Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record

Dr David JonesSunset Neil Hewitt
Manager of Climate Monitoring and Predictions
Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Dear Dr Jones

Re: Request Verification of 2013 Temperature Record

I am writing to request information be made publicly available to myself and others so we may have the opportunity to verify the claim made by you on behalf of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that 2013 was the hottest year on record in Australia. In particular it is claimed that the average temperature was 1.20°C above the long-term average of 21.8°C, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17°C.

This claim is being extensively quoted, including in a report authored by Professor Will Steffen of the Climate Council, where he calls for the Australian government to commit to further deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of this “record-breaking year”. Accurate climate records are not only of political interest, but are also of importance to those of us who rely on historical temperature data for research purposes. For example, the skill of the medium-term rainfall forecasts detailed in my recent peer-reviewed publications with John Abbot, have been influenced by the reliability of the historical temperature data that we inputted. From a very practical perspective, businesses will adjust their plans and operations based on climate data, and ordinary Australians worry and plan for the future based on anticipated climate trends.

Further, I note that you said in a radio interview on January 3, 2014, following your “hottest year on record” press release that, “We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet. So, you know, we know it is getting hotter and we know it will continue to get hotter. It’s a reality, and something we will be living with for the rest of this century.”

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is the custodian of an extensive data network and over a long period now, questions have been asked about the legitimacy of the methodology used to make adjustments to the raw data in the development of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperatures (ACORN-SAT). Furthermore, questions have been asked about why particular stations that are subject to bias through the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect continue to be included in ACORN-SAT. In particular why is ‘Melbourne Regional Office’, a station at the corner of Victoria Parade and Latrobe Street (Melbourne CBD) still included in the ACORN-SAT network when this station is known to have become sheltered from previously cooling southerly winds following construction of office towers.

I understand ACORN-SAT was used to calculate the statistics indicating 2013 was the hottest year on record, but it is unclear specifically which stations from this network were used and how data may have been further adjusted in the development of the record breaking temperature anomaly.

Rockhampton-based blogger Ken Stewart, for example, has suggested that in the calculation of the annual average temperature for Australia, the eight sites acknowledged as having anomalous warming due to the UHI would not have been included. Is this the case? I had assumed that the Bureau used all 112 ACORN-SAT locations, and thus that the record hot temperature anomaly announced by you, actually includes a UHI bias.

Radio presenter Michael Smith has given some publicity to claims made by blogger Samuel Gordon-Stewart that the Bureau has overestimated the average Australian temperature by about 4 degrees. Mr Gordon-Stewart calculated average temperatures and temperature anomalies from data from all the weather stations listed by Weatherzone.

Furthermore, given many ACORN-SAT stations have continuous temperature records extending back to the mid-late 1800s and many stations were fitted with Stevenson screens by 1900, why does the Bureau only use data after 1909, all the while claiming that 2013 is the hottest year on record? Indeed it is well documented that the 1890s and early 1900s, years corresponding to the Federation drought, were exceptionally hot.

In summary, given the importance of the historical temperature record, and the claim that 2013 is the hottest year on record, could you please provide details concerning:
1. The specific stations used to calculate this statistic;
2. The specific databases and time intervals used for each of these stations;
3. The history of the use of Stevenson screens at each of these station;
4. How the yearly average temperature is defined; and
5. Clarify what if any interpolation, area weighting, and/or adjustments for UHI bias, may have been applied to the data in the calculation of the annual mean values.

Kind regards

Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Scientist, Blogger, Columnist
PO Box 692
Tel Mobile: 041 887 32 22

The above text was sent as an email to Dr David Jones earlier this evening. The photograph is of a sunset taken in northern Australia by Neil Hewitt of Cooper Creek Wilderness.

207 Responses to Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record

  1. DaveMyFace January 9, 2014 at 9:14 pm #

    David Jones says:

    ““We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet.”

    CAGW alarmists say:

    ““We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet.”

    Dr. David Jones has joined the ranks of Tim Flannery, Prof Turney, David Suzuki and Will Steffen.

    Can’t they see these massive overstated alarmist spiels are just getting more and more extreme.

    Is this really one of our leaders in the BOM?

  2. Bernd Felsche January 9, 2014 at 10:21 pm #

    Pierre Gosselin reported a few days ago ( that Europe and England have quickly cooled by 30 years; back to temperatures of the 1980’s.

    Germany has cooled by about 0.5⁰C since 2003. Perhaps it’s due to all those new coal-fired power stations that they’re commissioning.

  3. John Sayers January 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm #

    Well said Jennifer – I await the reply.

  4. John Sayers January 9, 2014 at 10:43 pm #

    How the ACORN data was arrived at we don’t know despite BoM stating that it would all be released in the peer reviewed literature. One would have thought they’d put it to the peer reviewed literature BEFORE they start using it.

    We do know that there was a review team appointed by BoM to review their new data set.

    The technical members of the Review Panel are:

    • Dr Thomas Peterson, Chief Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, United States

    • Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist (Climate), National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand

    • Dr Xiaolan Wang, Research Scientist, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada

    All these scientists are acclaimed IPCC alarmist scientists but not one of them is an Expert Statistician which you’d expect in such a mammoth task as redefining the Australian Temperature Data. We all know how well climate scientists deal with statistics.

  5. Paul Wheeler January 9, 2014 at 11:14 pm #

    Am I contributing to these peoples wages , well am I ??? Personally er anecdotaly I’m just not getting a sense that things are getting any hotter at all . In fact we’ve had the heater on this xmas and it’s not the first time in the last 5 years . I can clearly remember that alarmist Flannery saying in the last N.S.W. drought that it probably wont rain again like it use to . Who is giving these people oxygen , it’s quite an important question

  6. John Sayers January 10, 2014 at 12:30 am #

    This is what scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat has to say about IPCC science and it’s scientists.

    For nearly 50 years Pierre Darriulat’s professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.

    “The way the SPM (IPCC Summary for Policy Makers) deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming
    something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.”

    “When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigor. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message”

  7. John Sayersj January 10, 2014 at 12:34 am #

    Credit to Donna Laframboise for the above quote.

  8. James January 10, 2014 at 1:28 am #

    We know David Jones has form as a true believer and global warming activist as evidenced by one of the Climate Gate leaked emails:

    cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
    date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
    from: “David Jones”
    subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.

    Truth be know,[sic] climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone [sic] of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).

    The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures.

    Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.


    Not only did Jones think “we don’t need meteorological data” to prove rampant global warming, but he was also totally wrong about his predictions that all Australian cities would run out of water and the Murray Darling would collapse.

    It does not seem fair that a person who couldn’t possibly have been more wrong, should be appointed Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction Services at Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

    I am not optimistic about the prospects of a prompt, detailed or honest response to your quite reasonable enquiry Jennifer.

  9. Neville January 10, 2014 at 6:56 am #

    Here’s plenty of evidence that the experts?????? were wrong about the drought. David Jones among them.

  10. Debbie January 10, 2014 at 7:08 am #

    That ‘snow job’ is still the MO.
    When asked simple comparative questions we are given massive reams of regional graphs (usually missing that actual simple comparison) and all the averages have already been done and no application to do the simple regional comparisons.
    When we re ask, we’re usually told that’s not what we need and/or that’s not how to present information anymore.
    Further. . . we are told that producers are given all the best available information so that they can assess their own risk.
    The PRETENCE & the MINDSET is defensive and 100% risk averse.
    They are increasingly spectacularly UNAWARE of what their paying customers who actually need access to this information need from them!
    PS. People who drive to work in their air conditioned cars from their air conditioned homes to their air conditiined offices 5 days/week 48 weeks/year are not directly impacted by this behaviour. . . yet paradoxically they seem to be the ones who are the ‘most alarmed’ by the results.

  11. Glen Michel January 10, 2014 at 8:30 am #

    Obfuscation and stone-walling ! Obviously a revision of the data set is needed and I wish you the BEST , I mean ,the best.

  12. Maree Whitton January 10, 2014 at 9:50 am #

    Jennifier1st class request we all await an answer

  13. Minister for Common Sense January 10, 2014 at 9:59 am #

    “Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.” See Quote by James above, regarding an email written by David Jones and revealed in the Climate gate saga.

    What these people in the BOM and elsewhere have been very slow to realise, …is that there are many people in Australia in private employment, who are just as good if not better maths/ stats/science and data handling literate, and are invariably capable of doing do a better job of analysis, than the BOM, precisely because they have used the same tools in their workplace over many years, on a huge variety of situations …and are not just long time careerists in the BOM/CSIRO doing the same thing over and over

    Jones email as quote by James above, is also remarkable because pretty well every para cited is now a false and/or a contestable statement by Jones

    In my view they should hand this over to the ABS and the BOM stick to weather forecasting

  14. Beth Cooper January 10, 2014 at 10:01 am #

    To the cits of Australia, ‘All your base are belong to us.’

  15. Hasbeen January 10, 2014 at 10:07 am #

    Tune in for the next exciting episode!

    Will Jennifer get an answer?

    Will hell freeze over?

    Will hell freeze over before Jen gets an answer?

    These & other exciting questions should be answered within, Oh 10 years or so.

  16. Dave January 10, 2014 at 10:32 am #

    Hell freezing over just may be the answer we are all looking for.

    could cool things down dramatically.

  17. Geoff Sherrington January 10, 2014 at 11:44 am #

    There is a need for structural change so that the business of compiling emotion-free climate observations is quite separate from the business of interpretation and reporting of opinion.
    There should be 2 quite distinct groups, even groups reporting to different ministers.
    The data gathering can be done by private enterprise, perhaps better than the present way.

    Note that Sophie Lewis and David Karoly on The Conversation replied to blogger John Philips who asked:

    Sophie, you’ve made the following assertion :”Averaged across all of Australia, the temperature for 2013 was 1.2C above the 1961-1990 average, and well above the previous record hot year of 2005 of 1.03C above average.”
    I’d be interested in knowing if the same stations were used in making the temperature record for the two compared periods along with any equipment or methodology changes. What would be the effects on the record if different and/or additional stations were used?

    The response –
    In reply to John Phillip
    Yes, the same stations are used in both measurements. Information on the data can be found in the fact sheet
    Lewis & Karoly must have different access to the data, than you do.
    Just ask for equal time. Unless they were wrong with their answer.

  18. jennifer January 10, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    Hi Geoff

    Thanks for your comment.

    I’ve removed a couple of “emotive words” from your first sentence in an attempt to keep the criticisms evidence based and impartial.

    According to Ken Stewart the BOM stopped recordings from three ACORN-SAT stations in Western Australia in about August 20132012, so it would not be possible for the same stations to have been used.

    Perhaps the more substantive issue though, is why the BOM included at least 8 sites known to have a UHI bias.

  19. cohenite January 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm #

    Ken Stewart has done amazing work in critiquing firstly the HQ network and then the ACORN system brought into replace HQ. Ken’s review of the ACORN is comprehensive and should cause any reasonable person concern about the methods and purpose of the BOM’s temperature record:

    See also Richardc’s comments.

    I would also direct people to Chris Gillham’s ACORN analysis in respect of WA and former CSIRO scientist Bill Johnson’s analysis of ACORN:

    And while all this is happening what do we get from Blair Trewin, the public face of ACORN, snipping about the temerity of the citizenry in criticising their betters, the climate scientists at BOM and the CSIRO:

  20. Minister for Common Sense January 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm #

    “Perhaps the more substantive issue though, is why the BOM included at least 8 sites known to have a UHI bias.

    You must be joking…why would they do that.

    Are we able to identify the actual stations in question, and the effect their removal would have on the results.

  21. Jennifer Marohasy January 10, 2014 at 12:28 pm #

    Hi Minister

    If we can get clarification from the Bureau/David Jones as to exactly which stations were used, and for which time periods, we will have a starting point.

    At the moment there is some confusion as to which stations were used, because some of those listed at the ACORN-SAT site are apparently not still recording temperature data. Further, despite BOM listing stations known to be UHI biased at ACORN-SAT and therefore presumably included in the calculation of the 2013 average, some sceptics have perhaps incorrectly/naively assumed these stations have been excluded from the analysis.

  22. Ken Stewart January 10, 2014 at 2:17 pm #

    The 8 stations mentioned in the Acorn Station list as having UHI are: Townsville, Rockhampton, Sydney Observatory Hill, Richmond NSW, Melbourne RO, Laverton RAAF, Hobart, Adelaide.
    The 3 stations no longer recording in WA (since 31 August 2012) are Dalwallinu, Katanning, and Bridgetown. It is unclear whether replacement sites are used, and if so what adjustments are made to ensure the records are compatible.
    How ludicrous! Lewis and Karoly obviously have no knowledge of Acorn whatsoever. There were 57 sites used in 1910; there were 112? 104? 101? in 2013.

  23. jennifer January 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm #


    Just to clarify. 1. Where does the BOM acknowledge that these stations have a UHI bias, and
    2. Why isn’t Brisbane included?


  24. Robert January 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm #

    I often wonder about connecting zones which have little to do with one another climatically just because they are part of a single political entity. We average out Cape York, Tasmania and SW WA as if they somehow mattered more as a unit than Cape York and New Guinea, or NSW and NZ. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t get interested in an Australian average temp.

    What does interest me is that the hottest years (26C+) in my region post 1907 were 1915, 1914, 1919, 1913, 1912, 1917, 1916, 1911, 1907. (There is nothing extraordinary about the record after these years, the 1920s and onward.) 1902, a scorcher preceding the record, was hellishly dry, and 1915 was our second driest as well as our hottest. I find all that compellingly interesting.

    But if David Jones has found that 2013 is the hottest after averaging out all kinds of tricky stuff, I won’t close my mind to the possibility. There has be a hottest year for that grab-bag of disconnected geographic zones called Australia. Why not last year? No big deal.

    And if Jen should write him a polite letter – as she has done – asking for clarification of some details, I can’t imagine why Jones would baulk.

  25. handjive of January 10, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    Quote David Jones: “We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet.”

    Central England Temperature Stats For 2013 have been released.
    The CET qualifies for “almost”.

  26. John Sayers January 10, 2014 at 5:27 pm #

    As I understand it Brisbane used to be a site in the Botanical Gardens – Brisbane Regional Office Number: 40214 Opened: 1840 Now: Closed 01 Jul 1994 It had data back to 1887.

    Brisbane is now at a site on the other side of the river in a Park at Kangaroo Point, .9km away. Brisbane Number: 40913 Opened: 1999 Now: Open

    It was interesting last week when apparently Brisbane broke the record, it was in fact another station at Archerfield Airport Number: 40211 Opened: 1929 Now: Open which is 11.4 Km from Brisbane hitting 43.? beating the 43.3 recorded in 1940 . The station in Kangaroo point only measured 39C on the same day.

  27. Another Ian January 10, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

    Re Brisbane

    A university field expedition to the Brisbane met bureau was to just above Central Station ca. 1960’s.

    And they showed us the crystal ball on the roof from which they predicted.

  28. DaveMyFace January 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm #

    The whole BOM persona and Dr David Jones is under attack from it’s own stupidity.

    Australians no longer believe the tripe that comes constantly from the BOM as catastrophic, extreme, heat, record, etc, all emotive stuff that is supposed to scare EVERYONE to obey the 97% consensus. And of course all the physics and maths PhD’s that work in the department.

    Well, none of these experts get out into the real world, and this video by someone in Melbourne sums up the average Australians attitude to the BOM’s reliability in getting tomorrow, right, never mind the next 100 years, nor a summary of the last year.

    See for a laugh and an approximation of peoples attitude towards our CAGW alarmists.

    It’s unfortunate that this BOM has slowly become a laughing stock, instead of a reliable weather bureau, that business, agriculture, and many small businesses can rely on.

    If Dr. David Jones is absolutely correct in his statements, then he has to release all the data to Jennifer as per the letter, in order to gain trust back from the public. He has nothing to lose from releasing this, IF the data supports the conclusions.

  29. Luke January 10, 2014 at 7:38 pm #

    How does a blurry incomprehensible video of a poor bogan that unfortunately appears to have a syndrome funny. It was you Dave wasn’t it?

    “Australians no longer believe” – evidence – none generalisation

    “Well, none of these experts get out into the real world” – evidence – none I just made it up.

    “It’s unfortunate that this BOM has slowly become a laughing stock” – evidence – ah I just made it up.

    “in order to gain trust back from the public” – but you can’t coz you said they’re a laughing stock.

    Highly intellectual analysis from Dave. Yea mate !

    The crystal ball was a highly useful Campbell Stokes Sunshine Recorder. Put your hand under it in bright sunshine and you will feel a revelation.

    John Sayers at a minimum don’t go free range station wandering – try –

    Strange that sceptics so beloved on UAH data have not trumpeted that Cohenite has broken the news that 2013 was the hottest. No editorial -WHY NOT ! Bit selective isn’t – normally the old satellite numbers get a real promotion?

  30. DaveMyFace January 10, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    Ah Luke,

    1. “video of a poor bogan that unfortunately” So we’re all bogans Luke.
    2. “It was you Dave wasn’t it?” No.
    3. “Highly intellectual analysis from Dave” No, just posted a You Tube clip, not a PhD’s clip.

    You seem so aggressive when all I was stating at the end was: “That Dr. David Jones would release all the data & information requested if there was NO problem with corresponding to his statement”.

    Not every one has your ability to analyse data and reports so quickly Luke, why not just back up Jennifers request and prove your point in all of this.

  31. Graeme M January 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm #

    I love Youtube. That clip led to some great vids about chemtrails which further led me to a pleasant 20 minutes learning about our reptilian overlords. Great stuff.

    Meanwhile, I must agree that the hype over hot temperatures is starting to become ridiculous. Yes we have had some hot days, but really – that’s an Australian summer. While having a coffee down by Lake Burley Griffin today, I overheard a guy buying a drink after pedalling up to the kiosk. “Yeah, she’s a hot one” he said as he brushed the sweat out of his eyes. My phone showed me that BOM’s current temp for Canberra was 26.5 at that moment…

  32. Johnathan Wilkes January 10, 2014 at 8:59 pm #

    26.5 is hot?

    don’t know the current cut in point for stopping work on a building site due to temp but it used to be around 35??

  33. DaveMyFace January 10, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

    Also watched Neil Plummer on the ABC last week.

    Here he is telling Australians of the hottest summer on record.

    Neil was the Superintendent of Extended Hydrological Predictions for BOM in 2009. He also said this in one presentation:
    “Focus on serving water managers and users rather than the general public.” from,

    Neil was also in the Climategate 2 emails of 2011.

    Seems he doesn’t mind keeping base line comparisons to suit the data. His mate even said:

    “If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge” but old Neil went along with it anyway.

    How do we know who is telling the truth in all this stuff, unless Dr. David Jones comes out with the info. If it is all legit, then there’s no problem, we get on with solving it.

    Maybe just the release all the “Verification of 2013 Temperature Records” will solve this.

  34. Luke January 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

    Well I suspect Jen probably has joined a long queue. With every sceptic in Australia mounting a virtual Denial of Service Attack on BoM with requests and letters, probably be 6 months before he get around to Jen’s email. All takes time guys. And as we all know Ministerial referred correspondence from constituents comes first. And with time frames to turn responses around quickly more than comprehensively, surely expansive answers are unlikely. It’s all about responsive government isn’t it.

    And you couldn’t help yourself without a stinky slur could you Dave – airing people’s personal correspondence. And what did you learn – they talk about science details a lot. Gee whiz !

    So you have to ask yourself Dave – as David reads the messages of good will here do you think you’ve assisted Jen getting a quality answer or hindered her? Does he see a wonderful collection of detailed and incisive sciencey comments from concerned citizens or does he see a lynch mob. You have to remember met bureaus get abused by experts and you’re not one of them. What do they say in the ambulance and hospital game – compassion fatigue. The people you deal with may have something to do with that.

  35. John Sayers January 11, 2014 at 12:05 am #

    Just hold on Luke – put your violin away you look ridiculous.

    Here we have Neil Plummer from The Bureau of Meteorology telling Australia on national TV that Australia is warming and it’s consistent with the rest of the world that is warming also. We have records going back to 1910 he says – Pardon? We have records going back to 1850! Even the IPCC has acknowledged that there has been a “warming hiatus” for the past 15 – 17 years. Why didn’t he tell us that and that Australia is only a small part of the globe and is not indicative of the rest of the globe.

    He also says the oceans around Australia and the southern ocean are also warming which is consistent across the globe – where is his evidence for that? The Argo Buoys say the oceans have remained steady since their release 10 years ago!

    Don’t you realize we , and by that I mean tens of thousands of Australians, are getting fed up with these guys continually stretching the truth. We rely on these guys to tell us the facts, they are scientists, and the facts don’t support what he told Australia on national TV. The northern hemisphere is experiencing it’s coldest winter for 20 years and he sits there on Television telling us something entirely different – according to him the world is warming and has been consistently doing so since the 1950s totally ignoring the past 15 years.

    Here’s the past 10 years – I don’t need to put in the trend lines because it’s damn obvious.

    In the 1860s people were dying from heatwaves and the government was encouraging them to take a train to the coast to avoid it, but oh, their records only go back to 1910.
    Where were all the reports of birds and bats falling out of the sky dead due to heatwaves in the press in 2013? It was in the press in the 1830s and at various times in the past.

    Incidentally, Australia produced a record wheat harvest this year so if that’s what a warming Australia gives us then bring it on!

  36. Another Ian January 11, 2014 at 7:14 am #

    Wider than BOM but

  37. Neville January 11, 2014 at 7:14 am #

    There’s a great poll over at WUWT testing Lew’s errant nonsense.

    Luke will love it because they ask questions about bigfoot, capture by aliens etc as well.

  38. Neville January 11, 2014 at 7:49 am #

    Just completed that poll at WUWT. John the sth ocean has been cooling, so I don’t know where he gets his info from plus other areas have shown little warming for the entire satellite ara. Why is that? But the WFT graph shows how silly and extreme these people are, I honestly don’t think they’ll ever wake up.

    But the real question to ask them is how “do you fix your problem”? That’s the end of sensible dialogue bcause they’ll start to rave on about more solar and wind, geothermal, perhaps even new nukes etc. Difference that will make is ZIP.
    But Germany’s tried this on for at least 20 years and stuffed their grid and made their economy uncompetitive.
    After all they’ve now returned to brown coal in a BIG WAY, just a pity they’ve flushed 100 billion $ down the toilet for a zero return and wasted a couple of decades of time for NOTHING.

  39. Ken Stewart January 11, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    Morning Jen

    UHI affected sites are discussed in
    Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset
    CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 pages 71-73. (

    ” Stations determined as being influenced by urbanisation or other local land-use change remain in the ACORN-SAT data set, but their designation allows them to be excluded from
    downstream products such as the calculation of national and regional temperature anomalies for the analysis of large scale climate change.”
    so the 8 stations mentioned are excluded from temperature calculation.

    Brisbane is not included because it is Brisbane Airport 040842, which is well away from the city. However, if Brisbane Regional Office had been included and correctly homogenised, the record would have shown a distinct cooling trend.

  40. sp January 11, 2014 at 8:41 am #

    Strange democracy we live in when a request for information by a tax paying citizen from a government agency becomes a “denial of service attack”.

    “Madge Jones launched a virtual denial of service attack against her local guvmint by requesting information about the plan to close most streets, alarmingly, Madge requested the raw traffic data that the decision was based on”.

    Do Luke’s questions constitute a “a denial of service attack” on this blog”.

  41. Neville January 11, 2014 at 8:48 am #

    Measurement from satellites show much higher UHIE than was understood in the past.
    NASA has shown that city temps in the NE USA are 7c to 9c higher than the surrounding countryside.
    Lomborg covered this higher UHIE in his book “Cool It” and quoted some of the more extreme examples like Tokyo and London.
    Tokyo was at least 10c warmer than surrounding areas. But how do you accurately adjust for such extremes?°c-nasa/

  42. cohenite January 11, 2014 at 9:03 am #

    Luke, that statement about UAH agreeing with the BOM about 2013 being the hottest Australian year; not quite right I’m afraid, I do apologise, the record is set straight here:

  43. Luke January 11, 2014 at 9:11 am #

    sp – no that’s John’s gish gallop technique of irrelevant and incorrect factoids. One has to laugh. I really enjoyed the “how do we know the ocean around Australia is warmer”. Well John they actually use surf life saving clubs with thermometers.

    sp – I guess you approve of the cost impost of frivolous, repeated and vexatious requests upon public services increasing short of staff resources. Or would you like them to provide their core function or talk to ning nongs like you, who really don’t have any serious questions but are simply a member of a fifth columnist gangster outfit of time wasting anarchists.

    BTW go into service desk government agency around Australia – and like Neville yell at them that they’re liars and frauds and see how long it takes it takes security to turn up. It’s a great technique for getting your questions answered. Ridiculing and making accusations at the officers there is always a great idea to get your questions answered.

  44. Robert January 11, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    When you consider the overwhelming evidence of every kind of climatic extreme in Oz during the 19th century, (and the early 1790s and Fed drought etc etc) and how so much of that evidence has been dismissed or marginalised because it MIGHT be corrupted by inadequate measurement…why then, I think we can ask our hoity-toity BoM to question some readings which MIGHT be affected by UHI.

    Incidentally, skeptics are aware of David Jones’s opinion of skeptics and Jones knows their opinion of him. That is neither here nor there. Don’t care if he has compassion fatigue or feels other correspondence should come first or thinks skeps belong on the end of some bad-attitude queue. Those are his personal feelings. This is not Mother Russia and taxpayers will get answers because those answers are DUE.

