• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Information

Nobody Lives in a World Climate: Professor Bob Carter 1942-2016

January 21, 2016 By jennifer

OUTSPOKEN critic of catastrophic global warming theory, Bob Carter, died in Townsville on Tuesday.

Professor Carter did not like the term sceptic, he considered himself a rationalist, and popular usage of the term ‘climate change’ a tautology. As he wrote frequently: the geological record tells us that climate always changes. In Professor Carter’s passing we have lost a person who believed in value-free science.

When he was still directing the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Professor Carter spent an evening with me at his home in Townsville poring over a single chart that was a proxy record of New Zealand’s climate over the last several thousand years. The time series data had been printed out on a long and continuous roll of paper: longer than the kitchen table so the end of the chart, that portion representing the present, was often dangling somewhere near the floor.

Professor Carter was always more interested in periods of dramatic climate change, particularly the Younger Dryas. The Younger Dryas occurred about 14,500 years ago, with an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research suggesting Greenland’s temperature rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade. Professor Carter was reluctant to endorse such a dramatic temperature increase, but always emphasized that relative to geological history, late 20th century rates of warming of less than 2° C per century, are not unusual.

Professor Carter was a real expert on climate change. He was director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program which was an international cooperative effort to collect deep sea cores. From these cores past climates for specific regions have been reconstructed.

We both presented to the Coalition Environment Committee at Parliament House on 20th October last year. Professor Carter eloquently explained, with examples, how modern temperatures are not unusually warm; that current carbon dioxide levels are low relative to geological time; that as industrial emissions are added to the atmosphere, the less the “greenhouse” warming effect of each increment of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the professor concluded, “dangerous warming of this causation will not occur.”

Furthermore, Professor Carter added: the addition of 50 ppm of CO2 for 1981-2010 has fertilized an 11 percent increase in plant cover. Thus CO2 is both a strong environmental (greening the planet) and agrarian (crop yield increases) benefit.

In this presentation, the Professor also emphasized the importance of the scientific method.  “To the extent that it is possible for any human endeavor to be so, science is value-free. Science is a way of attempting to understand the world in which live from a rational point of view, based on observation, experiment and tested theory. Irritatingly, especially for governments, science does not operate by consensus and it is often best progressed by mavericks. The alternative to a scientific approach is one based on superstition, phobia, religion or politics.” So, wrote Bob Carter in an article entitled ‘Science is not Consensus’, published by the Institute of Public Affairs in December 2003.

In the preface to his first book ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’ Bob encouraged us to all to “trust authority less and our own brains more” as we assess the likely dangers of both known natural and hypothetical human-caused global climate change. Chapter 11 of this book outlined the real and present dangers posed by natural climate change. We are reminded of 1816, known as ‘the year without a summer’ for its intense cold associated with both the Dalton solar minimum and a super-eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora.

Professor Carter understood that such events were often associated with extreme hardship and famine, and that, to the extent possible, nations should use their resources to mitigate against such catastrophe. In particular, Professor Carter advocated what he referred to as Plan B: that future climate hazards, both natural and possibly human-caused, be assessed in terms of risk that vary in type and intensity from geographic place to place.

“Nobody,” the Professor would joke, “lives in a world climate”. Putting in place policies and plans to mitigate the dangers and vagaries of natural climate change must occur on a regional basis. Putting in place policies and plan to prepare for natural climate change, would, Professor Carter argued, make us ready for human-caused climate change, should it ever become manifest. Even with generous funding for the implementation of national hazard warning and disaster relief schemes, Bob concluded his book with comment that this would cost orders of magnitude less than those associated with the introduction of unnecessary and ineffectual emissions trading schemes.

Pelicans Weyba Creek

Filed Under: Information

May Your Christmas be Replete with Food

December 14, 2015 By jennifer

LAST week I got to fly over the Murray River’s mouth and Coorong with two, hard-working, cross-bench Senators, Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm. That was immediately after the Senate Select Committee hearing in Goolwa*.  You may yawn: issues discussed included the availability and price of water for food production.

From left to right: Max Rheese, Senator David Leyonhjelm, Jennifer Marohasy, Senator Bob Day, the pilot (Chris), and Senator Matt Canavan.
From left to right: Max Rheese, Senator David Leyonhjelm, Jennifer Marohasy, Senator Bob Day, the pilot (Chris), and Senator Matt Canavan.

According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, water, food, shelter and warmth, are right at the bottom; things we can surely take for granted. Indeed, energy and water are commodities that, if the activists in Paris, and Melbourne, respectively, had their way, we would all pay more for.

Back in 2007, when Malcolm Turnbull was Water Minister and tabled the Water Act in the Australian parliament, many at the Australian Conservation Foundation hoped irrigators would soon be priced out of the water market.

Giving evidence in Goolwa last Tuesday*, Mike Young, formerly of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and a self-proclaimed architect of the Basin Plan that followed the Water Act, explained that the best thing to come from the legislation and regulation is a transfer of ownership in water from food producers to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and various state government and private environmental trusts.  Indeed there are now many holding and trading water for the environment, including a subsidiary of the Nature Conservancy, which is a corporation with US$5.8 billion in global assets.

This season many ordinary food producers – irrigators who would normally grow crops like rice and oats – where given only a small percentage of their actual water allocation after the Bureau of Meteorology warned of impending drought. These irrigators then watched the price of temporary water increase.  So, many decided to sell what little water they had been allocated, because this sale was likely to be more profitable than actually planting a food crop.

An objective of the Basin Plan has always been to get more water down to the Murray Mouth, Coorong and Lower Lakes.

There was an abundance of water in this region when I visited last week. So, much environmental water has been sent downstream that this summer began with water levels in Lake Alexandrina almost one meter above sea level. It is possible to hold water above sea level in Lake Alexandria because there are 7.6 kilometers of barrage/sea dyke across the channels that converge on the Murray River’s sea mouth.

The Murray River no longer has an estuary. Ocean tides cannot push in. The estuary was destroyed when the barrages were sealed to inflows of seawater in February 1940.

As I explained to the Senate Select Committee at the hearing in Goolwa last Tuesday*, the Water Act and the Basin Plan, while ostensibly about improving the natural environment of the Murray-Darling, are in reality resulting in the waste of vast quantities of precious freshwater because the environmental flow is being sent to a region with very little natural environment. At least that is my opinion.   For those with holiday homes at the new Hindmarsh Island marina complex, and who like to take their boat out on the lake, having all the freshwater to splash in – is just wonderful.

Indeed, a past Commodore of the Goolwa Sailing Club once explained to me: in South Australia, there is only one place that we can get our freshwater and that’s from upstream.  Rice and oats, they can be imported from overseas.

May your Christmas be replete with food, even if it is from overseas.

————–

* Uncorrected Hansard transcript of the meeting in Goolwa can be downloaded by clicking here.

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Murray River

Bob Carter Warms with Eiffel Tower Descent

November 29, 2015 By jennifer

THE Eiffel Tower was opened in 1889, and with an observation deck at about 300 m above ground level was then the highest human-construction on planet Earth.

Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, now in Paris in advance of the COP-21 global warming talks, recently emailed me after descending the Tower:

“How many of the estimated other 39,999 persons attending the COP-21 talks in Paris will be aware that that when they descend from the Eiffel observation deck to the ground they will experience a warming of about 1.8 degree Celsius?”

“This is about twice the claimed global surface warming since the industrial revolution, based on thermometer measurements, yet very few tourists are observed to be shedding clothing against the increased heat as they dismount the tower at ground level.”

“It is this type of perspective and context that is so missing from the down-the-rabbit-hole nature of the climate political discussions, and related chicanery, that have preceded the COP-21 meeting,” wrote Bob.  EiffelTower2

Bob also sent me the program for the alternative conference in Paris:

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and its partners in the United Kingdom invite reporters, policy makers, and other interested parties to attend the Paris Climate Challenge (PCC) conference. It will be held at Espace La Rochefoucauld conference centre, 11 Rue La Rocheforcauld, Paris, from December 1 – 3, 2015.

The schedule of events may be seen at: http://pcc15.org/about/.

Tom Harris, ICSC executive director said, “In 2009 we presented the Copenhagen Climate Challenge which asked the United Nations to publicly substantiate each of ten fundamental assertions that underlie current climate concerns.”

“Endorsed by 161 science and technology experts well qualified in climate science, the challenge was presented as an open letter submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and reported on by prominent media across the world,” explained Harris.

Most significant among the challenges was for proponents of dangerous anthropogenic climate change theory to substantiate claims that:

1. Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
2. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ are dangerously impacting climate;
3. Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.

Harris reports, “Mr. Ban never responded or even acknowledged the scientists’ open letter.”
PCC lead coordinator, the Reverend Philip Foster said, “We are back this year to ask the same and more questions, and challenge the climate ‘consensus’ in Paris at COP 21 with alternative, more realistic climate hypotheses.”

For further information, contact:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. – thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net
** Phone (North America): 613-728-9200. From Europe: 001-613-728-9200, or from a mobile phone +-1-613-728-9200.

RELATED LINKS
www.climatescienceinternational.org

***
More information on how to calculate temperature gradients in the atmosphere here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Bob Carter, Temperatures

Will the Senate Select Committee Care About the Fish, or the Estuary?

November 18, 2015 By jennifer

I will be in Goolwa, just to the north west of the Murray River’s sea mouth, on Tuesday 8th December to give evidence to the Senate Select Committee on the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

Map-MDB-circleGOOLWA

This committee is chaired by David Leyonhjelm, the libertarian senator from NSW, and has a mandate to report on both the positive and negative aspects of the new Basin Plan by 26th February 2016.

The Basin Plan, a requirement under the Water Act 2007, has resulted in the redistribution of vast quantities of fresh water previously used to grow food upstream in places like the Riverina, ostensibly to the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth.

Much of the campaigning for water reform, led by the Australian Conservation Foundation, has specifically and falsely claimed that this water is needed to flush the Murray’s mouth. Never mind that river flow must first make it across a vast shallow lake and through a series of barrages before it can get to the mouth.

If the barrages were removed, the tides of the Southern Ocean could score the Murray’s sea mouth each autumn at no cost to Australian tax payers.

The barrages are massive sea dykes built in the 1930s to prevent inflows from the South Ocean, and are often closed to ensure the Lower Lakes are kept above sea level. The entire Lower Lakes environment is artificial, something resembling a duck pond the size of Port Phillip Bay, where Adelaide’s elite like to go sailing on the weekend.

We really are a rich nation that we can divert water once used to grow food, to this contrived oasis in the driest state on the driest continent. It is of course a lie that this water is for the environment. It has been taken from agriculture, but it is not sustaining a natural system.

My submission to the Senate Committee includes some discussion of the need to restore the estuary, but it is more generally focused on fish. I explain that despite tens of millions of dollars spent on a native fish strategy, many species show no signs of recovery to preEuropean levels. This is because issues of cold water pollution, predation from introduced salmonids, and also restoration of the estuary, have not been addressed.

This submission, on behalf of The Myth and the Murray Group, can be accessed here:
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JenniferMarohasy-Think-About-The-Fish.pdf

Filed Under: Information, News Tagged With: Murray River

Sceptics and Alarmists, Together, Present to Coalition Environment Committee

October 23, 2015 By jennifer

ON Tuesday there was a Parliamentary Information Session in Canberra sponsored by the Global Change Institute and the University of Queensland at which many government-funded climate scientists told members and senators that the end is nigh. That is unless Australia signs on to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals at the upcoming COP21 in Paris.

The night before the debate, on Monday, three of the alarmists (Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, John Church and Mark Howden), Bob Carter and I were invited to present information to the Coalition Environment Committee, where Craig Kelly MP facilitated some lively discussion.

It is significant that such a meeting was actually held in Parliament House at which both government-funded alarmists and credentialed independent sceptics were present; this is almost a world first and certainly an Australian first.

I emphasized the importance of distinguishing between real historical data as opposed to naively believing output from computer models that homogenize original measurements. I forcefully criticized both Hoegh-Guldberg and Church for not telling the members and senators that they had presented remodeled data, as opposed to actual measurements in their presentations, which preceded mine.

My presentation* focused on surface temperature data from Rutherglen, and how the Bureau of Meteorology has remodeled the observational temperature series, showing sustained cooling over the 20th Century, to show an apparent dramatic warming trend. This is achieved by the Bureau dropping down past temperatures and promulgating this effect backwards. In particular, the Bureau subtracts 0.57°C from all temperature minima recorded before 1974, subtracts 0.63°C from all minima before 1966, and subtracts 0.49°C from all minima before 1928. The net change back to the beginning of the record in 1912 is thus 1.69°C. This is an extraordinarily significant distortion of the record.

At the meeting, I explained how Rutherglen is one of 104 weather stations used to construct the contrived official temperature trend for Australia, and that every single temperature time series was adjusted. In general, like at Rutherglen, the adjustments have the effect of cooling the past and thus making the present appear relatively hotter.

I mentioned that it was a travesty that Minister Greg Hunt had prevented a proper inquiry into the Bureau last year, and suggested that the senators and members in the room needed to ‘wake-up’ and do something. Public policy, I suggested, needed to be based on real data/real evidence, not contrived temperature series.

After my presentation, Professor Howden began with slides indicating that because of climate change there had been a decline in crop yields. He was interrupted by one of the MPs who asked whether the charts on display represented actual real historical data, or output from a computer model. The Professor acknowledged that he was showing computer output.

At that point, I really wanted to applaud when several of the MPs promptly got up and walked out.

After the presentations there was some discussion of the satellite data at the request of the committee chair, Craig Kelly MP. Luckily, I had a supplementary slide showing the last 17 years of data for Australia to September 2015, that I had downloaded the day before from Ken Stewart’s blog, https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/the-pause-september-update/

Latest UAH satellite data for Australia, via Ken Stewart
Latest UAH satellite data for Australia, via Ken Stewart

This data, which measures radiance in the lower troposphere clearly shows that there has been no global warming for 17 years. However, Professor Howden from the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, claimed that if measurements from different altitudes were combined this data showed global warming. Perhaps he meant that that even this data could be remodeled to show global warming.

Of course, it is possible to change the trend in any time series by making specific adjustments to individual values, then combining measurement in particular ways, with arbitrarily assigned weightings. These are indeed the techniques mainstream climate science apply to data, and then justify the same on the basis it is ‘World’s Best Practice’ because it shows global warming, and any data that does not is just wrong.

Ansley Kellow in his book ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ labels this preference for virtual data that tells the “correct” story, over real measurements, as a form of “noble cause corruption”.

At the meeting on Monday night Professor Carter stressed the need to pay attention to the scientific method, and in particular the importance of testing the null hypothesis. Meanwhile Ove Hoegh-Guldberg continually pointed to a thick tome which apparently represented the consensus of all IPCC scientists. Of course, this consensus is all about politics, not evidence or science.

You might consider sending a note of thanks to one or more the following members and senators for attending. Craig Kelly MP, in particular, should be congratulated for organizing the meeting, and facilitating the discussion.

1. Senator Eric Abetz, Liberal, TAS
2. Dr Peter Hendy MP, Liberal, NSW
3. Senator Zed Seselja, Liberal, ACT
4. Craig Kelly MP, Liberal, NSW
5. Warren Entsch, LNP, QLD
6. Dr Denis Jensen MP, Liberal, WA
7. Bert van Manen MP, LNP, QLD
8. Nola Marino MP, Liberal, WA
9. Andrew Broad, National, VIC
10. Tony Pasin, Liberal, SA
11. Brett Whitely, Liberal, SA
12. Rick Wilson, Liberal, WA
13. George Christensen, LNP, QLD
14. Eric Hutchison, Liberal, TAS
15. Sharman Stone, Liberal, VIC
16. Mark Coulton MP, National, NSW

There is more information, and a link to an interview that I did with Alan Jones, 2GB, at Jo Nova’s blog, http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/alan-jones-talks-climate-paris-mainstream-scientists-caught-out-by-marohasy-in-parliament/

Also, Brett Hogan from the Institute of Public Affairs was the sixth speaker. He gave an interesting talk about coal, and how it is helping the poor in places like India and China out of poverty.

———————————-

* My presentation included several charts of data from Rutherglen, and the nearby location of Beechworth, these charts with explanatory notes can be downloaded here: Notes-EnvironCommittee-October2015-V4

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Temperatures

You Don’t Know the Half of It: Temperature Adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

September 28, 2015 By jennifer

For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. This doesn’t mean though, that it’s not true.

Look carefully and you will see Pinocchio.
Look carefully and you will see Pinocchio.

In fact, under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September 2014. The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the Bureau homogenized the temperature data: that it adjusted figures. The same report also concluded that it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend. No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenization, not even for Rutherglen. Rutherglen is of course in north eastern Victoria, an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site-moves, but where the Bureau nevertheless adjusted the temperatures. This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend, into global warming of almost 2 degrees per Century.

According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the Bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in Cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount. That it is important the public have trust in the Bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public know to heed warning of bushfires and cyclones.

This is the type of plea repeatedly made by the Catholic Church hierarchy to prevent the truth about paedophilia, lest the congregation lose faith in the church.

Contrast this approach with that by poet and playwright Henrik Ibsen who went so far as to suggest ‘the minority is always right’ in an attempt to have his audience examine the realities of 18th Century morality. Specifically, Ibsen wanted us to consider that sometimes the individual who stands alone is making a valid point which is difficult to accept because every culture has its received wisdoms: those beliefs that cannot be questioned, until they are proven in time to have been wrong. British biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley was trying to make a similar point when he wrote, “I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything.”

Mr Hunt defends the Bureau because they have a critical role to play in providing the Australian community with reliable weather forecasts. This is indeed one of their core responsibilities. They would, however, be better able to perform this function, if they used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data, and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall [1]. Of concern, there has been no improvement in their seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because they use general circulation models [2]. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any skill, at actually forecasting weather or climate.

Consider for example, the Millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010. Back in 2007, and 2008, David Jones, then and still the Manager of Climate Monitoring and Prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it” [3], and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced [4]. Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains. But the Bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer, because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the Bureau perceived our climate future. So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, a dam originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011. The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognized as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

Indeed despite an increasing investment in super computers, there is ample evidence that ideology is trumping rational decision making at the Bureau on key issues that really matter, like the prediction of drought and flood cycles. Because a majority of journalists and politicians desperately want to believe that the Bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth, and ignore the facts.

News Ltd journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the Bureau’s homogenization of the temperature record [5]. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday, how the Bureau don’t actually do what they say when they homogenize temperature time series for places like Rutherglen. Mr Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of ‘motivations’. He kept asking me why on earth the Bureau would want to mislead the Australian public. I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what David Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion”, and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.

Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenization, and the scientists’ motivations. For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-1944. Specifically Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15 degree Celsius. These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves, and equipment changes.

Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article that: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (i.e. areas away from the urban hear island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.” In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, day time temperatures. Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia, not because of site moves, but because the temperature record at places like Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas like Melbourne, which are clearly affected by the urban heat island [6].

I know this sounds absurd. It is absurd, and it is also true. Indeed, a core problem with the methodology that the Bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166, page 145 [6].

It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the Bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea. Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider that such an important Australian institution could now be ruled by ideology.

This article was first published at On Line Opinion.  A shorter versions was subsequently published at The Australian, with the wonderful cartoon of Greg Hunt by Eric Lobbecke.

References/Links

1. Marohasy, J. 2014. Letter to Simon Birmingham, Re: Corruption of the official temperature record, and increasing unreliability of official seasonal rainfall forecasts.
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Birmingham_2014_08_12.pdf

2. Abbot, J. and Marohasy J. 2014. Input selection and optimisation for monthly rainfall forecasting in Queensland, Australia, using artificial neural networks. Atmospheric Research, 138, 166-178. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809513003141

3. Jones, D. 2007. Email to Phil Jones, Re: African stations used in HadCRU global data set. http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php

4. Jones, D. 2008. Our hot, dry future, The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/our-hot-dry-future-20081005-4udg.html

5. Sharwood, A. 2015. Why are they messing with the data? http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/the-cyclone-tracy-of-ideological-battles-does-the-weather-bureau-tweak-data-or-is-our-government-paranoid/story-fnjwvztl-1227545670243?sv=a58a1574c4a196289acf208f11fc2d2b

6. Marohasy, J. and Abbot, J. 2015. Assessing the quality of eight different maximum temperature time series as inputs when using artificial neural networks to forecast monthly rainfall at Cape Otway, Australia. Atmospheric Research, 166, 141-149. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809515002124

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Temperatures

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital