Australia's History of Hot Tempers

Guest essay by Robert Balic: You might have noticed the Hand Print of Climate Change in Australia here or come across this graphic of the number of stations recording 45°C or more in January of 2013.

Locations which recorded a temperature of 45°C or above in January 2013

It is presented as if most of these stations had never recorded such a high temperature before which is partially true. Most stations have a record going back only a few decades.

The Wikipedia article states that “Sydney beat the January 1939 record of 45.3°C (113.5°F), recording 45.8°C (114.4°F) on January 18” but neglects to mention that this station is in the middle of a circular on-ramp for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Its hard to find older data for other stations nearby to see how much of that the broken record could be attributed to UHI because few stations have records before 1950 and it does appear that summers are getting angrier since then. Bathurst is on the other side of the Blue Mountains and it only recorded 39.0°C that day in 2013. It was a degree lower than its highest every recorded which was a week earlier that month but there were three days of slightly higher temperatures in January of 1939 that are ignored because they haven’t been fully quality controlled.

Another example of this exceptional hissy fit is “while Adelaide reached 45.0°C (113.0°F), its second hottest temperature on record after the 45.7°C (114.3°F) of January 2009”. This is for the inner-city site of Kent Town opened in 1979 and doesn’t include the the park-land site of West Terrace which recorded 46.1°C in 1939. The better comparison is Adelaide Airport which only recorded a highest maximum of 44.1°C in 2013.

“Hobart recorded 41.8°C (107.2°F) on January the 4th, beating its previous record by a whole degree”. That was in 1976 but more interesting is that the mean maximum for that month was over one degree less than the highest recorded. Hobart’s heat was an example of very variable weather in the southern most city of Australia rather than global climate change.

Our official highest maximum recorded was 50.7°C 44 years ago and this was not equaled anywhere in 2013 despite the higher number of stations. This official maximum had been exceeded many times in previous years but the data is considered unreliable.

For example, the January of 1906 at the Mildura Post Office had a January monthly mean of 39°C with the three highest temperatures being 50.7, 50.1 and 49.4°C.  (newspapers record it as 123 and 124°F).


Mildura’s official highest ever recorded is considered to be 46.9°C (24 years ago) because the earlier readings are not considered reliable. A newspaper article written 40 years later claimed that the 1906 temperatures were taken in a Stevenson screen but I found one that suggests that it was installed in late 1906 and the previous temperatures might have been as much as 4°C more than would have been recorded within the screen.|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-category=Article . Adjusting the temperatures down by 4°C still gives 3 days above 45°C and 6 days above 40°C.

The maximum temperature at Mildura Airport in January of 2013 had only one day at 45.0°C and seven days over 40°C, and a monthly mean of 34.7 which is 4.3°C below the 1906 average.

Adelaide is the nearest largest city and its monthly mean for January in 1906 was 2.5°C above the 2013 mean maximum for January. Melbourne had a similar mean for January in 1906 as 2013 but its highest of 43.1°C, is a couple of degrees higher which all indicate that the heatwave was widespread in SE Australia. Both older measurements were taken in park land while the 2013 temperatures were measured in built up areas.

Bourke Post Office had 4.2°C above its mean in January of 1906, a highest maximum of 48.9°C and 18 days over 40°C. Bourke Airport in 2013 had a mean maximum temperature half a degree less, highest maximum of 48.3°C. and only 14 days over 40°C. These were all measured inside Stevenson Screens.

This is just a small sample in SE Australia but it does show that the summer was unusually angry here only because the tantrum in 1906 and the furniture throwing of 1939 were ignored (let alone the ridiculous heat of the 19th century that went berserk and killed hundreds in Bourke).

Stevenson screens were widespread by 1939 but that summer was not as hot under the collar as 2013, apparently. The January of this year in Mildura had a maximum temperature of 47.2°C, a mean of 38.2°C, and six days above 45°C. It was certainly pissed off in Mildura that year. Adelaide couldn’t appease it either. The mean for that month was 3.2°C more than for January 2013 with a highest recorded temperature of 46.1°C. Melbourne’s mean was only slightly higher for January in 1939 than 2013 but the highest recorded was a lot higher at 45.6°C, while the summer in Bourke was equally upset in 1939 as in 2013.