  45. hunter January 11, 2014 at 9:24 am #

    There is only one reason for Jones to refuse to produce the data.

  46. Neville January 11, 2014 at 9:25 am #

    Luke you are a fool, but we all know that don’t we? All my allegations are supported by simple maths and proves I am correct.
    But please prove me wrong when I say that the mitigation of AGW as proposed by the OECD countries is the greatest fraud and con in the last 100 years.
    Should be easy for you, so please go ahead? But remember I’ll be coming after you with that ratio of 16 to 1. And remember the last 20 years of German history.

    BTW here’s an oldie but a goodie from 2007. Lomborg describes the UHIE in New York and talks about SLR when sitting in a once harbour side cafe ( in the 18th century) that is now a considerable 2 blocks inland from the rising seas. Land that is easily reclaimed over the last 200 years by modern technology and engineering.

  47. Neville January 11, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    Sorry here’s the link.

  48. Luke January 11, 2014 at 9:28 am #

    Well Cohenite we won’t be relying on your for source anymore but I’m rather glad as it would be a worry if they did match up.

    But what else in your article did you get wrong then given you’re prone to misreporting? BTW your DTR trend is actually wrong too and your bald hypothesis is even wrong. Just looking at an alternative national analysis which puts 2013 as clearly the warmest and DTR decreasing.

    Good luck with your propaganda. Contains all the usual sceptic nonsense and try-ons.

    And further a lovely little paper using a technique possibly unfamiliar to yourself and Ken Stewart – it’s called publishing independent analyses in the mainstream literature. Some think it has advantages over vanity blogs and hastily conceived op-eds but who would know. I found it très amusant

    Jones, R. N. (2012), Detecting and attributing nonlinear anthropogenic regional warming in southeastern Australia, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D04105, doi:10.1029/2011JD016328

  49. Luke January 11, 2014 at 9:34 am #

    Hunter – the data are there – get it yourself and do an alternative analysis. Oh I forgot your incapable – sorry.

    But Robert we’ve been through the checklist and it seems you have ticked all the boxes as a vexatious whinger on the approved client process manual. So you’ll have to get back in line sorry. There’s a queue. No pushing now.

  50. Robert January 11, 2014 at 9:42 am #

    If BoM staff are abused or threatened they can feel free to call security or have the offenders ejected. If they find customer comments too emotive they can insist on retraction before service. If people are proven to be time-wasting or provoking, they can be refused service. Perfectly legit.

    However, I have just re-read Jen’s email to Jones and find nothing in it which can justify rejection or deliberate delay. If there is an inadequate response (we have no cause yet to say that there will be) that cannot be excused by saying that other people have been out of line. Jen is Jen, she is not other people. That email does not come from me or any group of skeptics or any group at all. It is her email.

    Lastly, nobody is asking BoM to do new research. They’re being asked, by a biologist and taxpayer, to show what is already in front of them.

  51. Ian Thomson January 11, 2014 at 9:54 am #

    sp, “denial of service attacks’ are big stuff. When the owner of a local fishing and hunting store requested, via our State rep, the information leading to a State Govt ban on Murray Cray fishing, the whole system froze up .
    It caused such a freeze that , not only was the rep unable to write back, he was unable to walk 2 doors from his office , to the store.
    I guess that is the sort of thing Luke is thinking of. After all , if the BOM supercomputer was side tracked by supplying Jen with some information , the whole system might fail.

    Imagine, all those climate people, stuck in the office, unable to answer any awkward questions.

  52. Luke January 11, 2014 at 10:07 am #


    Jen is not a special client as far as I am aware. And all modern public services have a significant burden of replying to Ministerial constituent matters. Some areas have high loads in these areas. There’s probably a queue. There’s also performance measures for response which means if the system wants things done quickly comprehensive responses are not forthcoming. Blame the system.

    Ian Thomson – who says it was the public servant? Maybe the Minister didn’t like the question. Do you know? FOI for a response to the question. In fact I’d have to say in personal dealing on a number matters in the past year I’ve found front line staff more than helpful.

  53. Robert January 11, 2014 at 10:29 am #

    Supe, how are you going with your research on Qld drought in ENSO neutral years? We’ve barely got into the 20th century and there are quite a few to go. After that, there are the awful droughts which occurred in other regions in neutral years. (Australian history is just full of those droughts! A short break in the mid-1970s…then it all comes back again, with the usual heartbreak.) Imagine the Vics having that shocking heat and drought in the neutral 1967-8, flanked by neutral years!

    Then there are those massive contradictions which make the literalist’s head spin: the two adjacent El Ninos 1940-2, the first of which parched WA and the second of which drenched it. (Crazy effects in the east also. And both with “Strong” SOI!) Not a very reliable console button at all, that El Nino button. What started as a handy observation set – and still is – has been mistaken for a mechanism by potty intellectuals and pub-pontificators! Can you believe such folly?

    Sorry, I’m talking about your least fave subject: stuff which actually happened. Anyway, let’s hope that Jen’s email helps the BoM to a better focus. Maybe they just need some tough love from people like Jen, and vexatious people like me need to stay out of it, as you suggest.

  54. Luke January 11, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    Robert sounds like you’ve never read a single science paper and I”m not surprised. Never claimed that ENSO explains more than 50% of the east Australian rainfall variation. The non-ENSO droughts have always been a known issue.

  55. Minister for Common Sense January 11, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    Big L says that Jen may not be a special client, that is true, and it is also probably true that the people running the BOM do have a lot of work to do, including satisfying constituent matters etc

    But the simple fact is that by amplification, the number of people now awaiting a response with answers to Jens’ polite request is now in the many hundreds. if not thousands…..the vast majority being Australian tax payers who are now waiting with interest. So Jens request is not a singleton at all.

    How the BOM responds will say a lot about its competence and professionalism.

    Their best way of handling it is quickly and openly … and it should, if they have any gumption at all give it a high priority.

  56. Debbie January 11, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    If as Jen has intimated here recently. . .you are a part of this system. . .which is in fact part of the PUBLIC SERVICE. . .if you dislike the PUBLIC so much. . .and think that those who live in regional/rural Australia are just WAAAaaaay too stupid to understand anything. . .and spend all their time flapping around with one wing, drinking tea at parties, and simply DON’T CARE about the environment. . .then maybe you might be in the wrong job?
    I have met teachers who dislike students, nurses who dislike patients, case workers who dislike their clients, public servants who dislike the public & etc. . .and without fail, they all tend to be consistently miserable and consistently over defensive and say such brilliant things (NOT!) like:
    “teaching would be a great job if we didn’t have to deal with children/students”.
    Your comment re BoM staff’s opinion of Jen’s request is alarmingly similar.

  57. Johnathan Wilkes January 11, 2014 at 10:54 am #

    “Never claimed that ENSO explains more than 50% of the east Australian rainfall variation.”

    in other words it explains nothing!

  58. Robert January 11, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    Supe, there’s been a colossal misunderstanding. This shouldn’t happen between buddies like you and me. I had the distinct impression, from numerous recent comments of yours, that you thought the present tragic Qld drought, occurring in an ENSO neutral year, had some distinctive quality. Since there are so many examples of La Nina droughts, neutral droughts, multi-year droughts in successive neutral years – and even neutral with La Nina multi-year droughts! – that would be a silly belief, wouldn’t it? Silly me, to think you could be so silly. (Or maybe you’ve gone away and had a think? That’s always a good thing.)

    Let’s put these misunderstandings behind us now and watch hard for BoM’s response to Jen’s email. When you think of the cost and inefficiency of wind turbines etc and the inevitable fate of Australian dollars in the EU shark pool, a bit of expedition on the BoM’s part in answering an email from a biologist and taxpayer would be more than commendable. Especially when you consider that they must have the info right in front of them.

  59. cohenite January 11, 2014 at 11:27 am #

    ” BTW your DTR trend is actually wrong too and your bald hypothesis is even wrong. Just looking at an alternative national analysis which puts 2013 as clearly the warmest and DTR decreasing.”

    Ipse dixit luke, gibberish. You have had explained to you by Ken why Karoly’s paper on DTR is wrong; very simple really; their data stops about 2000 and is end point nonsense.

    With your Jones paper isolating AGW caused steps in temperature in 1968 and 1997 I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Jones offers no statistical analysis or mechanism beyond some hand-waving to do with “step changes in zonal (24–44°S) and southern hemisphere mean air temperatures (Tav).”

    This is circularity of the lowest order. Isolating steps or breaks in data is something I do know a little about and this is junk. Convince me otherwise.

  60. Johnathan Wilkes January 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    I sometimes wonder if Luke is indeed the one and the same person, or the sense he makes depends on the time of day he posts;

    Tale this latest gem of his; “Well John they actually use surf life saving clubs with thermometers.”
    Let’s say we accept the validity of the data collected.

    Luke do you know how many days in year the SLS clubs operate, ie. actually on the beach?
    Do you how far out to they usually go?
    Here on my local beach they would be out less than 30 days a year and do not go further out then 400 M where the water is about 5 feet deep. Any decent run off after rain could affect that temp.

    Are those thermometers properly calibrated? Do they keep accurate records?

    This is just utter rot. And at the same time you dismiss long established tidal gauge readings or pictorial evidence as provided on this blog by SD.

    So are you are you not a single individual?

    I’m asking because many times you make good sense and back up your arguments with facts, other times you talk nonsense.

  61. Luke January 11, 2014 at 1:19 pm #

    Robert – I’m just holding up a mirror – if half of the comments here tilted at D Jones were said to an officer on help desk in any local, state or Federal government agency (we’ve had liar and fraud snipped thankfully) how would you the officer be disposed? and secondly I’d guess there would be a lot of mail and requests. To do a good job takes time as they are a bit different.

    Then of course DJ may have a view but his management and Minister may have another. So how much does one really know? Just a few asides….

    Robert – some of us are interested in the problem of climate variability and its severe impact on agriculture and grazing. So droughts are very difficult economic, social, personal and eventually environmental issues (overgrazing leas to reef sediment for a single but topical example). Rural suicide is an issue. So is family breakdown.

    No naively one might think that there could be mechanisms behind such events. And perhaps that some of the mechanisms have persistent features like an El Nino warm pool which hangs around for a season. i.e. some hope of a rainfall forecast. So ENSO gets a big run. But there is also Indian Ocean, monsoonal, SAM, sub-tropical ridge and other things which pop up as well. As a Aussies are all mug punters one might have some hope that if you forecast such a thing you could minimise how much trouble you can get into. i.e. holding stock – and getting into expensive hand feeding instead of selling early – “sell’em or smell’em”. Now it’s not as simple as that as you have agistment, droving, weaning, time of year for mustering, water supply, market conditions to sell on, tax year boundaries, and valuable breeding herd genetic material to conserve. And it might rain or you might be lucky enough to jag a lone convective storm at your place.

    All this goes as far back as Clement Wragge and Inigo Jones.

    So Robert – I just wondered what might be at play with this stressful sneaky little current drought which is driving field officers to desperation and overload.

    And you ripped into me. So I just let you go. I was just asking for “had you you noticed that the sub dooval dacker was unusually below the quasi thinga-ma-bobby” But that’s OK. I dunno either.

    P.S. In looking at all this sciencey stuff above one may have noticed certain trends in the data (ironic this thread – hahahahaha). A certain warming, ENSO bunching. Funny that. And a worrying realisation that if the next 120 years are not some random sample of the past 120 years distribution then one’s stats forecast (based on the last 120) might be in a tad of trouble. But hey worrying about rain is a mugs game. Anyway it’s all a long way from the The Road from Coorain By Jill Kerr Conway. Do you reckon he died by accident in that dam or …. and of course Jill escaped it to become part of the betters you despise. For many of us the roots are still out there in western graves. Anyway enough of all that. Sunday Too Far Away.

  62. Luke January 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm #

    No fair dinkum JW – their long boats and zodiacs go out a long way. And they used calibrated Vaisala synthetic mercury thermometers these days so the data are most accurate.

  63. Glen Michel January 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm #

    That’s it Luke I am going to get you a book on Australian working dogs to round out your rural knowledge.

  64. Robert January 11, 2014 at 3:15 pm #

    Supe, I have noticed that when you want to admit fault your text becomes garbled and you argue against ideas which nobody has advanced. So we’ll take it that’s a merciful end to ENSO thumping. Thank God! There are other factors in operation? Blow me down! You don’t have to tell us about the PDO, IOD monsoon etc. We know about that. We also know the present drought is bad and driving people to desperation and so on. We know, okay? No argument, before or now, about that.

    But what you do not know, you do not know. Striving to know: good. Pretending to know: bad.

    The tireless Gilbert Walker, head of Indian observatories after 1904, looked at atmospheric causes for recent Indian famine during what was for Australia “a certain warming, ENSO bunching” to use your own words – 13 years without La Nina! – and made connections involving India, the oceans, the monsoons, Australia etc. His SOI work was the beginning of important knowledge. No coincidence, as I’ve said before, that the Skull Famine and freak heat/drought of the early Port Jackson colony came together.

