IF you know Bourke, you know Australia, wrote the famous Australian poet Henry Lawson. There is something quintessentially Australian about the place, the harshness of the western landscape, a tenacious spirit, the notion of ‘a fair go’.
So what would you say if another Australian icon, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was fiddling the temperature record for Bourke? I’d call it un-Australian.
But lets not jump to any conclusions!
Lets just ask a few questions in the hope that the Bureau will answer them.
The postmaster started recording temperature at Bourke on 25th April 1871. That was a year after the post office and telegraph departments were amalgamated and meteorologist, astronomy and electrical engineer Charles Todd was appointed Postmaster General and Superintendent of Telegraphs. He was a smart man and a good organiser. Just a year earlier he had overseen the successful completion of the overland telegraph line from Darwin to Adelaide connecting Australia to Europe via Indonesia. By 1877 every Australian state had tapped into this network.
While there is a meticulously recorded daily temperature record for Bourke from 1871, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology rejects this record until 1st January 1910. So when David Jones from the Bureau reports each January on the annual average temperature for Australia, only the data for Bourke from 1st January 1910 is included.
It is claimed that temperatures weren’t reliably recorded until after the installation of Stevenson Screens and that this didn’t occur at most weather recording stations in Australia until 1910. A Stevenson screen was installed at Bourke in August 1908.
But is the absence of a Stevenson screen really a good enough reason to ignore 40 years of data carefully collected by successive postmasters at Bourke?
It is likely the thermometers at Bourke were kept in a lattice round house or a Glaisher stand or some other type of enclosure. According to the scientific literature, these installations could result in the recording of temperatures up to 1 degree Celsius warmer during summer. So why not just subtract up to 1 degree from all summer temperatures for Bourke prior to August 1908?
Furthermore, the Bureau is not consistent on this issue. While claiming that temperatures not recorded in a Stevenson screen are unreliable and not able to be incorporated into the official Australian temperature record, they then discard and change records for Bourke after the installation of a Stevenson Screen.
The record high temperature of 51.7 degree C recorded on 3rd January 1909, after the installation of the Stevenson Screen, has been expunged from the official record on the basis it must be an observational or clerical error. That is the reasoning given in a 1997 study by Blair Trewin, who now works for the Bureau. He came to this determination after comparing temperatures at Bourke with temperatures as far away as Thargomindah (454km) and Coonamble (364km), all the while ignoring temperatures at nearby Brewarrina (97km), which also set records on that day.
But this isn’t the only temperature record that has been changed or removed since the installation of a Stevenson screen at Bourke. Through a process of what the Bureau refers to as data “homogenisation” almost all of Australia’s temperature records have been changed in the development of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperatures (ACORN-SAT). Dr Blair Trewin is actually the climate scientists who oversees the ongoing development of this official data set.
It has resulted in changes to many of the original temperature records for Bourke. For example, a recording of 47.5 degree C on 28th January 1913 has been changed to 46.6 degree C, a recording of 48.3 degree C on the 10th January 1939 has been changed to 47.9 degree C and the list of changes goes on and on.
Why? Why tamper with the original recordings after a Stevenson screen was put in place?
Many ordinary Australians have become increasingly concerned with this fiddling by the Bureau. Ken Stewart, a retired school principal, has undertaken a detailed assessment of the new official temperature data, ACORN-SAT, and shown that the many adjustments can change the entire temperature trend for particular locations.
Let’s consider what the Bureau has done just to the hot day data for Bourke by way of some temperature charts. Each dots in the following four charts/figures represents a day where the mean maximum temperatures exceeded, or is claimed, to have exceeded 40 degrees Celsius at the Bourke Post Office. Click on the figures/charts to get a larger and better view.
In Figure 1, I have included all the days where temperatures exceeded 40 degrees Celsius from when the Bourke post office started recording temperatures, until the Bureau closed down this temperature recording station in 1996. The spread of dots suggests there were more extremely hot days in the late 1800s and early 1990s.
The Bureau has expunged the extremely hot day recorded in 1877 and again in 1909, claiming the values are too extreme for Bourke. So all the hot days without these values are shown in Figure 2. Then the Bureau, in developing its official ACORN-SAT database, discards all the data before 1910 and then makes more changes to all the data that’s left. We don’t know the exact methodology used in this homogenisation process. The final result is shown in Figure 3.
If the Bureau just adjusted the data before the installation of the Stevenson screen, by subtracting 1 degree Celsius from all the hot days before August 1908, the hot day temperature record for Bourke would look like Figure 4.
Instead it truncates the data, and then makes adjustments until there is no evidence of a cooling trend. Surely the residents of Bourke, if not every Australian citizen, deserve an explanation.
Read more on this topic…
Part 2, Adjusting maximum temperatures both down and up, and then changing them altogether
Part 3, Shortening an already shortened record
****
Anyone with early photographs of Bourke could have a photograph of the enclosure in the yard at the post office before the installation of the Stevenson screen in 1908. It would be valuable information, knowing just what this was.
It would be also very valuable to compare records from Bourke with temperature records from nearby locations, for example sheep stations, particularly for the late 1870s and early 1900s.
If you have any historical temperature records for the Bourke region, or photographs of enclosures at the post office email me at jennifermarohasy at gmail.com or telephone 041 887 32 22.
Additional Notes, References and Links:
Ken Stewart, ACORN-Sat: A Preliminary Assessment, May 2012. http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/acorn-sat-a-preliminary-assessment/
Blair Trewin, Another look at Australia’s record high temperature, Australian Meteorological Magazine, volume 46, pages 251-256. 1997. Trewin compares temperatures for Bourke with temperatures for Walgett, Thargomindah, and Coonamble, which are 231, 454 and 364kms from Bourke respectively by road. Trewin ignores temperatures at Brewarrina, which is just 97 km away.
The Northern Miner, Tuesday 5th January 1909 included the following news: “SYDNEY JANUARY 4. The severity of the heat wave is shown by the official returns of the temperatures for the 48 hours ended at 9am this morning. In some instances the records are the highest for thirty years. They include Bourke 125 degrees in the shade. Brewarina 123, Pilliga 123…” Reference in the same article is later made to Walgett recording a temperature of 112. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/80316601?zoomLevel=6 [125 degree Fahrenheit is 51.7 degree Celsius. 123 is 50.6. 112 is 44.4.] This newspaper clipping was found by Lance Pidgeon.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks Jen. This raw data really needs exhuming.
Like you said, it should be retained and possibly adjusted for the glaisher/SS difference but it is valuable data and to simply tamper with it to suit the BoM’s well known warming bias is fraudulent:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/fraud-is-the-new-normal-for-top-australian-climate-scientists/
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/bf6i8phcuaatjut.png
It’s even worse than you think. This is for Bourke, Jan 1939. Just check the difference between the raw data and ACORN adjustments. Every raw temp over 30C has been reduced by up to 0.9C and any under 30C have been increased (by only 0.1C).