This is only a small corner of the continent so I can’t claim that the angry summer of 2013 was not exceptional for the country as a whole but do remember that nowhere was the temperature recorded above 50°C, and the mean temperatures have risen just 0.4°C in the southern hemisphere since 1940. It would be no surprise that the latest spate of angry summers would carry an extra bitch slap but that they occur is due to weather patterns that occurred before and so cannot be explained by global warming. They certainly aren’t a hand print of climate change but this propaganda is a good example of the shilliness coming

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 7, 2014 4:14 am

So once again climate fear promoters are deceiving the public.

October 7, 2014 4:14 am

BoM were determined to make 2013 the “hottest ever” in early January 2013. Using adjustments and homogenisations they have now made sure of it.

October 7, 2014 4:48 am

I’ve observed “hot” almost always coincides with “dry” and modern landscaping changes, pavement, drain tiles and storm sewers have served to make sure todays conditions are “bone dry” in many areas when in the past, under the same weather, conditions might have been “almost but not quite bone dry”. So it’s really hard to make apples to apples comparisons in areas that have been developed. When conditions are “bone dry” daily high temperatures will be several degrees higher than if there is a little bit of moisture in the ground.

Reply to  Scott
October 7, 2014 6:47 am

I recall learning in school that rain delivers more net energy to the surface hour by hour than sunshine. of course this was before global warming.
compare a desert and jungle. the desert will show a 40C change in temps day to night. The jungle will show a 5C change in temps. Same amount of radiation from the sun. The difference is water.

Alan the Brit
October 7, 2014 4:51 am

Would it be possible to suggest that there is an element of “cherry-picking” going on, associated with some good old plain not telling the whole truth?

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 7, 2014 5:36 am

In the last 25 years there has been an accelerating reduction in thermometer counts globally with the pace of deletion rising rapidly in recent years. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today.
The stations that dropped out were mainly rural and at higher latitudes and altitudes — all cooler stations.
Now, that’s “Cherry Picking” on a grand scale.

October 7, 2014 5:05 am

massive homes no gardens lots of glass no verandahs and more pavement, when we used to have more grassed footpaths etc
never mind millions of aircons spewing out hot air as well
mid nth SA I recorded 50c in the cool area at the back of my home the digi thermometer faded out,
and that was round 3pm with some cool shade from a grapevine etc near it
reckon that was around 200 2001
my apples and quinces actually burnt to black over a week or more of that weather one side literally looked like charcoal left the fruit on the trees and it grew anyway, lopsided:-)
that..WAS hot.
sitting outside in jeans and my knees felt like they were too close to a stove painfully hot.
funny? they werent screaming angry peeved or much at all, apart from -its hot. and was fpor some 2 weeks or so from memory.

October 7, 2014 5:06 am

I marvel that they think a max temperature that is only 0.5 C above one set 75 years ago is indicative of anything… even without taking into account the hectares of concrete and asphalt and hundreds of internal combustion engines which now surround the site.
Sydney beat the January 1939 record of 45.3°C (113.5°F), recording 45.8°C (114.4°F) on January 18” but neglects to mention that this station is in the middle of a circular on-ramp for the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Bill Illis
Reply to  markx
October 7, 2014 6:48 am

Here is aerial view of the Sydney Observatory stevenson screen. Believe it or don’t.comment image

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 7, 2014 2:14 pm

The station in question is number 066062 and it is included in the ACORN-SAT dataset. They have verified that UHI effects are not an issue. From the station description:
“The area is heavily built-up and has been since at least the late 19th century. An analysis of minimum temperature trends in the ACORNSAT data showed no evidence of an abnormal warming trend relative to nonurban sites in the region, indicating that any urban influence on the data was already fully developed by the time ACORN-SAT begins in 1910.”

