THE famous Australian poet Henry Lawson wrote, “If you know Bourke you know Australia.” For me Henry Lawson was alluding to the vastness of the landscape, the extremes of climate, and also the can-do attitude of its people.
But the technocrats would like to change some of this, and pretend that Australia’s climate was once benign.
So, as Graham Lloyd explains on page 5 of today’s Weekend Australian, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have discarded the first 40 years of the temperature record for Bourke. This includes the hottest ever temperature recorded in a Stevenson screen for, I think, anywhere in Australia. A rather hot 51.7 degree Celsius was recorded in a new Stevenson screen in the yard of the Bourke post office on 3rd January 1909.
Mr Lloyd writes:
THESE Bourke records have assumed a new significance in light of concerns about how historic data is being treated at many sites around the country. The records are also important in an ongoing row that frustrates Mr Cole. The Bourke cotton farmer may be managing director of the local radio station 2WEB but Mr Cole can only broadcast temperature records that date back to 2000 because the Bureau of Meteorology won’t supply historic records to service provider Weatherzone.
As a result “hottest day on record” doesn’t really mean what it seems. “We keep on being told about records that are not actually records and averages that are not quite right,” Mr Cole said.
Worse still there are concerns about what has happened to the precision of those handwritten records in the earlier years. Bourke now forms part of a network of weather stations used to make up the national record known as ACORN-SAT. The raw temperature records are “homogenised”, a method BOM says has been peer-reviewed as world’s best practice and is used by equivalent meteorological organisations across the world.
Independent research, the results of which have not been disputed by BOM, has shown that, after homogenisation, a 0.53C warming in the minimum temperature trend has been increased to a 1.64C warming trend. A 1.7C cooling trend in the maximum temperature series in the raw data for Bourke has been changed to a slight warming.
BOM has rejected any suggestion that it has tampered inappropriately with the numbers. It says the major adjustment to Bourke temperatures relate to “site moves in 1994, 1999 and 1938 as well as 1950s in homogeneities that were detected by neighbour comparison which, based on station photos before and after, may relate to changes in vegetation around the site”.
Queensland researcher Jennifer Marohasy, who has analysed the Bourke records, says BOM’s analysis is all very well but the largest adjustments, both to maximum temperature series, occurred in the period 1911 and 1915 with a step down of about 0.7C, followed by a step-up between 1951 and 1953 of about 0.45C. Of greater concern to Dr Marohasy is that historic high temperatures, such as the record 51.7C recorded on January 3, 1909, were removed from the record on the assumption it was a clerical error. In fact, all the data for Bourke for 40 years before 1910 has been discarded from the official record. If it were there, says Dr Marohasy, the record would show that temperatures were particularly hot during that period.
For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?”
_____________________
From another great story in The Weekend Australian newspaper, buy the paper and turn to page 5, or get an online subscription.
If you would like to hear about how old weather records are changed at other sites, here’s a 7 minute podcast from Melbourne radio station 3AW. I'm being interviewed by Tom Elliott.
Hi Robert,
I'm certainly not trying to play semantic games in order to make Jennifer commit some actionable offence. Blogs should be places where people can have a feisty discussion without coming to blows! I'm quite happy to remove the word conspiracy (which as far as I know in common modern usage doesn't have to imply illegal activity) - and replace with anything suitable. Something like "deliberate manipulation of the records to make it appear as if Australia is warming" - or whatever Jennifer feels gets across the broad sweep of what appeared last week.
Apologies for not finding the time to contribute to this discussion. Its 1.30am local time and I think I've just about got all the jobs that had to be got done completed for yesterday day. I also apologise to those who are waiting on replies to emails.
Cheers,
A rose by any other name, handjive. )
Hi Kev,
People are sacked for countless reasons. Bias and incompetence etc etc. Sacking for conspiracy? Pretty exotic. I imagine that conspiracy would be an offence, and it wouldn't surprise me if an accusation of such was actionable.
You were wrong to ask Jen to prove an accusation she did not make, and which, I'm guessing, she would be careful not to make. If I'm wrong, Jen won't be slow to point it out.
For me, the data is part of an important picture, to be added to other info and contemporary descriptions. The important thing is keeping the memory of 1896, 1939, 2009 etc vivid. 1909, like 1960, may not have been the worst for sustained heat overall, but records in those years show how high the thermometer can go on this continent. There's no reason to believe it hasn't been hotter (early 1790s?) or that it won't get hotter.
We need to be ready for lethal heat not because the climate's changed - but because it always changes. Those three extraordinary weeks of heat in January 1896 may well be the worst we know about. But if it happened once it can happen again, I want better preparation and warning...not a homily about my naughty emissions.
Hi Robert,
Sorry, Jennifer's headline for a blog a few days ago was:
Who’s going to be sacked for making-up global warming at Rutherglen?
If that aint implied conspiracy - tell me what it means?
David
"What’s your ‘killer’ fact/point that shows there’s been a conspiracy?"
Can someone locate where Jen mentions, implies or points to a conspiracy? She says that certain things have been done or omitted, and that the matter is grave. But conspiracy?
Not speaking for Jen or Graham, I would certainly be happy to talk of bias. Most of us who know how bias works would be happy with that word. The ABC, for example, is the Ben Hur of bias and Empire State of groupthink. However, it's not a conspiracy.
Btw, prompting someone to prove an accusation they have not made - particularly when the accusation may be actionable - comes across as a STUNT.
Oops - typo in my comment above.
The Berkeley website address is at:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/4465
I mistakenly copied the NOAA information twice.
Apologies,
David
Oops. Ben Rose- not Cooper.
Hey Ben Cooper.
Nice carbon(sic) calculator.
I tried to calculate how many less extreme climate events I had caused since I began walking instead of driving to the shops.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole idea of lowering emissions to stop climate change and unprecedented weather events?
At this point you are most probably muttering to yourself that I am insane, and the request is ridiculous, but, you must remember it is you with a calculator to to help calculate lower emissions to supposedly stop apocalyptic climate change and environmental damage in a future that only you see in your head.
Finland introduced the world's first carbon(sic) tax in 1990.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
What evidence. or graph can you produce that shows we have less hurricanes, or cyclones because of 25 years of carbon(sic) taxes.
How long does it take before you can offer evidence reducing emissions does anything?
For the smaller footprint, your calculator doesn't do that.
June 2014:
Fall in Australian GHG emissions biggest in 24 years
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-biggest-in-24-years-20140613-zs7be.html
How many less extreme climate events have been averted in Australia once emissions fell?
25 years of world taxes, lowest Aust. emissions in 24 years.
Yet who can join the dots?
Not you.
Again, it is you and the '97% consensus settled science' you represent that makes the claim of being able to see a catastrophic climate future unless carbon(sic) emissions are cut (hence your calculator and carbon(sic) tax, or the expensive & pointless "Direct Action".
Surely you can see all results, not just cherry-picked "it's worse than we thought" more warming, fires and droughts?
Until then, you, your 97% consensus and your hokey calculator are a fraud.