Was January 3rd 1909 in Bourke one of Australia’s hottest days ever?
The historic records say “125F” — or 51.7C.
The BOM say it was an observer error.
Bourke and neighboring stations in NSW and QLD Australia
Blair Trewin wrote a paper looking at the extreme highs in 1997. The Bourke record was made on a Sunday and in that particular year there are no records on other Sundays. On the other hand, I wonder what station observer would not notice a day that was 125F and head in to work to see exactly how high it was. The number 125F was handwritten in and underlined. You’d think observers would know it was a special figure, and pay attention.
The town of Bourke got a Stephenson Screen only a few months beforehand in August 1908, so it had good modern equipment. But Trewin thinks the record is an observer error, and points out that it was a lot warmer in Bourke than in other surrounding towns like Thargomindah, Walgett, and Coonable, and by about 6.9C degrees, which is an unusual gap. During the rest of the month Bourke was “not exceptionally hot compared to other stations”. Fair point. But Jen Marohasy responds that “newspaper reports show the nearest station, Brewarrina, had recorded 123F (50.6C) on the same day (January 3, 1909).” Official Brewarrina records don’t start until 1911.
For scale. Bourke and neighbors.
I can understand why there is some debate about this record, but I don’t understand how it’s scientifically accurate to issue press releases declaring that we know Australian temperature trends, or understand how our extremes have changed. The statement “hotter than any time since 1910” might be technically accurate in a way, but is very misleading when it relies on guesses about which high numbers were accidents, and avoids any mention at all of the hot weather before 1910.
It is great to see Graham Lloyd is fearless in following the data and arguments.
The Australian “Heat off Bourke after Bureau of Meteorology revision”
THE removal of a longstanding temperature record at Bourke of 125 degrees Fahrenheit (51.7C) set in 1909 was the result of a critical 1997 paper that revised a string of records and brought Australia’s hottest recorded temperature into the second half of the 20th century.
Until the paper by Blair Trewin, who is now a leading climate scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia’s hottest recorded temperature was 53.1C at Cloncurry on January 16, 1889.
But after revision, the record has been accepted as the 50.7C recorded at Oodnadatta, South Australia, on January 2, 1960.
However, Jennifer Marohasy, who has questioned the bureau about changes to the historic temperature record, said the nearest station, Brewarrina, had recorded 123F (50.6C) on the same day (January 3, 1909).
The Brewarrina temperature record is widely reported in historic newspaper articles but the bureau’s online temperature record for Brewarrina does not start until January 1, 1911.
“In fact 125 is clearly written into the Bourke ledger for Sunday 3rd January in the pen that was being used at that time,’’ she said. “The entry is also underlined.”
“At the time all records were audited and a summary written at the end of the month.
“This summary clearly states that the maximum temperature on 3 January 1909 was 125F.”
The gap between Bourke and other towns (excluding Brewarrina) was larger than usual on the record day.
From the Trewin paper. There were originally two recordings of 125F two days in a row:
“The original manuscript for Bourke shows temperatures of 125F (44.4C) on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been correct on the manuscript to 112F (44.4C) which is consistent with the temperatures over the region, and with the 1500 LST temperature of 110F (43.3C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the maximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was corrected in the case of the 2 January observation.
Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both days suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January.”
Given that Brewarrina unofficial records show 123F, this explanation above doesn’t seem very convincing.
From the national newspaper archives: “Great Heat Wave” Jan 5th, 1909 h/t to Chris Gillham.
Bourke. – The heat on Sunday was terrific. The thermometer registered 125 degrees; . At 9 o’clock p.m. it-was still over a hundred. It was hotter than any day during the heat-wave 12 years ago. The lowest shade heat for the past five days was 114 degrees.
“Brewarrina. – On Sunday the thermometer at the post office registered 123 degrees in the shade.“.
In Cobar the temperature was 117F. h/t to Siliggy.
“123 in the shade at Goodooga, 124 at Brewarriner, and 117 at Riverstone on Sunday.” Cobargo Chronical 8th Jan 1909
It seems more likely the operator wrote the Sunday reading in for Saturday accidentally, then it was corrected and moved to Sunday.
REFERENCE
Trewin, Blair (1997) Another look at Australia’s record high temperature, Aust. Met. Mag. 46 (1997) 251-256
A diligent employee who was responsible for recording temperatures many times a day, every day except Sunday would go to work on that day, no matter what the personal cost. Who could record boring, boring temperatures day after day and then deliberately miss the hottest day of the century?
You have to be kidding to think that this was anything but a monumental effort by the record keeper and thrown in the bin by latter day public servants who do not think anyone would be so dedicated. It is an insult to every diligent person who sees it as their job to keep accurate and complete records, that they would not go above and beyond the call of duty. Even more, how would they live with themselves if they missed recording the hottest day of their lives, because they could? In a country town in the middle of nowhere, how would they even explain that to their friends and family and co workers and their boss? I cannot imagine someone not going to work to record this temperature. They would have a thermometer at home but it is not the same thing. No, this recording must stand. The fact that it is an exceptionally hot day is precisely why it should stand. It is almost self evident confirmation.
Or you would have to subscribe to the notion that the hottest day in a hundred years could not possibly happen on a Sunday. I would have thought the chance of it happening was precisely 14.2857142857142857%. Even the BOM could work that out.
661
Incredulous though you are, is there evidence that a record existed?
251
I visited the national archive in Chester Hill that keeps the Bourke archive and I have photographed the record in the ledger and also the audit summary at the end of the month. When I get to it, I will post both at my blog. Once you’ve seen the ledger and summary I doubt that you will doubt any more. cheers,
962
It is actually a fair enough question by Gee Aye, even though it is expressed in a rather offensive tone, as is his wont.
But brilliant reply by Jennifer! I will be checking her blog.
210
Thanks Peter. As a sceptic it is the question to ask and I am pleased that I asked it so early before too many rubbish posts like that of TdeF appeared. Intriguing that the negative responses given to me are doubled by the positive ones given to the answer. An answer I prompted.
Thanks Jennnifer for providing this datum/evidence as without it this whole discussion would be a nonsense.
Agreed GeeAye. Useful Question. Thumbs up from me. Jo
93
[SNIP -fixed]
[Snipped next 6. OK but irrelevant – OT for the top of a thread. – Jo]
13
Dear snipper – fair enough!
00
I think it was the first phrase in your question that put people off, not the question as such.
10
I don’t think TdeF’s post was rubbish; I thought it good.
51
I’m not so sure this is a good question since the article clearly states:
21
Jen, you’ll be relieved to know that Bourke’s other January record – that very chilly 17.8 max on the 16th of January 1891 – has not disappeared from the record. Oh no. It’s in cement.
Bourke’s coolest January was achieved in 1941, in the middle of the double-whopper El Nino. For some reason it rained and stayed overcast. Seems the climate is a bit of a skep, or just refuses to read the literature.
51
Is there any evidence that actually supports the changes to the record?
00
Interesting that the employee would record the temperature “unofficially” on this one Sunday while all other Sundays have missing data. The hottest recorded temperatures from Bourke and nearby long term sites (Walgett and Cobar) indicate record maximum temps for all three sites occurred between Jan 3 and 4 1903. The highest being 49.7 at Bourke. But we’ll take the anecdotes as facts and ignore the rest of the data? The highest temp recorded at the sites on Jan 3 1909 was 42.2. So we await Jennifer’s post with interest.
05
If you don’t trust a temperature reading with that provenance, then you simply cannot trust any of the readings from that station from that era. End of story.
Either believe them all or not at all.
This just amounts to cherry picking (or possibly anti-cherry picking to remove the records you don’t want.)
602
Well heres the thing – my father keeps rainfall and temp records at home. No fancy stevenson screen etc, however the records he keeps are pretty close to the offical ones.