    When you stop trying to fit things to a script and start enquiring you will be a scientist, and I certainly hope that you then put me to shame. That won’t be hard! Right now, you’re a preacher on a shaky pulpit.

    Repeating: What you do not know, you do not know. Striving to know: good. Pretending to know: bad.

  65. Luke January 11, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    Just shake my head at you Robert. Really poor response at a decent attempt to communicate.

    “We know, okay?” actually – most of Australia doesn’t know nor care.

    “Supe, I have noticed that when you want to admit fault your text becomes garbled ” WTF – errr WTF

    Just drop off Robert. Really just join the conga line of sooking whingers here.

  66. Luke January 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    “But what you do not know, you do not know.” – so I asked your opinion? Did I not? And we get more grandad-isms.

  67. Neville January 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

    Luke’s the biggest sooking whinger on this blog and by a long way. Here’s a bit more room for optimism from the OZ, I just hope they start to end subsidies on the barking mad solar and wind energy con jobs. Geeezzzz how long can these people operate by displaying complete ignorance of simple kindy maths?
    We know Luke hasn’t got a clue so we’ll forget him and hope that OZ follows the EU’s lead and starts to end the subsidies on the biggest ponzi scheme hoax in recent history. The EU has plenty of coal available and looks like they will hopefully follow Germany towards lower electricity prices and more jobs and prosperity for their own workers.
    And three cheers for Maurice Newman recently telling the truth for a change, because he helped to start the ball rolling.

  68. Luke January 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    Oh Nev – I think you might edge me out somehow – someone devoted to screeching liar and fraud every day and graffiti-ing disinformation from the worst fraud sites on the internet whose authors even then retract their own material. It’s a class act.

    But back to temperatures – it’s interesting how sceptics have a poor grasp thermodynamics versus atmospheric dynamics as evidenced by these sort of conundrums and contrasts.

    Seems in J Sayers bitterly cold NH – that the beloved UAH data set puts 2013 as the 4th warmest year. Where’s that bone crushing ice age.

  69. John Sayers January 11, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    So what Luke – 4th is 1st is it. The bone crushing ice age was in central US, Chicago, Detroit etc. Even the anti-freeze in cars didn’t work.

    BTW – the surf lifesavers measure the water temp on the shore so they can update their water temperature readings for the public information which leaves out all the top end, half the WA coast and Southern WA coast. I was referring to the Australian coastal water temps throughout Australia, not just 10m from the shore at selected beaches.

  70. cohenite January 11, 2014 at 5:05 pm #

    Luke, I could have sworn you a comment about end point fallacy in the context, I presumed, of steps or breaks in the temperature data. But it seems to have disappeared.

    In any event a break or step in data is like all linear regression analysis dependent on the length of the data; subsequent data can always change the prior conclusion.

    I don’t know why this so hard for you and why you cannot accept that it means Karoly’s DTR analysis and conclusion about it decreasing was confounded by the a further decade’s worth of data.

    Are you going to comment further on Jones’ step analysis?

  71. Luke January 11, 2014 at 6:11 pm #

    There appears to be a breakpoint in 2002 in previous DTR downward trend, but needs more work. Some say it’s a “big” indicator of AGW. I don’t know – clouds are an issue. Regional variation another. However one doesn’t rush to make proclamations as fast as you guys love to do as there are many fascinating things in the data and much more work to be done. Like very steep rises after 1973 (in max and min). 2013 does clearly come out tops though.

    Despite the fascination I think the UHI stuff is a big diversion. Homogenisation methods and length of records are more interesting.

    As I said above you have atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics all mixed up in what we see.

  72. Chris January 11, 2014 at 6:35 pm #

    What I would like an explanation for from the BOM is why the half hourly observations can vary so wildly from the daily Max at the Melbourne station? Weatherzone lists the half hourly data going back for one month and also the daily summaries for the month (which I assume comes from the BOM). As an example, the daily summary for December 2013 here,

    lists the max temp for Sunday 15th as 21.7C, yet the half hourly observations from 9am 15th here,

    to 9am Monday 16th here,

    shows a top temp of only 18.5C. Of course the maximum will not necessarily be recorded right on the half hour, but for the temp to rise by more than 3C and drop again in such a short time is hard to believe. What could cause such a difference? Is a different station used for the max and half hourly Data? Is the difference due to UHI effect? Is Melbourne included as a station used to calculate the “hottest year on record statistic?
    This is just one example of many, others include Tuesday 17th 19.2C half hourly and 22.1C max, Sunday 29th 18.4C half hourly 20.9 max. As I said the half hourly temps are only posted for the last month but I have been watching for quite some time and anomalies such as these have been going on for a long time. I’ve not had time to check if any other stations show similar problems.
    There may well be a perfectly logical explanation, I’d like to hear it.

  73. Neville January 11, 2014 at 9:16 pm #

    Well Luke we know one thing for sure, you are a liar and a con merchant. When you linked to that fake Greenland temp graph we all understood to what degree you would descend into the muck to try and win a point.
    But you follow the type of scientists that use fake data not once but many times and then other scientists use that same fake data in other studies as well.
    We have genuine people like McIntyre to thank for exposing these liars and cheats with their upside down fakery.
    How you have the hide to return here after you’ve been caught out using that degree of deception is beyond me.
    You must be dense or a compulsive liar because you kept linking to that graph a number of times after I pointed out it was a lie.

  74. Neville January 11, 2014 at 9:47 pm #

    Still doesn’t alter the fact that you lied and cheated and were caught out you fool. Just like the stupid numbskulls who were exposed by McIntyre. The release of the climategate emails also changed the way people viewed some of these so called scientists.
    Judith Curry would never trust some of them again.

  75. Luke January 11, 2014 at 9:59 pm #

    I didn’t lie or cheat. I don’t concede anything at all and the comments stands. But don’t assume I read the nonsense that you reproduce. I think you’re a rank idiot so don’t think I actually even give you the time of day. You’re having yourself on.

  76. John Sayers January 11, 2014 at 10:21 pm #

    Ditto Luke – I post about Australia’s ocean temps and you call up some babble about surf lifesavers. I mention global temps and you sidetrack to some other babble.
    It’s just not worth discussing anything with you and that’s all this blog is about – Luke v everyone else.

    I know about all the other posters and they know about me – you? – well Cohenite has an idea but really to me you are just a TROLL!

    Come clean and I might take you seriously otherwise you are just another internet jockey riding high on Meth and Masturbation. Hey that’s a good song title 🙂

  77. sp January 11, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    Neville – your comments about Luke are astute and correct. He is not here to discuss or debate, nor to exchange information. He is here only to denigrate and score points. He seems to need to “win” every point at all costs. It is also clear he does not like others to discuss, debate or exchange information – he does everything possible to deny and denigrate. He really is worried that people are not being fooled – says everything about the poor soul.

    BTW Luke – provide me the names and addresses of “climate scientists” so I can tell them to their faces. Provide yours too while your at it – would be interesting to see who does the dropping.

  78. jennifer January 11, 2014 at 10:46 pm #

    So, let’s apply some self discipline and ignore Luke, especially when his comments are completely off topic.

    This thread is about how the BOM calculates an annual average temperature for Australia and in particular how it calculated the 2013 annual average.

    There is no need to comment if you have nothing to add.

  79. Luke January 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm #

    I like this – sp doesn’t know the names of the climate scientists he wants to abuse. Sort of like these guys going around coward punching people. Unreal man. Ask the Federal police to kindly direct you.

    JS – well what’s wrong with the life saver temperature database?

  80. jennifer January 11, 2014 at 11:32 pm #

    Samuel Gordon-Stewart has cross-posted my Open Letter, and thanks to the comment from NBrettoner…

  81. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 12:57 am #

    “JS – well what’s wrong with the life saver temperature database?”

    nothing – it’s just not relevant.

  82. James January 12, 2014 at 3:02 am #

    “West Australian heatwave closes national parks, dams as temperatures head toward 44C in Perth”

    The ABC report based on information from the BOM goes on: “The severe to extreme heatwave conditions in WA are forecast to spread to south-east Australia over the weekend, with possibly no relief for inland areas for well over a week.” and repeated the claim. “The sweltering conditions came as a BoM report revealed that 2013 was the hottest year on record in Australia.”

    It seems that the Australian BOM is now also deciding it’s own definition of meteorological terms. The International definition of a heat wave recommended by the World Meteorological Organization is when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F).

    The daily maximum temperature in Perth for January is 31.1C. On Friday it reached 34.2C, Saturday 43.0C, Sunday is forecast to reach 41.0C, Monday 29.0C, Tuesday 29.0C, Wednesday 27.0C, Thursday 26.0C. This is NOT a HEAT WAVE this is NORMAL SUMMER weather!

    So according to BOM two days makes a HEATWAVE!

  83. Glen Michel January 12, 2014 at 8:03 am #

    Otto Bismarck purported to say: there are three uncertain things in life politics,BOM and what goes into a sausage! Prussian railway timetables and sorting out temp. recording methodology. I remember a series of heat waves in Perth and the SW in 1991 and I think they got to around 47 ..damned hot picking pears!

  84. handjive of January 12, 2014 at 9:03 am #

    Scientists Call November 2013 Alleged Record “A Flop”: Far From Record Warmest…Series Of Problems With Surface Stations

  85. handjive of January 12, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    It’s a great pity that the BoM staff don’t read their own climate education pages.
    They just might learn something about previous “unprecedented” angry summers.

    Temperatures In Melbourne Have Dropped 50% Over The Last 75 Years


    The period between 13 and 20 January 1908 remains the most sustained hot spell in Melbourne’s history. For five consecutive days (16th-20th) the temperature exceeded 40°C (with 39.9°C on the 15th), peaking at 44.2°C on the 17th.

  86. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 9:52 am #

    Can we please get on topic at this thread. Other comments can be posted at the Open Thread here

  87. Luke January 12, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    Thanks for that information Handjive – “” – so what’s the thread banging on about UHI in Melbourne for then?

    Can you explain pls?

  88. Neville January 12, 2014 at 10:48 am #

    Luke might be on to something. If we adjust out the MODERN UHIE it’s even cooler than we thought. Just joking. But good stuff Handjive. Bloody long hot spells in 1908 and 1939.

  89. Debbie January 12, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    I am still unclear why a national mean/median/ average that has merely broken a claimed previous national mean/median/average record by NOT MUCH is being touted by the BoM via DJ as something worthy of national attention supremely significant (and apparently a worry) ?

  90. Luke January 12, 2014 at 11:33 am #

    No I’m am joking like I was with the obviously stupid life savers temperature scam with Vaisala synthetic mercury thermometers (come on – how wanky!). Goddard’s post is a total joke (even for him) like most of his rot. Just pointing out some logical hypocrisy to Handjive.

    But seriously Melbourne temps have increased and the min more than max. But how much of that is UHI and how much is it a regional warming (from whatever cause to save any fights). So if the region warmed so would Melbourne – it’s not zero. It’s total temp = background warming + UHI. How does one disentangle a UHI effect.

    So are these 8 out of 112 stations nationally which have UHI effects, isn’t UHI just a big furphy. Isn’t it more about length of record and homogenisation adjustments?

  91. Luke January 12, 2014 at 11:36 am #

    Re Debbie’s question of reporting bias – here are the BoM special climate statements – 3 have exceptional cold.

    In a warming climate however you’d expect more warmer stories. Which is what you get.

    Didn’t hear Debbie complaining about the cold reports.

  92. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm #


    Did anything happen as a result of The Formal Request to audit BOM and CSIRO Climate Data back in 2011?

    Seems Ken Stewart had no luck at all.
    Will this be the same?
    Dr. David Jones is still at the helm.

  93. Luke January 12, 2014 at 1:38 pm #

    Frankly this process is complaining about BoM is endless. There is an issue of efficiency here.

    With the tone that has been expressed by Australian sceptics now for over decade, whether rightly or wrongly, I’d suggest that the relationship with BoM is about as bad as you can get, and any statement put out by BoM will be challenged almost on sport. Practically this essentially results in a Denial of Service attack on BoM answering innumerable questions about whatever their next statement is. It won’t stop.

    For all Jen’s questions – there’s probably another 20 things you could ask about. And then another 20.

    Unless BoM come out and say Australia’s climate is cooling and an ice age imminent sceptics will never be happy.

    So presumably sceptics would like a solution:

    Don’t audit – do your own analysis. Get all the raw data, clean it up, organise it – whatever is needed.

    Decide on an analysis method – publish it on-line. Get public and any government feedback, adjust if needed, and then do it.

    Then publish all results, methods, scripts, code and statistical techniques on-line.

    But this goes both ways – you have to accept whatever turns up.

  94. sp January 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    I am in the infrastructure game. We do modelling. We engage with stakeholders / users via user groups etc. We present the outputs of models / calculations, and if requested we provide the algorithms and the raw data, along with explanatory notes on the methodology used and the limitations of the data. We receive regular requests for data / clarification from other groups (some of them deep green) – we provide whats requested, no snow jobs, etc. Sometimes parliament (or its members) make requests. It is no big deal for the “public” to request this, it is no big deal to provide it – it should be available as a matter of course. Its called transparency. Telling the truth and providing the data is not a problem if you have nothing to hide. It is not a denial of service attack if community groups request data / clarification – its called freedom of information within a democracy. It should be no big deal for BOM to comply with Dr J’s request – but their response will be telling. If dealing with a healthy organisation there would be no discussion as per this thread. Sure there are some vexatious types who chew up resources, but not enough to deny prompt and transparent responses to genuine requests. BOM are public servants and should serve the public impartially.

    Lukes dummy spitting about “complaining about BOM” is a side show and diversion – he simply wants no questions asked.

  95. Luke January 12, 2014 at 2:48 pm #

    At this sp – it’s apparent that you’re a pugilistic redneck. “Tell me the names of climate scientists (I don’t know who but anyone will do) so I can ring up and abuse them” is about as telling a comment as you can ever get.

    Strange that your hip pocket would be welded to your “presentations”. Sounds like you’re a front PR firm to baffle the community to get your dodgy projects built. How appalling.

    How about we ask you today for some information. Then we’ll ask you tomorrow for something different. And then the day after. Then the day after that. Each time something different and non-stop.

    Do you like serving clients who abuse you?

    The data are all there – but as a lazy bones you’re not really interested in getting it. You’re just a ragger. Tell us sp – how much of BoM’s existing material have you read. Don’t bother – we know it’s zero point zero. What do you do when your clients don’t read the material you give them then threaten you?

  96. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm #

    OK I downloaded a couple of files for Kyneton and Malmsbury, (Mby closed) because I can compare these with our records collected by my father and my grand father.

    What I don’t know is, if these are raw or adjusted in any way?
    It stated that they are quality approved or not as the case may be, whatever that means.

    Does it mean adjustment, homogenization or just making sure it’s has no gross errors, the site doesn’t tell or am I missing something?

    No reply to my email yet requesting raw data, but the way it looks and going by Luke’s remarks I might as well forget about it.

  97. Robert January 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm #

    When the inner-Brissie aspidistra farmer Jaycee makes an appearance, it’s a sign that someone wants to divert the thread. I’m guessing Jen is on the right track with her email. It asks the right questions, and answers to those questions are now DUE.

    Remember: the info is not obscure or in need of prepping. It is info which must be right at their fingertips, or they could not have made their pronouncement.

    As a total skeptic I could not care less if last year was “Australia’s hottest”. Nor do I care if we are cooling. If the BoM made no pronouncements of any sort but got their weekly outlooks a bit tighter, enriched records, improved weather and climate indicator info without prognosticating or assuming, I would be happy enough with the BoM. I for one do not expect them to be able to know how much rain will or won’t fall this year. (Which is just as well, since they don’t know.) If others demand much more of the BoM, the BoM can do what a lot of professional people do and explain that there is no cure for the problem and only a very little to work with. Which has been the truth all along about climate. Sat, radar and major indicators can all be extended and improved, and new resources will be found. But what we don’t know we don’t know, right?

    I do not think members of the public should have to make their own Bureau of Meteorology if the existing one is proving a real dud. If I don’t like my dentist, I don’t take up dentistry. I get a new dentist.

    Regardless of whether or not BoM likes skeptics or whether people are ever reasonable in their expectations of forecasting, Jen’s questions are polite, brief and to the point, not asking for forecasts, requiring nothing which is new or burdensome, but only information which must already be at the BoM’s fingertips. Answers are therefore DUE.

  98. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm #

    You just don’t get it do you Luke.

    I started downloading all the NSW stations back in 2009/10 and compared the HQ data with the Torook data – I later discovered that Ken Stewart was doing the same so I sent him all my data as I couldn’t afford the hours and hours of work involved. Ken then went on to complete the full Australian analysis which he published on his Blog. By then many others had become involved including Tony Cox, Jo Nova and later, Jennifer.

    The link DaveMyFace gave above was when the team approached the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

    The BoM brushed them off by stating that they no longer used the HQ data as they now used the new ACORN data therefore the HQ data was irrelevant and therefore the FOI request was no longer applicable.

    That’s what we are dealing with which is a far cry from the approach sp just verified as correct policy.

  99. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 3:19 pm #


    You can get some of the ‘raw data’ files here…

    You can download the ACORN files here…

    Bathurst raw data files are only there with data from about 1966 for the Ag Station. So I made a specific request some months ago for the raw files back to 1908. I was originally told it didn’t exist. I then emailed/phoned asking, “so is the ACORN data for Bathurst Ag just made up”? I was then told I could have the raw file if I paid some money – $94. I’ve got his file, let me know if you would like access.

    The Ag Station file that I paid for has a lot of missing values, and not as one might expect. For example, 1939 values through from about April to September are missing for max but not mins. I’ve been told that missing values were either not recorded or are values thought to be suspect and therefore deleted (- so nothing adjusted as such/unless you count deleting as adjusting ;-)).

    I’ve emailed and phoned about access to the original hard copy files i.e. the book/document in which the values were actually recorded. At the moment it is unclear whether this book/document has been archived in Melbourne or Canberra. I’ve been told I can probably get access if again, I pay, and I travel to either Melbourne or Canberra. That is all pending someone getting back to me by phone.


    The audit saga you linked to is detailed on Jo Nova’s blog. The short answer I think is, as explained by John Sayers, they made the request redundant by ditching the ‘high quality’ data project. More information here


    No reply so far from David Jones. Some ideas for progressing this… Someone to start a poll or petition on the issue and/or everyone starts writing to David Jones through their local MP?

  100. sp January 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm #

    Luke – the datasets and algorithms in question are audited by independent 3rd parties and the Office of The Auditor General. Nothing dodgy there – all up front and transparent.

    The self elected smartest men in the room types usually try to make access to information difficult – they like the power it gives them being the only ones with access to the data. They also need longer to process requests for data because a liar needs a good memory and must check past responses carefully.

    The more reasonable types worked out a long time it is easier, quicker and cheaper to provide the data upon request, and need to do less checking because they tend not to lie. Thats why the policy to is provide all data upon request and to assist the community to understand and access the data.

    We assist people access the data, and let them know what is available – its called public service.

    About 50% like the organisation, about 50% dont – you get that. Some abuse – you get that too. It is best to ignore the abuse and provide the data.

    Open and transparent access to data promotes harmony and cooperation across all groups, even those with opposing agenda, because all have access to the same data on equal conditions.

    Democracy can become tedious with all those unwashed rednecks asking questions. The role of the public service is to answer those questions. Not to insult their employer and customer. Liberty and democracy require eternal vigilance and constant questioning.

    Seeking data from the public service is not a denial of service attack. It is a legitimate part of democracy.

    You need to curb your dictatorial tendencies and develop some respect for the public instead of treating them as unwashed rednecks. I just hope you dont work for BOM.

    Are BOM data and algorithms audited?

    Does BOM have user / stakeholder groups?

  101. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 3:46 pm #

    Jen – I’ve emailed you the data on Bathurst Ag that I have – it goes back to 1858.

  102. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 3:49 pm #

    Excellent questions from sp:

    Are BOM data and algorithms audited?

    Does BOM have user / stakeholder groups?


    I’m keen to collect such good ideas as we move to the next stage which, for example, could involve preparing questions for tabling in parliament.

  103. Robert January 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm #

    If you wanted to just “lose” a year of maxima, 1939 would be the perfect one.

  104. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm #

    Hi John Sayers,

    Got your data on the jail back to 1858, much thanks.

    The data you emailed me for the Ag Station (which is an ACORN station) began in about 1966.

    Much thanks.

  105. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 3:57 pm #

    No, I sent you 63005, Bathurst Ag Station. My data goes back to 1858 because I have the Torook data.

  106. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 3:59 pm #

    I sent it to your gmail address.

  107. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 4:00 pm #

    Sorry – I sent it just now

  108. sp January 12, 2014 at 4:12 pm #

    Also Luke – you have a habit of asking and answering your own questions. Why bother coming here?

    Cut out the middle man and save key-strokes – just talk to yourself until you have won the argument and obtained the desired outcome.

    It would be win-win all round – you can make your point, win your argument, reduce your carbon footprint, and be master of your own climate universe without engagement with unwashed rednecks (anybody in the community that does not agree with you) and deniers.

    You dont have to tell anybody what you have deduced, well not me in any case – but perhaps BOM would be interested in your work? Why not engage with them?

  109. Luke January 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm #

    sp – there is a big difference between people who are seriously interested, sophists and faux sceptics. So which are you? bIf you were seriously interested you’d know a lot more than than you do. You’ve simply made a tribal choice based on nothing but people’s opinions.

    “Are BOM data and algorithms audited?” One way is peer review publishing, another contributing to national and international processes, and like most science organisations specific quality reviews on various topics, like they did with ACORN (and then sceptics rejected as good enough is never good enough). But BoM is huge with many sections – think you’re going to check every line?

    ARE SCEPTICS AUDITED? Typically not. Do they submit their peer reviewed publications to BoM and CSIRO for comment or do they just blog them and make no warranty pronouncements. Which Neville then just cuts and pastes usually without reading or understanding.

    “Does BOM have user / stakeholder groups” YES many, but probably not with sceptics. Funnily enough.

    All incredibly naive questions.

    Like picking a single station(s) like Bathurst with a compromised history. Like not doing an meta data check on your selected stations.

    It’s amateur hour.

    sp – want to have a blog discussion – discuss what you’d have to do to undertake an alternative analysis.

  110. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    Thanks for the links Jen.

    I’d like to receive the data you offered and happy to defray your cost with a contribution.

    When you are ready just use the same Dropbox used before, re. pinker or let me know here and I email you.

    Spoke in haste regarding data comparison.
    Everyone in the family agrees we do have them but nobody knows who or where, bummer.

  111. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

    A petition directly to the House of Reps is long and very regimented. But if applied correctly with signatures, virtually means the House has to act on it. (good or bad)

    A petition must refer to a matter on which the House has the power to act, eg on one of the functions of the BOM as per below, and include contain a request for action by the House.

    Functions of the Bureau

    (1) The functions of the Bureau are:
    (a) the taking and recording of meteorological observations and other observations required for the purposes of meteorology;
    (b) the forecasting of weather and of the state of the atmosphere;
    (c) the issue of warnings of gales, storms and other weather conditions likely to endanger life or property, including weather conditions likely to give rise to floods or bush fires;
    (d) the supply of meteorological information;
    (e) the publication of meteorological reports and bulletins;
    (f) the promotion of the use of meteorological information;
    (g) the promotion of the advancement of meteorological science, by means of meteorological research and investigation or otherwise;
    (h) the furnishing of advice on meteorological matters; and
    (i) co‑operation with the authority administering the meteorological service of any other country (including a Territory specified under subsection 4(2)) in relation to any of the matters specified in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection.
    (j) such other functions as are conferred on the Bureau by any other Act.

    (2) The Bureau shall perform its functions under this Act in the “public interest” generally and in particular:
    (a) for the purposes of the Defence Force;
    (b) for the purposes of navigation and shipping and of civil aviation; and
    (c) for the purpose of assisting persons and authorities engaged in primary production, industry, trade and commerce.

    The Act should be petitioned to include the Bureau making available some of the requests stated in the letter above.

    Act here:

  112. Luke January 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm #


  113. Luke January 12, 2014 at 4:47 pm #

    More for amateur hour – “Hot cities”

  114. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 4:51 pm #

    None of those releases refer to the subject of this Thread.

  115. Luke January 12, 2014 at 4:54 pm #

    UHI does. And their propensity to disclose does. And that there are mechanisms for such things in existence.

  116. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 4:55 pm #


    The link to the FOI papers have nothing to do with the requests outlined above in Jennifers letter.


  117. Luke January 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm #

    Dave – I didn’t say they did. Simply to the comments that BoM don’t disclose – well they do.

    AND were we not discussing Melbourne UHI above – do try to keep up.

    AND do my eyes deceive me – you WANT to stay on topic. Tell Neville.

  118. Jennifer Marohasy January 12, 2014 at 6:05 pm #


    Much thanks for the links. In particular from one of your above links I got here…

    And a powerpoint slides that was made available following FOI that states…

    ‘Synoptic stratification of daily data shows “jump” in the Melbourne series is due to buildings constructed immediately to the south of the site.’

    I’m assuming from the other slides as part of that file they are referring to Melbourne Regional which is part of ACORN and thus potentially part of the 2013 Australian average, unless they choose to exclude it because of the UHI effect.

    Its clear from another slides they can model this UHI affect away, referred to as ‘non-climatic changes’.


    It would be easiest if you could perhaps send me an email to jennifermarohasy at with the email address you would like the file sent to.

    John Sayers,

    Torak was probably using data from the Bathurst gaol? This data series is generally much hotter than the Ag station series and unfortunately they stopped recording at the gaol in about 1984, so its a short series at the critical end.

  119. sp January 12, 2014 at 6:21 pm #

    Peer review is not an audit.

    Presenting data and algorithms to the Office of the Auditor General for inspection and testing is.

    Auditing includes reviewing data storage and data update procedures.

    Luke – you dont know what auditing means – I doubt you have ever engaged in the process or with those that do.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious you have no skill or experience in the management of large and complex databases, or in engaging with the public who have a legitimate right to access that data. You have no credibility.

  120. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 6:23 pm #


    Thanks for that very useful information about petitions and about what the BOM is meant to provide by way of services.

  121. sp January 12, 2014 at 6:28 pm #

    ps Luke: this is what an Audit report looks like – a bit more challenging that peel / pal review.

    One has a statutory mandate and obligation to report to parliament, the other does not.

    Can you see the difference? Can you pick which one?

  122. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 6:29 pm #

    No Jen, it’s definitely Bathurst Ag as it goes by the station numbers. The figures in the xls file are taken directly from the Torook data file for station 63005

  123. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm #


    If you were going to draft a petition and/or questions to be table in parliament, building on the information in my letter and other very useful additional information in this thread, given your experience, what would write… could you draft something for us… email me or post it here?

    I like the idea of a petition asking for inspection and testing by the Auditor General? And in the meantime algorithm, datasets etcetera being made publicly available.

    Also, about Luke, he no doubt has his own cheer squad in government that he plays to. Don’t let him get to you, he often throws out some useful stuff perhaps because he has a good network on the inside, and usually after telling us, for example that UHI is a waste of time, will throw something out showing the exact opposite. For him its perhaps a game. Indeed for many on the other side AGW is a lucrative game.

  124. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 6:34 pm #

    John Sayers,

    Maybe Torok was wrong.

    They started recording at the jail in 1858 and this data is publicly available at the raw data site at the BOM… have you compared the Simon Torok data with the publicly available jail data? Have you looked at the jail data?

    Was there an ag station in Bathurst in 1858?

  125. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 6:39 pm #

    PS This was my first go at looking at Bathurst in terms of hot days…

    and in terms of minimums

    the accompanying text explains my understanding of available Bathurst data.

  126. Debbie January 12, 2014 at 7:09 pm #

    Well said Robert,
    I need that like button again.
    Unfortunately. . . .and I have no idea why. . . they don’t like being asked the simple questions.
    And Luke!
    How often has BoM handwaved in the national media about ‘cooling’ in comparison to taking ownership of ‘warming’ and any ‘hot’ or ‘warmer than average’ events?
    Cold or cooling records are still just as irrelevant as far as national averages/means/medians are concerned. . . especially if it’s by NOT MUCH!

  127. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 7:17 pm #

    sp & Jennifer

    Lots of info at on petitions.

    Just some main points:

    * Be addressed to the House of Representatives;
    * Refer to a matter on which the House of Representatives has the power to act (falls within the legislative or administrative power of the House—some matters are the responsibility of State or Territory Governments, local authorities or private entities)
    * First explain the issue the petition concerns & 2nd, make a request of the House to take a specified course of action (‘request for action’)
    * Use a maximum of 250 words (this includes the address to the House of Representatives, the ‘reasons’ and the ‘request for action’)

    Some of the following should be initiated once petition underway:

    1. Standard letters prepared to send to local MP’s by all of the signatories.
    2. Substantial social media campaign (incl MSM, and othe blog sites etc)
    3. Be prepared for Get-up, The conversation, ALP, Greens, Luke etc to start an anti campaign.
    4. Get as many signatures as possible.

    If you need a hand Jennifer & sp, this site has my email.

  128. sp January 12, 2014 at 7:46 pm #

    Jen – I have limited experience drafting petitions, etc. I will ask some who do. Otherwise happy to help.

    Usually state parliaments have Draft-person, whose role is to advise on the format and procedures for such things.

    You will note the Victorian report was conducted as per (just after title page):

    “Under the provisions of section 16AB of the Audit Act 1994, I transmit my report on the
    audit Managing Major Projects.”

    BOM is a Federal Gov agency and would be covered by a FEDERAL AUDIT act? (have not checked to see).

    State Gov Auditors are highly independent and basically report to parliament. They routinely report on state gov agencies, sometimes report after a crises (to ensure it is not repeated i.e. WA Inc), and are sometimes directed to audit a particular agency or business unit – there needs to be something “smelly” going on to get such a direction. Usually there would be public concern and a member of parliament would present a case for investigation.

    The old legal adage “never ask a question if you dont know the answer” applies. Politicians are nervous of the Auditor General, because one never knows what they may find. I think you would need a friendly politician who is prepared to table “evidence” that supports the need for an audit.

    The trick is to get somebody to waive the scent-rag under the bloodhounds nose, and then let the auditor loose.

    My experience relates to the planning, design, operation and management of “data and models”, and satisfying the Auditor:

    – Databases – is it current, complete, accurate, etc. Updated properly, with an audit trail, etc.
    – Methodology – is it fit for purpose, does what it says it should
    – Processes – are they applied properly and consistently
    – Outputs (answers) – are they true and correct, and presented clearly (not adulterated or obscured)

    and also improving above to the satisfaction of the Auditor (and by extension parliament and by extension the people).

    Certification of transport / infrastructure data is a growing field particularly with the impending implementation of Intelligent Transport Systems and Managed Freeways.

    You can determine yourself how some of these “certification” activities might relate to BOM activities:

    “TCA’s vision is to be recognised as the Australian leader in the provision of high quality advice, accreditation and administration services to improve mobility through information, communications and sensor solutions.

    TCA provides assurance in the use of information, communications and sensor solutions through identifying, delivering and deploying quality systems.

    Provision of high quality:

    – Advice founded on a demonstrated capability to design and deploy operational systems as enablers for reform

    – Accreditation in the type-approval and certification of telematics and intelligent technologies and services that give confidence to all stakeholders for their consideration of use

    – Administration of programs, such as the Intelligent Access Program (IAP)

    – Assurance means ‘Accessibility’, ‘Integrity’ and ‘Productivity’


    – Current and anticipated needs that inform governments and strategic policy environments
    – State-of-the-art national and international developments and strategic implications that inform current and emerging public policy needs
    – Requirements that address public and private outcomes


    – Independent qualified domain expertise
    – Trusted advice that is informed by an understanding of public and private spheres of influence, strategic policy directions of government, and international development and best practice principles
    – Specifications and associated collateral that address public and private outcomes


    – Fit for purpose business and operational models that deliver assurance
    – Administrator and managerial services
    – Accreditation services


    Quality systems for the mobility of people, products and assets”

    If you substitute “BOM / weather data” in place of “Transport / data” you would have a 70% spec.

  129. jaycee January 12, 2014 at 8:02 pm #

    This slow, dragging down into some kind of quagmire that is conservative “philosophy”, can be quite depressing. I sometimes go to right-wing sites just to see if the opp’n is thinking….one is never dissapointed…but I sometimes want to take the piss out of this or that poster there…partiularly on the “denier” sites…You read one poster and you think “ooo!…that’s sweet for a swipe!”….but the more you read, the more tragic and pathetic their personality comes through..till you can almost feel the hopeless tentacles of their sad lives reaching out of the monitor, reaching for you to drag you down like a leaden weight tied to your feet in a deep pool….and you have to get away!

    I’ve come to the conclusion there are three types that inhabit the denier blog world..none are bright buttons..there’s no deep thinking going on, no discourse analysis..just accusation on top of delusion. The first type is the raving accuser..all science is crooked manipulated by the usual money-grubbing scientist suspects..this poster sails close to the wind of certifiable lunacy…or at least worthy of investigation for public safety’s sake! The second type is the frustrated, pseudo scientific type…he has “verification” at his fingertips in the shape of links!…He will deny for a few lines, in a spitting venom at those who belittle the man…”play at ad hominie” and will then back up his thesis with links, links and more links…mostly from Andrew Bolt approved links…he is like the drunk in the bar at ten o’clock being encouraged by the publican to drink some more when he really should be getting on home and thinking about it!

    The third is the most insidious…they usually have a direct vested interest in denying climate change on the grounds that THEY are part of the problem…being irrigation farmers or polluters of one kind or another who either deliberately aim to block any intent that would cut into their profits, or are operating a kind of cognitive dissonance that protects them from admitting to themselves that they have gone too far in damaging their environment and don’t want to know about it!

    Whatever the circumstance of the poster, the fact that they now have a sympathetic ear in govt’ has given them a shrill voice and a “legitimate demand” to question and expect answers from respected scientific institutions like CSIRO. or the BOM. to “prove” their results to a contentious, jeering audience of deniers. It is just too, too tragic.

    The words of Henry Lawson come to mind…; “…am I sane in a world gone mad, or mad in a world that is sane?”

  130. Luke January 12, 2014 at 8:13 pm #

    Jeez sp – I thought were some sort of idiot – but you’ve impressed me with your knowledge of due process, audits and big databases. I bow to your greater knowledge. I’m mystified by all that stuff.

    Yes peer review isn’t an audit but in science quality reviews is on the good hygiene checklist. Which is why sceptics 90% of the time get a cross in that box. Such prejudice I know.

    Debbie – special statements are released to the media and they chose to run with it or not. The biased commo ABC of course would only do so if AGWish whilst the virtuous defender of the flag “The Australian” reports without bias. And as you know all govts are now being told to Facebook, Youtube and Tweet so poor David probably had to get a Youtube done. Anything for the clients.

    I have to admire Jen’s devotion to Bathurst. That track sure is scary. But don’t you think jails have lots of bricks and walls, shadows, protected from wind. And they tend to add and beat and bash with new wings and things over time. Call for the metadata !

  131. sp January 12, 2014 at 8:38 pm #

    Luke gibberish:

    “Yes peer review isn’t an audit but in science quality reviews is on the good hygiene checklist. Which is why sceptics 90% of the time get a cross in that box. Such prejudice I know.”

  132. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 8:39 pm #

    “Bathurst. That track sure is scary”
    Wash your mouth Luke!

    My best POT comes from the Bathurst and Richmond greyhound tracks. It’s true!

    Sorry Ms JM but this is no more OT than Luke’s reference to Bathurst.

  133. Robert January 12, 2014 at 8:43 pm #

    Farmer Jaycee, pot plant waterer of inner Brissie – who does NOT have the same IP address as Luke – is just here for the diversion.

    The information requested is at the BoM’s fingertips. The response to Jen’s polite and pertinent email is still DUE.

  134. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 8:44 pm #

    BTW Luke, what do you mean by “Metadata”

    I’m very familiar with its use in IT but in which way is it used in climatology?
    If the same, no problem forget I asked.

  135. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 8:46 pm #


    BOM? jaycee, where is your reference to this topic?
    Where is your reference to Climate change or CAGW?


    What a cut and paste you’ve done there.

    Exact copy. No reference to BOM, no reference to anything on this site. Just cut & paste from the drunks den.

    What a waste.

    Here’s another by the JC on that same site:

    “Leone2…..I read that “No Fibs” piece….I also read most of the comments…There is one there by ; “Jennifer”..”Captain Whaler”…I have cause to believe she is Jennifer Maharosy of the climate deniers blog…….”Captain Whaler” as in a “Murrumbidgee Whaler”.”

    See here:

    All this from a stupid site ALP. f(A friendly blog where you can sit down .relax ,have a drink and discuss the issues of the day hosted by a mild mannered truck driver from QLD.)

    Yes, JC, you have won the C&P of the year. Luke actually makes his up!

    Sorry Jennifer for being off topic, but this nut job & shooter of animals (I have the quotes) should be blocked.

  136. DaveMyFace January 12, 2014 at 9:07 pm #


    And again here, a cut and paste job. Exactly the same. January 11. 2014 02:31 PM

    Oh Dear?

  137. Luke January 12, 2014 at 9:08 pm #

    JW – Metadata – simply site description. For the jail also need some history of construction and site use over time.

  138. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 9:09 pm #


    This is from the same site Dave linked to,

    ” Murrumbidgee
    The river is rooted now. Not even a shadow of what it was in the 70′s.”

    You are closer to it, is it?

  139. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 9:10 pm #


    means the same then ta.

  140. sp January 12, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

    Metadata describes the data (date collected, accuracy, etc) – it does not describe the site

  141. cohenite January 12, 2014 at 9:17 pm #

    Just looking at luke’s BOM documents about UHI and the Melbourne ones I was reminded of Hughes’ wonderful UHI comparison from 10 or more years ago between Melbourne and Cape Otway, Sydney and Newcastle and Adelaide and MT Gambier; BOM is in red and NASAGISS in blue:

  142. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 9:33 pm #


    “Metadata describes the data (date collected, accuracy, etc) – it does not describe the site”

    Yes sp that’s how we use it in IT but Luke’s usage is close enough if a bit loose.

  143. Debbie January 12, 2014 at 9:41 pm #

    Was skiing on the ‘bidgee today. . .It’s in great shape including the water quality and the fauna & flora.
    Only issue is that there is a fire accident just waiting to happen because of the lack of risk management. The amount of fuel/undergrowth is a bit scary. . . so in that respect it is different to the 70’s
    Don’t you think Jaycee & those sites that Dave linked to are rather ‘old hat’ & ‘boring’?
    Those pseudo psychological comments about ‘climate change deniers’ (whatever that means) have all been done to death.

  144. Johnathan Wilkes January 12, 2014 at 9:46 pm #


    re. those sites. I doubt if I ever visit them again, was curious that’s all.
    Turned out it’s a small world.

  145. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 10:25 pm #

    Can we get back on topic here please. I’ve just opened a new thread for general chit chat. Thanks.

  146. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 10:33 pm #

    Johnathan and John Sayers,

    I’ve emailed you both the Bathurst file… to hotmail and Sayers email accounts respectively.

  147. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 11:03 pm #

    Thanks Jennifer.

  148. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 11:09 pm #

    When I was collecting this data back in 2009/10 I had 3 data sources. The BoM online data base you are currently accessing which in those days had the raw data.

    There was another HQ data site that had all the HQ adjusted data.

    You can download data from there as well.

    Plus I had the Torok data.

    Then they replaced the raw data with the HQ data at the original online site hence stations having a 0 added to the station number – so Bathurst Ag became 063005 from the previous 63005.

    I know – it’s very confusing 🙂

  149. John Sayers January 12, 2014 at 11:13 pm #

    BTW I was only interested on Monthy data and I now realize our confusion Jen as you are after daily data.

  150. jennifer January 12, 2014 at 11:51 pm #


    Thanks for this link.

    It is perhaps of concern that we can only use 250 words to include the ‘reason’ and ‘request for action’, and we must collect hand written signatures.

  151. John Sayers January 13, 2014 at 12:11 am #

    Let me make myself perfectly clear here – I am not accusing anyone of corruption, delusion, fabricating etc. I am questioning the methodology.

    When Simon Torok, who I’m sure is a upright citizen, adjusted the Australian Data Record in 1996 as part of his PhD he did so because he was following the instructions from his University, the Science Research Unit (SCR) at the University of East Anglia. (UEA). His methodology has been clearly laid out.

    For example lets take Observatory Hill.

    According to his methodology when a Stevenson screen was added in 1908 all previous data was reduced by 1.2C. = .7C reduction because of screen change, .5C reduction because the station was moved 50m. Further building change in 1951 resulted in a .4C reduction in all previous data.

    That meant that Observatory Hill went from a steady cooling trend up till 1993 to a strong warming trend.

    This is not specific to Australia, it’s worldwide. The GISS adjustments have been similar when the highest temps of the 40s are now lower than the 2000s.

    This is all very well if you are a global warming advocate but if you are not – it sets all bells ringing. NOT because you distrust people but because you are concerned with the methodology that they take for granted.

    I’m sorry, I can’t take their methodology for granted.

    Why can’t we return to the raw data our ancestors left for us – it worked perfectly well for them for 150 years.

  152. Luke January 13, 2014 at 12:18 am #

    “I am not accusing anyone of corruption, delusion, fabricating etc. I am questioning the methodology.”

    At last a lone voice against sp’s lynch mob.

    So you’d have to consider JS, what you’d do yourself if you had a large database like ADam –

  153. Luke January 13, 2014 at 12:33 am #

    whoops – like ADAM with gigs of data. What to consider to do the big national temperature job.

    Variable numbers of stations per year – lots after 1957 – much fewer before July 1957 – the International Geophysical Year when computerisation started. Most of the pre-1957 data still on paper in the archives. (Rainfall being the exception).

    So variable numbers of stations over time.
    Records of variable length.
    Records that stop and start again.
    Great records that terminate 10-20 years ago due to funding shortfalls and rationalisation of post offices etc
    Switch from imperial to metric units (Centigrade)
    Sometimes cumulative records for 3 days (weekends)
    Daylight saving
    Errors that are obvious – e.g. 3C at Darwin on Xmas Day
    Errors that are less obvious – sequence repeats
    Errors that aren’t errors but unusual and need to be kept
    Different recording stands – Glaisher, Stevenson Screen
    Observations collected by volunteers with variable ability and motivation
    And non-uniform spatial distribution – fewer stations in central and northern Australia
    Sites compromised by heat island effects, trees, barriers
    Sites that have moved a few km (not really a site then I guess)
    And missing values for just no apparent reason

    If you sort Bathurst out – you have one point.

  154. John Sayers January 13, 2014 at 12:58 am #

    Luke – I’d leave it alone – yes there’s discrepancies all over the place but it’s real genuine data left to us by all the people who painstakingly created it.

    Why do we need to tamper with it and set ADAM onto it like a computer bloodhound.? it’s not important.

    Only if you believe in catastrophic global warming would you have any need to tamper with it. I don’t care if a record was broken in Broken Hill last week, or we had more rainfall in Bourke.

    Climate data is not all that important when you remove the paranoia of global warming and all it stands for.

    The BoM was a highly respected Government Department. It was the keeper of the Gate – it stored all our previous data.

    We can’t guarantee that anymore.

    When they started to fiddle with that data, for no apparent reason other then the reasons you outlaid, it lost public confidence because it was unnecessary. I don’t care if the data is laid out in random fashion over all the vagaries you mention – it doesn’t matter, it only matters if you want to publicly draw attention to yourself by declaring 2013 the HOTTEST year on record.

    If ADAM is so smart surely it can use all the disparate data and leave it alone in it’s natural state.

    The BoM claimed a record at Halls Creek – it was only a record if you eliminated Old Halls Creek which had a higher temp! Surely ADAM can work with the raw data and be accurate like the BoM used to be, trustworthy like it used to be, a true public service like it used to be.

  155. Luke January 13, 2014 at 1:43 am #

    Well that’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard EVER. So why are you looking at met data then?

    So let me get this right – you’re happy to analyse data with known errors? This is why the initial satellite temperature measurements were wrong. The systems were drifting.

    This is an amazing statement by you John. You want to play bumper cars with BoM by leaving data error issues intact. I would never ever have believed this unless I saw it in print. You’ve just shot a hole in the bottom of Jen’s boat. This is the rolled gold sceptics standard. WOO HOO !!!!!!!

    I have not mentioned homogenisation. Just really really basic data hygiene. So you’d believe 3C on Xmas day in Darwin was a real number?

    I can tell you now – you would not get 20 metres in a science shoot-out on this with any serious data analyst. It would ROFL and LMAO.

    So if you don’t think 2013 being the hottest is an issue – why are you on this thread. Do some ironing.

  156. Luke January 13, 2014 at 1:46 am #

    I’ve just had to reel my jaw off the ground …. (wonder if sp’s audit would like this – ahem – “so did you do any basic checks on the data?” – “naahhh maaaateee – that’s crap.”)

  157. John Sayers January 13, 2014 at 2:14 am #

    Calm down Luke – I never mentioned data analysts. I accept there are data errors. Did I suggest otherwise?

    What happened with Satellite data has nothing to do with this.

    I said: The BoM was a highly respected Government Department. It was the keeper of the Gate – it stored all our previous data. OK?

    So that data should be available to us the taxpayer who paid for it’s ongoing retrieval.

    I already demonstrated to you that the hottest temp as claimed by the BoM was product of their ignoring raw data from Old Halls Creek but enabled them to boast about record temps.

    I’m sorry – the BoM is NOT there to demonstrate fiddled highest temperature Data. They are there to record it.

    If other researchers want to use their raw data to show other aspects in peer reviewed papers, that’s fine, that’s the way it should be.

  158. hunter January 13, 2014 at 4:34 am #

    Keep up the good fight. It is clear from the actions and words of those who are seeking to hide the data that they are doing it because they know the data will not sustain a reasonable review.

  159. Luke January 13, 2014 at 7:11 am #

    “I’m sorry – the BoM is NOT there to demonstrate fiddled highest temperature Data. They are there to record it.”

    “Satellite data has nothing to do with this” why not – raw data is raw data is raw data ain’t it? IN FACT – they should ban brightness temperatures and only report electrical impulses. BAN DATA ANALYSIS !

    JS – you just keep on giving. This is like a psychology progressive reveal. So now – BoM are NOT to do any analysis just to record numbers. Ah ha ! OK.

    AND AND Debbie thinks the same.

    And researchers are to use raw data with various errors – cool – contrary to every bit of science done in the world – but if you like. Please please be a witness at any Royal Commission ever called.

    DAVID JONES – STOP ALL DATA ANALYSIS ! (hahahahhahahahahaha)

  160. Debbie January 13, 2014 at 8:20 am #

    What JS is saying is not that difficult to comprehend. . .for some reason you are deliberately misinterpreting his comments.
    How on earth did you get ‘stop all data analysis’ from his comments?

  161. Robert January 13, 2014 at 8:44 am #

    The Supe likes to argue against propositions nobody has made. How can he ever lose against nobody?

    Meanwhile, it will be easy for the BoM to respond to Jen’s email and a response is DUE.

    “1. The specific stations used to calculate this statistic;
    2. The specific databases and time intervals used for each of these stations;
    3. The history of the use of Stevenson screens at each of these station;
    4. How the yearly average temperature is defined; and
    5. Clarify what if any interpolation, area weighting, and/or adjustments for UHI bias, may have been applied to the data in the calculation of the annual mean values.”

    All of this information must be ready to hand – or how could the BoM have made any pronouncements about 2013? I am not saying the BoM won’t respond. They very well may. I am saying that a response is DUE.

  162. Debbie January 13, 2014 at 8:51 am #

    This must be some one else called Debbie?
    So now – BoM are NOT to do any analysis just to record numbers. Ah ha ! OK.
    AND AND Debbie thinks the same.
    Because this Debbie does not think that at all.
    Isn’t that one of those ‘straw man’ thingies?

  163. bazza January 13, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    We should all share Jen’s concern , as she pointed out to David Jones :“For example, the skill of the medium-term rainfall forecasts detailed in my recent peer-reviewed publications with John Abbot, have been influenced by the reliability of the historical temperature data that we inputted.” The first peer reviewed paper had to use Sydney temperatures as a proxy for Queensland despite Queensland separating from NSW in 1859. As she pointed out, “One way to help shift an accepted scientific paradigm (e.g. Anthropogenic Global Warming) is by coming up with a more practical and relevant way of describing and predicting real physical processes in the natural world (e.g. a better seasonal rainfall forecast)”. I ask you how can you do that with dodgy analyses?
    The second peer-reviewed publication discovered temperature data for Queensland stations but how good is it and what is its provenance? There was no temperature data for Harrisville ,a rainfall station of choice for comparison with a gridded POAMA forecast. So Brisbane had to be used. I could go on. This is obviously not good enough.

  164. Luke January 13, 2014 at 10:47 am #

    Tell us Robert – have you carefully perused the information here ….

  165. Robert January 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm #

    Supercell, I’m a total skeptic. Wouldn’t be surprised or concerned if there has been some warming in recent decades, as I’ve said over and over. But deliberately manipulating and dramatising any warming is a concern. (I also think coolists making pronouncements about approaching deep minima on the basis of sunspot inactivity and cold events since 2009 are manipulating and dramatising.)

    The BoM has a chance to dispel such suspicions by answering Jen’s email with answers as exact as her questions. Referring us to a BoM webpage won’t do. All organisations that can afford to flatteringly present and justify their methods do so, without exception, and I don’t blame them for doing it. (The sandwich shop which can’t find money to cover the quadrupled cost of re-gassing its fridges and is forced to waste food and power and money is an example of an organisation which can’t afford a professional skiting unit.)

    Jen has asked very specific and easily answered questions. Here they are again, just in case anybody does not want to scroll up:

    “1. The specific stations used to calculate this statistic;
    2. The specific databases and time intervals used for each of these stations;
    3. The history of the use of Stevenson screens at each of these station;
    4. How the yearly average temperature is defined; and
    5. Clarify what if any interpolation, area weighting, and/or adjustments for UHI bias, may have been applied to the data in the calculation of the annual mean values.”

    Answers to these questions are at BoM’s fingertips and those answers are DUE.

  166. Luke January 13, 2014 at 12:28 pm #

    Well Robert being a savvy bloke like yourself you wouldn’t want to be asking questions that were on the packaging would you. You know. RTFM. And surely Robert having a keen interest in this area would have quickly perused the site. (and as we know most of the other rabies victims here have not).

    And as I said there’s probably a queue.

    “But deliberately manipulating and dramatising any warming is a concern.” And Robert I’m glad that you haven’t been beating your wife after all.

