Rewriting the History of Bourke: Part 3, Shortening an Already Shortened Record

AT Bourke temperatures were carefully recorded at the post office for 125 years, from 1871 to 1996. But this record is ignored by those announcing new temperature records on local Bourke radio. They rely on a record that only goes back to 1998!

From about 1952 through until 1996 the Postal Service staff carefully read and recorded the weather in the Stevenson screen at 9am, 12noon, 3pm, 6pm and then went back to the post office each evening at 9pm, 3am – yes the temperature was read manually at 3am by Postal Service staff – and then again at 6am. This information was immediately relayed to the Bureau in Melbourne.

But go to and it suggests that temperatures at Bourke have only been recorded since 1998. What a travesty. Weatherzone_

There have been complaints to the local radio station that keeps announcing record hot days on the basis of this much-truncated record; temperatures for Bourke back to 1998. The radio station says that it relies on for its information. Complaints to weatherzone have resulted in comment that the Bureau are unable to merge data, and can only provide Weatherzone with information on a station by station basis with the ‘Bourke Airport’ the current open weather station for Bourke.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the generation of contrived temperature data for Australia’s annual average temperature anomaly the Bureau have merged the airport and the post office, in fact the post office has been subsumed by the airport. This data has also been shortened, from 1871 to 1910, and of course ‘homogenized’.

Another travesty.

95 Responses to Rewriting the History of Bourke: Part 3, Shortening an Already Shortened Record

  1. Beth Cooper April 10, 2014 at 12:26 am #


    It’s straight out of Orwell 1984.
    If Big Brother at the BOM was genuinely interested in the historic record,
    with all its rich variability, as BB should be, the record would be preserved
    with all care instead of being chucked down the memory hole. Tsk!

  2. Stephen Williams April 10, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    Same thing happened recently at Albury. Over the summer new records were announced almost weekly. But they were also using 1998 onward even though are stations in the area going back to the late 1800’s. The bureau appears to have lost any idea it had of how science works. The zealots have taken over.

  3. Neville April 10, 2014 at 8:19 am #

    Ditto Mildura. The earlier PO record ( 1887 to 1949) was warmer than the APort record, yet they just ignore it completely.
    Ernistine Hill’s “Water Into Gold” refers to those very early years of the Chaffey irrigation development and refers to those extremely hot periods as heat blizzards.

  4. DaveW April 10, 2014 at 8:26 am #

    Jennifer, you must stop all of this wallowing in data or you will turn me into a conspiracy ideationist. I’m sure there are very good reasons why our weather guardians do what they do with the temperature record. They are the specialists and we really shouldn’t be questioning their choices. You know how hard it is to read a meniscus accurately. Perhaps they are simply excluding inaccurate data read by eye for the much more reliable, but unfortunately only recent, automatic readings. Then, undoubtedly those early thermometers used mercury or alcohol – both poisons! Do you really want to rely on temperatures recorded by people who exposed their eyes to a column of poison every day? Then there is the fact that these people are public servants and, after a hot day, the public enjoys being told it was not just hot, but a record! Maybe our weather guardians are just giving people what they want. There are lots of perfectly good reasons why temperatures might be homogenized and records truncated that do not involve a conspiracy to misrepresent longterm temperature trends to further a political goal. But by exposing me to actual data you are making it hard to suspend disbelief.

  5. redress April 10, 2014 at 9:50 am #


    1998 to 2014 is a time span of 16 years……

    The Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset documents the longest series of temperature observations in existence recording monthly temperatures from 1659, and daily temperatures from 1772.

    The records are kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, United Kingdom Meteorological Office [i.e. U.K’s BOM]. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming.

    NASA maintains GISTEMP, another monthly-mean global surface temperature analysis, for the period since 1880.

    The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which has “the world’s largest active archive” of surface temperature measurements, maintains a global temperature record since 1880.

    Independent analyses of these three data sets are produced by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and by the National Climatic Data Center, largely based on the same raw data using different levels of interpolation.

    If the rest of the world can use temperature records beginning around the 1880’s why cant the BOM?

  6. Ian George April 10, 2014 at 9:57 am #

    When there is a record or ‘unprecedented’ event, usually somewhere in the report will be a statement saying something like;
    ‘………since the 1950s/1960s’ – or in the case of rainfall, the 1970s.

  7. Siliggy April 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm #

    At least the BoM allow the cool old Sydney temperatures past for the public to see (unlike natural variation laden overland telegraph and Adelaide data).

    Nested in the bushes in this picture below is a nice cool place to be in summer. Oh is that the thermometer screen?
    I wonder if they watered it as often as the Bourke one?

  8. Siliggy April 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    Canberra recorded it’s hottest temperature in our almost 6 year long record on the 18th of January last year. It was just a wee bit cooler than the previous dubious record that was only witnessed by about 1200 scientists and related people gathered here for the annual “association for the advancement of science” meeting.
    It was to be the first of two rain storms predicted using sunspots and planetary cycles by Inigo Jones.
    The BoM quickly forgot that too. His second date was out just a bit but did see the venue for the meeting damaged and flooded. He went on to predict our recent millenium drought including when it would break and beyond, before his death in 1954. His millenium drought predictions were almost spot on, unlike those of Tim Flannery.

  9. Bob_FJ April 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    It’s interesting that at the Bourke Post Office site they took temperatures seven times each day. (until maybe they fitted max and min thermometers?). As I recall it, other stations of this vintage only took two readings each day, and generally treated 6 am as the minimum value. I wonder why so many readings at the PO especially (gosh) at 3 am. If all seven readings were averaged that would generally give a result close to the ‘median” which can be significantly different to the ‘mean’ of max and min. (depending on the shape of the curve and see below).

    I have 24-hour curves for Melbourne City demonstrating this, which could be emailed to Jen.

    Interestingly, it seems that Acorn data no longer includes mean temperature, going by this quick look:

    In an earlier entry on the BOM website, they define mean temperature thus:

    “Mean temperatures are calculated by adding the daily maximum temperature and the daily minimum temperature, and dividing by two”.

    This would be tricky on early sites?

    Also, in some cases it is reported that max and min can be from two different days depending on what time of day the data are processed.

  10. Bob_FJ April 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm #

    Siliggy @12:04 pm

    Watering the garden you say?

    This reminds me of how the prominent Prof David Karoly of IPCC and retracted paper fame got things the wrong way around WRT soil moisture and near ground air temperature. For instance, I quote:

    “This has raised the ire of hydrologist Professor Stewart Franks more than once, and I am aware that Franks has contacted Karoly in an attempt to stop him repeating this fallacy”.