It doesnt require a PhD in climate science to be able to read a themometer.
Ergo, assuming the themomenter wasnt out in the sun itself or next to a hot wall, it may be possible reconstruct records as required from amateur information. Reading a themometer isnt hard.
360
I agree Original Steve.
I keep a thermometer on a tree outside. It is a very cheap alcohol thermometer. But it is shaded. The temperature I get are within 1C of the nearest BOM station, which is about the accuracy I expect from this thermometer.
121
I get the uncomfortable feeling at times that temp data is getting the Borg treatment…resistance is futile, you will be assimilated…..
200
My thoughts exactly, sl149q.
It just isn’t credible to discard this because it is inconvenient.
One has to assume that the reader of the thermometer would have been well aware that the temperature was extraordinarily hot and would have been more than interested to see just what the thermometer was reading. The idea that he or she would make a mistake is not credible, he or she would have looked at the thermometer over and over and marveled at it.
I said it on the previous posting – If these guys were into child care the Bureau would be another Rotherham. Its the same mindset – everyone just rolling over for the paradigm
370
Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like an idealogue suffused with petulance and hatred for those who laugh at the global warming mythology. It is only when you walk a mile in the shoes of someone who has totally discarded every shred of objectivity that you can understand the lopsided unreality inhabited by the alarmists.
230
How so very convenient to find an “explanation” to delete this very inconvenient “mistake”.
470
My grandfather was a forest researcher and he methodically kept records of temperature and rainfall each day at the nursery. On a day that was clearly much hotter than normal, he would have gone in to work just to see how hot it was. He would have underlined the record for sure.
560
Precisely what I thoght too – your body knows when its seriouslys tinking hot, and the fact they went in on a sunday ( back then usually observed as a day of rest ) speaks volumes and marks it as worthy of the effort to record it.
I smell a rat.
460
Recording temperatures every day cannot have been the most exciting of tasks. Getting a record reading of 125F is one you’d be sure to get right, hence the underlining.
The BOM story of data manipulation is unravelling.
Pointman
541
And now the pressure on BOM moves back to Rutherglen
The case against BOM for data manipulation is about as close to cut and dried as it could get. Certainly as close as 97% settled science!
230
Charleville three days that week over 114 F, and Cunamulla 113.
“SYDNEY, January 4.
The severity of the heat wave is shown by the official returns of the temperatures for the 48 hours ended at 9 a.m. this morning. In some instances the records are the highest for thirty years. They Included Bourke 125 degrees In the shade, Brewarina 123, Pilliga 123, Jerry’s Plains, Ordina, and Mogill 117, Maitland, Parramatta, Picton, Quamboue, Cudgelllico, Will cannla 114, Mount Hope, Marsden, Bar medam, Cowra, Scone 113, Walgett 112, Menindi, Forbes. Morancarell, Mungindi, Moree, and Gunnedah 111.
Cyclonic storms In the Crookwell and Blayney district did considerable havoc to properly.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/80316601?zoomLevel=6
Siliggy = Lance Pidgeon
200
That may be a poor copy of this. Looks like Pilliga did not score 123.
“
Bold Mine
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50349713?zoomLevel=5
160
BOM have been “cooling the past” so as to make it look like Oz is heading towards an “apocalyptic wasteland” in the future because of CAGW. This is like a scene from that cult late 1970’s movie “Mad Max”. In the real world there is no “Mad Max Rockatansky” but there is “Mad Max BOM” who are endeavouring to create in the minds of the Aussie populace – “Oz is heading towards an apocalyptic wasteland naturally courtesy of CAGW or MAD MAXimum TEMPERATURES” – and this can only be achieved by tampering with the Aussie Temperature Record, e.g. in places like Bourke, which ironically could be envisaged as an ideal location to have filmed that 1979 cult movie.
50
The Trewin Paper.
Where is it?
Where’s the citation?
Was it published?
Where was it published?
When was it published?
Was it peer reviewed?
Who peer reviewed it?
Or was it just an “in house” paper produced to provide a fig-leaf if ever the question of the missing temperatures was raised by somebody in the bureaucracy – like an auditor?
250
OK Got it.
International Journal of Climatology (Volume 33, Pages 1510-1529)
140
A daily homogenized temperature data set for Australia
Blair Trewin*
Article first published online: 13 JUN 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3530/abstract
2012?
But what’s the 1997 paper? And who wrote it?
Sorry all, I’m thinking out loud here. This temperature stealing makes me so angry.
261
In 1998 he said this:
“Traditionally, methods used in the creation of composite temperature records have depended, implicitly or explicitly, on the assumption that the difference in temperature between two nearby sites will be a constant for any day in a given month of the year. It is demonstrated that this assumption is not necessarily valid, particularly where the sites used in the creation of a composite record differ in local topography. Two techniques are proposed to relate daily maximum and minimum temperatures at two sites during a period of overlapping records to overcome this difficulty. It is demonstrated using data from Inverell, Australia, where the difference in daily minimum temperature between two sites is significantly dependent on the temperature at one of the sites, that these techniques substantially improve the accuracy of the simulation of daily minima at one site using records from the other. The best choice of technique depends on whether the highest priority is to simulate the overall temperature record or the frequency and nature of extreme events.”
B. C. TREWIN† and A. C. F. TREVITT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSITE TEMPERATURE RECORDS. International Journal of Climatology. Article first published online: 4 DEC 1998
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199611)16:11%3C1227::AID-JOC82%3E3.0.CO;2-P/abstract
He got the first two sentences right; it’s all downhill from there.
110
Sam,
Published this a while ago on another thread here in response to RC regarding the Conversation and Pitman et al, and then realised that nobody was listening 🙁
Thanks Richard. I have been initially interested in the provenance of claims of “peer review” which are paraded with such unction in the Pitman article on the Conversation. The CAWC Technical Report #049 (2012) is clearly not peer reviewed in the sense recognised by any academic or researcher – independent and anonymous reviewers giving advice to an Editor of a publication outlet as to whether a submission is worthy of publication to the science community. To put it more bluntly, it would not count in the HERDCE process.
M&W09 is a peer reviewed publication, which, as you point out suggests a method for detecting anomalies (not for ‘correcting’ them). PM95 is not a citation of a research publication. It identifies an algorithm. The provenance of this algorithm appears to lie in two publications: a Symposium paper by Blair Trewin in 2001 (status of actual peer review unknown) and a paper in Journal of Climate by Della-Marta and Wanner in 2006. The TR says that Trewin has developed an algorithm “similar conceptually” to those reported in these two publications. (I can think of “similar conceptions” to the idea of a God, but whatever..)
So, the “peer reviewed” application of previous techniques to the homogenisation of Australian temperature datasets is a non peer reviewed Technical Report.
But tracks have been covered by a publication of Trewin (as a sole author, very unusual nowadays in research publication) in the International Journal of Climatology, May 2013. This appears to be a submission of his TR to a journal – I have no criticism of this, happens all the time – which has submitted the descriptions of the algorithms to peer review.
What needs to be understood though is that publication peer review is not a validation process. It simply guides an Editor to make decisions over publication. The criteria involved include originality of the research (not plagiarised), novelty (not boring), rigour (not an idiot), and of interest to the community (not yet another..). I am sure Trewin passed this test in his submission to ICJ.
But now obvious anomalies are being uncovered that cast doubt on the algorithms that Trewin has devised. In any other academic/research community these issues would be teased out through robust discussions at workshops and/or the discussion pages of journals, and improvements would evolve. But for the green/left mafia it is about circling the wagons and demanding “peer review”. Why don’t these people grow up and think about the quest for understanding rather than an agenda..?