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 7, 2014 6:42 pm

What rubbish about the urban build-up since the end of the 19th Century. The Sydney Harbour Bridge wasn’t built until 1932. The Western Distributor wasn’t opened until 1972. This station’s readings provide a proxy for the amount of traffic flowing across those all these roads. The official temperature readings in Sydney are a joke. The night-time temperatures on still nights are typically 2-3 deg C. warmer than those in nearby suburbs. If there is a light breeze from the west the day time readings from this station are also inflated. Of course if there is a strong easterly or north-easterly wind the temperatures recorded here are much closer to those recorded elsewhere.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 7, 2014 6:48 pm

Alright, this is a station that has suffered from increased UHI over time given that there 17 lanes of freeway next to it that were obviously not here in 1910. It probably moved one block south since 1910 but that would not make any difference.
This is the adjusted/homogenized mean max temperature currently recorded at the site.
And the Raw temperatures before homogenization (Red Line) in the second chart collated by John Sayers and posted on Nick Stokes own home website one month ago. Ridiculous is all I can say. And there is a very serious “ethics” problem here that I have no idea can be fixed. This is serious.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 7, 2014 7:57 pm

I don’t know if the replies are lining up, not all comments have a “reply” link.
Bill Illis,
How do you know the move 100 metres south made no difference? The BOM says it was moved in 1917 and it did make a difference to the maximum and minimum temperatures.
What “ethics” problem are you referring to?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 8, 2014 10:12 pm

“Here is aerial view of the Sydney Observatory stevenson screen. Believe it or don’t.”
I’m not convinced. That isn’t the observatory; it’s the Fort St Primary School. The observatory is to the North West.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 8, 2014 10:57 pm

“I’m not convinced. That isn’t the observatory; it’s the Fort St Primary School. The observatory is to the North West.”
Nick, the screen is there you can see it from the bike path. It matches the photo in the BOM ACORN-SAT station catalogue. But I am happy with their analysis that the readings are fine because the area was already heavily built-up before it was located there in 1917.

October 7, 2014 5:22 am

All set to a very merry tune of ‘Fiddler (BOM) on the loose” that tried to turn a mild Summer into a Flannery meme, the last gasp of the political machinations past – ANGRY LOSERS!

Nick Stokes
October 7, 2014 5:33 am

“The Wikipedia article states that “Sydney beat the January 1939 record of 45.3°C (113.5°F), recording 45.8°C (114.4°F) on January 18” but neglects to mention that this station is in the middle of a circular on-ramp for the Sydney Harbour Bridge.”
It was hot everywhere in Sydney. The BoM has many weather stations around Sydney. Riverview Observatory, 45.4°C. Penrith Lakes 46.8°C. Parramatta North 45.5°C. Prospect Reservoir 45.1°C.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2014 6:21 am

Ashfield, inner west Sydney, Jan 1st 2006, ~47+c. Sheesh it was hot but it was dry too. Are you saying this is unusual?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2014 6:30 am

The malfeasant BoM has many weather stations around Sydney, all of which are contaminated by UHI and micro-site issues.
Seriously, birds were falling out of the sky from heat stress in Sydney in earlier times, well before UHI.
BoM were caught making adjustments without metadata in the HQ series. Shrieking in panic and fleeing to ACORN is no good. ACORN has be found to have 160 stations with Tmin exceeding Tmax. (data clipping much?). The BoM, when publicly challenged in national papers, have no acceptable explanation for ACORN “adjustments”.
Here’s the thing. Dedicated sceptics now outnumber pseudo scientist climastrologists in Australia. The guilty will be hunted down. There will be no let-up. There will be no remorse. There will be no forgiveness. Your assault on science, freedom and democracy was too vile to ever be forgiven. No AGW fellow traveller can continue in a position of public influence. There will be no “negotiated settlement” or “soft landing”. The threat to our democracy and scientific advancement is too great.
Racehorse, the glue factory awaits…
Australia’s history of hot tempers? You haven’t seen the least of it yet 😉

Bob Fernley-Jones
Reply to  Konrad.
October 7, 2014 1:12 pm

“[BoM data has been] found to have 160 stations with Tmin exceeding Tmax. (data clipping much?)”
There is a strangely different reason for it, as advised in this email from the bureau to me:
“4. Since 1964, the standard for observing daily maximum and minimum temperatures is for both to be measured for the 24-hour period ending at 0900 local time, with the maximum temperature being attributed to the previous day. The observation method applied prior to 1964 varies considerably. These are discussed in section 4.3 of CAWCR Technical Report No.49. Therefore, it is normally expected using the present standard, that in the event of a missing 0900 observation, the resultant missing maximum and missing minimum temperatures will be one day apart.”
Weird! They don’t do that with their weather forecasts and and……..

