Friday, 12 September 2014

Bureau of Mythology Meteorology outed: Cooking the Cooling.

Some dedicated scientists have exposed Australia's Bureau of Meteorology's flawed fake figures.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy has had a long running dialogue with David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology, with many unanswered questions.

In January 2014, she questioned a statement that David Jones made in a radio interview:
“We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet. So, you know, we know it is getting hotter and we know it will continue to get hotter. It’s a reality, and something we will be living with for the rest of this century.”
In March 2014, Jennifer wrote an open letter to the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, questioning the reliability of the bureau's data, beginning with (link)
I am writing to you as the Minister for Environment, ultimately responsible for the activities of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, to ask you consider the following seven issues pertaining to the activities of the Bureau.
and including this gem:
While the Australian taxpayer invested upward of $30 million dollars in just one supercomputer in March 2009 on the basis that this would make weather predictions more accurate, some individual forecasters, operating outside the mainstream climate-science community, and without any government support, are producing more reliable and accurate medium-term rainfall forecasts than the Bureau. 
and concluding: (bold added)
In arriving at theories that explain the natural world, the best scientists always use all the available data, not just the data that happens to fit a particular viewpoint. Furthermore, long historical data series are critical for statistical methods of rainfall forecasts, including the application of artificial neural networks that can currently provide more skillful forecasts than POAMA. That the Bureau persists with POAMA, while failing to disclose to the Australian public the absence of any measurable skill in its monthly and seasonal forecasts, should be of grave concern to the Australian parliament. 

‘Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.’ 

In June, Jen wrote again to the to the Minister for the Environment (link) containing details of her ongoing research with a letter concluding:
As an Australian scientist with a keen interest in public policy and temperature records, I ask you as the Minister ultimately responsible for the activities of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, to consider how you might reconcile increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide with a falling temperature trend, and what needs to be done if we are to adequately prepare as a nation for the possible onset of a period of sustained cooling.
Even if Minister Hunt has been taken in by the  Global Warming Hoax, he seems derelict in his duties if he has not called the head of the Bureau into his office with a "Please Explain."

Later in the year she published  a paper co-authored with John Abbott, Ken Stewart and David Stockwell titled

Modelling Australian and Global Temperatures: 
What’s Wrong? Bourke and Amberley as Case Studies (link-pdf)
This paper considers the records for Bourke and Amberley and the methodology employed by the Bureau in compiling the annual statistics from such temperature series. We will also consider how NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) homogenizes data from Amberley in the development of its annual global mean temperature. Homogenization refers to a process of changing the actual temperature records using mathematical algorithms.
This blog has covered her address to the Sydney Institute with a blog titled

Taking the Warming out of Global Warming (Link)

The Environment Editor of the Australian, Graham Lloyd, picked up the story and exposed the fake data to the world in a series of articles, including

Where are we up to? As Jennifer has revealed on her blog today (link
THE Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledge that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated. Indeed, earlier in the week, 28 pages of ‘adjustments’ were released online....(and Alarmists defenders take note)...Scrutinise the detail in this document of adjustments and not only is the rationale and methodology indefensible, but it contradicts information published in the official Station Catalogue which is meant to be the go-to document for understanding this official network known as ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network –Surface Air Temperature).
The post continues: (my bold added..perhaps the whole para should be emboldened)
That the Minister has not yet intervened, and that many within the Australian scientific community attempt to justify the practice of homogenisation that creates these ‘adjustments’ that changes cooling trends to warming trends at a whim, is reason for national shame. It all amounts to corruption of the scientific process on a grand scale, with significant economic implications. But not even a whisper about the scandal can be heard from the Australian national broadcaster or the many other typically righteous institutions and individuals that claim to be motivated by the truth.
Shame on you, cheating BoM scientists, shame on you Greg Hunt,  shame on you MSM reporters.
Read the whole post HERE. Jennifer concludes with:
In a democracy it is the role of government to oversee the correct function of institutions like the Bureau of Meteorology. Greg Hunt is the Minister ultimately responsible. So far he has been silent on the issue. This is in effect condoning what until recently would have been considered a totally unethical practice: changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline. Its unacceptable, but will Minister Hunt do anything about it? Will the national broadcaster even report on it? What can you do about it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
And Paul Clark (see comments) adds:


  1. Your succinct summary is accurate. Well said.

    "Scientist Jennifer Marohasy has exposed the faking of data by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the derelict inaction by the responsible Minister Greg Hunt MP and the shameful neglect of the main stream media (with the exception of the Australian."