Lazlo
90
A little wind ruins that assumption around here very quickly and I could prove it easily. In nature there are only the constant’s of physics like C and g and those of math such as pi and e. Everything else is up for grabs.
If engineering was done on the basis of assumptions the way climate science is done…well… we would have pi traditionally as 3 as Pointman cleverly suggested in a prior thread. It would really be easier than remembering 3.1415926535897932384626433832795…ad infinitum. And we would still be living in caves.
110
I don’t know what is standard practice for scientists, but;
Is it normal to prove and assumption before using it?
Or do you simply make a statement that it is an assumption, and run with it to the end of the paper.
Because believing the results have any meaning at all is asking for trouble in my opinion.
Could you imagine the road chaos and traffic jams if we designed road networks based on assumptions. Indeed, it might still look like that from a road user’s point of view.
Water usage and distribution network, based on assumptions. Pilot navigation of waterways, based on assumptions.
We want an inquiry, and some heads on a pike.
70
Good point Greg. At least they could derive linear regression relationships between each pair of stations and see if they made sense on daily, monthly, and annual bases.
I recall many years ago doing this on a watershed of ~ 150 square km basin with max elevation difference of > 500 m or so and finding some nice correlations on mean annual values out to over 20 km. The distance of significant correlation between stations fell off for monthly means and daily means. I wound up not using the daily and monthly means but found a significant correlations and a significant regression equations between station elevation and mean annual temperature and precipitation.
10
pi=22 over 7 easy to remember
Alfred
20
Thanks Jo:
Trewin, Blair (1997) Another look at Australia’s record high temperature, Aust. Met. Mag. 46 (1997) 251-256
Anybody got a link to this paper?
00
The BOM has admitted to adjusting the bulk of the Australian Temperature Data record via their ACORN project. Statistical analysis of all the adjustments would show whether they are biased. To hide their bias, their raw and adjusted data will not be available. However, we can see what they have done by comparing the GISS mean temperature record for Harare and Bulawayo (ZIM) with Perth – same latitude.
Harare and Bulawayo show no trend over 100 yrs, whilst Perth (BOM sourced) shows a definite trend. Thus the BOM CAGW theory is falsified. If UHI is the cause, then adjustments must be UP for past temps, not down.
ACORN may have started out as an honest scientific project, but there is no doubt it has been politicised by the Greens and the Left for the purpose of implementing the carbon tax, green energy subsidies, etc. BOM needs a clean out of all bureaucrats appointed by the Labour/Green coalition.
Without the adjustments – the scare would never have been accepted by the public.
Its easy to find the charts on:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
210
A little clarification: the latitude of Bulawayo is 20°S while Harare is 18°S. Perth on the other hand is 32°S.
10
OK the latitudes are a bit out. But the general point is that temperatures cannot go up just in one place. Heat spreads around. Temperatures have to go up in all the sites at similar latitudes before we can accept any warming.
It is the same with sea levels. Water finds its own level. It is just not possible to accept the sea level rise can be faster in one location than in another.
21
Wind, or lack of will make the difference.
I’ve been in a position where two fronts coming from two directions collide and cause a stalemate in the middle. The heat was crazy, but very localised.
Assumptions are used to modify what was physically recorded, but you need more than assumptions to change a recorded data point. You’re changing a physical fact into what you “think” it should have been. You can’t do that….
70
Isn’t that what the alarmists have been doing all along?
120
Sea level rise in an absolute sense or relative to the land? Relative to the land level, sea level rise can be different in different locations due to land movements.
10
This recent study of South East Australian temp and rainfall history from 1860 suggests that everything is consistent with variations in ENSO and IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole), no mention of the dreaded CO2.
What a shame that some climate scientists look no further than the currently fashionable theory of the CO2 thermostat.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3812/abstract (Southeastern Australian climate variability 1860–2009: a multivariate analysis, Linden Ashcroft*, David John Karoly and Joëlle Gergis)
Abstract
Historical datasets of instrumental temperature, rainfall and atmospheric pressure observations have recently been developed for southeastern Australia (SEA), extending the regional climate record back to 1860. In this study we use the newly extended datasets to conduct the first multivariate examination of SEA climatic changes from 1860 to 2009.
The climate in SEA is highly variable in response to fluctuations in large-scale circulation features including El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). To examine how teleconnection patterns in the SEA region have changed over time, we then applied a path analysis over the 1871–2009 period to isolate the independent relationships between SEA climate variables, ENSO and the IOD. The extended data revealed several relatively unknown periods of 19th century SEA climate variations. Cool and wet conditions were identified in the early parts of the 1860s, 1870s and 1890s, while dry conditions were found in the late 1870s, 1880–1885, and during the well-known Federation Drought (1895–1902).
Path analysis identified a decrease in the influence of ENSO on SEA rainfall during 1920–1959, particularly in the austral winter. Increasing correlations between the IOD and annual SEA rainfall and pressure were found in the recent 1970–2009 period, but appear to be within the range of natural variability in the context of the last 140 years. Despite large changes in the correlations between SEA rainfall, ENSO and the IOD, correlations between SEA rainfall and temperature remained stable over 1871–2009. Similar results were obtained using 20th Century Reanalysis data for 1871–2009, supporting the quality of the extended historical datasets and providing verification for the reanalysis data in SEA from the late 19th century.
70
Related material from linden Ashcroft:
http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C23/C23_Ashcroft_T180A.pdf
A poster presentation, including an annotated example of temp homogenisation.
See also the poster pdf available here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258771102_Southeastern_Australia_climate_variations_1860-2009_using_historical_data_to_test_teleconnection_stability
50
More related info from Linden (I’m not her agent, honest), an earlier paper in full, available here (click “View”):
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236886588_Temperature_variations_of_southeastern_Australia_18602011
10
It all sounds so nice. And maybe it is. On the other hand it depends on a whole lot of analysis that I doubt can be validated reasonably. One wrong or omitted assumption sinks the whole thing.
I’m glad for some good news. But I keep my skeptic’s hat on, even about good news.
And I don’t believe my eyes. It’s reported by Mikky. I gave you the red thumb Mikky.
10
GREEN, NOT RED.
It is definitely too early in the morning.
10
PS Congratulations to Jo Nova and Jenn Marohasy for cracking the charade.
For the BOM to regain its reputation, they should put all raw climate data on a server, especially since we tax payers paid for it. They should also stop with the histrionics.
“A land of drought and flooding rains” !!?? Its been that way for centuries.
260
I wonder how much better off we would all be if the effort to predict the future climate was all redirected solely at understanding it instead.
90
If we understood it we wouldn’t have to try and predict it.
00
The BOM haven’t adjusted Broome Airport yet, but it looks like they have adjusted Marble Bar.
Due to it being famous for the record heatwave, perhaps? All GISS data (which has been sourced from the ACORN adjusted BOM data) is tainted. Bring back the raw data fellas.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501942030000&dt=1&ds=14
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501943150000&dt=1&ds=14
140
The very FEW people in charge of BOM have to step aside or be retired BTW it looks like NH ice melt may be OVER!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
If so it means that the early rebound is likely to bring the mean above the anomaly for the rest of the year or years. Basically AGW=DEAD . Its gonna be a total nightmare year for the warmists
200
September 3rd, 2114:
Goldman Sachs has published a peer-reviewed paper that calls into question early stockmarket data used in modelling.
October 19, 1987 had an underlying reading showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 22.61%. This figure (considered the record 1 day fall) appears improbable. While reported in contemporary newspaper reports, and underlined in broker reports, researchers have found a number of problems with the data.
Crucially, the two markets immediately to the west (New Zealand and ASX) did not show any significant movement on October 19, 1987. And since markets have a typical movement less than 1%, the reported 25-sigma event is statistically impossible.
Researchers have produced a corrected (homogenised) DJIA series in line with best practice using complex statistical techniques. Data from Australia and New Zealand were used to correct the erroneous reading for that day, and other days surrounding it.
Goldman Sachs researchers have concluded that stocks are considerably safer and higher returning assets than the previous incorrect data series had indicated.
160
Wow! That’s good news. It translates directly into a little more money in my portfolio.
How nice. Thank you Goldman Sachs! 🙂
10
On the other hand, it’s still too early in the morning for that to be true. Time for another trip to the coffee pot. 😉
10
Keep that up Andrew and you’ll be living next door to Ponzi before you know it.
00
JM should not be throwing pearls to the pigs. She/the people could be using this in any future court case/legal proceedings.
Gee Aye
September 3, 2014 at 4:44 pm · Reply
Incredulous though you are, is there evidence that a record existed?
Report this
011
#1.1.1
Jennifer Marohasy
September 3, 2014 at 5:04 pm · Reply
I visited the national archive in Chester Hill that keeps the Bourke archive and I have photographed the record in the ledger and also the audit summary at the end of the month. When I get to it, I will post both at my blog. Once you’ve seen the ledger and summary I doubt that you will doubt any more. cheers,
Eliza – can you write more carefully with the blockquote function? It’s hard to know what are your words. -Jo
10
Hot off the press….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/australia-afternoons-used-to-be-much-hotter/
30
Tom Elliott on 3AW Drive interviewed an academic from UNSW (I think) on Tuesday. He was offering a response to Jennifer Marohasy’s recent interview with Tom. He stated that the raw data has not been deleted and that it is freely available to anyone who wants it. Is this really the case??? He went on with the usual drivel that everything is OK and that it is world’s best practice to homogenise data and that it is probably because the measuring station moved, etc, etc.
I encourage everyone to call Tom Elliott to follow up on the Rutherglen, Amberley and Bourke data manipulation. Tom is on from 3.00 – 6.00pm EST. The number is 96 900 693 and outside Melbourne, 13 13 32. Tom seems at least willing to hear both sides.
70
Steve Goddard at #16 (thanks el Gordo) above seems to have analysed all the Australian GHCN stations since 1870 so maybe they are still all available.
20
Sorry Peter. I meant to ask if the raw data is still available to download from BOM. I was under the impression that only the homogenised data is available for download.
20
abt
The raw data is here at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
When you find the site you want, untick the box re ‘only show open stations’.
Another site which has records is at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/
Click on the state you want to find your station.
This gives a 14 month data record for the stations you want. If you go to Climate Statistics, and click on the station you want, you’ll find all the long-term means for that site.
Click on ‘All available’ and you will get the daily record temp for each month.
Hope this is what you’re after.
Unfortunately, not all stations have daily records going back to the start data of the site.
30
Dare I suggest a crowd-powered data analysis for those of us with the ability to do so?
Sort of like a “climate Seti” project
I don’t have the stats ability , but would be happy to crunch volumes of data if the right TSQL code was supplied ( databases are my thing…)
10
On 7th Jan 1906, Mildura recorded 50.7C. You will not see this recorded as such these days as it was downgraded to a probable 48.3C.
However it is noted on the BoM’s ‘Climate statistics for Australian locations’.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_076077_All.shtml
An explanation as to why it was adjusted is located at:
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/383
but the picture tells us that they thought it was very hot.
30
At the risk of being a victim myself of confirmation bias, the second link (the “explanation” for the adjustment) looks like a classic case of it. They wanted to get rid of this historic heatwave and achieved it by “correlation and statistical analysis” with data from hundreds of km away (Deniliquin). This one may be another smoking gun.
I wonder if the historical minima in temperatures have ever had such diligent scrutiny and adjustment.
10
By definition, if you start with a location with the highest recorded temperature in a region, then look at neighboring locations, you will always find lower temperatures. Adjustment of extremes will always suffer from selection bias.
10
A temperature record at Melbourne in 1851 was adjusted down by several degrees, here is how they did it:
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/382
I only found this by trial and error, wonder how many others there are with documentation.
00
Good find, Mikky.
‘Assuming that the temperature data reported by the New South Wales Government Gazette at 8.30am, at 2.30pm, at sunset, and at 9pm are valid, it seems unlikely that Melbourne’s temperature reached 47.2°C (117°F) on 6th February 1851 and that a better estimate of the day’s maximum temperature is 43.9°C.’
‘Assuming…..’ So the whole adjustment is based on an assumption that the Gazette was correct and the Argus was wrong. Wow.
My theory (for what it’s worth).
The temp that day in 1851 would have been affected by the warmer air caused by the fire driven by N or NW winds across Melbourne.
Melbourne’s highest temp of 46.4C on Feb 7th, 2009 was also a result of the 2009 bush fires heating the strong NW winds. Maybe it should be adjusted down based on neighbouring stations not affected by the fire-warmed winds.
10
Some info on the 1896 Australian heat wave. Bourke is mentioned, but it needs someone with more patience than me to read it.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/64889112
10
The whole thing reads –
70
Thanks for that, tomomasson. The Trove site might yield up more historic weather info for the serious researcher.
20
When Sydney had its record max on January 18 2013, finally beating the 1939 record, the nearby Wedding Cake West, which is understandably a few degrees cooler being right out on the harbour, was not just the usual few degrees cooler. It was eleven and a half degrees cooler. That’s right, a mere 34.3 degrees, while the Observatory not far away was recording 45.8. (The temperature up here on the midcoast only reached 33.5 on Jan 18 last year.)
2013 is not that significant, since the heat of 1939 was much more widespread and persistent, and no Sydney heatwave has yet matched the severity of 1960. But the thermometer reached 45.8 last year at Observatory Hill, and other Sydney sites measured similar scorching max temps. I think it’s important to know about it. But will a future homogeniser with a different agenda feel free to alter that knowledge because of the Wedding Cake reading?
I think that 11.5 degrees qualifies as one of those “unusual gaps”, especially when you consider the stations are within rowing distance. That gap and the temp readings which clearly indicate it still stand. Yet Bourke’s 1909 reading is to be disappeared on the grounds of a much smaller gap? Between it and other quite remote stations? (The well reported Brewarrina reading for the same day shows a much smaller gap again, but sssh.)
Not really buying this. It’s not quite the Oreskes-Williams show…but it’s not good.
200
Actually, the Jan 18 value at Observation Hill only reached 45.3 according to the automatic weather station, (which is what they are meant to go by)
There has never been a satisfactory explanation where the extra 0.5C came from.
More tampering.!
40
When we had a freakishly cold morning mid-October a few years ago, I checked the minimum, just out of curiosity, on the web the same morning. Sure enough it was almost the coldest for October, and the coldest had been recorded very early in the month. This reading was for, as I remember, the 17th, and it was on the Elders website from BoM.
There may be a perfectly valid reason, of course, but when I checked back later that day the reading was .05 higher.
20
Of course, that should read 0.5C.
20
You make very good points, Robert.
This year, Sydney Observatory had its highest May max mean on record at 23.2C. No other neighbouring Sydney stations broke 23.0C even though all those stations have higher long-term May max means than Sydney. This would make Sydney ‘an outlier’ and under the homogenisation formula its mean should be reduced. Sydney also had the highest daily temp of 27.1C (on the 3rd) – no other Sydney station beat this.
Like you, I believe that will stand and there will be no adjustment.
The other interesting point is that the previous Sydney record for May was in 1958 under the raw temp record but under the ACORN homogenisation record this changed to 1923 (1958 temps were adjusted down and 1923 was adjusted up).
Data here at;-
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/archive/201405.sydney.shtml
I followed the temp record on that day in Jan, 2013 and there was an unusual spike. The temp was 44.9C at 2:49pm, shot up to 45.8C at 2:53pm and dropped back to 44.8C by 2:59pm. I’m sure that if there had been an AWS in 1939 that temp of 45.3C would have been higher.
20
When we lived at Turramurra, we would oftern take the children to Whale beach because on many very hot days, the beach was many degrees cooler.
We all know about this type of difference, yet it seems not to be mentioned as an impediment to pair matching adjustments.
01
The Climate Science Juggernaut is far too Important To Humanity™ to be held up by the fly specks of inconvenient temperatures. Scrub that data!
40
Is this one more “surprise” from those whose hallmark has been dishonesty for 20 + years? Not really. 🙁
They need to be exposed to the cold hard light of day for all to see. So my hat’s off to Graham Lloyd, Jennifer Marohasy and Jo. Keep after them until they throw in the towel and surrender.
40
I don’t know how Bourke is pronounced there in Oz. But I can’t help noticing that at least here in the U.S. it will be pronounced the same as Bork, the name of Federal Judge, Robert Bork who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. His shabby and dishonest treatment during his confirmation hearing in the Senate, followed by failure to get the required majority vote, kept a superb jurist off the high court and sparked a new verb in the U.S. lexicon, “to Bork” someone. The meaning is to shoot down by dishonest and unethical means. It was a shameful part of the history of the Senate. The expression, being borked, persists to this day.
I can’t help wondering if Bourke Australia can’t turn that around a little bit and begin the borking of global warming so the good guys win one for a change. For whatever it’s worth, let us hope so.
50
And the beauty of this borking is that we can do it honestly. 🙂
20
Roy H,
Poor eyesight. I read it as bonking.
‘Bourke’ is pronounced ‘berk’ like the vowel sound in ‘perk’.
Given your familiarity with bureaucracy, do I need to define “perk’?
10
Define perk? No, not at all. It’s the lucre that greases the political system both here, in Oz and around the world.
It’s also what my coffeepot does in the morning.
I much prefer the latter definition over the former.
10
Also Roy the word ‘Berk’ is Aussie slang for someone being a jerk or fool and then can morph into ‘going Berko’ meaning someone going crazy or throwing a fit of anger.
In hindsight I’d say people who ‘adjust’ data for wrongful gains are Berkshire Hunt’s.
10
Divided by a common language! The name Berkshire originates from England where it is pronounced BARKshire! The main town there is Reading; pronounced REDDing.
I ought to know as I lived there for years.
10
I don’t know where I picked up the term, but I’ve used “completely borked” in conversation. Usage as you describe.
I didn’t know of the word’s history though. I think the term has been around here for at least 10 to 15 years. When was it created as a term in the US?
00
Greg,
Ronald Reagan left office on January 20, 1989 as Bill Clinton was sworn in. So the term has been around for more than 25 years. A search on the name Robert Bork, which I’ll leave to you if you want more info, will get you all the details, probably in more than one version too.
00
In the 1980s, when Reagan was Pres.
00
It is the name of an early explorer, Roy. It is generally considered to be the back of beyond. To indicate that somewhere is truly in the “outback” one claims that it is “out back of Bourke”. It is pronounced “burk” and rhymes with jerk.
30
Rod, and I’m surprised I’m the first to mention this. I thought someone would have picked this up earlier than this.
Perhaps you may be a little mixed up here.
The town of Bourke is not named after the explorer, and here I might guess you could be thinking of Robert O’Hara Burke of Burke and Wills fame.
Bourke is named after the NSW Governor at the time Richard Bourke, and the township was originally called Fort Bourke. It was named by explorer and surveyor Major Thomas Mitchell on his second expedition in 1935.
Bourke is on the Darling River, named earlier in 1929, by explorer Charles Sturt, and also after the Governor at that time, Ralph Darling, Governor Bourke’s predecessor.
Man, I just loved learning about all those earlier explorers in Primary School. Getting the dates right was always a task though, and not easily remembered.
Tony.
Mitchell was knighted in 1939 for services to surveying, as Australia’s Surveyor General, and he retired as Lt.Col Sir Thomas Mitchell.
30
Thanks Tony.
I’ve been to Bourke on more than one occasion, and I always thought it bore the name of Wills’ companion.
Glad to be enlightened. I am a bit of a history buff, but much better versed on Canadian history.
10
1835.
10
Thanks Glen.
Hey, I actually did it three times there, all should read 18 and not 19.
Tony.
10
Maybe homogenised centuries!
10
Rod,
I noticed on the map Jo used that it appears to be quite a long way from any city large enough to be labeled readably. The discussion tends to confirm that suspicion but I don’t know the Geography of Australia well enough to locate it on a larger map. So about how far and in what direction from a city the rest of us will easily recognize?
00
It’s a two hour drive straight North of Cobar, Roy.
Cobar itself is called “The Gateway to the Outback”. Cobar is an interesting mining community. In its hayday it had a disproportionate number of “pubs”. It still has the largest proliferation of cast iron balistrades in the Southern Hemisphere. I rather suspect a bloke from California, on visiting Cobar and enjoying the night life would think he had time travelled back to Dodge City in 1870.
It takes about four hours up the Carrier Highway and on up the Mitchell Highway to drive from Dubbo to Bourke. These driving times are essentially distance in kilometers divided by the speed limit (100 kph). No adjustment is necessary to compensate for stops, since there is nothing to stop for. Always ensure you have plenty of fuel on board before departure. An interesting feature is that in broad daylight it is commonplace to stop for a leak, and look both ways down the highway to the horizon and see nary a vehicle. While it is tempting to overdrive the speed limit, it is not advised. Not because of speed cameras, but because of wildlife such as the Big Red kangaroos. They travel about 40 kph, weighing in at about 200 pounds, and take no notice of the highway or traffic. If you hit one, (or has on occasion happened, one hits your vehicle) you will be walking, and it is not a good place for a walk unless you have lots of water. Dubbo is a very interesting place for the history buff. The star attraction is the Western Plains Zoo, where a bloke from California might well think he had dropped into the Serengeti Plains replete with African wildlife. Another star attraction is the Old Dubbo Gaol, where the hangman had a habit of miscalculating the drop and therefore decapitating the unfortunate prisoner.
You would enjoy flying over this red country, Roy. As far as the eye can see is barren topsoil with a few sparce trees. Yet there is an abundance of wildlife, and cattle. From a thousand feet one cannot imagine how those animals find enought to survive. That is in summer. Then, if it rains, as though by a miracle, a green carpet springs up within a few days.
If you were to strike out Southwest in six and a half hours you could be in Broken Hill. In this mining town you wil find the origins of the Broken Hill Propriety of BHP-Billiton; one of the world’s most successful miners.
I think a bloke from the big smoke might get a kick out of roaming around out here Roy. Come on down and give it a go.
00
Your description sounds like much of our southwestern desert. I suppose there are many little differences but long distances, barren or semi barren terrain and no water all sound exactly the same as here.
Unfortunately here the traffic is so heavy you’ll think you’re still in downtown Los Angeles. There are some exceptions though. The roads in and out of Death Valley for instance, are long with little traffic and still no water. The Furnace Creek Inn in Death Valley is one of our favorite winter getaway spots. The valley is actually quite spectacular with a lot to see. But don’t go there in the summer.
I have seldom seen anything as beautiful as the desert in bloom in the spring after heavy winter rain. And we could use some of that rain right now.
00
Burk or bork. I figured the pronunciation might not stand up stand up. But the point got across. So I’m happy. 🙂
Thanks for all the comments about the word and its origin.
10
“…might not stand up stand up.”
Don’t mind me, I’m slowly losing my mind.
The army taught me to type the right way and I was quite good at it. Then I started copying the Morse code on a typewriter with one hand as it came in while trying to keep a receiver tuned with the other and nothing has been the same since. After that I started typing computer code from about 1996 on. That made it even worse. I’m a blubbering idiot on the keyboard.
That’s my excuse and I’m sticking with it.
20
In Australia we call it “Old Timer’s Disease” 😛
10
You pegged it exactly.
10
There is obvious evidence of the record in the official record. There is no evidence anywhere that there was no record. Simple enough problem – the record stands.
30
Only in the wonderful world of ‘climate science’ it seems do we have tinkering with old data such as this. Bizarre and highly unscientific.
Why wouldn’t an employee who enjoyed their job drop in at the weekend? During my research days I often used to go into the microbiology lab where I did my work. I used to set up bacterial cultures in order to speed things along during the week.
The lab was quiet, the hospital was quiet, and it was nice to be alone with my thoughts on Sunday afternoons.
I suppose these days there’s all manner of health and safety bureaucracy to be satisfied before anyone can even think of doing such a simple thing!
60
I made the following comments at the blog site of Jennifer Marohasy on the subject of the temperature `fix`at Rutherglen but the same comments are very relevant for Burke or any other Australian site.
Chris Gillham and Siliggy refer to the newspaper reports of very high temperatures at a number of sites in 1909. These reports refer to very dry conditions and that is the key. MAST values are a combination of heat flux from the surface by radiation, convective evaporation and conduction, and the temperature of the air in the prevailing weather front. The latter depends on the moisture content of the air whilst the former factors are most dependent on the moisture of the surface. This depends on soil structure that determines water capacity, hence heat capacity, but also the ease with which that moisture can be evaporated from the surface. These factors differ between soil types with sandy loams having the highest combination of heat capacity and evaporative loss. The net result is that soils such as sandy loams will under the right conditions cause an increase in overnight minimum temperatures much like the urban UHI effect and will lower daytime maximum temperatures through evaporative cooling. The extent of evaporative cooling depends on surface roughness, vegetation, surface insolation, wind speed and atmospheric vapour pressure. These factors and more all come together to determine MAST values as per the model approach of Herb et al. and the data of Trenberth:
http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2008/319.pdf
http://acacia.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/i1520-0442-012-08-2451.pdf
Of these effects that of soil moisture is the strongest as it mediates the flux of sensible heat between the surface and atmosphere. The effect on minimum temperatures is the most important as it has been found to be the main cause of `global warming` due to a narrowing of the diurnal temperature range (DTR) between minimum and maximum temperatures. This is exacerbated by the use of Tmean values as Tmax+Tmin/2 rather than true average hourly temperatures or integration of continuous readings that reflect true heat flux. Soils that dry out will give high Tmax values as they result in less cooling by convective evaporation and a greater response from solar insolation as such conditions tend to occur with low cloud cover and low vapour pressure values.
http://www.dca.ufcg.edu.br/mna/Anexo-MNA-modulo03g.pdf
In part, these effects reflect a decrease in surface albedo with increased moisture content of bare soils:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/aug2010/jess220.pdf
The effects on Tmin and Tmax have been shown to vary with season:
http://www.lasg.ac.cn/UpLoadFiles/File/papers/2013/2013-wly-zjy.pdf
Soils that hold more tightly to water, such as clays and peat, do not show the same evaporative daytime cooling or night-time warming:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00105.htm
So when BOM, BEST, CRU, GISS and NOAA use regional sites to correct apparent discontinuities the corrections only have validity if the sites have similar parameters as the 48 inputs into the Herb model, especially the soil types and surface roughness but also similar prevailing weather fronts. The sum of these parameters is reflected in the Net Vegetative Index that reflects both the types of plants that grow on these soils and the yields and this is the basis of the Köppen climate zones.
The problem of temperature adjustments at Rutherglen, Bourke and other sites is indicative of a general problem in the IPCC version of climate science. This depends on the output of computer models, such that MAST values are assigned to the neat grids required in modeling – after being homogenized to provide individual cell values. Instead climate parameters, including surface temperature, precipitation, wind speed etc, are better represented by the irregular Köppen climate zones that result from such factors. This has been shown by Lohmann et al. – cited by Peel et a. (ironically from the University of Melbourne) in a review of the Köppen system – who found a good correspondence between the output of GCM and the Köppen zones and another paper by Kalvova et al. that compared the gridded climate data to the Köppen maps with good results.
http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/4/439/2007/hessd-4-439-2007.pdf
The benefit of using Köppen zones is that they represent a real interaction with human needs for water, food etc with changes at the interface between zones having in some circumstances real consequences, as per the drought cycle that hits the Sahel and other desert areas. That this system is applicable to Australia is evident from the studies discussed by Peel et a. but especially as the country has a limited number of distinct zones that are, as one would expect from the links with agriculture, well covered with data on temperature, precipitation evaporation and some data on wind speeds and surface insolation:
http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/nc-ess-pan-evap.pdf
The eight major Köppen zones in Australia are common to similar zones in Western Europe and N Africa that are well represented by the CET temperature record of the UK that is based on records from a very limited number of meteorological sites but which reflects the AMO/NAO cycles. In contrast, for Australia, the BEST climate site gives details of over 180 sites with continuous or near continuous temperature records of over 100 years. Of these some 75 have Tmin and Tmax records for the same periods. As Tmin and Tmax are important in determining the causes of any temperature change as reflected in DTR values it is critical that stations used in the compilation of a series such as BEST, CRU, GISS, NCDC and Acorn are based on such records alone.
As one would expect these sites are mainly located in areas of agriculture, predominantly in the NE and SE (140), with limited number elsewhere. Of the total some 70 have Tmin and Tmax values that match the length of the records, out of which 60 are in the NE and SE and only 11 in the SW with none in the NW. Yet Acorn, that BOM claims is based on the best available records, uses only 26 of the BEST sites with 100 years of Tmin and Tmax data; instead using other sites where the Tmin and Tmax records only run post 1940 and for 55 of their 112 stations using sites that only started recording temperatures at all from this time onwards. From these they stitch together at temperature trend that they claim is representative of the true trend for Australia. But, the result is, as Matt Briggs says ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195), not data at all but modeled synthetic data that may conform to other synthetic series like BEST and the rest, but tells us little about the real trends in climate change. This is difficult to understand as as Trewin in a paper given at the Workshop on Pan evaporation cited above –emphasized the importance of Tmib and Tmax values:
`All-Australian annual mean maximum and minimum temperature anomalies indicate that temperatures have increased since 1910, and particularly since the mid-20th century (Della-Marta et al. 2004; Figs 3, 4). Using only the observation stations considered to be free from the influence of urbanisation, trends calculated over 1910 to 2003 are 0.06oC/decade for the mean maximum temperature and 0.11oC/decade for the mean minimum temperature. However, the magnitude and sign of these trends varies throughout Australia. Increases in daytime maximum temperatures since 1910 have been particularly strong in the western two-thirds of the country, with isolated parts of central and eastern New South Wales and southern Queensland recording weak cooling trends. Positive trends in minimum temperatures have been stronger than for maximum temperatures, and strongest in the northeast. Trends since 1950 also show warming through most of the country.
With mean minimum temperatures generally warming faster than mean maximum temperatures, there has been a decline in the mean diurnal temperature range over Australia (Figure 5). This decline was most marked over the period from about 1950 to 1980, and has levelled off since about 1980. This decline in diurnal temperature range over Australia is consistent with global trends (Braganza et al., 2004; Easterling et al., 1997)`.
Whilst it is claimed that there is a general global decrease in DTR values over the 20th century, and especially since the 1960´s, this trend is by no means universal and can occur for several reasons, a decrease in Tmax, an increase in Tmin, or both simultaneously. Further these trends can differ by season, for example in N China they have found asymmetric effects linked to changes in soil moisture with stronger negative effects of Tmax over Tmin in Summer and Spring and stronger positive effects of increased Tmin over Tmax in Autumn but the magnitude of the responses varies with climate Köppen zones.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/model-data-comparison-daily-maximum-and-minimum-temperatures-and-diurnal-temperature-range-dtr/
This has consequences in using Tmin from one Köppen climate zone to correct temperatures in another, as per Rutherglen. This is of particular importance in SE Australia where there are six distinct Köppen climate zones with much variation in soil types within zones. It is also worth noting that DTR values are heavily dependent on the prevailing direction of the weather fronts and these differ with the NE and SE being most affected by ENSO events in the Pacific Ocean, the N by events in the Indian Ocean and the SW and S by the Southern Ocean. The magnitude of these events depends on differences in surface pressure between 65 S and 10 S which in turn are dependent on events in the stratosphere linked to solar activity, especially UV flux and ozone levels. The consequence is a series of step changes in the temperature trends that differ by region in timing and magnitude, as shown by Courtillot and Outcalt that BEST and the rest interpret as errors and a reason for homogenization when in most instances like Rutherglen, Bourke etc they are the real data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/19/boulder-escapes-global-warming/#more-80060
70
what is the meaning of a record ?
I mean 125 plus or minus what?
what is the measurement error and more important what is the difference between the temperature of the thermometer and temperature of the air you want to actually measure?
it is not about this record but all record reported.
a single measurment is quite meaningless..
let s imagine the temperature of the air is constant if you wait long enough you will always break “record” in the measured temperature ( of the thermometer!)
00
Lemiere,
I have a black vinyl disc with a hole in the centre.
That is a record.
Re Bourke, it is some much higher that you have to consider the raw value as plausible, even given inherent variation at the time,
However, what is the purpose of those correcting the record?
Is it valid scientific altruism?
Is it part of an effort to cool the past record?
Opinions differ, but do not matter. What matters is the correct use of science.
20
sorry , i meant, that erasing record because they seems unlikely to be real is contrary to the atual fact that no measurement can be done perfectly. SO the discussion should not be about the validity of the temperature recorded but the result of such weird way to regard measurements.
Ok let s admit that this temerature is wrong..it is only a normal error , erasing it will lower the estimations of temperature …
I just want to stress that record actually broken or not it is meaningless…
00
“I just want to stress that record actually broken or not it is meaningless…”
Not propagandistically.
00
In the light of the recent UN WMO effort to promote UN Grand Central through climate catastrophism, peddling ‘imaginary but realistic’ weather reports set in 2050, the increasing use of unbridled fiction to promote the meme appears to have become an officially accepted, indeed applauded norm.
The diminishing inclination to adhere to accurate, unadjusted temperature data, to misplace, erase and reduce the number of reporting stations in favour of ‘smoothing adjustments’ is far too demanding to maintain.
The simplest lie is to manufacture a small truth and expand around it. ‘Imaginary but realistic’ about sums up the climate nouvelle cuisine de jour. No need to pretend, manipulate, delete or obfuscate data any longer. Merely fabrication within a norm engendered by conditioning appears all that is required.
40
No truer words can be said!
Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1
50
There was no need to delete this record, was there? You do not have to move very far to get variations of 2 to 3 degrees anyway, no matter how accurately recorded.
However we all know what this is about, the consistent editing, deletion, averaging, homogenization of data which adds up to peddling global warming and Australia with only 5% of the land mass dominates the Southern Hemisphere and so contributes 25% of the land data. It is not this one instance, but the political significance of the deletion in pushing the catastrophe scenario of the late 20th century. It all looks like part of a pattern. So would some of our scientists systematically change the record with barely plausible bias just to push their careers? I would rather trust the diligent record keeper from 1909 who did his job with nothing to gain except pride in a job well done.
If you want confirmation, check the Guardian attempt to denigrate this excellent investigation. Global Warming is not about science. It is about money and politics and power and everyone knows it. The worldwide cost in this lunacy is running at a billion dollars a day. Think of what that could have done to improve the planet as the windmills stop turning and most of Australia’s $100Bn of desalination plants lie idle.
70
Donna Laframboise nails it with her UN science fiction article.
How gullible are the apathetic electorate?
40
O/T but figures which TonyfromOz might like to dissect. naturally, emissions exported to China don’t concern the CAGW crowd; it’s all about our Aussie CAGW appearance!
4 Sept: SMH: Peter Hannam: Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed
Carbon emissions from the country’s main electricity grid have risen since the end of the carbon tax by the largest amount in nearly eight years.
Data from the National Electricity Market, which covers about 80 per cent of Australia’s population, shows that emissions from the sector rose by about 1 million tonnes, or 0.8 per cent, at an annualised rate last month compared with June.
That is the biggest two-month increase since the end of 2006, and came as a result of an increase in overall demand and a rise in the share of coal-fired power in the market, according to Pitt & Sherry’s monthly Cedex emissions index…
Greens leader Christine Milne said the figures are “yet more evidence that Tony Abbott has delivered for the big polluters”.
“Every tonne rise in emissions is another wad of cash in a coal baron’s pockets while driving extreme weather events that everyone else will pay the price of,” Senator Milne said…
The latest emissions figures come as the 20-megawatt Royalla solar plant, the country’s largest solar farm to be added to the grid, was officially opened in the ACT on Wednesday.
About 370 megawatts of wind in NSW and Victoria and 170 megawatts of large-scale solar are under construction, but “after that, there’s very little in the pipeline”, Pitt & Sherry principal consultant Hugh Saddler said…
Hydro Tasmania’s production drops back to levels just after the last drought, output will be about 9 terawatt-hours a year – down from about 12TWh levels before the end of the carbon price…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/emissions-from-energy-generation-jump-most-in-eight-years-after-carbon-price-axed-20140903-10by8d.html
10
Thanks pat.
So tell me. Pretend you are an electricity retailing company. You have to purchase the electricity at wholesale (the actual cost of generation) to then onsell at retail.
Would you not purchase electricity at the cheapest price you can get.
Go to the page at this link and then click on the graph on the right side of the page. When the graph comes up in the middle of the screen, click on the tab at the top right which says 5 min 2 Day. Then click on the States NSW, Qld, and Vic, the main coal fired power generating States. Note the dollar cost (the red line) at around 2.30AM, the lowest point of each graph, closely correlating with actual consumption, at its lowest point, with everyone tucked up tight in bed, so the only power here being consumed is the Base Load, all of that being supplied by coal fired power. Even then, total consumption, just for those three most populous States is 15,500MW.
The average price per MWH is around $20, which equates to 2 cents per KWH. That is the cost of generating coal fired power, not just at that time, but across the whole 24 hours of every day.
Retailers will ….. ALWAYS purchase the absolute cheapest power they can at wholesale, and then seek to get as much of it as they can at that price.
Now, you tell me why you think CO2 emissions have risen.
If wind power was as cheap, then you can bet those retailers would be purchasing that, eh! That;s if there was actually any of it to buy on the scale required here.
Tony.
30
Pat,
Emissions might have jumped 0.8% y on y last year.
BUT
My domestic electricity consumption cost has jumped 10% per annum for every one of the past 7 years.
We are being slugged disproportionately because of emission concerns.
40
I ran a half marathon a few years ago and at one point I was overtaken by an old man wearing a T-shirt with “The older I get, the faster I was” written on it. Now it seems that the older I get, the colder it was. Ahhh, the skiing must have been great.
10
While allowing for error, we have to safeguard records of extreme heat. If the conditions of 1896 ever recur, we’ll wish we’d studied the 1896 heatwave in school, rather than An Inconvenient Truth.
When a population centre can get as hot as Bourke (and others) did in Jan 1896 for three unrelenting weeks, there have to be deaths, and many other problems. The danger does not lie in “unprecedented” heat, but in well precedented heat we forget or allow to be homogenised away.
Call 1909 or 1939 a January heatwave? Now THIS is a January heatwave:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=1896&p_c=-461151960&p_stn_num=048013
20
I tried this link and was told my request couldn’t be completed. Too many others trying or link incorrect or link removed?
00
Annie, for some reason or other you have to go back through the start page. Remember to untick “open stations” since Bourke PO ran from 1871 to 1996.
Worth checking out, especially in view of the newspaper reports and anecdotal evidence. It was only just short of 1939 as our most lethal natural disaster, and there would have been more reportage and exposed population in ’39. When you see the temps recorded over those twenty days in 1896 then, even allowing for error, you can see why it was such a tragedy.
Of course, Bourke had some pretty shocking heat in the first half of January 2013. But worse than January 1878? Or January 1906? Personally, the heat I’d want to avoid most would be that of 1896. It would have been terrifying even for people used to extreme heat. It was eight degrees hotter than the previous January and seven hotter than the succeeding one. Either someone kept making the same almighty clerical error for those three weeks or Bourke – with a monthly mean max of 43.4! – was sheer hell in January 1896. This would also explain the evacuations etc. We don’t have to stop at the numbers here.
Really, I don’t draw any conclusions except that air-con and modern facilities save lives. Love coal.
30
Thanks Robert.
00
If this methodology was applied to exploration geochemical data, then any ‘anomalous’ sample would be dismissed as error, and replaced in value by the average of the surrounding samples.
Such a methodology or data analysis paradigm would be then quite unsuccessful in finding the sources of the anomalous geochemical samples.
Not surprising considering all the current crop of academics are products of the Core Curriculum system put into practice in Australia decades ago, in which objective scientific facts are rejected.
60
O/T slightly… but The Conversation is now attempting to recommend the approach that Jo Nova has always taken… check the evidence… https://theconversation.com/how-to-become-a-citizen-climate-sleuth-31100
60
Hi Jennifer,
You also had a mention on Alan Jones’ talkback radio show this morning on 2GB where he mentioned a possible interview with you about the BoM, homoginised data, and the stations that didn’t really move.
30
Pity that the CSIRO don’t check the evidence 😉
10
125°F is 44.4°C
112°F is 44.4°C as well?
20
What is a small math error between friends?
We often make them but it is unimportant in the post.normal era.
01
Congratulations you are now a Master of Climatology.
The data as measured is of such little significance to the gospel as required, that 125F=112F no problem.
01
Jo, have you read the latest from The Conversation? “How to become a citizen climate sleuth” https://theconversation.com/how-to-become-a-citizen-climate-sleuth-31100?
00
i’m over at the tennis (figuratively at least) but can’t help posting this new peak in CAGW insanity! thanx for the comments re the oz co2 emissions:
2 Sept: Toronto Star: AP: Seth Borenstein: New study finds global warming, melting sea ice, connected to polar vortex
As the world gets warmer, parts of North America, Europe and Asia could see more frequent and stronger visits of cold air, a new study says
When there’s less ice, more energy gets into the atmosphere and weakens the jet stream, the high-altitude river of air that usually keeps Arctic air from wandering south, said study co-author Jin-Ho Yoon of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. So the cold air escapes instead…
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, is skeptical about such connections and said he doesn’t agree with Yoon’s study. His research points more to the Pacific than the Arctic for changes in the jet stream and polar vortex behaviour, and he said Yoon’s study puts too much stock in an unusual 2012.
But the study was praised by several other scientists who said it does more than show that sea ice melt affects worldwide weather, but demonstrates how it happens, with a specific mechanism…
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/09/02/new_study_finds_global_warming_melting_sea_ice_connected_to_polar_vortex.html
10
Geoff Sherrington –
talk about being slugged!
1 Sept:UK Daily Mail: Richard Marsden: Gas costs you THREE times what the energy firms pay: Millions of households being ripped off after wholesale cost halves in six months
Wholesale costs have halved in six months yet bills have not fallen
British Gas, which supplies 40 per cent of homes, is under fire for its costs
Parent company, Centrica, announced profits of £900million for the first six months of the financial year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739304/Gas-costs-THREE-times-energy-firms-pay-Millions-households-ripped-wholesale-cost-halves-six-months.html
btw Origin have sent a letter saying the carbon tax rebate will show up on the next bill, backdated to July 1. having just had a cold winter, requiring some heating, i probably won’t even notice it. CAGW has provided cover for more scams than i care to think about.
20
From the days before alarmism when people actually laughed and enjoyed life.
Pedro Gonzales and Groucho Marx
We could aspire to get it back!
00
Bigger than BOM.
Fabricated weather data scam unravelling…
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html
10
sorry for off topic post but original articles are buried in the past-
i think dr. evans may want to see this:
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-clues-solar.html
10
JM You should really let Graham LLoyd see what the warmists replies are like at the conversation. This is going to get big if handled properly (ie Mainstream media may be starting to think there is more of a selling story in [countering] AGW [Snip] [rather] than trying to keep pushing AGW)
[we really would like to avoid the “F” word] ED
01
O/T but CSIRO are also publishing rubbish … I want my taxes back!!
10
It’s true, Streetcred!
99.999% consensus!
I have the evidence why:
Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/emissions-from-energy-generation-jump-most-in-eight-years-after-carbon-price-axed-20140903-10by8d.html
As we all know, without a carbon(sic) tax and subsequent runaway emissions, extreme weather is expected:
Strongest winds in three months
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/strongest-winds-in-three-months-20140903-10c1tu.html
Beaches pummelled by strong winds and surf
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/beaches-pummelled-by-strong-winds-and-surf-20140903-10bp4c.html
. . .
Only a carbon(sic) tax can save us.
Or some sort of Direct Action.
Won’t someone think of the children?
00
There are two emails which really say it all.
1. ‘It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip ……’ Tom Wrigley to Phil Jones
2. ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’ Attributed to John Overpeck – sent to David Deming
3.
10
Whoops -posted before finishing.
Both these emails seem to suggest that a new method of assessing temps would be needed to do this. It was an updated form of homogenisation. The changes all occurred recently (BoM about 2012 with ACORN). Both GISS and HADCRUT released their v4 which significantly changed the temp record from previous versions.
Of course, it was all peer-reviewed by like minds. Remember that any publisher that dared print adverse AGW findings were to be ‘persona non grata’.
Job done!
11
So the deni@list scum conspired back in time to over state the heating and the brave climate saviors have fixed stopped the conspiracy by their re-writing of history.
10
It is a joke that in Australia we use stations with distances between them which would place them in entirely different countries in Europe, to homogenize the temperature record. Of course the temperature 400km away could be quite different.
10
Jamez : The temperatures locally in this part of Victoria vary over only a few kms. The nearest places to us used in forecasts by ‘our’ ABC are Seymour and Eildon, both miles away. On the BOM forecast online we just get the amorphous area description of North Central Victoria.
For the record, so to speak, we are having beautiful sunny days, not hot, with goodly frosts first thing.
00
I was resident in Bourke in early 1983 when the official maximum temperature was widely reported as 51.25C on ABC TV and in other media reports. The news reports mentioned that this was just short of the previous record 51.7C. The same day 51.0C was reported for Brewarrina. I recall that this followed a week or so when every day was well above 40C. I cannot recall the exact date, but it was toward the end of a long drought. I think the local newspaper in Bourke would have the details in its archive, as would the major NSW dailys. I understood that the official weather station in 1983 was at the Post Office – a beautiful old brick building constructed in the 1880s.
The weather bureau has massaged this heatwave out of their records
00