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  Konrad.
October 7, 2014 3:18 pm

Having manipulated data to meet their predetermined position are we to believe any thing this organisation says? The problem with being dodgy in one respect leads one to think they might/ are dodgy in others. Until Senator Birmingham’s “independent” review into the BoM record is completed and passes the pub test of the close watchers we can have no confidence in their statements.

Reply to  Konrad.
October 7, 2014 5:08 pm

there is some joy to this. We know from the HQ series they abandoned in panic that they have been dodgy. They claimed equal warming and cooling adjustments for HQ. This was correct but the cooling was to pre 1950s data and the warming to post 1950s and there was no supporting meta data.
Now they are being pressured to release code for ACORN and are frantically stalling for time. Their problem is that ACORN was rushed out in panic in the face of impending court action on HQ. It is a virtual certainty that it is dodgy. They can’t release the ACORN code, and there is no way they cook up new code that passes scrutiny and also produces exactly the ACORN result. Suddenly abandoning ACORN for a new series won’t stop the sceptic attack any more than it did last time. The pressure will never let up.
The thing is that BoM never expected to be caught. They never considered the consequences of the hoax collapsing. They were playing “Little Dog” to the international “Big Dogs” of NOAA and Hadley. They never expected the Big Dogs to fall. No temperature series they offered up will withstand serious scrutiny.
800 billion has been spent on this hoax. Million in efforts to defeat sceptics. None of it worked. None of it can work. Sceptics will never give up. No amount of whitewash “independent” inquires will do the trick in the age of the Internet. We know they did the wrong thing with the HQ series, and it is impossible that ACORN can produce the same result and be correct methodology just on statistical probability. There is warmulonian blood in the water and the sceptic sharks are circling.
For the BoM fraudsters it’s time for “lateral promotions” and early retirements “to spend more time with family” It’s time to flee, flee!

Robert B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2014 2:23 pm

Nick Stokes,
I struggled to find a station near Sydney that had data for Jan 1939 and 2013 to see if the that half a degree extra was because the summer was angrier (an example of the handprint of climate change) or UHI. I never claimed that it was not a very hot summer nor that I had evidence that Australia as a whole was not the hottest on record. Ken Stewart provides evidence that this record was due to adjustments if you’re interested.
Strangely, the Sydney airport station which commenced in 1929 has data from April in 1939.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2014 4:56 pm

The Richmond station 067105 which is the closest ACORN-SAT station to the Sydney station measured 46.4C. Usually there are several degrees difference between these two stations due to the Sydney sea breeze, however the sea breeze failed on that day. No 14/01/1939 data for Richmond to use as a comparison.

Robert B
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2014 6:22 pm

There is no data prior to 1993 like most stations in operation ( I think that only 16 with a record greater than 100 years are still open) which is why it is easy to paint a picture of the heat being unprecedented.
Adelaide maximum temperatures seem to have been milder in the middle of the 20th century except for 1939.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 3:44 am

The Richmond station 067105 dataset does have data going back to 1939 – I assume they have filled-in data from other nearby stations. But the data stops part way thru 1939 ie nothing for 14/01/1939, pity.

Robert B
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 2:44 pm
There is no data prior to 1993. Should there really be so much infilling? And was it from Sydney Airport, 50 km closer to the coast?

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 11:04 pm

Robert B I can’t answer a rhetorical question. Either the filling in has an acceptable amount of error or it doesn’t – your feelings are irrelevant. If they did fill in the data, there were other stations they could use as it is RAAF air force base. You could always try emailing the BOM if you are interested.

Ian George
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 9, 2014 12:58 pm

On that day (Jan 18th) the temp at Sydney Obs reached 45.8C at 2:53pm. At 2:49pm the temp was 44.9C and at 2:59pm the temp was 44.8C.
So the temp rose nearly 1C in 4 mins and dropped 1.1C in 6 mins.
The AWS therms can pick up sudden changes quickly which they wouldn’t have been able to do in 1939.

October 7, 2014 5:49 am

The difference between changing weather and changing climate is grant money.

October 7, 2014 6:12 am

.The Urban Heat Island confirmation. (As if you needed it.)
The sudden reduction in Thermometer placements. (As if you didn’t know.)