  167. Luke January 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm #

    And Robert why do you think an open letter is necessary as a method. Wouldn’t you just ask privately in the first instance? Most organisations would probably see such a public move as some sort of political action which of course would have to be referred up the chain on command to the highest levels, many desks, possibly to the Minister – maybe even inter-departmental. Then there would be a legal opinion perhaps (or two). All takes time.

    You know what happens when you stimulate the corporate immune response. All good public servants are taught these days never to talk to the public without layers of approval as there may be political implications. All a result of previous exposure and the highly evolved risk averse culture of your modern public service. “I never signed that – I only approved some else’s signature”.

    You’ve help create all this Robert. The pollies are just trying to give what you wanted (or was it what they wanted or their mates – I always get confused on that).

  168. Robert January 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    There has never been any cause to suspect me of wife-beating. However…

    “IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
    “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.”
    (Quoted in SMH 2008, under headline “This drought may never break”)

    It may be time to perhaps infer that in spite of the use of “perhaps” and “may” that it is possible there may be manipulating and dramatising occurring. Perhaps.

    Anyway, no link blizzards or resurrections of Farmer Jaycee needed. There are five simple questions to be answered, and those answers must be at the BoM’s fingertips. If someone feels those questions have been answered very specifiically at the BoM site or elsewhere, they can simply convey the answers to this site or to Jennifer.

  169. bazza January 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm #

    Robert, if you used temperature data in a peer reviewed publication, would you have first checked out what adjustments had been made particularly if you were hell bent in making a case about trends!

  170. hunter January 13, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    From the reactions of the true believers it is clear they realize the argument against being open with the data stinks, as well as there being a strong likelihood that the results being hyped by BOM are weak.
    Fundies hate having their faith challenged. And AGW is all about faith.

  171. Luke January 13, 2014 at 1:17 pm #

    “There has never been any cause to suspect me of wife-beating.” So you got off then?

    And of course you are correct – and I apologise – but needed to illustrate a point about the presumption here that DJ is wrong.

    As for the drought comment – I suspect he wouldn’t have written that in a considered report, but any of us can get emotional after dealing with massive workloads in very stressful situations and that period was. And it was a an off the record period for river inflow analysis and many southern parts with record rainfall deficits. Individuals suiciding and family breakup. Large trees outside dying in Melbourne parks. So in the middle of that someone does a door stop interview and shoots off of a personal comment. It’s not a science report. It’s not fully considered. But what it does do is teach a lesson not to talk to the media without a canned presentation that you are in control of. Quoting all these door stop comments back simply teaches a lesson – the lesson is not what you’re after Robert. It’s to close down the communication.

    But you won’t like it – all the concerns that he expressed are still there – issues with STRi, SAM and ENSO frequency and position change. The real concerns still linger. But you wouldn’t like that as it’s control knobs and not about using your loaf. You know sciencey stuff.

    On a similar note the 1970s cooling scare journo has put a perspective on what he said and did.

  172. Luke January 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm #

    hunter – no we just think you’re a fraud and shyster – we’re just mocking you

    And remember our public institutions created are from learned behaviour. You’re a helpful part of that evolutionary pressure.

  173. Luke January 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    hunter – the data are available – so get your own and go for it. If you haven’t read the ACORN documentation fully – you’re dribbling from the mouth.

  174. Robert January 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm #

    It mystifies me that someone who was a coolist in the 70s – writing in that silly rag Newsweek – would be held up as an example of good judgement by virtue of becoming a warmist in 2014. “I stand by it. It was accurate at the time.” (“At the time” we knew Eurasia was at war with Eastasia, but now we know we have always been at war with Oceania.)

    By the way, does anyone know “Australia’s driest year”? 1791? 1829 (which may have covered the continent)? 1877? Nah. Not enough info for those times.

    What about 1888, so short and mean? How to choose between all those parched years of the Fed drought, then 1911-15? Then there was the eastern Australia decadal drought, 1937-47? What about the mid-sixties drought? The ferocious 1983? (That would be my bet, along with 1902 or 1903.) Early 1990s? Millennial Drought? 2003 was a real shocker, wasn’t it? I wonder if there are any official pronouncements on “Australia’s driest year”.

    You may think I’m off topic, but I’m actually reflecting on a TREND. It’s called the Dorothea Mackellar Trend, and someone can send it to David Jones when he gets “emotional after dealing with massive workloads in very stressful situations”.

  175. Bill January 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm #

    Do you need any more signatures, I would be happy to sign

  176. Debbie January 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm #

    Good grief!
    At least DJ got paid his wages and was never under threat of losing his job during those difficult times!
    Your comparison is a bit ordinary Luke.
    DJ’s or any BoM staff’s livelihood is not dependant on the weather. . . as JS said earlier. . .their job is not supposed to be about being in charge of or having exclusive ownership of the climate/weather.
    And anyway. . .if the climate/weather decides not to co operate. . .they still get paid. . .unlike the people/environments you tried to compare.

  177. Debbie January 13, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    Actually re the SMH 2008 piece,
    in what way did those comments help to alleviate the ‘stressful times’ for those families on the watercourses or the trees in Melbourne?
    I think it could perhaps be a lesson in humility. . . which is eminently communicable.

  178. bazza January 13, 2014 at 5:06 pm #

    Robert, you could easily answer your own questions on Australian rainfall. By area 1961 was the driest by decile 1 measure. By volume 1902. So?

  179. bazza January 13, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    With acknowledgement to BOM of course.

  180. Luke January 13, 2014 at 7:35 pm #

    Bazza – Debs and Robby don’t want to quantify anything – they just want yarns, 100% correct forecasts, and the broad social policy thrust thingyness.

  181. sp January 13, 2014 at 7:40 pm #

    Luke – how much do BOM pay you to be an apologist?

  182. Luke January 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm #

    250K per annum – why?

  183. Luke January 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm #

    But obviously nobody is paying you. You’d have to demonstrate basic intelligence.

  184. Debbie January 13, 2014 at 8:40 pm #

    I don’t remember you saying that you don’t want to quantify anything, only want yarns, 100% forecasts and the broad social policy thingyness. . . do you remember me commenting about that stuff?
    Is that another one of those ‘straw man’ thingies?

  185. Robert January 13, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

    Yes, Deb, I can’t think of any Robby or Deb wanting 100% forecasts and the broad social policy thingyness (though I like a yarn). Couldn’t be us. But Supercell often argues against propositions nobody has made, and attaches our names to them. It keeps him in the game but untouchable.

    Hey, thanks bazza. 1961 and 1902, eh? Choice.

    I should apologise for leaving out the 1920s in my resume of dry periods. My god didn’t they suck! Who needs El Nino when you’ve got 1927-30? Thank God for the “our new climate” – in 1950!

  186. sp January 13, 2014 at 10:23 pm #

    Is that dollars or kilo’s of peanuts?

  187. sp January 14, 2014 at 10:02 am #

    Interesting article concerning strawmen and making data available:

    Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government and Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of Met Office Hadley Centre trot out the usual rubbish.

    Matt Ridley’s points out their errors:

    “I am glad to see you recognising in your letter to the Times the need for science, as well as industry, to clean up its act with respect to transparency and data withholding. As for the argument relating to the hockey stick that “following the controversy over leaked University of East Anglia emails, there have been substantial efforts to make source data openly available”, it is good that you acknowledge the role that Climategate played in sparking this improved transparency.”

  188. Minister for Common Sense January 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm #

    Nothings changed ..they are still hopeless… and now will probably try to hide it by just ignoring Jen M’s polite request for data that should automatically be in the public domain.

  189. Kneel January 19, 2014 at 9:24 am #

    Here’s a way for everyone to get what they want.

    BoM keeps (and makes available):
    raw data;
    correction specification and justification for each correction;
    corrected data.

    Each step recorded, replicable, transparent, available. Tracable. Challangeable. Provable. Science, IOW. THATS how to truely make the data “unassailable”.

  190. sp January 21, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    Australian heatwaves are nothing new:

    “No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are “unprecedented” and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.

    They are neither “global” nor “unprecedented”.

    In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.

    In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.

    Why don’t we hear of these severe heatwaves from the past? Simple – the government Bureau of Meteorology conveniently ignores all temperature records before 1910.

    However, that does not excuse our media for neglecting the written records such as these preserved in newspapers of the past.

    Could it be that both the BOM and some of the media are still trying to preserve the ailing global warming scare?”

  191. Luke January 22, 2014 at 9:42 am #

    Or could it be that you’re just gingering up the action as an agitator. Many of these early records had major issues with non-standard siting. Report back on the meta-data pls. Hanging the thermometer under the verandah isn’t an objective measurement.

  192. sp January 22, 2014 at 9:43 am #

    Luke – explain again what metadata is

  193. sp January 22, 2014 at 10:03 am #

    Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set, starts again, gets same results

    Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM

  194. Luke January 22, 2014 at 11:34 am #

    sp – Nova is ranting as usual. She could have done an independent analysis herself instead of whinging (and would have found similar). “threat” – she does have herself on.

    metadata – just the details and conditions of the site and recording equipment i.e. was it in a standard enclosure in the open – makes huge differences

  195. sp January 22, 2014 at 12:33 pm #

    Nova may be ranting, maybe not – but the link may assist Jen and others to have BOM audited, if BOM have nothing to hide they should be very willing to cooperate.

    As Kneel said above:

    Here’s a way for everyone to get what they want.

    BoM keeps (and makes available):
    raw data;
    correction specification and justification for each correction;
    corrected data.

    Each step recorded, replicable, transparent, available. Tracable. Challangeable. Provable. Science, IOW. THATS how to truely make the data “unassailable”.

  196. Luke January 22, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    Don’t disagree with an open process. No problemo.

    As for BoM feeling threatened – I feel that is pure supposition and projection. Abusing the met bureau has been a national sport since Federation. I suspect they are well used to it.

    However, I suspect there will always “one more question” – which does come into harassment. When is enough enough. So I say let the sceptics do their own analysis. Otherwise it can turn into a veritable Denial of Service Attack on BoM where no work gets done. Don’t see this as a smarty pants suggestion either – quite serious. And put the whole sceptic analysis, code and scripts up for public viewing.

  197. sp January 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm #

    Luke – BOM is paid by the public and thats why the data should be made available to the public as per Kneel’s suggestion.

    Skeptics and True Believers can then do whatever analysis they wish.

    One more question, denial of service, how long is a piece of string, How Long is a chinaman, blah, blah blah

  198. Luke January 22, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

    No at some point it becomes nit picking harassment. It does. And you aren’t going to like the answer and so then you’ll want more and more.

    The data are already available anyway !

  199. minister for common sense January 23, 2014 at 11:26 am #

    Luke,…The data in general may be available as you say but the answer to Jens specific questions don’t appear to be. If the answers were to hand, and easy to provide why the hell wouldn’t a competently run public organisation do so expeditiously…the longer it goes on the more suss it all becomes and the cred of the BM goes down another notch.

    You know simple questions like these from Jen substantiation of the claim by David Jones that 2013 as the hottest on record, and he was asked to provide the data and process used.

    “1. The specific stations used to calculate this statistic;
    2. The specific databases and time intervals used for each of these stations;
    3. The history of the use of Stevenson screens at each of these station;
    4. How the yearly average temperature is defined; and
    5. Clarify what if any interpolation, area weighting, and/or adjustments for UHI bias, may have been applied to the data in the calculation of the annual mean values.”

  200. Luke January 23, 2014 at 2:29 pm #

    What we have here is failure to communicate

  201. Minister for Common Sense January 23, 2014 at 2:46 pm #

    Yup.. too darn tooting right you are there Lukey… old boy

    The bloke with belt is the BOM, and the poor sod on the ground being beaten, are the tax poor payers….. who have the temerity, if not absolute gall to ask questions.

    How dare they….haruumph… what’s the world coming to.

    Make the sods crawl, grovel and suffer some more.


  1. Jennifer Marohasy » Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record | Cranky Old Crow - January 9, 2014

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record. […]

  2. Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record | contrary2belief - January 9, 2014

    […] Marohasy has requested verification of BOM data used to support widely publicised claims made by the Bureau’s Manager of Climate Monitoring […]

  3. Open Letter from Jennifer Marohasy | kenskingdom - January 10, 2014

    […] Jennifer Marohasy has written to Dr David Jones, head of climate monitoring and predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology, which she has posted as an Open Letter at her blog. […]

  4. Shock News : Urban Heat Island Effect Warms Temperature Data | CACA - January 13, 2014

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » Open Letter Requesting Verification of 2013 Temperature Record […]

  5. Jennifer Marohasy » Bureau Confirms Calculating Australia’s ‘Average’ Temperature Involves Some Hocus-pocus - January 28, 2014

    […] describes this methodology. Rather in a letter from the Bureau dated 24th January, responding to my request for information, I was directed to a mix of Bureau reports, peer-reviewed papers and also a PhD thesis by way of […]

Website by 46digital