• 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

Jack Hays said:
Your argument points to the poor quality of models, not the unsuitability of data.
And I don't think anyone in the Met Office cares about "a few short years." This is a PR strategy to create scary AGW stories.
Click to expand...

Question the models. Question this. Question that. The fossil-fuel lobby is spending that big money, aren't they? Since they can't refute the truth of the overall climate change theories, they try to instill a little doubt.
 
Jack Hays said:
I doubt you have any idea how ludicrous is your defense of the Met Office. Have you ever read Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon?

The Met Office has gone through the looking glass.
Click to expand...

That looks like a Truther response.

I can't believe this is how someone responds to an entirely accurate rebuttal of the BS claimed in the OP via CT blog.


Jack Hays said:
Your argument points to the poor quality of models, not the unsuitability of data.
And I don't think anyone in the Met Office cares about "a few short years." This is a PR strategy to create scary AGW stories.
Click to expand...

Controlled demolition, huh?


Jack Hays said:
Nonsense. The Met Office signed up for the AGW agenda long ago, and this move is intended to push the AGW narrative. That is why the pre-1980 data was tossed out.
Click to expand...

Circular logic. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
That looks like a Truther response.

I can't believe this is how someone responds to an entirely accurate rebuttal of the BS claimed in the OP via CT blog. I



Controlled demolition, huh?




Circular logic. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I take it you're not familiar with Koestler's work.
 
Jack Hays said:
I take it you're not familiar with Koestler's work.
Click to expand...

I take it you're not familiar with post #2 in this thread? I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

Break free from the CT. You can do it.
 
ecofarm said:
I take it you're not familiar with post #2 in this thread? I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

Break free from the CT. You can do it.
Click to expand...

Post #2 is an eloquent description of the emperor's new clothes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Post #2 is an eloquent description of the emperor's new clothes.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the intentional ignorance one can maintain when obsessed with a CT.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one defending fabricated, politically pliable pseudo-data.
Click to expand...

No, you're the super-smart sciencey hero saving mankind from this terrible conspiracy. You're so special. You should wear a cape.
 
Jack Hays said:
Credit is due to Paul Matthews. Please see #1.
Click to expand...

Climate Change and increased flooding. They go hand-in-hand, whether it be in Great Britain or anywhere.

Floods and Climate Change

Climate change has contributed to an increase in the intensity and frequency of floods, along with hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, dust storms, and tornadoes.

This is due to the fact that climate change entails changes in precipitation, along with temperature, wind patterns, atmospheric pressure, cloudiness, and humidity.

Many scientists agree that climate change can and will increase heavy rainfall and storms across the US, which of course signifies more floods.
 
Media_Truth said:
Climate Change and increased flooding. They go hand-in-hand, whether it be in Great Britain or anywhere.

Floods and Climate Change

Climate change has contributed to an increase in the intensity and frequency of floods, along with hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, dust storms, and tornadoes.

This is due to the fact that climate change entails changes in precipitation, along with temperature, wind patterns, atmospheric pressure, cloudiness, and humidity.

Many scientists agree that climate change can and will increase heavy rainfall and storms across the US, which of course signifies more floods.
Click to expand...

Yes, and similar trends can be correlated. That doesn't mean anything.
 
Media_Truth said:
Climate Change and increased flooding. They go hand-in-hand, whether it be in Great Britain or anywhere.

Floods and Climate Change

Climate change has contributed to an increase in the intensity and frequency of floods, along with hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, dust storms, and tornadoes.

This is due to the fact that climate change entails changes in precipitation, along with temperature, wind patterns, atmospheric pressure, cloudiness, and humidity.

Many scientists agree that climate change can and will increase heavy rainfall and storms across the US, which of course signifies more floods.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you there is no evidence of increased extreme weather or any link to climate change.
 
Meanwhile, in the world of data . . . .


