relevant. to certain questions. Nobody is arguing the data is irrelevant to everything. I hope your confusion is cleared up now. The Met Office is saying the older data is irrelevant to this very specific question.
 
Please stop presenting the Jurassic era. You only make yourself look desperate. I would say Ohio data would be relevant as far back as they are reliable and reasonably precise.

It's an absurd example to illustrate the point. Not all data is relevant to any and all conceivable questions. You've already admitted to this, so let's move on.
 
. Of course the data is relevant. to certain questions. Nobody is arguing the data is irrelevant to everything. I hope your confusion is cleared up now. The Met Office is saying the older data is irrelevant to this very specific question.

It's an absurd example to illustrate the point. Not all data is relevant to any and all conceivable questions. You've already admitted to this, so let's move on.

The pre-1980 data are fully relevant to the Met Office's question. Being actual data they are not, however, suitable to the Met Office's political purpose. They are therefore to be replaced by more malleable fabricated pseudo-data that can be tailored to support the desired narrative.
 
The pre-1980 data are fully relevant to the Met Office's question. Being actual data they are not, however, suitable to the Met Office's political purpose. They are therefore to be replaced by more malleable fabricated pseudo-data that can be tailored to support the desired narrative.

You believe this only because some right-wing blog told you so. You have no mathematical support for this.

We don't currently live in the same climate as we did in 1900, therefore using weather data from 1900 to try and predict weather events in 2017 is foolish.
 
You believe this only because some right-wing blog told you so. You have no mathematical support for this.

We don't currently live in the same climate as we did in 1900, therefore using weather data from 1900 to try and predict weather events in 2017 is foolish.

It's a matter of integrity, not mathematics.
 
The disease is spreading.

Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice


Historic climate data is being destroyed

The Bureau have a budget of a million dollars a day, but seemingly can’t afford an extra memory stick to save historic scientific data.
In the mid 1990s thermometers changed right across Australia — new electronic sensors were installed nearly everywhere. Known as automatic weather sensors (AWS) these are quite different to the old “liquid in glass” type. The electronic ones can pick up very short bursts of heat – so they can measure extremes of temperatures that the old mercury or liquid thermometers would not pick up, unless the spike of heat lasted for a few minutes. It is difficult (impossible) to believe that across the whole temperature range that these two different instruments would always behave in the exact same way. There could easily be an artificial warming trend generated by this change (see the step change in the graphs). The only way to compare the old and new types of thermometer is to run side by side comparisons in the field and at many sites. Which is exactly what the bureau were doing, but the data has never been put in an archive, or has been destroyed. It’s not easily available (or possibly “at all”). We have this in writing after an FOI application by Dr Bill Johnston (see below).
These measurements from past years can never be re-recorded. A four-terabyte external hard drive costs a couple of hundred dollars and would probably store a whole years worth of text files. For just 0.02% of their budget they could buy one every day. Why, why, why wouldn’t a scientist who cared about the climate want to save this information?
The two different thermometers sit side-by-side in a Stevenson Screen, this example is at Wagga Wagga airport, NSW. Photo: Bill Johnston.
Dr Bill Johnston put in an FOI request for side-by-side data from both kinds of thermometer. He asked for six months of data from Sydney and Canberra Airports and was told it would cost him $460. That’s quite a barrier, and that was only to access the Sydney records. Look at what happened to the Canberra ones — the data was gone. No one could analyze it, no matter how much they were willing to pay.
Field books “disposed”?
….

The BOM stated that “in accordance with records management practices”, the field books for early 2013 at Canberra Airport were “disposed of” twelve months after the observations were taken. By mid 2014 the situation was even worse (if that were possible). The more recent Canberra Airport records didn’t even have field books to be destroyed. There were no records to be disposed of. . . .

 
Unless someone is paid to digitize the old records, storage can be expensive. Still, anyone with science integrity would insist that they be kept.

You can tell those who are destroying the records have no integrity!
 
The disease is spreading.

Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice


Historic climate data is being destroyed

The Bureau have a budget of a million dollars a day, but seemingly can’t afford an extra memory stick to save historic scientific data.
In the mid 1990s thermometers changed right across Australia — new electronic sensors were installed nearly everywhere. Known as automatic weather sensors (AWS) these are quite different to the old “liquid in glass” type. The electronic ones can pick up very short bursts of heat – so they can measure extremes of temperatures that the old mercury or liquid thermometers would not pick up, unless the spike of heat lasted for a few minutes. It is difficult (impossible) to believe that across the whole temperature range that these two different instruments would always behave in the exact same way. There could easily be an artificial warming trend generated by this change (see the step change in the graphs). The only way to compare the old and new types of thermometer is to run side by side comparisons in the field and at many sites. Which is exactly what the bureau were doing, but the data has never been put in an archive, or has been destroyed. It’s not easily available (or possibly “at all”). We have this in writing after an FOI application by Dr Bill Johnston (see below).
These measurements from past years can never be re-recorded. A four-terabyte external hard drive costs a couple of hundred dollars and would probably store a whole years worth of text files. For just 0.02% of their budget they could buy one every day. Why, why, why wouldn’t a scientist who cared about the climate want to save this information?
The two different thermometers sit side-by-side in a Stevenson Screen, this example is at Wagga Wagga airport, NSW. Photo: Bill Johnston.
Dr Bill Johnston put in an FOI request for side-by-side data from both kinds of thermometer. He asked for six months of data from Sydney and Canberra Airports and was told it would cost him $460. That’s quite a barrier, and that was only to access the Sydney records. Look at what happened to the Canberra ones — the data was gone. No one could analyze it, no matter how much they were willing to pay.
Field books “disposed”?
….

The BOM stated that “in accordance with records management practices”, the field books for early 2013 at Canberra Airport were “disposed of” twelve months after the observations were taken. By mid 2014 the situation was even worse (if that were possible). The more recent Canberra Airport records didn’t even have field books to be destroyed. There were no records to be disposed of. . . .


Are you seriously under the impression that data from 2013 in Australia no longer exists? Because I have a bridge for sale.
 
These are the same Bozos who want to substitute their model pseudo-data for real data.:lamo

[h=1]The Strange Case of the ‘Hottest Ever’ Late August Bank Holiday[/h]Posted on 29 Aug 17 by JAIME JESSOP 7 Comments
Yesterday morning, in eager anticipation of perhaps breaking yet another ‘hottest ever’ record on the last really hot day of the UK summer 2017 (there haven’t been many), the Met Office tweeted the following: Standby for potentially the #hottest late August #BankHolidayMonday on record today – we've got to beat 28.3 ºC can we … Continue reading
 
BOM Review admits skeptics were right, but say “trust us” it doesn’t matter


The BOM’s bad luck never seems to end. Of all the 695 stations in Australia, 693 worked perfectly, but Jen Marohasy and Lance Pidgeon happened to live near, or have a personal random connection to the only two stations that didn’t — Thredbo and Goulburn. Apparently these stations had been flawed (not fit for purpose) for 10 years and 14 years, but the BOM world-class experts hadn’t noticed. I expect they were just about to discover the flaws when (how inconsiderately) Lance and Jen announced the errors to the world and the BOM were forced to do this pointless 77 page report to stop people asking questions they couldn’t answer.
The nub of this fracas is that something called an MSI1 hardware card was installed in cold locations even though it would never report a temperature below minus 10.4C. Awkwardly this doesn’t explain why the 10.4C appeared in the live feed, then was automatically changed to -10C in the long term data sets which are used for climate analysis. Does the BOM think the dumb public don’t know the difference between -10 and -10.4? Implicitly — the BOM installed the wrong type of card, and also accidentally had an error flagging system on top of that, that compounded the error by ruling out even the already-flawed -10.4, which may have been even colder. A double flaw, and both non-randomly warming the minima. What are the odds?
And John Frydenberg, Minister of Critters, Plants and Green-stuff believes this? Seriously?
As Jennifer Marohasy says, without actually saying so the BOM admits the skeptics were right.
The BOM wants to stop this sort of error being discovered . . .


Keep reading →


 
BOM Review admits skeptics were right, but say “trust us” it doesn’t matter


The BOM’s bad luck never seems to end. Of all the 695 stations in Australia, 693 worked perfectly, but Jen Marohasy and Lance Pidgeon happened to live near, or have a personal random connection to the only two stations that didn’t — Thredbo and Goulburn. Apparently these stations had been flawed (not fit for purpose) for 10 years and 14 years, but the BOM world-class experts hadn’t noticed. I expect they were just about to discover the flaws when (how inconsiderately) Lance and Jen announced the errors to the world and the BOM were forced to do this pointless 77 page report to stop people asking questions they couldn’t answer.
The nub of this fracas is that something called an MSI1 hardware card was installed in cold locations even though it would never report a temperature below minus 10.4C. Awkwardly this doesn’t explain why the 10.4C appeared in the live feed, then was automatically changed to -10C in the long term data sets which are used for climate analysis. Does the BOM think the dumb public don’t know the difference between -10 and -10.4? Implicitly — the BOM installed the wrong type of card, and also accidentally had an error flagging system on top of that, that compounded the error by ruling out even the already-flawed -10.4, which may have been even colder. A double flaw, and both non-randomly warming the minima. What are the odds?
And John Frydenberg, Minister of Critters, Plants and Green-stuff believes this? Seriously?
As Jennifer Marohasy says, without actually saying so the BOM admits the skeptics were right.
The BOM wants to stop this sort of error being discovered . . .


Keep reading →



Must be why Michael Mann's Hockey Stick uses about 35% of the weighting to Australian measurements.
 
Back
Top Bottom