M Courtney
October 7, 2014 6:15 am

But it has been getting warmer. The pause is a pause on warming.
You would expect temperatures to be wobbling around the near high end of their measured range.
2013 may well have been angry just not getting angrier (stupid Aussie metaphor).

October 7, 2014 6:36 am

I see Nick Stokes again trying to defend the travesty (Of the temperature decline) of the climate in Australia.

October 7, 2014 7:33 am

BOM, and apparently many other meteorological orgs, are corrupted and using fear and deception to hide it.

Mark and two Cats
October 7, 2014 8:06 am

It used to be Anthropogenic Global Warming – now we’re down to Anthropogenic Australian Warming.
Oh noes! We’re somewhat dooooomed!!!

October 7, 2014 11:41 am

I naively thought the BoM was following those other tricksters around town. It looks like they are leading them. What a disgrace it is when you cannot rely on those of the Public Service whose job is to ah serve the Public not themselves and their deceitful games. I still can’t believe the unquestioned press that David Karoly and his ilk get here in Australia.

October 7, 2014 1:50 pm

Nick Stokes
There is an older generation of real scientists and weather watchers that know and care about the destruction/perversion of historic Australian and New Zealand climate records. A mid generation of professionals who fully understand your fingerprints are heavily involved on the scale to maintain the meme. What you and the other manipulators need to worry about, are the angry young men and women who believed and worried throughout their early education and teen years, only to be now discovering after 18 years plus of no global warming, that it was all propaganda, and what was it really for? Ego, grant money, social change, stubborn belief, contempt, and snide confidence in fooling others?
Time to jump the ship of fools, abandon the meme for there are some young adult academics who don’t like lies and propaganda out there along with the usual fringe dwellers swept up in the emotions of being conned by those who should have known better.
The compliant media you think you own, will just as easy condemn you when the page turns on this sorry episode of nonsense dressed up as science!

Mark and two Cats
Reply to  KenB
October 7, 2014 3:03 pm

The compliant media you think you own, will just as easy condemn you when the page turns on this sorry episode of nonsense dressed up as science!
Excellent point! There is going to be a feeding frenzy when the tide turns.

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
October 8, 2014 1:14 am

In a minor way it has already. Jennifer Marahosy has been supported by Graham Lloyd at the Australian. It was Graham’s columns reflecting Jennifer’s reasearch that has spooked the BoM and caused Senator Birmingham to instigate a review. Many are waiting to see who is on the “independent” panel. We don’t want another AGW whitewash. Write to Senator Birmingham at aph and make sure he knows you are watching.

Reply to  KenB
October 7, 2014 6:22 pm

Well put Ken, except most of the media have been compliant in the beat up. Still-we all know that there is no honour among thieves and between journalists, politicians and academics I would rather take my chances with a basket of snakes. Can’t wait for the fallout now that there is a virtual unanimous agreement out here in the real world that the climate is cyclical and humans only have a negligible influence.

Reply to  KenB
October 7, 2014 6:34 pm

“. . . your fingerprints are heavily involved on the scale to maintain the meme.”
Invisible thumb!

Jim Francisco
Reply to  KenB
October 8, 2014 8:06 am

Well said Ken. Maybe in the future when the true costs to our society that have been paid trying to fight a no problem problem are fully realized, it will be much more difficult for this kind of thing to be pulled off again. Like the Who sang “We won’t be fooled again”.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  KenB
October 8, 2014 8:57 am

I hope you’re right about the compliant media turning on the alarmists. Do you have any examples of the media turning on those they once supported?

Reply to  Jim Francisco
October 8, 2014 8:00 pm

simple look at history and political issues, show that the media runs hot while the research shows there is an advantage to circulation and has public interest. But they are also sensitive to change and their wish to lead the charge as opinion turns. This can happen almost overnight, especially if the Government of the day is not pushing to extend a perception or meme. The advantage is to the leaders among the editors who recognise and make the decision ahead of their competitors, especially with issues that might hit the vulnerable hip pocket costs of average (media sensitive) Australians.
Australians are easy going but have long memories and a very good perception to sniff out lying propaganda or some of the claims that defy logic. They don’t like to be taken for fools themselves but recognise others were or can be fooled and they quickly shift position and the general media know that only too well, so it will be a bumpy ride for the die hard warmist’s who are already sounding desperate and clutching at straws to keep the faithful in dumbly in line.
but mumbo jumbo science and mathstubation trickery isn’t working, logic, clear thinking and the scientific data is there for the media with little or no deep research and a credible body of sceptical scientists waiting for the invitation to publically debate, the Karolys, Flannery’s who promoted propaganda in the name of science, Its a bit like the song about green bottles hanging on the wall and noticeable most have fallen with a resounding crash.

