Saturday, 24 January 2015

The Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, is wrong.

By Anthony Cox

The BOM is the source, along with the CSIRO, of the science which supports government policy about the lie of AGW. The BOM makes regular forecasts. These forecasts are also regularly wrong.

People like Warwick Hughes have been documenting the failure of the BOM since 2002. Again in 2011, and 2012.

Perhaps the most abysmal failure of the BOM was their failure to predict the severity of the 2010/11 QLD floods which were greatly acerbated by the Wivenhoe dam operator’s failure to have the dam prepared for floods instead of drought which had been forecast by the BOM. Many people died as a result of the failure of BOM’s forecasts. What a disgrace!

More recently the BOM made an absolute fool of itself telling the press which broadcast it far and wide that the QLD drought was the worst in 80 years. As Jo Nova and Ken Stewart note the BOM was only wrong by 71 years! Naturally the ABC, which ran with the original story, will not print a retraction.

And then there was the hottest ever temperature in Alice Springs which again made headlines and the latter admission by the BOM that they could not read a thermometer correctly. This time the ABC did report on the mistake, if over reading a thermometer by 4.5C can be called a mistake. But even then the ABC could not help itself and headlined its article with a big red graph.

Finally, the BOM made this prediction about the summer of 2014/15:

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) long range outlook predicts the north-east of NSW is looking down the barrel of a long hot summer. 
The latest Climate Outlook released today, Thursday November 27, 2014 suggests the region can expect a hotter and drier Summer than average. 
Senior climatologist Catherine Ganter said the two months to the end of January are expected to be affected by El Niño like conditions. 
"Our outlook for Summer shows a drier than normal season is more likely," he said.
"Temperature wise we also have warmer than normal daytime and night time temperatures. 
"We have El Niño like conditions persisting. 
"We're sort of somewhere between neutral conditions and El Niño. 
"But regardless it's biasing us towards a warmer and drier period." 
Ms Ganter said there is little joy for people on the land or dependant on rainwater tanks.She said temperatures are expected in the region to be higher than average in the next two months and rainfall below average. 
"Unfortunately it's not the best outlook," she said.

Here’s what happened:

Cool and wet.

How much longer are we going to accept the BOM being an advocate for AGW and failed science?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

See Also:

A Bomb up the BoM's Bum is needed.


  1. It is disturbing that so many PhDs missed the application of the rudiments of calculus that prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate change.

    Atmospheric CO2 is identified as a climate change forcing with units of Joules/sec/m^2 by the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC. Energy, in units Joules/m^2 divided by the effective thermal capacitance of the planet equals average global temperature (AGT) change. Thus the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level times a scale factor equals the AGT change.

    For 8000+ years the temperature trend has been flat while the CO2 level has been in the range 260-280 ppmv. This mandates that the scale factor be zero.

    Since 2001 the temperature trend has been flat while the CO2 level has been in the range 380-400 ppmv. This also mandates that the scale factor be zero.

    Together these observations lead to the expectation that ‘climate sensitivity’ to a doubling of CO2 level will also be zero.

    The two factors that do explain the temperature rise since the depths of the Little Ice Age and the flat trend since 2001(95% correlation since before 1900) are identified at This analysis also demonstrates that CO2 change has had no significant effect on climate change since before 1900.

    1. Thanks Dan, I will look at your essay in detail. Have you seen this paper by David Stockwell where he looks at the cumulative effect of solar as the dominant temperature cause:


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