  11. Bob_FJ April 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm #

    Further my 1:43 pm,

    Prof Franks also pleaded with the ABC to stop using Prof Karoly as an expert on all matters related to the vast field of climate change and I now recall that Jen did a good blog-post on it entitled “National Broadcaster Willfully Ignores the Evidence”:

  12. bazza April 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    Siliggy claims incorrectly that Inigo Jones ” went on to predict our recent millenium drought including when it would break and beyond, before his death in 1954″. I bet you cant provide a quote on what he actually predicted.
    His predictions have been much analysed and found to be no better than chance.

  13. Debbie April 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm #


    ” His predictions have been much analysed and found to be no better than chance.”

    I have never studied Indigo Jones’ predictions. But, on the other hand, the BoM’s long range/seasonal predictions/projections and the long range IPCC projective modelling could perhaps be criticised in a remarkably similar manner? . . .ie they have been much analysed and found to be (little) better than chance?

  14. bazza April 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm #

    Perhaps no Deb, unless you are either ignorant or biased or both. The change in odds when there is an ENSO event has been a game changer for anyone smart enough to check out the loading for their time and place.

  15. Robert April 10, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

    Numbers tell a bit of a story, but I guess you have to look at what actually went on. The thing about the 1930s is that they were so dry over all of Oz. It is the driest decade we know of, even thought BoM defines no El Nino events between 1926 and 1940. The previous decade had been dry over eastern Oz and then you had the WW2 drought after. I suppose the lack of cloud compared to the period after WW2 was bound to have an effect on afternoon temps.

    As a kid in the 50s I grew up in a climate of oceanic winds through much of the year, thunder in winter and afternoon southerly busters in summer. This is in huge contrast to the 1930s and the 1990s, for example.

    People interested in climate change should be fascinated by conditions in 1950 compared with the half century which preceded it. But it is surprisingly hard to find people with an interest in climate change.

  16. hunter April 11, 2014 at 4:07 am #

    There is no valid ethical or scientific reason to play with the historical record like this, except to help sell a political agenda. That groups of bureaucrats and scientists rationalized doing this says a lot about just how pernicious CO2 obsession can be.

  17. Siliggy April 11, 2014 at 10:47 am #

    Re Inigo Jones.
    “I bet you cant provide a quote on what he actually predicted.”
    How about a book on the subject.
    Inigo Jones was all about improving on the predictive accuracy of the 35 year Bruckner weather cycles repeating history. He did this by adding in the effects of other period cycles. These other longer and shorter cycles would sometimes be in phase and therefore add and at other times be out of phase and cancel the 35 year effect.

    Note again the long period sine wave seen here that is only perverted by missing data and more rapid warming at the beginning than the end. You can even see bits of the 35 year repetition mixed in along the peaks.

    I would love a copy of this chart showing the “dry periods until after the end of this century”. Note the details of a “thorough investigation” into his methods.

  18. Siliggy April 11, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    Oh BTW Bazza Federation drought +35 +35 +35 aproximately = Millenium drought.
    Have another look at the Bourke chart to see the sine wave cycle phase after 105 years.

  19. Glen Michel April 11, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Ah nephelococcygia a good past-time up there in the clouds .Aristophenes?

  20. Bob_FJ April 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm #

    Siliggy & Debbie,

    Re; Inigo Jones,
    I don’t think that the BoM has been noted for good predictions of weather beyond a few days, even if maybe better than the UK Met Office. For instance I don’t recall them predicting the rather substantial breaking of the big drought this century. For someone who puts on airs of being expert in these matters, the following rudeness is rather telling:

    “[Bazza to Debbie]: Perhaps no Deb, unless you are either ignorant or biased or both. The change in odds when there is an ENSO event has been a game changer for anyone smart enough to check out the loading for their time and place”.

    So, he asserts that the BoM can predict game changing ENSO events? I bite my lip in silence.

  21. Debbie April 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm #

    It’s OK Bob.
    Bazza appears unable to understandthat most of us who live and work in the real Aussie climate/weather/environment 24/7/365 actually use some of BoM’s excellent services and can quite easily assess the difference between the useful services and the not so useful ones.
    Long term /seasonal predictions are very interesting. . . but nonetheless fall into the latter category.

  22. bazza April 11, 2014 at 4:14 pm #

    Siliggy, I have the Jones book and his charrt to 2008 in the book. His last years forecast were 2007-08 for moderate drought – but both years were above average for Australia . Jones never made it clear what areas he was on about and his fans were equally generous in allowing him a bit of slack in relation to timing. You have no doubt heard of the economist who forecast 8 of the last 6 recessions. The big big drought Inigo forecast was for 1985-92 for “prolonged drought – national crisis”. Perhaps he meant the recession we had to have. There was no prolonged drought. The most interesting fact about Jones is he was descended from one of the Bernoullis – perhaps the most famous mathematical family of all time.
    By the way, what is your star sign?

  23. Bob_FJ April 11, 2014 at 4:55 pm #


    I too know little about Inigo Jones (aka Indigo) so, what with continuous light rain for several days, I found time for a quick sniff on Google. You may have seen that Ian George has commented on some remarkable adjustments to Bourke T data in 1939. Well, in that very same year there was a conference in Canberra (which is nestled in the Great Dividing Range where one might think it would be significantly cooler than in the hot Darling plain), and there is an interesting Oz Gov’ National Archives account well worth a read here, or skip to conclusions below:

    It’s lengthy, so cutting short to the conclusions:
    “Let’s return, in conclusion, to the 1939 ANZAAS congress in Canberra. You will recall that Inigo Jones predicted an early end to the continuing heatwave. There were some signs he might be right – a brief shower, some clouds – and the temperature on Thursday 12 January only reached 103.4º. At least it was a little cooler. But on the following day, Friday 13 January, the temperature climbed again, up to 107.4º. The change didn’t come until Sunday – like many of Jones’s predictions it was close enough to please his supporters, but far enough to bolster his critics.

    But we remember Friday 13 January for another reason. The heatwave across southeastern Australia killed more than 400 people, and set bushfires raging across millions of hectares. The fires reached their terrifying peak on Friday 13 January 1939 – ‘Black Friday’ – a day, that Stephen Pyne suggests, ‘sucked 150 years of settlement into a colossal maelstrom of fire’.[74]

    Fire, flood and drought all remind us of our limitations. For all our scientific knowledge and technological sophistication, still we are subject to the arbitrary, and often violent, whims of nature. How do we reconcile our expectations of security and stability with an environment that steadfastly refuses to follow a timetable. The story of Inigo Jones is part of a larger story that sets our desire for control, our longing for certainty, against one of the most variable climates on earth”.

  24. Ian Thomson April 12, 2014 at 7:59 am #

    Well put Deb.
    On Inigo Jones, there was an analysis floating around a while ago , which compared his forecasts of ‘good or bad seasons’, to the seasons which subsequently occurred. The conclusion was that you would not do too badly, planting accordingly.
    I think that is better than we get now , from our climate master scientists and commissioners.
    I don’t think Inigo would have charged of for a Xmas holiday to Antarctica, but if he did he may have done it in the best ‘good year’.

  25. Ian Thomson April 12, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    John Cleese once said that he gained much inspiration from listening to Parliament.
    Here is why – moderation of bean consumption will save the Planet.

    The Romans ate lots of beans during the Ides of March, because the flatulence kept people at a distance and there was a reduced chance you might catch “vampire”.
    Always wondered what disaster really befell Rome . It was bloody AGW, the farting fools.

  26. Siliggy April 12, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    Bob FJ
    Perhaps a quick comparison of the BoM 1939 predictions vs those of Inigo jones will set the record straight.
    The contrast between the two is amazing to say the least. Here in the Sydney morning herald on the 4th of January before the heatwave we have the Bom predicting not just wide spread extensive rainfall but cooler weather. ” The outlook for inland area’s generally, was the best for several months”
    As you quoted “The heatwave across southeastern Australia killed more than 400 people,”
    How many of these people may have lived if they trusted instead the prediction of heatwave from Inigo Jones?
    Notice he predicted the storms would start around the tenth but that the wet would begin around the 20th to the 25th.
    So on what day was Canberra hit by a heavy rain?

  27. bazza April 12, 2014 at 11:31 am #

    as the National Archives link to Sherrats article makes clear for those who care about actual evidence rather than the FIRE READY AIM school :
    “But accuracy was the key factor. The vagueness of Jones’s theories could be ignored if they delivered accurate forecasts. The tests conducted by the committee, however, indicated that the percentage of correct long-range forecasts was ‘not appreciably greater than that which could be established from a knowledge of average conditions’.[72] The committee’s report conceded that many people and organisations connected with primary industry believed in the accuracy of Jones’s forecasts but, in the end, they were just wrong.

    And there the matter rested … briefly, until Jones and his followers once again cranked up the lobbying campaign, rejecting the committee’s report as biased and inadequate. In 1950 another review was organised with similar results, and in 1953 a member of the Bureau’s Queensland office, worked alongside Jones for some weeks. His assessment was more positive, but nothing was ever really resolved. Jones died in 1954. His work was carried on by Lennox Walker.

    It is interesting to speculate on the consequences of the Inigo Jones saga for the internal culture of the Bureau of Meteorology. In the 1940s, Harry Treloar found himself the object of senior management displeasure when he lobbied for the Bureau to release seasonal forecasts based on the work of ET Quayle. In his chapter in ‘A change in the weather’, Neville Nicholls describes how research on El Niño in the 1970s was confronted by lingering resistance to the idea of seasonal forecasting.[73] Perhaps the constant hectoring by Jones’s army of supporters made the Bureau more cautious and defensive than it otherwise might have been”

    what Sherrat did not add was that further analysis had been done during the 50s of Quayle work from a century ago on the useful link between northern Victorian rainfall and a Southern Oscillation equivalent ( or ENSO and its predictability as it has been known for more than half a century). The further analysis showed that the influence of the SO had mysteriously waxed and waned a bit over last century as others have stumbled across and that may have made the BOM more cautious until the early 80s El Nino.
    Interesting Lennox Walker uses the SOI so he would get a few right but why would you pay for it when you can get that for nothing.

  28. Debbie April 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm #


    “The tests conducted by the committee, however, indicated that the percentage of correct long-range forecasts was ‘not appreciably greater than that which could be established from a knowledge of average conditions’”

    That ‘percentage of correct’ criticism can also be justifiably levelled at BoM long range/seasonal predictions and also at the IPCC long term projective modelling.

    And here:
    ” but why would you pay for it when you can get that for nothing.(?)”

    I would very much like you to explain how “you can get that for nothing”.

  29. Siliggy April 12, 2014 at 5:20 pm #

    “I would very much like you to explain how “you can get that for nothing”.
    I can see advertising on the BoM website. So Bazza may know of a long term plan for self funding.
    Inigo jones forecasts for places like Bourke etc came for the price of “The Land” newspaper.

    “The vagueness of Jones’s theories could be ignored if they delivered accurate forecasts.”
    The vagueness of the BoMs short records cannot be ignored because from them anyone like Inigo Jones is STILL not able to make accurate forecasts. Those methods need long records.

    The drought prediction you you gave from the 1947 book as “1985 to 1992” altered and changed over time as Inigo gave differing dates later on (and mentioned a second book). 1983 to 1991 is more common. No doubt if anything like that had come to pass Slim Dusty would have written a song about it.

  30. Another Ian April 12, 2014 at 6:25 pm #


    BOM needs a supercomputer but you can equal it with a 2-bob bit

  31. Debbie April 12, 2014 at 6:44 pm #

    Exactly Another Ian & Slight 🙂 🙂

    But do you think he will actually geddit?
    Along with Bob_FJ I am trying to bite my lip in silence. . . ie. . . rather gobsmacked by the comment.

  32. Debbie April 12, 2014 at 6:59 pm #

    Sorry Sliggy!
    Bloody auto correct.
    Definitely typed Sliggy and NOT Slight!

  33. Another Ian April 13, 2014 at 8:21 am #

    Not Bourke but around the theme

  34. bazza April 13, 2014 at 2:46 pm #

    Apologies to Siliggy. I was a bit dismissive of his 35 year Bruckner cycle fitting Bourke temps. In my haste I mixed it with the Bruxner Highway. If you got lost leaving Bourke on the Mitchell heading for the coast you could easily end up on the Bruxner if you were seeking refuge from the heat of the Bruckner. Be that as it may, I was a bit tough basing the analysis of Inigo’s success on all his forecasts (showing no better than chance). As he said he needed a few hundred years of data. So it would only be fair to allow him a bit of slack and only check out just the good ones. (but I could not find any authentic reference to his predicting the millennia drought? – rural myth?)
    There is a lot to be said for ever smaller samples ( n=1 as the scientists love to say)– I remember spangled only needed one photo site to establish no trend in sea levels. That maybe a trivial example because we all know all the oceans are connected but I am sure you get my point.
    I did read where Inigo did not like just the 35 year cycle – he liked to look at all sort of complex ( eg twice or half cycle) combinations of Jupiter and Saturn – I don’t know how long Uranus is but why not and lunar too – be crazy not too until the sun kicks in again. The solution to the lack of data could be to combine the power of Jen’s neural net forecasts with Inigo’s cycles. Now that would be a marriage made in the heavens! There should be enough power and influence among the faithful here to lobby for that.

  35. Robert April 13, 2014 at 4:22 pm #

    I was told by a Broken Hill mate years ago that the Darling would have been dry by the end of the 1970s according to predictions by Inigo Jones. (At the time we were actually canoeing down the Darling from Willcannia, unforgettable trip.) It was only infrastructure and other externals which stopped the big dry happening.

