Jennifer Marohasy
I watched the coronation of King Charles III last night with my 92-year-old mother. She is from the same generation as the late Queen Elizabeth II, both of whom lived through World War II in London. Air raids, bombings, never ending. After the rainy days, my mother still remembers waking up on June 6, 1944, the sky was clear and the plane was humming overhead.
My mother used to think the war would end with ‘Hitler put us all in the bomb shelters at school.’ But as she recalls:
The whole blue sky was covered with thousands of planes, each pulling a glider. Churchill then radioed that Allied troops had landed in Normanby. It’s D-Day [Deliverance Day]and Europe is about to be liberated.
The D-Day landings were postponed for two days because British meteorologist James Stagg knew how to forecast the weather, helping the Allies take the Germans by surprise and make the landings temporarily. calm in stormy weather. If not, it may have never happened, or it could have been a failure, an accident caused by bad weather. After all, my mother might have been right, and the real fight might have ended in a completely different way.
Meteorologist James Stagg understood the key variables that affect the weather (including the lunar cycle) and he relied on a network of weather stations (mostly at post offices, including at Blacksod Point) in the west of Ireland) to provide temperature and barometric pressure information in order to provide accurate weather forecasts.
While the late Queen will always be remembered for never leaving London, even during ‘Blitz’ – from the German term Blitzkrieg, this was a campaign that spanned aerial bombing raids into British towns and cities from September 1940 to May 1941 – and as part of a general war effort, the backstory that King Charles pushed for was quite different. The story of the new king tells how he was one of the first to realize what he still believes is the real threat posed by man-made climate change.
I was reading Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex’s memoir Spare when it first came out, and Christopher Andersen’s The King. In both books, it is clear that despite tragedy after tragedy befalls his biological family, and that Harry probably needs some of his father’s time, if not given access to whether France, Charles distracted himself by trying to save the world from climate change.
As Camilla was ‘totally devastated’ following the death of her brother in New York City, Charles seemed to ‘continue to sound the alarm about global warming’. Despite acknowledging his grandchildren on one hand for bringing the matter into the spotlight, Prince Charles missed his first grandson’s birthday instead opting to join the ‘save the squirrels’ campaign climate change’ in Scotland.
Harry doesn’t criticize anything in his book, instead he admires his father’s ability to spend evening after evening reading the IPCC white papers on climate change. . Camilla and William, perhaps less so than Harry, are less enamored with King Charles’ obsessions with environmental advocacy if you read between the lines of Christopher Andersen’s book.
So perhaps out of respect for the New King’s longstanding preference for all things dire climate change, including sex with deniers, that British tabloid The Guardian has included some content on the subject among all the Coronation stories today. Of course, their climate change article is politically biased while being misleading when it comes to actual science.
It paints me as the leading protagonist and villain. While never specifying the nature of the ‘campaign’, the article was titled ‘First Climate Scientists Laugh at a Bizarre Campaign Against BQT – Then Harassment.’
The title reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi’s famous quote: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they turn against you, then you win.’
Apparently, Gandhi was borrowing from Nicholas Klein, a union activist who, in a speech in 1918, said: ‘First, they ignore you. Then they mock you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build a monument to you.’
John Abbot is identified as my ‘side rock’ – ‘her IPA colleague’. Certainly, the work that Abbot and I have pioneered over the past ten years will receive immense public interest as it shows a revolutionary and better way to forecast weather and climate. Furthermore, between 2012 and 2017, we had a series of important articles published in mainstream international climate science journals.
It is disappointing that while peer review has been repeated by the Bureau of Meteorology as a prerequisite for open discussion (and note that our peer-reviewed articles have in fact been published in prestigious climate science journals) and after Professor Rita Karnawati, head of the Indonesian Meteorological Department, nominated me to head a 25-member delegation from Jakarta via Brisbane to Melbourne to discuss, inside Among other things, the benefits of using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven statistical models as an alternative to Total Circulation Models for better medium-term climate forecasting, the Bureau has since denied me access to their headquarters.
Here are the scenarios: 25 Indonesian meteorologists are welcome inside the headquarters, but not me as the Australian leads the group. Before I boarded the plane in Brisbane, the project coordinator was informed that if I landed in Melbourne and continued to the Bureau, it would result in a diplomatic incident. So much for The Guardian’s claim that it was I who harassed the Bureau.
The Bureau followed this up by ensuring that the contract we had with Queensland University of Technology through my company ClimateLab Pty Ltd was terminated. That contract was set up by a Stanford University MBA graduate who told me in our first meeting a year earlier that he was not interested in the politics of climate change because He is a skilled negotiator. He says he even had success in Kosovo, where he was part of a team sent by then-US president Barack Obama to negotiate a peace deal.
But you see the Bureau doesn’t want peace, at least not if that means they have to hand over the most basic of comparative temperature data.
In 1996, the bureau began to switch from measuring temperature with a mercury thermometer to using a platinum resistance probe connected to a data logger. At a small number of weather stations, some comparative data has been recorded in meteorological books, in the form of handwritten entries. It was never made public. As far as I can see, they don’t want to replicate manually recorded measurements, lest they demonstrate a high degree of incompetence, if not misconduct.
Access to that data will allow for a critical assessment of whether temperature measurements from different types of devices are comparable enough to build reliable continuous temperature records spanning at least 1910 or not.
This is the essence of my current ‘campaign against the Bureau’, as Graham Readfearn writing in The Guardian today describes it, post here.
John Abbot and I want 10- to 20-year data for each of the 38 weather stations where the Bureau has recorded temperatures from both mercury thermometers and resistance probes at the same place and time to be made public. We were happy to manually transcribe records from A8 reports, which the office has argued is too difficult a task for its own employees.
I argue that the Bureau copied only a very small portion of this data and analyzed an still smaller component, because a close examination of the entire data would show that the resistor probes are connected with the data logger is producing inconsistent reads. -purpose. Certainly, there is no equivalence between the readings from the probes and the mercury given the limited amount of data I have gathered from the Bureau so far.
On the other hand, the Bureau specifically stated that the reading from the probe was within the allowable range without specifying what that meant. Always be careful to avoid any mention of statistical significance – it is common to measure whether two means (e.g. average temperature from probe vs average temperature from mercury) are equivalent .
According to an article in The Guardian today, the Bureau claims that the mercury at Brisbane Airport averaged around 0.02 C above the automated probe over a three-year period. And I got the same results in three years. But this overall mean difference is small because there is a sudden change/disruption in the direction of the difference after January 2020.
Readings before January 2020 show that the mercury thermometer is recording warmer, and readings after January 2020 show that the probe itself is recording warmer temperatures. This difference is mathematically balanced; however, disruption would create havoc if one interested in climatology and the integrity of long-term continuous temperature measurements to feed into an AI-powered statistical model .
The overall difference (in three years for Brisbane Airport) was statistically significant (n= 1094, p = 0.003, standard deviation = 0.18). The readings from the probe versus mercury are all over the store: that is, they show significant dispersion and are not random.
Three-year parallel temperature data from Brisbane Airport showed that 41% of the time the probe recorded hotter than mercury and 26% of the time cooler. Again, the difference was statistically significant (paired t-test, n = 1094, p < 0.05). The differences were not randomly distributed and there was a marked discontinuity after December 2019.
I initially thought that this step of change from an average monthly difference of -0.28 degrees Celsius in December 2019 to +0.11 in January 2020 (0.39 degrees Celsius difference) could be perform probe recalibration.
The bureau denied this, explaining that there was a bug in the automatic weather station that was immediately rectified and works to specifications from January 2020 onwards. However, even after January 2020, the probe recorded temperatures up to 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer than the mercury thermometer at Brisbane Airport.
A difference of 0.7 degrees Celsius is enough to create more record-breaking hot days for the same weather, supporting the story of the New King – that the planet is in danger of overheating.
****
I will continue this story in Part 3 soon. In it, I will explain how Anthony Rea, Readfearn spokesman for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provided a review of the Bureau’s methods, until recently an employee of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. .
Indeed, in 2017, in order to administer the directive from then-Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg to provide me with parallel measurements for Mildura, Rea was hastily transferred to the newly created position of Director. Department data.
You can read Part 1 of this story here, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/05/the-guardian-Temperatures-misinformation-part-1/ has been republished here by Anthony Watts, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/05/the-guardian-Temperatures-misinformation-part-1/
Related