This has reduced the overall mean by almost 0.4C and reduced the 40C+ heatwave from 17 straight to 11.
Jan raw ACORN
1st 38.9 38.4
2nd 40 39.1
3rd 42.2 41.9
4th 38.1 37.9
5th 38.9 38.4
6th 41.7 41.5
7th 41.7 41.5
8th 43.4 43
9th 46.1 45.7
10th 48.3 47.9
11th 47.2 46.8
12th 46.2 45.8
13th 45.7 45.3
14th 46.1 45.7
15th 47.2 46.8
16th 46.7 46.3
17th 40 39.1
18th 40.1 39.1
19th 40 39.1
20th 41.9 41.7
21st 42.5 42.1
22nd 44.2 43.8
23rd 36.7 36.5
24th 40.3 39.2
25th 36.6 36.5
26th 29.4 29.5
27th 29.3 29.4
28th 28.8 28.9
29th 30.6 30.5
30th 35.6 35.4
31st 38.6 38.3
Highest daily 48.3 47.9
Lowest daily 28.8 28.9
Monthly mean 40.4 40.03
Every temp adjusted despite a SS in place.
Jennifer thankyou for noting that I found those newspaper reports. It is important to remember that newspaper reports are not to be trusted for decimal point accuracy. They do usually get the day things happened correct however. For example this report below from the Cobar paper clearly states that they had 117 degrees F on Sunday (3/1/1909), 108 degrees F on Monday(4th/1/1909) and a cool change on Tuesday.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/115397048?ZoomLevel=6
The BoM seem to be able to get the decimal point correct 117 F = 47.2 C. Sadly however they seem to have the days wrong!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ 048030
So there is no confusion about which day the BoM should record a temperature on, watch what they do in your area for yesterday.
Cobar is 160 km from Bourke. The paper said they have only had two hotter days in 25 years and mentions records from 1896. The BoM seem to have lost that year. Oooops
Lance Pidgeon
BOM, Bureau of Mischiefology.
Silligy
Here is a comparison between Bourke and Cobar for Jan 1939 after adjustments to both by ACORN. Spot the anomaly.
Bourke Cobar
1st 38.4 38
2nd 39.1 41.3
3rd 41.9 41.3
4th 37.9 37.4
5th 38.4 36.8
6th 41.5 41.9
7th 41.5 41.9
8th 43 44.7
9th 45.7 46.4
10th 47.9 47
11th 46.8 48.1
12th 45.8 47.5
13th 45.3 47
14th 45.7 46.4
15th 46.8 47.5
16th 46.3 46.2
17th 39.1 37.6
18th 39.1 38
19th 39.1 39.5
20th 41.7 41.9
21st 42.1 42.9
22nd 43.8
23rd 36.5
24th 39.2 39.4
25th 36.5 36.8
26th 29.5 26.4
27th 29.4 30.5
28th 28.9 28.4
29th 30.5 30.5
30th 35.4 35.4
31st 38.3 38.7
Highest daily 47.9 48.1
Lowest daily 28.9 28.4
Monthly mean 40.0354838709678 40.1862068965517
Top temp for Cobar – 48.1C. Mean temp for Cobar was higher than Bourke even though the raw data states the opposite.
Although 2 days have gone missing in Cobar’s ACORN record, the raw data records a temp for Cobar on 23rd (but not on ACORN -why?).
It appears that the Bourke and Cobar ACORN temps were maybe adjusted by different people and they didn’t bother checking their results with each other.
Ian George. Much thanks for these insights and pointing out their significance in terms of reducing the length of a heat wave.
Silligy, Thanks for all the information from your expert ferreting of old newspapers.
During the ’50s I worked on a place called Planet Downs in Sturt’s Stony Desert, not far from the NE corner of South Aus and when the wind was blowing strong the temp probably never got above ~ 112f/45c but when it was still the temp often rose quite a bit higher than that and I experienced up to 122f/50c during the working day. Comparing these hot pockets with temps long distances away and making adjustments based on that is very unscientific.
[I only found out when I got back to the homestead where the thermometer was kept on the verandah in conditions that resembled a Coolgardie safe. The outside shade temps were probably hotter in actual fact]
Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. How appropriate that an hysterical ideology like AGW should be based on small fiddles with the data.
I hope this small change comes back to bankrupt the BOM.
Excellent work Jennifer and a big public thanks to the boys and girl in the backroom.
On the Jensen post Jen clarified her mission “Bazza, I’m not trying to establish some credibility amongst mainstream climate scientists, I’m trying to bring some credibility to mainstream climate science “- pity as I was suggesting she be first to follow her own advice quoting Wegman of all people on the need to seek external statistical advice. Irony aside, it would have helped Jen’s credibility given she has not acknowledged external assistance in her forays into climate forecasting.
The only way for Jen to get credibility into climate science in accord with her ideology is to start at the top. With the WA senate election coming up it would be a coup on a par with knights and dames to appoint 2 from WA , Jensen as Minister for Science and Jo Nova as BOM Chief. Jensen as an ex South African would quickly sort everyone into two camps. Jo could be charged with shifting BOM to Alice Springs to remove any geographic bias and to help with retraining. Other appointments could follow. Nev could be Chief Librarian in charge of burning journals that mention non-natural climate change. Cohenite could look after percentile analyses while Jen could run with categorical seasonal forecasts and use Debbie as a consultant on expunging all references to probabilities, uncertainty and any issue that is not black and white. – she should also be charged with filtering user feedback. Even Robert could be slotted to expunge any mention of a record where there is some event somewhere some time that has not been exceeded. Jens four other regular contributors could fit in somewhere and contribute to resolving the credibility crisis ( BOMs not Jens).
An immediate challenge would be resolution by popular vote of Jens concern whether the new network of temperature stations should be either located on a regular grid or be based on rigorous random sampling. Personally I think random would be more fun.
Sooo, bazzer you have nothing sensible to say?
ps what do you have against Sth Africans?
“. Even Robert could be slotted to expunge any mention of a record where there is some event somewhere some time that has not been exceeded.”
Bazza, my real forte is translation. But the above string of words has me baffled, I must admit.
By the by, after 2000 BC monsoons more or less failed for a couple of centuries. The recent paleo is matching up with the sad history of the cultures and dynasties of the time. Seems you have to live in good times (like now) to have any luck at all with your civilisation.
It’s surprising how much radical and destructive climate change humanity had to endure before we had this modest blip called…well, called Climate Change.
BoM’s data tampering is always in a certain direction in order to get a desired effect.
Why is that, we ask?
Tomorrow the new draft from the IPCC will be released, with a new batch of weasel words to keep the bed-wetters in suspense.
Richard Tol has resigned from this IPCC panel because he’s disgusted with their alarmist exaggerations.
“It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” he said.
And when the climate isn’t changing at any measurable rate beyond the noise of natural variation, I’m sure that the positive climate impacts are at least 50%.
Just think of how the BoM contributes to the mushroom industry.
Mildly amusing bazza; just as its been mildly warmer this last century.
Spangeld Drongo
I mentioned those Gundabooka readings here.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/
It looks like those two readings of 129 F in 1896 may have been too low as explained by Sir Charles Todd here after a morning eclipse in adelaide!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49770683
“it will be seen that: the readings of the thermometer mounted “free in air” (by which I presume that it was placed so as to have a free current of air roud its; bulb, and away from buildings), as well as. those of the solar thermometers, which, until the sun rose above the clouds, would give the tempera- ture of the air, are lower than the readings of the dry bulb thermometer, placed under the verandah and near to the house, during the first part of the morning, or until 8 h. 30 m., and higher after then; showing that before that time the dry bulb thermometer was af- fected by the radiated heat from the house. Generally a thermometer placed contiguous to or against a building will read too high at night and too low in the day. As, however, I shall return to this matter in a future commu nication, I will encroach no further on your space, of which I have already occupied too much. I am, Sir, &c., CHARLES TODD, Observer, and Superintendent of Telegraphs, S. A. Adelaide, March 28, 1857.”
Thanks, Siliggy.
When you see the trouble these people went to to get accuracy it is very hard to justify the actions of the BoM in simply deleting this great data.
And when you see the credibility that is given to Michael Mann’s proxy tree rings for the similar period it beggars belief.
In addition to the wide variety of thermometer shading shelters prior to the introduction of the Stevenson screen, the situation is I think complicated not only by siting, but by housing design and maintenance. In particular I recall a study (at WUWT?) concerning the early timber box louvered designs being coated with old fashioned whitewash, which is highly reflective at first but which relatively more quickly deteriorates not only in the coating but in the exposed integrity of the timber structure. These timber designs were more recently coated with modern more durable paints which were shown to be more absorbent of EMR and thus to result in higher T readings. But, it gets increasingly controversial with smaller very different designs which are also claimed as Stevenson Screens.
For instance, here follows an extract from this Oz link: http://lmsresources.newengland.tafensw.edu.au/NEI/EduONE/Publish/touchscreendemo/menuitems/m_14.html
“The Stevenson Screen shown [referring to photo in the article] is a standard design. There are many other designs, including cylindrical models made of metal or plastic louvres.”
Please pardon me whilst I go to my secluded back room and scream!
It’s OK Bob_FJ. . . I often want to scream too.
🙂 🙂 🙂
So much of it is meaningless and of no practical use.
Not saying that developing national or global averages isn’t interesting. . .but there is no practical USE(!) for any of us who live and work with the vagaries of the climate/weather day in and day out.
BoM does provide some excellent services but the focus on pretending that they can forecast a future climate/weather catastrophe based on temperature is enough to make anyone want to scream in frustration!
Bob F-J
So should we keep the temperature record from the Bourke PO pre-introduction of the Stevenson Screen (i.e. everything recorded before August 1908) and ditch the recordings since? Given all the potential problems with readings from Stevenson Screens.
Since Jen’s “ideology” is that climate science be honest, transparent, rational, historically informed, I am betting that bazza will now take up the call and leap to the vanguard.
See #5 at
http://www.theospark.net/2014/03/flying-wisdom.html
Some thoughts around this area.
A WW2 (Air Force I think) slang description of a meterologist was a “guesser”
Seems we’ve fallen for “it came out of a computer so it must be right” and lost this term
Results indicate that we should reinstate it IMO.
Jen, this aint racket science but it is careless research where the answer precedes the question. There was a time when local knowledge would have been used to confirm the wonderful job of tree planting done in Bourke over the last century and a bit. I have got a mate up the road used to be from Bourke and he confirms lots of trees even around the back of the old PO site. If you have no mates there you or your mates could simply have rung up or even used GOOGLE maps which shows it all.
If your lot are too sloppy to do decent research, don’t expect me to train you.
The IPCC report as a result of all these years of exaggeration and data tampering is screaming death and destruction for us all. We is doomed:
•IPCC report opens: ‘‘Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.’’
•Key risks include: death, injury and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island states from storm surges, sea-level rises.
•Systemic risks to key infrastructure networks, including water and power, from extreme weather events.
•Risks also to food insecurity and breakdown of food systems from extreme weather.
•Impacts seen: ‘‘glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide’’, while coral reefs and arctic eco-systems among those already affected.
•Species on the move: while a few recent species extinctions are ‘‘attributed as yet to climate change’’, many terrestrial, freshwater and marine species have shifted geographic range and abundance.
•Recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wild fires reveal significant vulnerabilities to both human populations and eco-systems.
•Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, particularly for those in poverty.
•Adaptation is mixed, including in Australia, where planning for sea-level rises ‘‘remains piecemeal’’. Efforts to cope with reduced water availability more common.
•Economic costs are ‘‘more likely than not’’ to be greater than the 0.2-2 per cent GDP range cited. That estimate excludes catastrophic changes, tipping points, among other factors.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-how-humans-are-changing-the-climate-20140331-35sob.html#ixzz2xUs3G3nw
BOM are reporting that a recent 46.1C is the highest temperature ever recorded here in Adelaide. Many oldies remember 117.7F (47.6C) in 1939, recorded officially and widely publicised for many years. But BOM ignore that because it was not recorded using a Stevenson screen. Perhaps this problem is widespread!
I had a mate once who recalled once being in Bourke. Or so I recall. He probably remembers trees there. I bet he met people who knew people who remembered when and where trees were planted over a century ago. And Google earth would probably show trees near the PO – even! I should have called another mate who maybe still has that mate’s number. But did I?
I’m getting so sloppy. But who will train me now?
The Barrier Miner in 1929 recalls the 1896 ‘wave in Bourke. Makes you wonder how 1939 could have been worse.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46050184
Jen, @ March 30 9:39 pm,
I think you should keep all records including homogenized and un-homogenized and then try and figure the good and the suspect etcetera in them. Alternatively find a quiet private space and vent a loud scream but without causing people to call the police.
By using a quick old engineering skill known as eyeballing, I see that in your graph for Bourke PO from an earlier related thread:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Bourke-Annual-Mean-Max-Temp.png
,there are three plateaus or put another way, it is noisily flat at an average of roughly 29C until about 1908, and then there is a step-change down to roughly 28C until a little after WW2 when there is another step-change down to roughly 27C.
The first step down would seem to be associated with the change to Stevenson Screens, but the second one of a further one degree just after the war is rather intriguing what?
I haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to properly read Ashcroft et al as referenced on that thread, after seeing the co-authorship of Gergis and Karoly (G & K)* and its discouraging length:
http://www.bom.gov.au/amoj/docs/2012/ashcroft.pdf
But, digitally searching for Bourke, that town is embraced only in Table 1, and station 48239 replaced the PO site (48013) in 1994 for four years, which in turn was replaced by the current 48245 in 1999. There is no overlap in the operating dates listed but an overlap of 1 month and 13 months is given in columns 4 & 6
*G & K co-authored with others the famous retracted SH hockey-stick paper, and of particular interest to Jen, Karoly co-authored “Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming”
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/5/674.abstract?sid=104afc50-c0c5-47d7-805a-adb8f4542452
It has astonishing holes in it; enough to drive a double-decker bus through them.
If I was getting desperate about trying to cast doubt where none exists I would only pick one location. And I would assume none of my loyal readers would challenge me on just picking one station. They would forgive me on that quote about “ there is no science of isolated phenomena”. First I would look at the BOM trend maps for rainfall since 1910 being well aware that rainfall trends have a big influence on temperature trends. An area around Bourke looks promising and is one of the very few out of NW Australia with upward trend. Then I would check out the mean temperature trends from 1910. Jackpot – there are only a few isolated areas and only one in Northern NSW – you guessed it – back and front of Bourke. The rest is hysteria.
Folks, so this does disintegrate into a rabble, comments that don’t include information relevant to the topic, and/or comments that “play the person rather than the ball” may be deleted. Cheers,
Bazza gets some more leeway than others because he is the only person putting the alternative perspective in this thread.
Bazza
Are you suggesting that Burke is some how atypical? That temperature trends at nearby locations consistently show a different trend?
We’ve been through this before at another thread… I thought we had clearly established and agreed that there are locations in NSW and Queensland that show a slight increase in temperatures, some that are flat, others that show cooling.
The bottom-line it that the overall trend must be the sum of the components, if the BOM are fiddling the data for every component… we have a problem. I’m suggesting that the BOM are fiddling the data for every station that contributes to their ACORN database. I’m planning to do a series on Bourke, because its as good as starting anywhere. I plan to show the multitude of different ways that the data for Bourke has been fiddled.
In effect the BOM are attempting to rewrite history, and also to denigrate the work of the early record keepers.
I appreciate you putting a different perspective. It is good to have a Devil’s Advocate. But so far you don’t seem to have been able to show why the BOM are justified in doing what they have done as detailed in this blog post… that is
1. truncating the data,
2. deleting outliers
3. making adjustments after the installation of the Stevenson screen.
If you could make a relevant contribution…
Jen, you are simply not interested in “a relevant contribution”. The pathetic attempts to undermine the hottest year for 2013 clearly showed that neither you nor your mates showed the slightest knowledge or interest in reading up on all the background papers that BOM has available and clearly justifies their approach.
When you regularly resort to conspiracy theories it is time to give up.
Thanks Bazza. But I’m entitled to interrogate the data for individual stations. Indeed why aren’t you also curious?
Now Bourke contributes to that hottest year for 2013 claim.
But there is so much rewriting of history at Bourke. Its beyond “conspiracy theory”, its a fact that the BOM has tampered with the Bourke record.
The question now becomes why? What is their justification? Can you provide any justification to me for the adjustments after the installation of the Stevenson screen?
Ron
‘BOM are reporting that a recent 46.1C is the highest temperature ever recorded here in Adelaide.’
According to the BoM’s ‘Climate Statistics for Australia locations”, Adelaide’s highest temp was 46.1C on 12th Jan, 1939. But according to ACORN, the temp was 46.4C for that day.
19390107 40.4
19390108 38.5
19390109 44.3
19390110 46.2
19390111 34.9
19390112 46.4
19390113 44.5
19390114 35.5
Maybe bazza can find the relevant BoM reports that explain how this has happened (esp the data for Cobar and Bourke for Jan 1939 as I have detailed above).
Robert
I worked in Bourke 1967/68 and yes, I remember the trees at the back of the PO.
Prior to the SS in Bourke, the av max mean from 1881-1910 was 28.6C.
Bob FJ
There was an overlapping year between the Bourke PO and the now closed AP station in 1995. The AP was 0.2C warmer than the PO.
AP
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048239
PO
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048013
Keep pushing for the data and transparent reasonable explanations, Jen.
It is clear that the AGW faithful know where this line of questioning leads or they would not be showing such a galvanic reaction against it.
Hi Jen and Ian George,
Further my March 31st @ 1:38 pm,
If you compare the following BoM time-series plot, for Bourke 04825 notice that the step changes are different.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=048245&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
In addition to the ID of the station and its history being a tad imprecise there are several other funnies. For instance for one, in the yearly record there are four years with no data, but, if you go to the monthly record over the identical time span etcetera by clicking the drop down menu, there is not a single incidence of no data!
There are other funnies if you click around the menu, for instance compare minimum and mean temperature trends and whatnot.
Hi Bob
Was just going through your post and decided to check your link (used to be the High Quality data site now replaced by ACORN). Checked the data against the raw data and seemed fairly accurate until I got to Jan 1932.
The raw temp has the max mean as 41.0C which is higher than the 2013 ‘angry summer’ mean of 40.6C.
Then checked the Climate Change site – oops, 39.9C for Jan 1932. BoM still up to its old tricks. A whole 1.1C wiped off.
Raw temp
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=048013
CC site
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/data/temp/maxT.048245.monthly.txt
Maybe more adjustments?
Just another piece of info.
In the summer of 1895/96, Bourke had 33 days of +40C.
In the summer of 1938/39, Bourke had 37 days of +40C (raw data).
In the ‘angry summer’ of 2012/13, Bourke only had 18 days of +40C.
Hi Ian,
Very interesting!
I’m beginning to suspect that some individuals within the BoM have been a tad naughty.
It seems to me that you could write a valuable article for publication on this site, or, addressed to Oz politicians that might be interested. I even suspect that Turnbull, given his recent critique of ABC board inaction on ABC bias might comprehend your points.
Thanks Bob, but I only do data (and thank God the BoM still shows the raw data so that we can see the adjustments it makes). Bazza claims that have some method which justifies these adjustments but it is so esoteric that it would take a genius to work it out.
NASA GISS have now archived the ‘raw data’ so that noone can compare it (unless you know where to look).