  2. Why are we called climate change deniers when quite clearly we do not deny the existence of climate change, after all it has been with us since time immemorial, when all we do is challenge the "alarmists" sciences on their "facts and figures". It seems we are to be made outcasts and leppers because we oppose their point of view.

  3. There's no link to Jenn's post where it says "HERE" above. So here is the link:

    And here is the link to 28 pg adjustment summary:


  4. [GWR] The question that stumps them: What is the sensitivity to a 1% increase in water vapour?
    Douglas Cotton 13/09/2014 Keep this message at the top of your inbox Groups

    The solar radiation reaching Earth's surface has a mean of about 161W/m^2 and such would only raise the temperature of an Earth paved all over with black asphalt (emissivity 0.93) to about 235K. That's over 50 degrees colder than the estimated mean of about 287 or 288K. But wait ... there's less! The oceans are not covered with asphalt paving and their thin surface layers covering about 70% of Earth absorb less than 10% of the direct solar radiation. The other 90% gets absorbed further down in the colder ocean thermocline, and probably doesn't see the light of day again until it reaches the polar regions. So, for the thin ocean surfaces we should only use about 16W/m^2 and that, needless to say, gives absurdly cold temperatures when you bung it into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.

    So we are not talking about just 50 degrees of warming by something (let alone only 33 degrees of warming) but maybe well over 100 degrees. Is water vapour really doing most of that? Water vapour in the lower troposphere varies between about 1% and 4% of the atmosphere. Is a mean of 2.5% raising the temperature 100 degrees? That would be 40 degrees of warming for each 1% in the atmosphere. So regions with 1% would be warmed 40 degrees and regions with 4% would be warmed 160 degrees, so wet rain forests would be 120 degrees hotter than dry deserts. Do you get the impression something must be wrong with this radiative forcing conjecture wearing the "greenhouse" label?

    What really does explain the warmer surface temperatures on all planets with significant atmospheres is the gravito-thermal effect postulated by the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt who was first to estimate realistically the size of air molecules. He also understood how gravity would affect those molecules while in flight between collisions.

    Now with 21st century physics, we have a better understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies to all energy and is in no way restricted to thermal energy. The Second Law describes a process wherein entropy increases towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium wherein there are then no unbalanced energy potentials.

  5. (continued)

    You see, where the infant science of climatology goes wrong is in its general lack of understanding of thermodynamics. With limited knowledge, let alone understanding of thermodynamics, people like James Hansen made very serious mistakes in overlooking the fact that gravity sets up and maintains a density gradient (as the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will happen) and also a temperature gradient, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics also indicates, for each gradient is realised when the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained.

    Now, as explained for the first time in world literature in my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" this correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the inevitable conclusion that new thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in a planet's upper troposphere and above can and will diffuse in all accessible directions away from the source, including downwards, because the non-radiative dispersion is restoring the thermodynamic equilibrium. That is how, for example, the necessary thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by about 5 degrees over the course of its 4-month-long sunlit hours. Radiating molecules reduce the gradient by up to about a third on Earth, though only about 5% on Uranus by my calculations anyway.

    So, yes, it is the Sun's energy which causes a planet's surface to warm on the sunlit side, compensating for equivalent cooling in the dark hemisphere, but much of it enters the surface by convection (which in physics includes diffusion) and this is what is missing in those energy diagrams that show back radiation in lieu. To understand how even one-way radiation obeys the Second Law I refer you to the physics explained in my paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" published on several websites in March 2012. When you do understand this 21st century breakthrough regarding our knowledge of radiation, then you will realise that back radiation can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. Back radiation cannot slow the majority of surface cooling which is by non-radiative processes, and these processes can actually accelerate to compensate for slower radiative cooling. In any event, it is the supporting temperature due to the gravito-thermal effect which ultimately determines at what temperature the cooling stops in the early pre-dawn hours, regardless of how fast the cooling has been earlier in the afternoon and night.

    So radiation to the surface is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures, as is readily confirmed by a study of any planet with a significant atmosphere.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!