October 7, 2014 5:36 pm

Homogenisation ‘adjustments’ by the BOM are failing to take into account changes in rainfall over decadal periods.
Temperatures were generally warm in the early 20th century in SE Australia because rainfall was generally lower, but the BOM has decided that this had to be changed because it doesn’t conform to what is seen in the rest of the world, which showed a temperature increase between ~1910-1940. In SE Australia, remarkably, this doesn’t really show up, so the data is being forced to convert.
Homogenisation is being used for ‘conformisation’.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  thingadonta
October 7, 2014 6:12 pm

The BOM data does show periods of above average temperature for SE Australia for 1910-1940.

Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2014 6:25 pm

Harry, as a layman, no-one is going to believe anything the BoM has to say until they release the raw data to compare to the washed data and the full methodology used to justify it so that it can scrutinized. It’s not enough to say it is peer reviewed or common practice-we all read the climate gate emails and those terms mean nothing but anti-science.

Robert B
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 2:36 pm

As I pointed out, there were extreme heatwaves prior to 1910, data from 1939 is considered unreliable and the record is too short to be sure that this would not have happened if the global climate had not warmed one degree.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  thingadonta
October 7, 2014 8:28 pm

Karl, if you don’t trust the BOM data then what data are you referring to in your post?
If you want to believe in conspiracy theories very well that is your own preference. I personally have no reason to mistrust the BOM data.
I read the so-called “Climategate” emails and I found no nefarious intent. The theft and unauthorised publishing of the emails was an attempt to discredit various climate scientists prior to a conference on Global Warming; that is anti-science.

Robert B
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 2:32 pm

Harry, you wish to ignore any problems with how BOM collate temperatures. You out yourself by referring to a whistle blower as a thief even though you insist that there was nothing to be ashamed about.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 9, 2014 10:42 am

Straw man argument, I am not ignoring how the BOM collates it’s data.
Stealing a document or two from work maybe. But a server’s worth of emails conveniently filtered and sorted on keywords, released just before the Copenhagen Summit? Not to mention it appeared to be an external hack. And they didn’t even find anything substantial so they made up the interpretations – sounds like a lot of organisation went into that one.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 10, 2014 4:17 pm

To Harry Twinotter October 7, 2014 at 8:28 pm
It is not anti science to find out what FOI should allow. Come on now. Whether or not it was theft does not remove the fact that there were secrets that were being kept from the public. There was a politically driven agenda to find human causes and quell anything that showed otherwise. You know this is true. It is not anti science to want information, quite the contrary. You stand corrected here.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 10, 2014 4:51 pm

@Harry Twinotter October 7, 2014 at 8:28 pm:
Interesting, you wrote: “I read the so-called “Climategate” emails and I found no nefarious intent. ”
Well you also wrote the following… so we all know where your findings are going to be. You actually think we can change (cool) the climate by marching, and that cooling would be a good thing, and the CO2 is a bad thing – and oh so many other things we know about you. So now you politic for science. How amusing.
“Harry Twinotter @harrytwinotter · Sep 15
RT @costasks: If you want to support science, then support the People’s Climate March this weekend
#QandA #auspol #peoplesclimate”

Reply to  thingadonta
October 10, 2014 5:02 pm

Mario is right. Harry Twinotter says:
I read the so-called “Climategate” emails and I found no nefarious intent. The theft and unauthorised publishing of the emails was an attempt to discredit various climate scientists…
First, those scientists did a fine job of discrditing themselves.
Next, if it was “theft”, provide evidence. So far, I’ve never seen any. The likelihood was an email dump by someone inside.
Finally, if you didn’t find any nefarious intent you are blind, and discredited.
See here for starters. There’s more. Lots more. From the Harry_Read_Me file:
Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell is supposed to happen here?
Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
October 11, 2014 9:59 pm

So many straw men… so little time.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 11, 2014 10:08 pm

If ^that^ isn’t trolling, nothing is.
Pointless, content-free, and worthless.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
October 11, 2014 10:20 pm

dbstealey. Pot kettle black. If someone is polite enough to make a comment that does not contain a logical fallacy argument I will respond if I have time. Until then, later.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 11, 2014 10:37 pm

Pot kettle black, all right. You’re both, and as for ‘polite’, I posted chapter and verse which you did nothing but troll.