Here is the raw temp for Darwin.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200004&dt=1&ds=1
Here is the adjusted temp for Darwin.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200000&dt=1&ds=14
There was a change of location from the PO to the AP when the Japanese blew up the PO but Darwin had a SS back in the 1890s. No need for these massive adjustments.
‘Esoteric,’ a chameleon word that comes in handy ter describe
Machiavellian machinations in adjusting temperature data that
require a sorta’ esoteric fixing, kinda’ like a hockey stick or upside
– down – Tjinder – nature – trick.
G’day Jen,
A bit off topic but what about Edward Cracknell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Cracknell
Bob FJ I’ll show you naughty. You claimed South Australia being “significantly” warmer in 2013:
I’ll show you insignificant:
In 2013:
NSW 2nd warmest on record
NT record
Qld 2nd
Tas 4th
Vic 3rd
WA record
Erh yes Bazza, but did you mean to write “I’ll show you insignificant” (in the context of that thread last February)?
And, it was the BoM that published data that only South Australia was significantly warmer in the year 2013, not me.
I’m wondering if you are using a definition of the word significant that I don’t know, since being a Pom that has only lived here for 35 years, I may not have picked it up.
Mystified, I checked my big Macquarie Australian dictionary (2006) and found meaning 3: having a special or covert meaning: suggestive.
Are you applying that in some way?
Bob, you claimed “Study of the time-series in Fig 2 reveals that the significant high in South Australia atypically coincided with modest highs in all the other six regions in 2013 such that their combined average was a fluky high number without any significance trend-wise”. Your “analysis” did not show that BOM used the word significant. You made to many other bizarre claims to bother with. They all revealed that you have no understanding of formal statistics.
Bazza, I would like to help you in your understanding of my Fig 2 that you refer to from an earlier thread here. In addition to the time-series plots you can click on “sorted data set” and rapidly find the numerical highest temperature records in ascending sequence. From this I list the data for each of the States and Territories of Oz collected into seven divisions in the context of BoM claims for 2013:
• NSW + ACT: was cooler in 2013 than the previous highest record in 2009 by 0.14 C (2013 1.23C 2009 1.37C)
• Northern Territory: was warmer in 2013 than the previous highest record in 1998 by 0.07C (1998 1.26C 2013 1.33C)
• Queensland: was cooler in 2013 than the previous highest record in 2005 by 0.02C (2013 1.22C 2005 1.24C )
• South Australia: was warmer in 2013 than the previous highest record in 2009 by 0.41C (2009 1.15C 2013 1.56C)
• Tasmania: was cooler in 2013 than the previous highest record in 1998 by 0.23C (2013 0.63C 1988 0.86C)
• Victoria: was cooler in 2013 than the previous highest record in 2007 by 0.16C (2013 1.04C 2007 1.20C)
• Western Australia: was warmer in 2013 than the previous highest record in 1998 by 0.05C (1998 0.93C 2013 0.98C)
Are you now able to understand that only South Australia had a SIGNIFICANT (or if you prefer IMPORTANT) warming in 2013?
Note: These are anomalies from the so-called BoM 30-year climatology average, which differs for each data set.
Ian George and Jen,
You might remember that in an earlier thread here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/02/temperature-variability-by-state-and-over-recent-years-comment-from-bob-f-j-on-2013-record/
,somewhere within the 300+ comments, I mentioned that amongst the BoM “High Quality Sites” that their time-series graphics gave different linear decadal temperature trends between the annual, monthly, and daily data plots, which of course can’t be true. In response to several enquiries to them, they have admitted an error in their algorithms which gave those incorrect trends, and which they say they have now fixed. Checking around randomly on about six sites, this now appears to be true, although there are several details that prima facie seem a tad dodgy and which I intend to check-out. I’ll probably present more on the Bourke site first
Jen,
I’m a surprised Melbournian after taking my first quick peek at the “ACORN-SAT station data and network”!
Two Melbourne sites; Laverton RAF (087031) and Melbourne Regional Office (086071) are listed in their ACORN table.
However, if you go to the quite recent “High-quality site networks”:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
Both of these stations carry a footnote:
[these] “Urban sites have some urban influence during part or all of their record, hence are excluded from the annual temperature analyses.”
Additionally, the BoM has elsewhere admitted that the Melbourne RO is severely affected by urbanisation. (and their own site photo is shocking). For instance several data such as wind measurements are no longer usable. They intend to replace it soon with a new station at Olympic Park.
I’ve also had recent email confirmation from the BoM that the Laverton RAF site qualified for the adverse UHI effect sometime between 2004 when it was Ok and 2012 when it was found to be not so.
But, there is more…………………… I wish I had more time!
Forgive me if I’m wrong, Bob, but aren’t the sites listed on the ‘Australian climate change site networks’ just the same as the ACORN sites?
The ACCSN has replaced the HQ data site. I remember Lismore used to be listed on it but has been dropped from the ‘updated site’ as it is not an ACORN listed site.
I actually run off the data for Lismore and found that the were quite a number of adjustments from the raw data, especially prior to 1950.
OT
There has been some hype re Hobart’s highest temp ever for April (31.0C). If you check ACORN data for Hobart on 1 April, 1941, the max temp was 31.5C. Since ACORN is the official record now, does this mean it was not broken? Another mistake by the BoM? Or will Hobart’s 31.0C be adjusted at some later date?
Bob F-J,
Melbourne, Brisbane and other sites affected by the Urban Heat Island are included in ACORN. The BOM claim these sites are not, however, included in the calculation of the national annual average temperature but at the same time won’t specify which sites are included.
It is not logically consistent.
Ian George,
If you look at the raw versus ACORN data for somewhere like Bourke, a majority of values have been changed. The ACORN data can apparently include a compilation of data including from nearby stations – so for Bourke they are apparently allowed to infill from Brewarrina – but they don’t then relabel the station but rather keep calling it Bourke. And none of this is documented anywhere.
I’m working – between other projects, on a second post for Bourke (part 2 of a planned 6 part series) – which will show more of the shenanigans.
Jen,
If you refer to this BOURKE HQ annual anomaly data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=aus&station=048245&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
You will find that thirteen years have blank bars, only eight of which are marked X as “no data”. (By eyeball and zoomed construction lines in “MS paint” they are years 1912/17/18/19/21/59/83/95 & 2006/8/10/11)
If you then click on the menu ‘Monthly’ ILO ‘Annual’, you will find that there are no missing data! Also, the data omitted from the annual plot above are all blue in the monthly plot, (below average).
If you then click on daily, which is only plotted back to 1995, there are some missing daily data in early 2011. (This is backed up in the minimum temperature plot but not Maximum) Notice that the remaining daily data for 2010/11 (also missing in the yearly data) are relatively cool. However, that’s putting aside that nearly every day out of nineteen years has mean temperatures which are simultaneously both above average and below average!
Also, interestingly if you click “Maximum Temperature” in the RH side window and “Annual” (+ anomaly) the missing data includes 1933/4/5 which is not the case for “Mean Temperature”. (which is also a logical inconsistency)
And, if you go to min Temperature, there is more inconsistency.
One has to wonder how they get the same trends between annual and monthly data when those data are different…………………………….. oh where to stop……there is more!
I look forward to BoM clarifications
Jen
I did an extensive comparison between Bourke, Cobar, Tibooburra and Walgett to see how ‘nearby’ stations could influence Bourke’s temp for Jan, 1939 (they are all ACORN data sites).
After looking at the long-term average max for Jan, Bourke has the highest at 36.3C.
After checking the raw temp max, Bourke had the highest for Jan, 1939 at 40.4C.
After then checking the ACORN temp for the same period, Bourke dropped to 4th place.
So how could that happen? Bourke has the highest long-term max for Jan, had the highest raw temp av for Jan 39 but, after adjustments downwards, was now cooler than the other three stations.
I couldn’t check Brewarrina as it does not have daily raw temps for 1939 and is not an ACORN site. However it was warmer than Bourke in Jan 39 by 0.1C (though Bre’s long-term av max in Jan is lower than Bourke).
Jen and Ian George,
Ian has identified in post 51 that there is worrying conflict in several sources of BoM data for January 1939.
There seems to be further conflict in the following current BoM time-series plot:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=048245&dtype=anom&period=monthly&ave_yr=T
In short, according to this stuff, the hottest month in 1939 which most likely was January, (without confirming the month with tedious searching of raw data) was relatively modest compared with that of 1926, which was warmer than anything in recent decades. Also, it was cooler than 4 or 5 other months between 1910 to 1943, (one month seems to be a February).
I’ll shortly send an email graphic to Jen which illustrates these thingies with guidance construction lines. Jen, please forward it to Ian including my email address.
Jen,
You say that the BoM sometimes ambiguously substitute data for Bourke with that from Brewarrina. Yet, their HQ site gives for Bourke:
Nearest alternative sites
048027 Cobar (160 km)
052088 Walgett (209 km)
046043 Wilcannia (299 km)
And, Ian says that Brewarrina is not an ACORN site, so how could that be “legal”?
Ian,
I suspect that the BoM are not happy that Bourke has a fairly flat trend in maximum temperature, and they may have made “adjustments” accordingly. (See link above showing that even after any such adjustments, there is warming of only 0.01C/decade)
Erh gotta go
Here is the 30 year av max temps for Bourke.
1911 -1940 is 27.8C.
1980-2010 is 27.2C.
SOURCE BoM 1911-1940
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=048013&p_prim_element_index=0&p_comp_element_index=0&redraw=null&p_display_type=statistics_summary&normals_years=1911-1940&tablesizebutt=normal
SOURCE Bom 1981-2010
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=048013&p_prim_element_index=0&p_comp_element_index=0&redraw=null&p_display_type=statistics_summary&normals_years=1981-2010&tablesizebutt=normal
What happened there?
Raw data Bourke GISS NAS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501947030000&dt=1&ds=1
No real increase there either.
Thanks Bob and Ian,
I’ve just emailed your last comments to Ken Stewart and Lance Pidgeon… hoping for some feedback either at this blog or by return email.
And no email in my Inbox from Bob F-J for Ian. at 10.45pm Sat night.
Thanks Jennifer.
I’m going out to Bourke in about a week’s time. There is a historical society out there and will try to find out about the PO. When I was out there in the 60s they claimed the thermometer was in the park and temps were downgraded so as to not scare the tourists. In those days AGW was not an issue so I never found out if that was true. But here were trees in the back of the PO.
Ian George and Bob FJ
You are doing great work exposing the flaws in “Acorn”. Sorry I have been too busy with my work to participate much.
Standing back and looking at what these BoM people are trying to do by merging long records from different locations into one location, a basic flaw in the whole idea becomes apparent. They seem to be tying to fill in holes using a calculatior instead of a shovel. Surely the actual temperature recorded in any place at any time should not be blurred by adjacent readings. All this blurring does is delete the fine detail and relace reality with theory. We have all seen that day when it rained on the other side of the road but it did not rain at our place. No amount of recalulation can bring the dead plants at our place back to life. Likewise local changes in temperature recorded by the raw data are not going to change with reprocessing nor should they. What actually happened in reality happened and at a fixed point. That should not ever be altered by Acorn or any other blurring method.
While it may be fine to estimate the temperature between measurements by methods like this it is nonsense to change actual measurements.
I suggest the whole idea of trying to creat long records where there are none is wrong faulty and demonstrably broken. What they should do instead is work on a series of daily maps with actual measurements in actual locations only. Then the area between the actual measurements can be calculated or blured but the actual measurements and locations not ever altered. This way all short duration records can be counted but not altered and a reasonable estimate at locations between them can be made without altering real data.
I feel trying to figure out the methods used to create Acorn is pointless because the problem is that the aim of Acorn is flawed. So any method is also flawed by default. Acorn should be just scraped because it is a bad idea.
Ken also has a post up about the Murray Darling IPCC rainfall predictions that should be read and seen by all. Ken has shown that IPCC predictions and methods remain worth betting against.
Thanks Lance.
The BOM have become so proficient at infilling they are now fooling themselves… and the BEST team at Berkley. You did email showing how how BEST describes two long temp records at Bourke. Well according to the BOM the airport site did start in 1910… http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=048245&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
All an invention of course!
[ADDITION TO THIS COMMENT… And here are the links from the email Lance sent me with some commentary from Lance…
“What Berkely Earth has for these two different ?!?!?! long Bourke records. Wonder what data they have for the well known Australian town of Drop Bear or where the observer is frequently chased by rolling hoopsnakes and the city of @#$%^&&*&^%$# which is predominantly populated by ethnic yowies.
Bourke Airport
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152162
Bourke
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/4465 ]
Ian George,
Interested to hear you will be visiting Bourke. There are enough published articles about how to run an algorithm over temperature data when a site changes the equipment it uses for recording. But what we need to know is what the thermometers at Bourke were housed in prior to August 1908. Anything you could find out would be most useful. Also pictures showing the growth of the trees at the PO over time etcetera… . Historic Society would seem like a good place to start.
‘Australian mean temperatures are calculated from a nation-wide network of about 100 non-urban weather stations.’
‘The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.’
These two statements, taken from the BoM’s Climate Change site seems to suggest that the ACORN sites (minus major cities) are used as a central point to shade in the surrounding area. The larger urban areas are not included because of UH effect.
It’s interesting that since ACORN has been introduced we have had the hottest day (7th Jan, 2012), month, season and year. We know many examples where the data seems flawed so the BoM are using ‘flawed’ adjustments to compare temps. The shading must bring in a measure of doubt – just like GISS NASA shading in the Arctic based on one or two stations.
I am also looking at a statement the BoM makes about small towns.
‘Consequently, there is likely to be very little urban contamination in Australia’s annual mean temperature values. This assertion is supported by the fact that the strongest warming trends observed in Australia have occurred at inland locations with very small populations.’
Like Gunnedah, Murrurundi, Bourke?
Ian,
Can you please provide the URL link to the above quotes. And I’ve just on-sent an email from Bob F-J to you.
Bob F-J,
Ken Stewart emailed me this… Brewarrinna can be legal as all 40 neighbouring sites are compared when Acorn temperatures are adjusted, not just Acorn sites.
Ian, you don’t seem happy with the methodology as you quote BOM ‘The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.’
Would you have a preference to just average the actual data for the individual stations. That would be interesting if you wanted a measure closer to a population-weighted average. if you want an area weighted figure then you have to interpolate and in the process improving regional consistency. It is a pity that statistical inference/sampling etc are a bit complicated but it sure beats inference based on beliefs. If you are estimating from a sample, your answer will have confidence limits so whatever you do is flawed if you don’t understand that.
The other point if you want to over analyse the odd anomaly at a particular station is to check out preceding rainfall, patchy as it is but you would be dubious because maps use what can appear to be complex interpolation.
Jennifer
Quotes are from BoM site at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=About-climate-change&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=high_centint&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1980
Thanks for passing on the email and to Bob for the information. Looking forward to my trip to Bourke. Hope I can find out something useful.
Bazza
I see your point about weighted average but it leads to some unusual outcomes such as I have outlined above at Apr 5th at 12:44pm (top of page 2). Ken points out that stations other than ACORN w/s are used to homogenise the temp records which should improve the overall data.
Though when the BoM declare that Hobart had its hottest day on Apr 1st this year but ACORN shows that the hottest day for Apr was in 1941 (by 0.5C).
Should have added to my last sentence:-
….something seems wrong.
Ian , Hobart record is a direct descendant of ADAM, it has not evolved!
When you say ACORN leads to unusual outcomes, well no – it avoids them.
Hardly avoids them, Bazza.
The last time I looked at Hobart, the recent raw and ACORN data were identical (eg 41.8C in Jan 2013).
So recent data doesn’t seem to be homogenised – only the earlier data. (I’ll stand corrected if you can find this isn’t so).
Maybe the BoM will adjust it later as it did for the 1998 and 2009 yearly means (and with no explanation).
One year 2009 was hotter than 1998 – two years later its cooler.
Bazza,
I’m interested in your brief comments to Ian about weighting of station data because you imply that you are expert in the topic, which I am not. Thus, please, could you elaborate on how the weighting is done. For instance if you look at the following map of High Quality (HQ) stations in NSW; Bourke is sort-of isolated out there in the hot flat low-population interior, (sometimes referred to as marginal lands):
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/ (Click on New South Wales in the side window)
Bourke’s population is apparently less than 3000 and with reportedly the slowest growth rate in NSW.
The nearest HQ site is Cobar on the inland fringe of the Great Dividing Range. Hills have complex effects on weather including what is known as lapse rate, (simply due to cooling with increasing altitude). It is interesting that Sydney and Richmond HQ sites are reportedly not used in determining the State’s average temperatures despite that the millions of people there are intimately interested in relevant temperatures.
• If Bourke would magically treble its population say with a mining discovery, would that increase its area weighting?
• Are there any maps showing area weighting divisions?
• How are boundaries between other stations and their range of influence determined?
• How are the atmospheric influences of the Great Dividing Range incorporated into these weightings…. should they extend into the flat hot interior?
• Who really cares if the desolate hot interior is hotter than in the regional essentials of humanity?
I look forward to your clarifications Bazza.
Bourke has been cooling over the past 100 years at least as far as max temps are concerned.
The average max mean from 1911-1940 was 27.8C.
The average max mean from 1981-2010 was 27.2C.
The station was moved from the PO to the AP in 1996 and was replaced by another in 1998. The 14 year average is 28.0C. However, the BoM doesn’t regard 14 years as a trend.
From 1901-1920 the av mean was 28.1C. So not much change.
And if you check Bourke’s recent raw temps against ACORN, guess what? No difference – no homogenisation. No comparing with nearby stations. Why do it in the past and not now?
Source for 30 year record here at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_048013.shtml
(Use the 30 year button to check temps.)
Thanks BobFJ for explaining the lapse rate.“The nearest HQ site is Cobar on the inland fringe of the Great Dividing Range. Hills have complex effects on weather including what is known as lapse rate, (simply due to cooling with increasing altitude).’
What explains your lapse rate? Cobar is several hundred km from the GDR. The fact that there is an isopleth between Cobar and Bourke says nothing about the near enough difference in altitude of the order of only 150m. ( Cobar peneplain (pene means near enough) v Darling floodplain). You seem to be having problems with data in more than one dimension. Re your question on spatial interpolation in 3 dimensions, there are heaps of papers on that including on BOM re ACORN. Does it take arrogance to hold forth on subjects where there has been no attempt to get a bit informed first.
Due to elevation difference, Cobar should be slightly cooler than Bourke because of lapse rate(around 0.5C). It is also south of Bourke so it would pick up the S changes earlier but would be affected by N/NW winds probably worse than Bourke (lapse rate could even this out).
Bourke’s annual av max temp at the AP is 28C (27.6C at the PO), Cobar is 25.2C.
So I go back to the main point. Why would ACORN have Bourke cooler than Cobar for Jan 1939 when the raw data has Bourke hotter.
This is what happens when you homogenise and weight temps ‘willy-nilly’. I wonder if there were different people doing each station – one reducing Bourke’s temp using Cobar/Walgett’ temps and another adjusting Cobar using Bourke’s temps.
Hi Ian,
In addition to the effects of lapse rate with altitude, it is a general rule that hills tend to promote increased rainfall and hence increased evaporative cooling. Additionally, there is typically additional cooling from cloud cover. I attempted to compare Cobar and Bourke on such factors, but it seems that not all HQ sites are equal in providing data. For instance Cobar offers time-series for cloud cover and pan evaporation but “Bourke AP” (not even built until 1943 but possessing 1910 data) does not. Cobar has a time series plot of cloud cover which noisily averages about 3.4 thingy-units since 1963 (ignoring five years of no data) which I think translates to ~42% average daytime cloud cover each year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=cloud_daytime&area=aus&station=048027&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=A
Lapse rate itself is somewhat variable depending on several things.
As one metric that I have, I live in the NE foothills near Melbourne at an altitude of ~100m, and not far away is mount Dandenong at about 500m higher, for which the BoM typically forecasts max temperatures 4C cooler than for me. So, for a proportion of 150m altitude locally, that is typically forecasted, that suggests a lapse rate of up to 1.2C.
Furthermore for example, as a brief expose, E. Britannica gives the “normal” lapse rate as “it averages about 6.5 °C per kilometre” or ~0.975c/150m. Adiabatic lapse rates are more complicated and are generally higher, but I doubt if the modest hills around Cobar have much effect there.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/330402/lapse-rate
Thus, it seems that Cobar should be cooler than Bourke.
Bob
I think that lapse rate is greater in drier conditions as opposed to more humid conditions which would be the case re Cobar/Bourke.
More delusion showing off about lapse rates. The usefulness of Cobar is provided by it’s temperature correlation with Bourke ( any interaction would be second order issue)
Forget about lapse rate Bazza and just look at the data. This is for Bourke and 3 neighbouring stations for Jan, 1939 (max mean temps).
Mean Raw ACORN (adj)
Bourke 36.3 40.4 40.04
Cobar 35.0 40.1 40.19
Walgett 35.4 39.1 40.16
Iibooburra 36.2 40.1 40.08
Note how Bourke, which has the highest long-term monthly mean and highest monthly mean for Jan 1939, is reduced to the lowest mean after adjustments. Why?
Ian, those 3 are not representative of the Bourke district. It is the unbiased correlation that matters and if you cant reproduce the BOM methodology you can just assume this is part of some global conspiracy or you can politely ask BOM but don’t let on you hang around here.
All the above stations are ACORN listed sites which the BoM claim are used to determine the overall mean temps for Australia. I have read that individual temps have been checked against ‘nearby’ w/s (e.g. Mildura’s 50.8C in 1906 reduced to 48C when compared to Deniliquin w/s).
The BoM says in part:-
‘Australian mean temperatures are calculated from a nation-wide network of about 100 non-urban weather stations.’ (which includes the four I listed).
‘Daily maximum and minimum temperatures are averaged across a year for each homogenised, non-urban station.’
‘The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.’
‘These adjustments allow historical data to be compared with climate data recorded today.’
When you look at the raw data v ACORN for Bourke for that monthly period, why all the adjustments for each individual day? Why lower them but upwardly adjust the ‘nearby sites’?
Ian,
Why bother asking Bazza? I get the feeling that he must be employed by either the BoM or CSIRO and maybe out of prejudice, (for instance), he either is unwilling to explain how/what weighting is applied for each station, or does not know the answer re:
‘The all-Australian mean is calculated from a weighted average of individual station values, with each station’s contribution weighted according to the proportion of the country they represent.’
That is pure gobbledegook; like what “proportion”
To my astonishment, I recently encountered someone here who did not realise that Jan 1939 was part of a La Nina flanked by neutral years. But ENSO, like numbers, only takes you so far.
What we really need to remember about that time are death and suffering. Consider the Hunter Valley alone (where Singleton reached 49.4C on the fourth day of the six day heatwave):
‘‘Our records from 1880 to 2012 show January has always been one of the quietest months of the years, except for 1939,’’ Sandgate Cemetery historian and trust member Terry St George said. “We had a look at the records and found seven and nine burials occurred on the 15th and 16th of January, 1939, following a heatwave on the 14th.’’
Other events which should not be forgotten were indeed centred on Bourke – in 1896. People were recording shade temps of 40C by mid October of 1895. Thirteen days of heatwave ended on 11 January 1896, leaving 47 dead in Bourke alone. The overall death toll from 1895-6 was close to that of 1939 yet human population was much thinner.
It’s hard to say if the very high toll from 2009 was made lower overall due to air-con and services or higher overall due to much higher population. Penny Wong made the learned comment that 2009’s deadly heat was “consistent with climate change”. And since nobody can argue that the climate did not change in 2009…and 1939…and 1896…
It’s a silly and dangerous game being played by the klimatariat. Our best defenses against such natural disasters – electrical power and refrigeration – are being eroded by the use of junk alternatives and by needlessly inflated costs. While much of the cost inflation is due to political and corporate funny-buggers, climate alarmism has been used to soften us up ahead of the price hikes.
We have no way of knowing if 1896 is as bad as it gets for Bourke and Western NSW. We know for sure that air-con and fridges can and should be in reach of everyone in 2014. If you want to live primitive go join one of those medieval jousting societies and fall off your horse.
You’re right, Bob. I just tried to show the data and the BoM comments, not to change Bazza’s mind, but to see if he could understand why we are so sceptical about the homogenisations and how these could be overstating the overall temperature change.
When you examine the data, the raw temps do not appear to show the large increases the BoM states over a 100 year period (why do always include “since the 1950s?).
e.g. ‘The Australian mean temperature timeseries based on raw, unadjusted temperature data also show strong warming since the 1950s.’
Why not start at 1910 as the BoM does?
I’ll probably ‘keep on keeping on’ – using the data, what the BoM claims to be doing and raising doubt when appropriate.
Bazza
‘….but don’t let on you hang around here.’
Is this some form of ‘threat’?
Barry, Further to the heatwave in 1896 comes this to remind us of its intensity.
‘As reported at the time, the government felt the situation was so serious that to save lives and ease the suffering of its citizens they added cheaper train services:
“The Commissioner of Railways promised a deputation of members of Parliament to run a special train every Friday at holiday excursion rates for the next month to enable settlers resident in the Western part of the colony to reach the mountains to escape the great heat prevailing.” ‘
People interested in climatic extremes and climate change seem curiously uninterested in….well, climatic extremes and climate change. I mean, if the 1890s in Oz don’t get their attention, nothing will.
A few years before the big heat of 1895-6 the Darling flooded in monumental fashion. The flood is the subject of this lovely old piece by Piguenit: http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/6105/.
This was Bourke: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Mitchell_Street%2C_Bourke%2C_1890_%285362664152%29.jpg
When you consider that only 16 months separate Black Thursday from the 1852 Gundagai flood you realise that trying to bury or minimise history can be fatal for the present. For example, you might spend all your money on whirlygigs and solar panels (made in China with Australian coal) when you should be spending it on modernising domestic coal power generation. Yes, you might be that silly.
Re Ian George,
April 5th Acorn data … Like Bourke, winner of the Heat Stakes Melbourne Cup, later,
after the Steward’s “adjustments’ – not even a photo finish, Bourke comes out fourth.
Phttt!
Good analogy, Beth