    Now we know from 19th century records which are very clear that the Murray-Darling can get disastrously low subject to massive climate swings…but I could never work out how my friend ignored all the rain of the 1970s which fell so abundantly on all our heads and why he continued to quote Inigo Jones. I’m not saying Jones made that exact prediction, but I was struck by my mate’s faith which ignored what was likely the stormiest and rainiest decade on the record.

    CAGW and modern climate exceptionalism are the great absurdities of our era because they reach so deep and cost so much. Believers in Climate Change seem to have no interest in actual climate change, a condition close to collective madness. But I wonder if it’s not time for a general and gigantic “don’t know” re climate. Look at the hopelessly literal attitudes to ENSO. Our driest known era in Oz was the time without El Nino, mid-twenties to 1940. Ignoring such a huge fact is a bit like my mate ignoring the rain of the 1970s and continuing to quote Inigo Jones as a conversation piece.

    We have radar, sats, buoys and a bit of knowledge about sunspots, ENSO and so on. But if it’s not enough, it’s not enough. It’s okay not to know. It’s better than okay if you refrain from publishing if you don’t know.

    It’s terrible luck that you don’t know. But what you don’t know…you don’t know!

  36. Robert April 13, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    Just to clarify: some years at the start and end of the 1930s have been defined as El Nino, but I am going by BoM’s current info. Because ENSO is just a rough observation set I wouldn’t care if someone argued the point.

    The only small money difference it will make to me if there is an El Nino this year will be how much organic animal repellent I buy before spring. If the westerlies get very strong, 90s style, during late winter/spring, I’ll get the slasher guy to come sooner. If we get fewer storms and rain comes late I won’t be surprised. If the weather ignores the ENSO rules that won’t surprise me either, but SOI etc are shreds of knowledge I value and can use a bit. A large scale cockie will likely have a more concerned attitude.

    I’ll certainly be wary of fire hazard by August if we keep getting autumn rain and El Nino starts to shape up over winter. It’s amazing how useful these “shreds of knowledge” can be when combined with commonsense. Wouldn’t it be nice to have even more knowledge? And more commonsense?

  37. Debbie April 13, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    Need that like button again!
    from Robert:
    ” We have radar, sats, buoys and a bit of knowledge about sunspots, ENSO and so on. But if it’s not enough, it’s not enough. It’s okay not to know. It’s better than okay if you refrain from publishing if you don’t know.

    It’s terrible luck that you don’t know. But what you don’t know…you don’t know! ”

    Bazza is so busy trying to argue that no one, including Inigo and Jen, have cracked the complete puzzle… that he’s miserably failing to geddit… that whatever he substitutes as cracked is putting lots of egg on his face.
    (please excuse the mixed metaphor).

    I totally agree it would be nice to have more knowledge and there will be no one happier than those of us who work with the climate and natural resources all the time when that happens and can be genuinely useful.

    I don’t think messing around with data in the manner it’s happening at the moment. . .including what Jen highlights here re Bourke. . . is at all useful. . .interesting maybe. . .but not particularly useful.

  38. Bob_FJ April 13, 2014 at 6:25 pm #

    Robert @ 4:22 pm,

    I guess there is an element of legend with Indigo, apparently because those on the land found that his forecasts were of value. Bazza seems to miss the point that it seems that the BoM has gained little respect from people on the land WRT long term forecasting. For instance, as far as I’m aware the so-called Millennium Drought was not forecast to end, neither was the nature of the great rains and floods starting around 2010.

    Another thing that makes me cross is that the hype on the recent drought and rains did not admit that according to various sources including the BoM itself, earlier events were more severe.
    Here for instance is an apparently respectable advisory study financially supported by the Government which shows in December 2010 with the onset of rains, that recent events were not unprecedented:

    “[EXTRACT]…Scale of the disaster [the Millennium Drought]:
    The recent Big Dry drought was associated with an annual
    average rainfall decrease of 17% for Mildura and 10% for
    Donald. In comparison, for Mildura (Donald) the Federation
    Drought (1895-1902) had a 31% (23%) decrease and the
    World War II Drought (1937-1945) a 19% (17%) decrease
    in average annual rainfall…”.

    Concerning your mate quoting Indigo, apparently oblivious to rains in the 1970’s, here is the BOM rainfall time-series for the Murray-Darling Basin:

    According to it, only 1973/4 had significant rains, but relatively modest compared with other times.
    You can click NSW on the drop down menu and other Eastern States, and if anything these points are amplified. Interestingly WA is like a different country WRT rainfall.

  39. Another Ian April 13, 2014 at 6:26 pm #


    Bureau of Mythology?

  40. Robert April 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm #

    Bob, to be fair to Jones, I really don’t know the specifics of his prediction for the Darling. My mate was a rug merchant from Broken Hill (really) who was a terrific bush shot and a terrific fibber. But Jones’ “dry Darling” was something he kept repeating and which seemed a part of Western NSW lore. Now, if you look at the Northern and Queensland anomalies for the 1970s there had to be a lot of water fed into the Darling through that decade. I can vouch for how full it was in 1978-9, along with all lakes and billabongs.

    An interesting reflection: when one looks at the North, SA, Qld and especially the NT on the anomaly map you linked to, one really can understand how the great rivers were able to run dry in times past. The late 1830s may have been the driest of all, considering the known effects on the ‘Bidgee, but the 1930s seem to have been awesomely low on monsoonal and other rains. The future good falls of the 1950s and 1970s must have seemed like a dream to people back then. Only Tassie and the southern fringes of the continent were getting much precip. This may have coloured the judgement of weather men of the day.

    You’d think that the NT prior to 1970 would be a major field of study for climate change “experts”. They want change? There’s change – with change!

  41. bazza April 13, 2014 at 10:07 pm #

    Bob FJ , you prove once again that you are not very aware: “For instance, as far as I’m aware the so-called Millennium Drought was not forecast to end, neither was the nature of the great rains and floods starting around 2010.” It was a major La Niña ( you can google that ) and was accurately forecast to an extraordinary degree. You are all FIRE AIM READY and totally irresponsible. I am still getting over your claim that the record 2013 temperature was an outlier because it was proceeded by two cool years that disturbed your 3 year moving average. Seriously? Why dont you send it to BOM for comment – you can bet Jen wont and she commissioned it. Debbie was in support tho. You really are an out and out outlier. You have discovered you can say what you like here- it is an evidence free zone in a downward spiral – what a joke.

  42. Ian Thomson April 14, 2014 at 7:47 am #

    Hi Robert and Debbie,
    Yes , need the like button.
    What you are saying about El Nino being only an influence, not always the only one and nobody knowing it all.
    If we have El Nino building , it should be apparent by now off SW S America.
    Whether it is or isn’t, the huge bushfire at Valparaiso yesterday is an anomaly. No Humboldt current means warm and damp there. No fish and too wet to farm properly, doesn’t it?
    Lots of possibilities. ( It is the weather). Maybe we will be lucky enough to have a weak El Nino ?

    Whatever we have, I’ll bet the BOM says it is a record one.

  43. Debbie April 14, 2014 at 9:08 am #

    Good grief!
    Bazza. . .we are commenting on the weather/climate here.
    BoM does not OWN the weather. . . nor does BoM own exclusive rights to comment on the weather.
    BoM’s ability in long term/seasonal forecasting is rather a way off being useful and likewise the way BoM is expressing national averages and carrying on about records.
    That doesn’t change the fact that BoM does supply useful services as Robert mentions upthread.

  44. bazza April 14, 2014 at 10:00 am #

    “likewise the way BoM is expressing national averages ” – so how would you like to see them expressed?

  45. Debbie April 14, 2014 at 10:26 am #

    The hand waving about broken records (often by a poompteenth of a degree) and the cherry picking used to create the hand waving headlines is not serving any particularly useful purpose as a public service.
    But let’s not forget that BoM does supply many other far more useful public services.
    How would I like to see them expressed?

  46. bazza April 14, 2014 at 10:36 am #

    “The Bureau of Meteorology says average temperatures were over a degree above the long-term average of close to 22 degrees Centigrade, and all states and territories recorded above-average temperatures in 2013”!!!

  47. Debbie April 14, 2014 at 12:15 pm #

    So Bazza?
    Are you claiming that ‘shortening an already shortened record’ and ignoring that there have indeed been higher recorded Summers is creating simplicity and/or something useful?
    And BTW. .where is this highly alarming 1 degree higher AUSTRALIAN AVERAGE actually & factually manifesting itself (other than in BoM’s averaging)?
    Maybe it’s like Tim Flannery claimed and it’s manifesting itself in a predicted higher incidence of road rage in Western Sydney?
    And. . . I am still fascinated re your claim that ‘you can get that for nothing’

  48. Bob_FJ April 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm #

    The CSIRO/BoM report of March 2010 entitled: “State of the Climate – 2010” does make some climate FORECASTS, but there is no mention of “la Nina” or floods which I believe started in Queensland in December 2010.

    However our resident wizard of absolute truth did write @ April 13th, 10:07 pm that the floods were caused by:

    “It was a major La Niña ( you can google that ) and was accurately forecast to an extraordinary degree”

    Perhaps he can solve the uncertainty in projections for the anticipated 2014/5 El Nino (The December/Christmas Child)

  49. Johnathan Wilkes April 14, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    As far as I can gather, the El Nino, La Nina, Enso etc. events are naturally occurring, why are they mentioned in connection with CO2 and AGW?

  50. Siliggy April 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    Bazza thanks I think?
    “The solution to the lack of data could be to combine the power of Jen’s neural net forecasts with Inigo’s cycles.”
    Here is another good ingredient to add to the mix. You will remember that close to the day that he had long before predicted Inigo Jones liked to refine the short term prediction by looking at the sun. He was a pioneer of the electric universe theory. So info from this guy below would make a competitor for the BoM that would give them a real run for thier funding.
    Notice How BEFORE the Solomon islands earthquake and tsunami scare he names it in the watch list.

    I was awake to check the tsunami warning sites and see the ABC still warning aboutit long after the warning had been cancelled.
    He and his mate were ahead of the cancellation with a very sleepy voice, as you can see here.

    No have not found specific millenium prediction. Could be he said it every week on the radio for years and did not put it in writing.

  51. John Robertson April 14, 2014 at 1:46 pm #

    Thank you Jennifer. As always you put your finger on the vital point. In this case the manipulation of the data record to make it say what it does not.

  52. Debbie April 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm #

    Perhaps I could ammend my earlier comment & say :
    Simply & honestly?
    And yes Johnathon. . .a rather long bow is now being drawn re AGW & relationships with natural phenomena such as ENSO , la Nina etc.
    That 2010 ‘ State of the Climate’ makes for very interesting reading in 2014.
    The MDB looks nothing at all like those predictions/forecasts.
    From QLD to Vic & across to SA. . .It was most definitely wetter than average for the next 2 years & the BoM went on to record the 3 wettest concurrent Autumns on record. . .whatever that actually means. . . after predicting or forecasting in 2010 that SE Aussie autumns would be the most troublesome season for ‘drier than average’
    As Robert said upthread. . . It’s terrible luck that you don’t know. BUT. . . .”

  53. bazza April 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm #

    Bob says “The CSIRO/BoM report of March 2010 entitled: “State of the Climate – 2010” does make some climate FORECASTS”. Well, I’ll have to get some lessons on how to find relevant information. If I was looking for stuff on seasonal forecasts you would not find me looking in a climate change report. I did download the 2010 report and (tip) I went to the file edit drop down list and hit Ctrl+F, typed in forecast and got nothing.
    Thanks also for pointing out the origin of the term El Nino. Maybe that is where some of the impacts first appear – in countries in S America. I wonder when the Australian impacts start and when the ENSO forecast becomes most useful. But as you are keen to learn about La Nina, you may need to search for LNSO -the EN is for El Nino, did you know..
    You could also explain to J Wilkes that although recent research suggests ENSO may well be impacted by climate change, you are particularly interested in the impact of natural variability from ENSO on the temperature time series. Also you can look a goose if you don’t realise that a record el Nino near the end of the last century coupled with a near record La Nina series recently can stuff up your intuitive analysis of temperature trends using 3 year, I repeat 3 year moving averages.

  54. Ian Thomson April 14, 2014 at 2:09 pm #

    Sort of O/T , but relevant.
    When I talk to kids here and look at exam questions, it rules here as well.

  55. Robert April 14, 2014 at 4:52 pm #

    El Nino and La Nina are new names for things that have gone on forever. They don’t impact the climate, they are not impacted by the climate…they ARE climate.

    How severe or “extreme” on the index were the El Nino conditions which afflicted so much of the world and the new colony at Port Jackson in the 1790s? We won’t know the numbers, but we know what happened to humans and animals and plants. Why was the “super” 1997-8 El Nino relatively benign in Oz (compared to those horrific “weak” events in 1902-3 and 2002-3)? Why was La Nina 1938-9 such a shocker for heat, drought and fire? Why did North America’s climate change so profoundly after 1825? Why did Eastern Australia change around 1950, and Northern Australia around 1970? Why did the ‘Bidgee run dry in the late 1830s and 1914 (but not in the Fed Drought)? Did Sturt and Goyder and Mitchell and the SMH in 1914 just make stuff up? When a major river runs dry it’s pretty fair to say that is has been “impacted by climate change”.

    Think El Nino and La Nina and PDO and IOD etc were just sitting at home watching The Flintstones and eating Tim Tams while all that drought and flood stuff was going on in previous centuries?

    Lastly, where are the adults?

  56. Debbie April 14, 2014 at 5:58 pm #

    Bazza says:

    “you would not find me looking in a climate change report” in relation to a lack of “climate FORECASTS.”

    I’m just wondering what Bazza calls these. . . copy/pasted from page 6 of that State of the Climate 2010 link? The major heading is ” What This Means”.

    And remember this is co authored by CSIRO and BoM.
    *Australia will be hotter in coming decades
    *Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades
    *It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950
    *Climate change is real

    Mind you it’s actually on every single page at the top right corner so I’m assuming they were very confident about these Climate FORECASTS.

  57. Bob_FJ April 14, 2014 at 6:02 pm #

    Very nicely put!

    I’m hesitant to respond to the comment by our resident Wizard of Wisdom (WOW) @ 2:06 pm because of so many ploys within it to avoid the issues raised earlier. For instance, he wrote that he could not find the word “forecast” in the 2010 report by the CSIRO & BoM. Well, here follows an extract from page 6 of the report headed “What this means”:

    “Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades: In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in southern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas”.

    Putting aside semantic pedantry to deny what was reported, I think that most reasonable people would treat this as a forecast or translate another word of similar intent, as I notice that Debbie has provided above. As Debbie inferred, this WOW stuff is wrong and… [SNIP]

    And, true to form, our WOW person has not provided any authoritative source for FORECAST of the floods, quote:
    “It was a major La Niña ( you can google that ) and was accurately forecast to an extraordinary degree”

    And, and, no, Gotta go.

  58. Bob_FJ April 14, 2014 at 6:09 pm #


    My post at 6:02 was intended to be WRT Robert @ 4:52 pm.

    It also crossed Debbie’s by a few minutes…. also nicely put Debbie

  59. Another Ian April 14, 2014 at 6:53 pm #

    Debbie April 14th, 2014 at 5:58 pm


    More from the Bureau of Mythology?

  60. Beth Cooper April 15, 2014 at 1:39 am #

    Why was the 1938-1939 La Nina such a shocker? Questions, questions. And why is
    NASA tampering with those heat records of the 1930s? Oh, and why do climatologists
    try to get rid of The Medieval Warming Period. Always questions.

  61. bazza April 15, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    Unconscionable, Beth but with your professed training you are quite capable of answering your own questions so that just shows you are here to stir because not even Neville would recycle that old stuff on the USA trend let alone the MWP. But it will work – there are no sceptics here if the stuff dished up fits their bias. They can act dumb – harder for some than for others – but for example you would have seen many references to the difference between a forecast and a scenario in a climate context. Be assured what ever you recycle Deb will come in with uncritical support and hotFJ will chip in with something borrowed, something blue or trying to catch the posy and catch up, or an ad hom when you cant go the pace. I will leave you to them, you deserve each other

  62. Debbie April 15, 2014 at 2:48 pm #


    🙂 🙂

    Uncritical support?
    That’s hilarious Bazza.
    Please take a quick glance in the mirror.
    And I’m still chortling at your use of semantics.
    “The difference between a forecast and a scenario”

  63. Bob_FJ April 15, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    Beth Cooper @ 1:39 am
    Yes Beth, so many questions!

    One such that intrigues me is that small-outback-town Bourke had some mysterious downgrading of temperatures in January 1939 (per earlier threads) and yet prima facie it would seem that Canberra experienced very high temperatures that have not been “processed”? (E.G. see page 1 here @ April 11th 4:55 pm).
    Whilst we may not have wind direction information, it seems rather odd that according to the BoM, Bourke was allegedly cooler than Canberra. But, the HQ site network only gives Canberra time series data from 1940 so it would seem that the BoM are unable to include 1939 data for Canberra in several thingies including State/Territory averages, (although I think that Canberra was only what, maybe; two decades into real growth in 1939/40).

    On the other hand liddle ol’ Bourke has time series modified data going back to 1910, but with several disruptions in station details etcetera as discussed earlier.

    I’d better stop there to avoid the wrath of “WOW person”.

    But………… so many questions!

  64. Bob_FJ April 15, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

    Me being, I contend/hope, a kindly sort of guy, I wish to try to help you on one aspect in this “discussion”.

    I, and others, have noticed that you seem to have some problems in understanding that certain words may be more flexible than in some of your personal semantic assertions. It thus strikes me that perhaps you have even greater difficulty in understanding some acronyms. (Hint; look-up acronyms say on line in “Bing”)

    Thus, I try herewith to help you with Debbie’s use of ROFLMAO!
    You may find that complicated what with its seven characters, but it means:

    Rolling Over (on the) Floor Laughing My Arse Off. (Arse = Ass in Americano)

  65. Siliggy April 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm #

    Bob FJ
    “I guess there is an element of legend with Indigo, apparently because those on the land found that his forecasts were of value.”
    He nearly face the lnch mob with this one. even if he got it slightly wrong, they loved him anyway because the type of forecast and accuracy suited those on the land.
    ANXIOUS Darling Downs wheat farmers who gambled on Inigo Jones by planting wheat a fortnight ago have nothing to show so far but empty Paddocks.
    On July 20 Mr. Jones predicted: “Late July rains, followed by a showery period towards the end of August.” Last night Mr. Jones reported from Crohamhurst Observatory that from August 25, the farmers worries would be over.”

    “A week ago, Brisbane was heading towards a 102-year record dry June-August. Only one man was confident that the drought would end. Three months previously he had forecast the end of the dry spell in the closing days of August. He stuck to his guns, and three days before the end of the month he saw his long ranee forecast come true. That man is Inigo Jones.”
    “Primary producers throughout the State, and indeed in all parts of Aus tralia, were impressed ”

    Bazza wants more samples so here the whole decade.

  66. Siliggy April 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

    He nearly faced the lynch mob with this one. E

  67. Beth Cooper April 15, 2014 at 7:53 pm #

    Okay, bazza @ 11.11 am. Adios muchachos.

    Beth the serf.

  68. Beth Cooper April 16, 2014 at 3:33 am #

    Kudos to Jennifer as one of a band of investigators looking critically at a global trend
    of temperature adjustments that alter the historical record. Worse, the impulse of
    these record adjusters appears to be to disappear the original record so that no
    means of comparison remain … now THAT is Orwellian.

    This from climate historian Tony Brown on the history of carefully taken temperature
    records along the Hudson River in the US and little warming trend demonstrated with
    the exception of some strange UH adjustments UP in Central Park in the 1960s despite
    population increases from 1880 – 123700 to 1990 – 7.5 million.

  69. Neville April 16, 2014 at 8:52 am #

    I’ve noticed this before, but just how accurate is the WFTs site? Here’s the HAD3 plot from 1860 to 2013 and incredibly the 1945 to 1975 accepted cooler period shows up as a warming trend. But it also shows a 1998 to 2013 cooling trend.