[h=1]Warm is stable – Cold is change[/h]Guest Post by Wim Röst Introduction Today ‘warm’ is strongly connected with ‘climate change’, if not with ‘dangerous climate change’. In the minds of people ‘cold’ should be more stable. But, paleo data show that it is ‘cold’ that is unstable. While ‘warm’ always shows a high stability in climatic conditions. Warm is stable, Cold…
Continue reading →
 
[h=2]Scandal: Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures[/h]
Front page scandal today in Australia: BoM opens cold case on temperature data
Jennifer Marohasy, Lance Pidgeon, at the Stevenson screen, Goulburn Airport.
​
Amazing, the power of the media. Suddenly, the Bureau of Meteorology needs to replace equipment and answer questions and set up an internal inquiry. But they’ve had weeks of warning. Lance Pidgeon and Jennifer Marohasy have been watching the automatic weather stations record very cold temperatures, and then astonished when those same readings either got entered into our national raw database as warmer, or simply disappeared. The BOM apparently has a filter set so that super cold temperatures need to be manually checked. Yet the filter is set so high, in Thredbo’s case, nearly five whole degrees warmer than temperatures already recorded.
[h=4]Wow. Just wow. What does raw data mean anymore?[/h]The lack of respect for real observations is profoundly unscientific. How much does the BOM even care about understanding our climate if they are so flagrantly uninterested in the data? As I have said, the Bureau of Meteorology behaves more like PR agency than an institute of science. Based on past practice their internal inquiry will find excuses, not answer the questions, and will not fix appalling methodology. The BOM needs a full external audit (what are they so afraid of?). The BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret and thus completely unscientific. If we had a team to audit the dataset, as we requested in 2011, or to replicate the data as I requested in Sept 2014, this erasure of cold temperatures would have been fixed by now. How much data has been lost forever? . . . .
 
BOM scandal heats up: Kininmonth, Watts, Nova quoted in The Australian “We audit banks, why not BOM?”


Today, Graham Lloyd, and Jennifer Marohasy turn up the heat even more on the Bureau of Meteorology’s strange practice of “editing” raw data. The Bureau says it works to the “highest possible standards”. Natch. So an independent audit would clear them, silence the critics, and restore their reputation. Strangely, instead they have been apparently avoiding an independent audit for six years now and counting….
The Australian: BoM faces storm over weather data inaccuracies

It is the biggest public scandal for BoM since furious debate was sparked three years ago over its treatment of historic and contemporary temperature rec*ords to compile its new homogenised national temperature data series known as ACORN-SAT.
For an agency that screams from the rooftops every time the mercury nudges to the slightest record high, losing a half a degree Celsius here and there at the lower extremities is a pretty poor look.
In reply, once again, the BOM promises another do-it-yourself review. The Minister (Josh Frydenberg) has insisted on two external independent experts, but if the BOM gets to approve or appoint them, that box won’t be hard to tick (just ask the NZ NIWA team). Apparently the last public scandal in 2014, the Minister then (Greg Hunt) killed off a proper investigation of the BOM to supposedly “protect the reputation and integrity of the institution” which, of course, did exactly the opposite. Given the BOM’s “excellence”, the effect of another hand-picked one-day forum to study none of the key issues that skeptics raised, told everyone that Hunt didn’t think its integrity would survive a high school debate, let alone a forensic investigation.
As “blogger Jo Nova” is quoted as saying:
“We audit banks, companies, government departments, energy flows, and projects, but we don’t officially audit science.
“Whenever big money is involved we assume things need to be checked.
When it’s just the planet at stake, who cares?
– from the just released new IPA Book — Climate Change: The Facts 2017 (pre-order your copy now!)
Automatic weather stations work in Antarctica, but not in Goulburn?

Bill Kininmonth — the guru himself, cannot figure out why the equipment would fail now:
William Kininmonth, a former head of BoM’s National Climate Centre, says he is puzzled that after decades of service the bureau now claims the automatic stations are not fit for purpose at some cold weather locations.
“My understanding is a lot of testing was done before the automatic weather stations were installed in all different sorts of conditions,” Kininmonth says. “Why this is happening now, unless they have changed their manufacturers who they get them from, I don’t know.
“I would have thought minus 10 would have been well within their scope. They take automatic weather stations down to Macquarie Island and Antarctica, I can’t understand this at all.
“It seems to me they have some sort of automatic collection system in the computer; once the data comes in, they check on it then. I don’t know why they would be doing that at that stage.”. . . .
 
OP's article has the dumbest possible interpretation of these statements. Climate conspiracists can't be helped.
 
Deuce said:
OP's article has the dumbest possible interpretation of these statements. Climate conspiracists can't be helped.
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy. It's well-intentioned defense of the orthodox paradigm.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's not a conspiracy. It's well-intentioned defense of the orthodox paradigm.
Click to expand...

You're just failing to understand what the discussion is about, because your source didn't discuss it and you just can't critically assess "skeptic" arguments. I'll help you:

The Met office isn't literally throwing out old data. That's a stupid thing to think, and I trust you're smart enough not to think that. What they're saying is that because modern climate has changed you shouldn't use different climates of the past in an attempt to predict how often things like floods will happen. Floods happened at a certain rate in a cooler world, we can expect they'll happen at a different rate in a warmer world. Therefore assuming rates of flooding (or other adverse weather events) based on a different climate than what we have is foolish.

Does that make sense? Do you want flood predictions to be based on a climate we don't presently have?
 
Deuce said:
You're just failing to understand what the discussion is about, because your source didn't discuss it and you just can't critically assess "skeptic" arguments. I'll help you:

The Met office isn't literally throwing out old data. That's a stupid thing to think, and I trust you're smart enough not to think that. What they're saying is that because modern climate has changed you shouldn't use different climates of the past in an attempt to predict how often things like floods will happen. Floods happened at a certain rate in a cooler world, we can expect they'll happen at a different rate in a warmer world. Therefore assuming rates of flooding (or other adverse weather events) based on a different climate than what we have is foolish.

Does that make sense? Do you want flood predictions to be based on a climate we don't presently have?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that extreme weather (like flooding) is more common now than before. To claim it is more common is just political BS. Therefore the Met Office claim is just political BS to enable politically correct modeling.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that extreme weather (like flooding) is more common now than before. To claim it is more common is just political BS. Therefore the Met Office claim is just political BS to enable politically correct modeling.
Click to expand...

From my life experience, I have seen more flooding.

What has happened is when there are severe rains, the land use changes cause blockages in the natural flows of streams and rivers. Hence, more flooding.

It is caused by man, but by land use changes. Not climate changes.
 
Jack Hays said:
You can't make this up. The UK Met Office has decided model outputs trump observed data.

Met Office: Bin data, use models instead

Posted on 24 Jul 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 4 Comments
The Met Office seems to be ramping up its cries of climate alarmism at the moment. Last week we were told that there was a “climate risk” to crops that “would bring global famine”. This was based, as usual, on computer models. Today the Met Office has issued a new alarmist press release, claiming that … Continue reading →

The Met Office seems to be ramping up its cries of climate alarmism at the moment. Last week we were told that there was a “climate risk” to crops that “would bring global famine”. This was based, as usual, on computer models.

Today the Met Office has issued a new alarmist press release, claiming that the UK has a High risk of unprecedented rainfall. Unsurprisingly, this has been parroted by the BBC, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent. The press release is based on an open-access research paper in Nature Communications. There’s even a video.
The press release includes this graphic, which has to be one of the most ridiculous diagrams ever produced by climate scientists.

The picture at the top right says “Our climate has also changed, so older observations may no longer be relevant”, and literally shows observations being thrown into the rubbish bin. The so-called “solution”, is to run computer models and use them instead, and one of the so-called scientists involved claims that “Our computer simulations provided one hundred times more data than is available from observed records”. Are these people really so stupid that they think that the output of their computer models is not only equivalent to, but even better than, real observations? Finally there is the (predetermined) “outcome” which of course is a dark red warning sign. Only data since 1980 is used, so earlier periods, when there were many bad winter floods, are ignored. . . .
Click to expand...

Climate change or not, I just read one of the coolest applications of science I've read in awhile. Why so negative?
 
Jack Hays said:
Because it's manipulative political BS.
Click to expand...

Wow, dude. This is a state-of-the-art tool that can be used to make better predictions about the weather, and you want to politicize it. Just, wow.
 
Phys251 said:
Wow, dude. This is a state-of-the-art tool that can be used to make better predictions about the weather, and you want to politicize it. Just, wow.
Click to expand...

The tool is political. I only observe that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom