If nine doctors tell you you have lung cancer, and one doctor says you don’t, keep smoking. Undertakers need to eat too. 
If Windy used NOAA models then what would be the point of using Windy? Why wouldn’t everyone still be using the NOAA forecast they used to use?
I enjoy our intellectual sparring but I think you’re phoning it in these days.
"So the rest of the world trusts data from NOAA and NASA. And since you trust Windy, you must by extension trust models made by NOAA, and data derived from NASA. Or is there a flaw in that logic?"
Yes measured data is fact from instruments
A model is whatever you want it to be
??? Windy’s own website says Windy uses NOAA models. So why are you asking me these questions?
Why don’t you contact Windy and argue with them to stop using the NOAA models they so prominently mention on their website?
1 Like
OK. Who is arguing with you?
A poorly written sentence. Can a model be a broach, or a hat? No.
Can you restate your point?
Sorry
re your logic
data from a device that measures it is fair enough but to then say a model is as trustworthy coming from the same organization is not possible.
One is absolute and one is made up
That fiasco in Australia were the politicians/bosses of our CSIRO changed raw data from a very long standing thermometer, drew a line through it an an angle and said see, the trend is up when it clearly was constant.
Luckily the scientists stole the data to preserve it and we all got to see it.
Real data, somebody wrote down what the same thermometer has said for over 80 years
If its not a scam why would the government care what the data said??
Weather forecasting nowadays is a matter of feeding data from satellites and weather stations into computer models, which come up with predictions.
If you trust the prediction Windy or NOAA gives you, then you trust the models they use. And Windy uses NOAA models, among others. I’m not arguing the predictions and models are infallible. I’m saying they are worthy of putting your trust in. Which mariners obviously do, day-in, day-out.
The bigger picture is this: Mariners, the creators of Windy and BVS, all put trust in the data and models from NOAA and NASA. To then deride NOAA and NASA as being incompetent in matters of climate is laughable to me.
I will. Aren’t you pleased about that. Measuring data is not as simple as some may think and is open to fiddling.
“Measured data” is only fact if the measurements are accurate, taken consistently on a properly calibrated device, recorded accurately and stored and archived.
For one example, for many years temperatures (used by national organisations such as Australia’s BOM, US NOAA etc) have been measured from non-compliant sites. Here’s just one:
Thermometers were changed from older (but accurate) liquid-in-glass, to modern electronic ones without checking the difference by leaving both in place for an extended period so changing a standard method.
Another one is that in Australia, temperatures are measured every second and a sudden spike lasting that length of time can be a new record despite readings on either side being much closer to the average for that minute. The standard in the rest of the world is the temperature averaged over a minute. Here’s a discussion of that.
The author of that article finishes with:
Is it possible that global warming is caused by a change in measurement methods, or is the planet really heating up? How much did this change of temperature measurement contribute to the warming signal?
1 Like
every gov agency in the world uses whatever computing power they can get to try to predict tomorrows weather, doesnt matter where it comes from its a best guess.
They keep asking for more money for more computers which is saying it will help our best guess but it is slowly getting better for sure but its not an absolute science.
Here is he UK trying to get the weekends weather right…
yes best data comes from the same piece of equipment in the same place.
Thats were you will record a trend if there is one.
Very hard to find any data from the climate warriors saying here is the data from this thermometer over 50 years.
Hence the Rutherglen one in Vic might well have some of the worlds best data over the longest period?
RE: The thermometer-change-error thingy;
According to to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Jennifer Marohasy is wrong. BOM was detailed by your government to answer her allegations re; thermometer equivalence and they did. Below are two reports from that agency which say her theory is wrong, and explain in detail why it is wrong.
I know who you will choose to believe: Marohasy. You will choose her for two reasons; because she agrees with you, and she disagrees with a government agency.
I cant get those links only the story where they homogenized the data to suit them selves and then try to prove but they cant that the thermometer moved which is why they did it as they didnt like the data.
The scam was they decided it was an upward trend due to homogenization but the data that we can all see doesnt support that.
Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved.
1 Like
here is another one
How accurate are our national climate datasets when some adjustments turn entire long stable records from cooling trends to warming ones (or visa versa)? Do the headlines of “hottest ever record” (reported to a tenth of a degree) mean much if thermometer data sometimes needs to be dramatically changed 60 years after being recorded?
One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area. Ken Stewart was the first to notice this anomaly and many others when he compared the raw data to the new, adjusted ACORN data set. Jennifer Marohasy picked it up, and investigated it and 30 or so other stations. In Rutherglen in Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35C became a warming trend of +1.73C. She raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.
Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what “record” temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in The Weekend Australian. – Jo Nova The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian
lets homogenize the data before we model it…I am sure thats what Anderson Consulting told them would work…lol
Nope. As powerabout’s link above proves, and you knew this because it was posted earlier at post number 10, organisations like Australia’s BoM and in all western nations, have a vested interest in creating a myth of a catastrophically warming world. Their budgets and prestige depend on it.
In this case, as I have explained in words of one syllable previously, they have fiddled the data (you know, those ‘facts’) from good thermometers over a long period which showed a cooling trend into an official set of data fed into the world’s climate data with an opposite (provably false) warming trend.
But you trust those in authority. They would never lie to us, would they.
Explain.
1 Like
There is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer…
Soy is good for you (as we spend more money telling you that than we ever did on cigarettes)
Trust me no new Taxes
This ship is unsinkable
Nobody would want a home computer
Trump conspired with the Russians ( we know because we made up the evidence, DNC)
Dear All
think about the money chain and where the focus is re Co2
Then think about previous serious issues and the lack of a money chain and hence the lack of government intervening.
We always had the EPA who had to fight tooth and nail to make this a better world with a cleaner environment. Didnt the EPA ever do research and or buy it?
They make zero from getting the law changed.
You have to ask yourself why Gov have picked on Co2 and the EPA by and large didnt?
Michael Moore smelled a rate so went looking and you watched that?
Picking Co2 was genius as it cant go away and its by product of just about everything we do including breath.
Its a gift to taxation authorities that will just keep on giving
Carbon credits, do we have NoX, SoX, Ozone, Co, etc credits?
23 bankrupt, 27 troubled, equals a new “Obama green-energy failure” list total of 50 . At least $15 billion of “green” taxpayer money is either gone or still at risk, and the majority was funneled to Obama and Democrat cronies — percentage of cronyism is hoovering around 60% (29 of the 50), until I have time to dig further.
Ex Greenpeace boss gives his lifetimes view
1 Like
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: What Weather Models do Phone Apps Use? Why use Programs like Bon Voyage?