    But here’s their more recent HAD 4 plot with 1945 to 1975 showing the known cooling during that period but the 1998 to 2013 now shows a slight warming trend.

    So why do these two data bases have these obvious differences or is it just WFTs ? Something is definitely wrong. WFTs is used by both alarmists and sceptics every day of the year on numerous blogs, but can we be sure of this site anymore?

  70. bazza April 16, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    HADCRUT 3 and 4 differences Nev, maybe it is just semantics, or could it be one is BAU ( business as usual remember) and one isn’t but if you want or can handle a rational discussion on anything then you have come from the wrong place to an even wronger one. And BTW how are you going on your understanding of the counterfactual and how does it relate to BAU as these are importsnty concepts in scenario development.

  71. Neville April 16, 2014 at 10:22 am #

    Well I knew I wouldn’t get any sense out of poor old bazza, but whats new? So how are you going bazza since changing real numbers to fake ones dreamt up during one one of your silly whims?

    But boy oh boy your Lukey was very impressed by your deceit, so I suppose that helped your ego?

  72. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 10:25 am #


    If you go to the HADCRUT4 global graph and eyeball the trend from 1998 there IS an increasing trend:

    However, the data are very noisy and if you go to WFT and ask for trends from 1996, 1997, 1998 & 1999, the resulting trend differences are, per my eyeballs, just as expected. Thus I would say that WFT is reliable and that the issues you raise are a consequence of Hadcru naughty adjustments. (anti clockwise rotation of the data curves, somewhat as done by GISS)

  73. Debbie April 16, 2014 at 10:38 am #

    Considering the heavy reliance on playing with semantics. . .
    I think the use of this particular term has been kidnapped and used for ‘counterfactual’ purposes in order to create negative & alarmist type ‘concepts in scenario developments’.
    It is mostly being used by people of a particular political/green/enviro persuasion as if ‘the mainstream’ are arguing to not change anything and to not encourage progress and who just don’t care about ‘higher level principles’ and gleefully encourage the rape and pillage of the landscape for their own selfish ends. (and these ‘mainstream’ are often defined as old, male and white who flap around only with a right wing and have sunburned necks and also congregate via tea parties)
    Being heavily involved in business, particularly agribusiness. . .let me assure you that the way BAU is being defined by those of that particular persuasion at the moment would be more correctly defined as BLC (Business Last Century) or even OHB (Old Hat Business).
    Successful businesses encourage progress and embrace new technology and new clever ideas.
    That’s what BAU really is.
    So if people want to have rational discussions then perhaps they need to recognise that, while far from perfect, BAU is not anything close to a negative concept.

  74. Neville April 16, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    Bob FJ, I showed that warming trend for HAD 4 from 1998 to 2013 as well. But how can HAD 3 show a warming trend from 1945 to 1975? Some thing is wrong or changed or something . But it can’t be correct.

    Just read my local rag howling about all the extra deaths we can expect from a warmer climate. Heat stroke and all that silly BS and that’s why “we MUST have a price on carbon.” Geeeeezzzzzzz give me strength.
    So looked up Goklany’s post at Watts showing many countries deaths during winter and summer. Of course our deaths drop during Jan to April every year as does NZ. Many more deaths of course in the winter in all countries.

  75. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 12:10 pm #

    Neville @ 11:02 am,

    Go to HADCRUT3v graph and eyeball the period 1940-1975 not 1945-1975. Ignore the clumsy black trend line and instead study the red and blue bars. It looks like a slight down trend to me.

    Now go to WFT and you will find they show an uptrend from 1945 and a downtrend from 1940.

    Thus, again the WFT transcription seems to be reliable and any issues you see are within the Hadcru data.

    Incidentally the unadjusted Hadcrut3 time-series is here:

  76. Neville April 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    Bob FJ your CRU HAD 3 graphs are for NH not global. Whether that makes much difference at all I don’t know.
    But the fact remains that HAD 4 shows a cooling trend and HAD 3 doesn’t at WFTs. Right from the beginning everyone accepted that there was a cooling from 1945 to 1975 and that 31 year period was the one that was always quoted in the studies etc. This mirrored the change to cool PDO.
    For example I never ever read about a 36 year cooling from 1940 to ’75.
    This brought on the new ice age scare of the 1970s etc as well. BTW those wild opposing swings in your WFT graphs are just unbelievable. But don’t ask me why, but something aint right.

  77. Neville April 16, 2014 at 2:56 pm #

    Just posted this at Jo Nova’s blog but seems to be relevant here.

    Indur Goklany nailed this silly nonsense 4 years ago in a WUWT post. Here are the Phil Jones warming periods since 1860 and the trends. All are within an unmeasurable 0.01c or one hundredth of 1c. IOW they are the same, so where is the co2 impact? We’re told the impact from co2 is found after 1950, so why are the trends the same before 1950?
    Here is the post

    Here are the trends and significances for each period:
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

  78. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm #

    Neville @ 12:41 pm,

    I feel that I need to spend more time on other matters, so this will be my last comment on this topic. Some quick points:
    • I’ve added GISSTEMP global to my previous WFT plot requests and the result is much the same. The steepness of the trend lines may be exaggerated in your perception by the high scale on the Y axis and be reminded that the two datum averages are different. (and the temperature differences are actually small)

    • Here follows the GISSTEMP global time-series. Note that even it shows a peak at around 1940 or maybe 1941, not 1945, and that in the few years following that peak, just as with HadCru, there is a rapid plunge in T’s. Thus, starting your trend considerations anytime after that has big consequences.

    BTW, GISSTEMP uses a more realistic 5-Year smoothing than HadCru.

    • As far as I can recall, the commonly debated ~60-year cycle has always peaked at ~1940 in all data sets.
    • The HadCru time-series that I’ve linked to actually have three sets of graphs, of which the bottom one gives the global info you missed.

  79. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm #

    Oh, and furthermore WFT seems to be correct in transcribing GISS data in addition to HadCru data.

  80. bazza April 16, 2014 at 3:33 pm #

    Nev back at 12:41 for the Nobel – he sure is on to something here : “those wild opposing swings in your WFT graphs are just unbelievable. But don’t ask me why, but something aint right”. Cruel of hot FJ to slip in a moving average ( remember FJ has form – he used a 3 year one to show, based on the La Niña he was not aware of , cooling and therefore the 2014 Australian record must have been an outlier, well I never!) but well spotted by Nev that it was Northern Hemisphere and he does not know why that matters ( hint more industry and less water etc etc ). So like ICAC moving averages claim another innocent victim, first hot FJ now Nev. Reminds me , given it is a time of a religious event also shaman pagans celebrating the rising sun after the northern hemisphere winter, of the House of the Rising Sun
    “ And it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy,
    And God I know I am one. “
    Bit like Jimmy Sharmans tent at the Royal Easter – any mug can step up here and have a go. Pity hot FJ got KO’d, I was looking forward to a battle of minds now that they are playing on wft – endless mindless fun.

  81. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm #


    Don’t know about you but I found this bazza WOW (Wizard Of Wisdom) to Neville @ April 16th, at 9:18 am to be highly amusing:

    “HADCRUT 3 and 4 differences Nev, maybe it is just semantics, or could it be one is BAU ( business as usual remember) and one isn’t but if you want or can handle a rational discussion on anything then you have come from the wrong place to an even wronger one. And BTW how are you going on your understanding of the counterfactual and how does it relate to BAU as these are importsnty concepts in scenario development.”

    It seems that we have pricked a nerve in pointing to his corrupted semantics

  82. Johnathan Wilkes April 16, 2014 at 4:08 pm #

    buzzer, never go to a fight unarmed!

  83. Bob_FJ April 16, 2014 at 5:55 pm #

    Johnathan Wilkes @ 4:08 pm

    John, I don’t know if you might be into ornithology but nevertheless you might be interested by this link in analogous contexts in the above.

  84. Johnathan Wilkes April 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm #


    Thanks for the link, that is a beautiful bird, now included in my screen saver list.

  85. Bob_FJ April 17, 2014 at 7:22 am #

    Yet again WFT appears to faithfully transcribe the information here

    You need to scroll down to bottom graph for global, and ignore the ugly black worm

  86. Neville April 17, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    Thanks for that Bob, but here’s another problem I can’t understand. If you compare the Had 3 and Had 4 trends from 1910 to 1940 with 1910 to 1945 it is the longer period ( 1910 to 1945) that shows the higher trend in both data bases. Why is that?
    Remember I’m a rank amateur, but to me this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Phil Jones etc calls it a 1910 to 1940 warming, but why not 1910 to 1945? Afterall it does have a higher trend according to WFTs. And therefore Jone’s data bases as well.
    I’m not implying anything improper at all but a lot of this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Well I’m off until tomorrow night, just too busy at the moment. But will read your response then. Thanks.

  87. Siliggy April 17, 2014 at 8:25 am #

    Neville April 16th, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    “so why are the trends the same before 1950?”
    Beth Cooper April 15th, 2014 at 7:53 pm
    With reference also to the 1950s decade of Jones predictions above.
    Could it be that there is a mixture of repetitious cycles at various periods doing stuff like this?
    I predict that one day there will be phone apps that can give predictions based on the Jones method of paying attention to those all important non homogenised outliers in the data and that people will pay more attention to these apps than the BoM.
    In July 1950 the people of Bourke would have paid attention to the decade of predictions made by possible by long records, available records and Inigo Jones. Living on the Darling river, two bits of his decade predition they would have looked at with intense interest were at the start of 1954.
    “heavy rains in January on the Darling downs”
    and also
    “In February the rains are general with heavy falls in the coastal regions north of the tropic and the Gulf and south west and southern parts of the Darling downs.”
    How did that coast north of the tropic bit go?
    How did that southern Darling downs bit go?

    How such a specific forecast could ever be called vague is a question the BoM and CSIRO Should answer while the ABS recalculates that 50/50 statistic.
    The people knew exactly what he meant regardless of the increasingly irrelevant BoM understanding or not.

    By contrast the BoM three years closer to the date showed what enforced consensus science could do in the face of one mans defiance against it. No doubt the enforcers had in their ranks those who avioded fighting the NAZIs (followers of Arrhenius) by getting into a gov’t job.
    Armed with a total misunderstanding of what the sun could do, the consensus publicly contradicted itself as it boasted about ingnoring the weather cycles seen in long records.
    The contradictory and terribly vague predictions coming from the Hopeless BoM were utterly useless and failed to predict these floods.
    The BoM set back science more than sixty years by working against instead of with Inigo Jones.

  88. Beth Cooper April 17, 2014 at 10:41 am #

    The BOM, Siliggy?

    Yer can fool some
    of the people some
    of the time but not
    all of the people all
    at the same time. )

  89. Bob_FJ April 17, 2014 at 12:55 pm #

    Neville @ April 17th, 8:04 am

    Ok, since you ask nicely I’ll let my lunch go down before returning to work

    It is a matter of “loose” statistics. First of all it is generally recognised that there is an underlying cycle in the temperature record of about 60-years, with a pronounced peak somewhere around 1940. (This was possibly made more pronounced by the WW2 El Nino, although some parts like Europe and Russia had very cold winters)

    Unfortunately, the data are very noisy with a sharp break-over curve together with a high outlier in 1942, which complicates matters. In short, linear trend treatments should be used with great caution when there is an obvious underlying cycle with high noise. Instead, moving averages are arguably of better use.

    Here’s an exercise for you. Go to the following link where the BoM appears to have the HadCrut3 unadjusted global average time-series, but with the advantage of being able to assess different trending methodology:

    I have set it to a 3-year moving average, but if you grab and drop the cursor on the scale you can increase it progressively up to 15-years. Notice that the centre of the break-over curve moves as you go.

    Have a play with that and I’ll come back to your other points.

  90. Neville April 18, 2014 at 9:26 pm #

    Thanks Bob FJ , I’ve had a play and yes I notice the line moves down as the moving average number goes up.
    But I’ll ask again why does WFTs show a higher trend for 1910 to 1945 for both HAD 3 and HAD 4? The warming trend is supposed to be from from 1910 to 1940 ( not to 1945) according to Phil Jones.

  91. Neville April 19, 2014 at 2:41 pm #

    The Bolter nails the extremists on all their dud predictions. And jumping in with both feet in his gob is that dingaling Adam Bandt.

  92. Bob_FJ April 20, 2014 at 6:23 pm #

    Neville @ April 18th, 9:26 pm

    First of all the Phil Jones climax in the warming given as 1940 is based on earlier HadCrut3 data which has since been adjusted in a general anticlockwise direction of the time-series curves. HadCru have uniquely used within THEIR “climate science” a 21-year smoothing with weighting of linear triangulation simplified Gaussian distribution. (Don’t ask me why, and frankly, I think it is almost bizarre!). Nevertheless, if you look here at CURRENT unadjusted HadCrut3:

    The peak in the GLOBAL break-over curve is pretty well-on 1940 but also notice that the 21-year smoothing curve seems to ignore the 1942 high outlier:
    If you play again with the BoM trending options on what appears to be recent Hadcrut3 unadjusted, you should be able to see that trending options affect the break-over curve in more ways than you suggest.

    Keeping this brief, what you need to recognise is that the VERY MANY smoothing methods give different outcomes and may be chosen to emphasize a point of view by a researcher.
    And, even linear smoothing comes in various forms. WFT use OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) and you should check this out:

    Gotta go

  93. Neville April 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    Thanks Bob FJ.

Website by 46digital