Manmade Computer Climate Models That Spell Doom and Gloom a Century From Now

[Dan Stubbs]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

I guess that explains that Al Gore started a Business in Chicago that was suppose to act like a stock market that would allow companies to trade and sell carbon credits. These Carbon Credits would be issued by the Government that indicated the amount of Carbon the business was allowed to emit, if the company had any Credits left over they could sell them to another Company who ran short. Naturally the price would be controlled by availability and demand. Natually Al get a cut for the deal and get big bucks. The company folded up when Congress did not pass the law needed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Hey s0n.... still waiting on those links showing us where the consensus science is mattering in the real world. C'mon now.... all we ask for is a single link.

Walter Mitty, PhD

Scientists are childish escapist nerds who want to make up for their lack of manhood by posing as comic-book superheroes saving the world.

Back to the Crumbling Castles of Europe Where They Belong

Al Gore went to prep school with the Bushbro Neil. Anyone who chooses between richkids is a traitor. Without Daddy's Money, both would have been nobodies. So real Americans must make sure that's the way HeirHeads wind up.

 

[EGR one]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Feel free to explain to the class how you can write a computer model predicting the future when you only know 1% of the variables involved.

You can write a computer model predicting future events by testing the program against the past. If the model can accurately predict past events, then it can be relied on to predict future events. If one has to alter known past events to make the model work, then it is useless in predicting future events. It is unlikely that we will see a reasonably accurate model until much more is known about climate variability.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Talk about someone posting crap for years... jesus, dude, get a fucking life.

Gee, you post an UNSOURCED chart, then gets asked for the link you ignore it.

What does that say about you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Feel free to explain to the class how you can write a computer model predicting the future when you only know 1% of the variables involved.

You can write a computer model predicting future events by testing the program against the past. If the model can accurately predict past events, then it can be relied on to predict future events. If one has to alter known past events to make the model work, then it is useless in predicting future events. It is unlikely that we will see a reasonably accurate model until much more is known about climate variability.

And what past do you have when you have no data from the past?

Almost everything we know about climate is from the past 30 years.

 

[Dekster]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Then stop making up data and using flawed models to guess at what the data is, and actually collect real data is and start using only real data to design the models.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Then stop making up data and using flawed models to guess at what the data is, and actually collect real data is and start using only real data to design the models.

You really don't get it, do you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Then stop making up data and using flawed models to guess at what the data is, and actually collect real data is and start using only real data to design the models.

What they did was start at the results they wanted, then fabricated the data and models to support it.

 

[Crick]

Untrue. Adjustments made to historical data have all been justified and the results have ranged between neutral and a lessening of the warming affect. The presentations of your 'intellectual' leaders have been deceptive.

If you choose to believe that the data have been falsified, you have your work cut out for you - but nothing like the work that must have been accomplished by the thousands of climate scientists around the world who've not only been collecting temperature data, but sea level, ice coverage and thickness, occurrence of extremes, changes in plant growth patterns, migration changes, predator-prey relationships, changes in spectral characteristics of infalling and outgoing LW and so forth and so on.

Do you believe all that data, collected by thousands of different people from every nation on the globe, have all been falsified? Because it all says the same thing: we're getting warmer at a rate not seen in over a million years.

 

[Dekster]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Then stop making up data and using flawed models to guess at what the data is, and actually collect real data is and start using only real data to design the models.

What they did was start at the results they wanted, then fabricated the data and models to support it.

Sometimes selecting outlying single data points and throwing away all the rest as with the "rising sea level" hoopla. I chased one of the rising ocean temperature stories around on a hunch from the news report back through several sites, found the original study, and then sought out interviews with the people involved in the original study. It was interesting to see how the study morphed from the researchers to the final WE ARE DOOMED!!!! reporting. One of the researchers acknowledged that they had very little actual data collected in the field, most of it was for sporadic areas, and only recently collected. They reached no climate conclusions other than a lot more research needed to be done because what they had found as far as temperatures could have other explanations, but in the hands of the cult, this was Smoking Gun #265 that the end of the world was nigh.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Untrue. Adjustments made to historical data have all been justified and the results have ranged between neutral and a lessening of the warming affect. The presentations of your 'intellectual' leaders have been deceptive.

If you choose to believe that the data have been falsified, you have your work cut out for you - but nothing like the work that must have been accomplished by the thousands of climate scientists around the world who've not only been collecting temperature data, but sea level, ice coverage and thickness, occurrence of extremes, changes in plant growth patterns, migration changes, predator-prey relationships, changes in spectral characteristics of infalling and outgoing LW and so forth and so on.

Do you believe all that data, collected by thousands of different people from every nation on the globe, have all been falsified? Because it all says the same thing: we're getting warmer at a rate not seen in over a million years.

Provide me the Arctic sea ice thickness from 1945.

Checkmate.

 

[Crick]

What is your point? That such data are sparse prior to satellite coverage? How does that support your charge?

 

[Desperado]

they cannot get the three day forecast correct and you want us to believe they can predict the weather 5, 10 or 100 years from now.... You would have better luck calling Miss Cleo

 

[Weatherman2020]

What is your point? That such data are sparse prior to satellite coverage? How does that support your charge?

Dufus thinks a few data points can be used to extrapolate thousands of years of data well enough to disembowl the world economy only because his puppet masters told him so.

 

[Weatherman2020]

they cannot get the three day forecast correct and you want us to believe they can predict the weather 5, 10 or 100 years from now.... You would have better luck calling Miss Cleo

It's what happens when you only understand 1% of the earths climate engines.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Then stop making up data and using flawed models to guess at what the data are, and actually collect real data and start using only real data to design the models.

What they did was start at the results they wanted, then fabricated the data and models to support them.

Climatologists Are Nerds Who Are Not Smart Enough to Succeed in Hard Science

There are ways to manipulate real data. The data the Warmalarmies used are selected for effect. Because their cult lives in a closed bubble, they never hear objections, except the ones from outside, in the real world, which they immediately dismiss as "denial." For example, the data on many old thermometers have shown higher temperatures simply because the areas they were in became more densely populated

 

[Crick]

What is your point? That such data are sparse prior to satellite coverage? How does that support your charge?

Dufus thinks a few data points can be used to extrapolate thousands of years of data well enough to disembowl the world economy only because his puppet masters told him so.

I don't think the conclusions of the IPCC are based on the ice thickness of 1945. Neither do I think that taking the measures needed to save us from the shit storm about which Donald Trump has chosen to stick his asshole head in the sand, will "disembowl the world economy".

 

[Crick]

they cannot get the three day forecast correct and you want us to believe they can predict the weather 5, 10 or 100 years from now.... You would have better luck calling Miss Cleo

It's what happens when you only understand 1% of the earths climate engines.

Whereas you understand it all. And what would be your qualifications in that regard?

 

[westwall]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Feel free to explain to the class how you can write a computer model predicting the future when you only know 1% of the variables involved.

You can write a computer model predicting future events by testing the program against the past. If the model can accurately predict past events, then it can be relied on to predict future events. If one has to alter known past events to make the model work, then it is useless in predicting future events. It is unlikely that we will see a reasonably accurate model until much more is known about climate variability.

Very true. The current crop of climate models are incapable of doing a ONE DAY hindcast. For those of you who are scientifically challenged, like crick, frigid, and olfraud, that means you could plug in every variable from the last day and the computer models can't recreate what happened, one day ago with as perfect a set of variables as we can provide.

That means the models are crap.

 

[westwall]

Untrue. Adjustments made to historical data have all been justified and the results have ranged between neutral and a lessening of the warming affect. The presentations of your 'intellectual' leaders have been deceptive.

If you choose to believe that the data have been falsified, you have your work cut out for you - but nothing like the work that must have been accomplished by the thousands of climate scientists around the world who've not only been collecting temperature data, but sea level, ice coverage and thickness, occurrence of extremes, changes in plant growth patterns, migration changes, predator-prey relationships, changes in spectral characteristics of infalling and outgoing LW and so forth and so on.

Do you believe all that data, collected by thousands of different people from every nation on the globe, have all been falsified? Because it all says the same thing: we're getting warmer at a rate not seen in over a million years.

No, they have not been justified. They have given reasons, but the reasons are laughable. At least in Australia the fraudsters are being dealt with. So tell me crick old boy, what possible reason could there be to tamper with data? Hmmm?

"The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.

The bureau has admitted that a problem with recording very low temperatures is more widespread than Goulburn and the Snowy Mountains but rejected it has attempted to manipulate temperature records.

The bureau’s chief executive, Andrew Johnson, has called for an urgent review and the immediate replacement of recording equipment at a number of undisclosed sites. The action was outlined in a letter to federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and follows weeks of turmoil over why data showing minus 10.4C readings at Goulburn and Thredbo went missing."

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data