October 7, 2014 7:15 pm

It is not widely realised that in climate computations involving historically and currently observed [ and very heavily “adjusted homogenised, zombied, infilled, etc, etc” ] global “land” temperatures, Australia’s and New Zealand’s combined land temperature observations account for close to one quarter of the total global  surface temperature measurements.
The global surface area involved covers all that area south of the Equator and extending from around the mid Indian Ocean, roughly from a longitude about 75 degrees East to the mid Pacific, east of the International date line to around 140 degrees West,
A longitudinal range from west too east of about 145 degrees and extending from the Equator south to the Antarctic continent.
The only long period historical and reliable observation data in this quarter of the planet is from Australia and New Zealand.
We know that NIWA in NZ has grossly corrupted their observation data and have done so without any publicly available or known research that provides a scientific foundation to justify their deliberate corruption of the NZ data.
In Australia we now have a similar situation [ as per Ken Stewart, Jennifer Marohasy and Jo Nova ] where some of the more rabid warmist elements in the BOM and the CSIRO appear to be deliberately using some seriously corrupted or just plain incompetently created temperature adjustment algorithms to adjust Australia’s current temperatures upwards and / or adjust past observed historical temperatures down.
Which has provided the warmists with the basis for numerous claims of recently increasing temperatures that supposedly exceed any previous historically observed and past Australian temperatures.
As Australia’s and NZ’s land temperature data accounts for such a large proportion of the actual observed [ land ] temperatures over such a large proportion, probably around a fifth of the total area of the planet, any changes in the Australian and NZ observed land temperature data will have a disproportionate effect on the global surface temperature computations and data when fed into the NCDC, CRU and GISS algorithms, all of whom do further adjustments to the data.
While such corrupted and grossly removed from reality, heavily “adjusted” temperatures from such a limited land area but which temperature data supposedly represents the temperature data over one fifth to one quarter of the planetary surface continues to be used by the climate science profession, there will never be a realistic, scientifically accurate foundation of any sort upon which to base any realistic assessment on what global temperatures are doing in the real world.
Not that any of this matters much in any case as we can do nothing to change Nature’s course and we as a race and species will just keep on doing what we have always done.
We along with every other species will adapt or perish.
So far, we as a species have adapted and done so very successfully and without any real trauma.

October 7, 2014 11:15 pm

It’s rather ironic when you read the BOM’s own weather watchers history Meteorologists had to resist political attempts by politicians who wanted the Bureau to scale down the extreme cyclic climate disasters that have beset this continent ever since the initial settlement of the Colony as it was feared that reports of extreme drought, devastation by flooding rains, loss of crops and livestock in both instances, then devastating spread of bushfires would prevent “modern” Australia from attracting suitable migrating families.
The politicians of the day wanted to bring settlers attracted by glossy pictures, promises of a land of milk and honey, where literally the plants flourished and you could write home to your relatives in Blighty, boasting of all the new household gadgets, the car or cars this mighty country had bestowed on you, things that your relatives and friends thought they had no chance of ever achieving in the old country.
The politicians and carpet baggers oversold the country but the BOM while understanding the need to attract immigrant families held fast to their principles and application of science and in the first Commonwealth of Australia Meteorological Report issued by that Bureau in 1913 The climate and Weather of Australia, they proudly presented their compilation of weather data with due attention to the work of the State Meteorologists and their historical records the incorporated within that first Commonwealth report. There was a justifiable pride in their approach to bringing all together under one very detailed and historically documented effort to lay out all that was known, warts and all, and that also is reflected in the BOM history a respect for the past and meticulous concern to serve the Australian people.
Today we see Climateers, (key the music) activists and true believers in the BOM the CSIRO who promote catastrophe, disaster with a foreboding for the future, well, the far distant future, in the hope that politicians and the community will reward their efforts with copious grant money before anyone including the taxpayers wake up, and it almost worked!!
In the name of the noble cause, the amorphous saving the world pronouncements, cries of settled science when nothing is further from the truth, but in reality lacking the scientific principles of the past meteorologists, they now serve the politicians who hold the key to their enrichment, but not in the interest of the rank and file people of Australia.
So we have gone full circle now and privately scientists will admit the folly and the typical comment is what can I do, if |I speak out I lose my job and my family depends on that? You can sense their growing frustration at what some have done and are trying to do to this once great country and of course to the proud organisation that was the Bureau of Meteorology.
We have whistle blower protective legislation and we need to make sure it works to protect those that are uncomfortable with the political trashing of a once great organisation. Time to support those that speak up.
Truth and personal integrity must win the day.

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  KenB
October 8, 2014 1:53 am

And to make matters worse , if that is possible, the Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, has stated that climate deniers should not be heard. He [should] be sacked. His predecessor, Penny Sackett, was also a warmist and brooked no aleternative view. Wonderful scientists who have suckled at the public teat and ingratiated themselves to the leftist academies and journals, believers all.

Lawrie Ayres
October 8, 2014 1:59 am

Error. Should not sould. Poor proof reading on my part.

Robert B
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
October 8, 2014 2:25 pm

I’ll ignore it if you ignore mine.

October 8, 2014 4:21 am

If you consider how widespread and persistent the heat of 1939 was – and the fact that it was our most lethal natural disaster, just ahead of the 1896 heatwave in deaths – you get a different picture. As far as localised heat goes, Sydney’s1960 heatwave was its most severe. Jan 18, 2013 was a searing hot day in Sydney, but one has to wonder how Wedding Cake West, out on the harbour in paddling distance of the Observatory, was so much cooler on the same day. Up the coast where I live Jan 18 was just a hot summer day.
By the way, 1939’s heat occurred mid-La Nina, and 1938-9 was flanked by neutral years. That’s right. Our deadliest heatwave (and we’re not counting deaths from Black Friday and all the other fires which raged that summer) was a La Nina!
Where’s a climate expert when you need one?

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  mosomoso
October 8, 2014 4:34 am

The coast around Sydney is under the influence of a sea breeze most of the time, it keeps things cooler during summer. The sea breeze failed to a certain extent on 18/01/2013, it looks like it did not make it as far inland as the Observatory Hill. I don’t know where Wedding Cake West is.
I believe you can still get heatwaves in Australia during a La Nina. Or not get a heatwave during an El Nino. Conditions during an ENSO event are a generalisation. The Jan 2013 heatwave occurred when the ENSO was neutral.

Robert B
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2014 2:24 pm

Wedding Cake West is closer to the open ocean so it was cooler because of the sea breeze. That the sea breeze didn’t reach to Observatory Hill that day is not the hand print of climate change which is the real point of all this.
The heat comes from the inland areas and the temperature that day in Bathurst suggests that it wasn’t exceptionally hot. Unusually hot, yes, but not unprecedented.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 9, 2014 11:04 am

Yeah I looked up West Wedding Cake (Western Channel Pile Light), it is in the harbour. My point about the lack of sea breeze on the day is an explanation of why Observatory Hill was so hot when some other nearby places were cooler. This ties in with the comment from Nick Stokes that other stations in Sydney recorded hot temperatures as well, so the Observatory Hill reading appears valid. The fact that so many records were broken over a wide area is what was exceptional, Sydney included.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  mosomoso
October 8, 2014 8:46 am

Hiding in the deep ocean? How many deaths have been avoided by using those fossil fueled air conditioners?

October 8, 2014 9:00 am

In response to my article here:
Tim Osborn from East Anglia wrote here:
He gives this link:
And a quote here says:
“Principal additions to the CRUTEM archive (post-CRUTEM., within the period May 2013 to May 2014 are listed below:
Australia – updates to the ‘ACORN’ climate series and corrections to remote island series”
So the bottom line is this: If there is a problem with ACORN in Australia, there is a problem with the new Hadcrut4.3.

October 9, 2014 6:51 am

“in the southern most city of Australia” – Capital, not city. Kingston is a little further south.

%d bloggers like this: