Hottest Day Ever in Australia Confirmed: Bourke 51.7°C, 3rd January 1909

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

July 10, 2020 By jennifer

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology deleted what was long regarded as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia – Bourke’s 125°F (51.7°C) on the 3rd January 1909. This record* was deleted, falsely claiming that this was likely some sort of ‘observational error’, as no other official weather stations recorded high temperatures on that day.

However, Craig Kelly MP has visited the Australian National Archive at Chester Hill in western Sydney to view very old meteorological observation books. It has taken Mr Kelly MP some months to track down this historical evidence. Through access to the archived book for the weather station at Brewarrina, which is the nearest official weather station to Bourke, it can now be confirmed that a temperature of 50.6°C (123°F) was recorded at Brewarrina for Sunday 3rd January 1909. This totally contradicts claims from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that only Bourke recorded an extraordinarily hot temperature on that day.

Brewarrina Meteorological Observations Book, January 1909 — photographed by Craig Kelly MP. Note 123F recorded at 9am on 4th January 1909.

Just today, Friday 10th July 2020, Mr Kelly MP obtained access to this record for Brewarrina, the closest official weather station to the official weather station at Bourke.

He has photographed the relevant page from the observations book, and it shows 123°F was recorded at 9am on the morning of Monday 4th January 1909 – published here for the first time. This was the highest temperature in the previous 24 hours and corroborates what must now be recognised as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia of 51.7°C (125°F) degrees at Bourke on the afternoon of Sunday 3rd January 1909.

The Meteorological Observations Book for Bourke for January 1909 records 125°C for 3rd January. Photograph taken on 26th June in 2014 at the Chester Hill archive by Jennifer Marohasy.

That the Bureau of Meteorology denies these record hot days is a travesty. Is it because these records contradict their belief in catastrophic human-caused global warming?

The temperature of 50.6°C (123°F) recorded back in 1909 which is more than 100 years ago, photographed by Mr Kelly today at the National Archives in Chester Hill, is almost equivalent to the current official hottest day ever for Australia of 50.7 degrees Celsius at Oodnadatta on 2nd January 1960. These are in fact only the fourth and third hottest days recorded in Australia, respectively.

Not only has Mr Kelly MP tracked-down the meteorological observations book for Brewarrina, but over the last week he has also uncovered that 51.1°C (124°F) was recorded at White Cliffs for Wednesday 11th January 1939. This is the second hottest ever!

The evidence, a photograph from the relevant page of the White Cliff’s meteorological observations book, is published here for the first time.

This photograph from the White Cliffs Meteorological Observation Book shows the second hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia using standard equipment in a Stevenson screen.

Until the efforts of Mr Kelly MP, this second hottest-ever record was hidden in undigitised archives.

It is only through the persistence of Mr Kelly to know the temperatures at all the official weather stations in the vicinity of Bourke that this and other hot days have been discovered.

If we are to be honest to our history, then the record hot day at Bourke of 51.7°C (125°F) must be re-instated, and further the very hot 50.6°C (123°F) recorded for Brewarrina on the same day must be entered into the official databases.

Also, the temperature of 51.1°C (124°F) recorded at White Cliffs on 12th January 1939 must be recognised as the second hottest ever.

For these temperatures to be denied by the Bureau because they occurred in the past, before catastrophic human-caused global warming is thought to have come into effect, is absurd.

At a time in world history when Australians are raising concerns about the Chinese communist party removing books from Libraries in Hong Kong, we should be equally concerned with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology removing temperature records from our history.

If global warming is indeed the greatest moral issue of our time, then every Australian regardless of their politics and their opinion on greenhouse gases and renewable energies, must be honest to history and these truths.


* This temperature (125°F/51.7°C on the 3rd January 1909) was recorded at an official Bureau weather station and using a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen. Hotter temperatures were recorded in 1896 but the mercury thermometers were not in Stevenson screens, which is considered the standard for housing recording equipment.

The feature image shows Craig Kelly MP at The Australian National Archive, Chester Hill, just today examining the Brewarrina Meteorological Observations book.

I have previously blogged on the record hot day at Bourke being deleted by the Bureau here:

132 thoughts on “Hottest Day Ever in Australia Confirmed: Bourke 51.7°C, 3rd January 1909

    • They are falsifying data in order to destroy our economy and wealth and keep the poor in Africa poor.

      They should be hauled before the International Criminal Court in the Hague and charged with crimes against humanity !!

  1. We have exactly rhe same in the UK. The Met Office has been quick to declare the “wettest evah June day” on June 28th this year. But their own archives show a much wetter day in June 1917:

    The 1917 record was measured on a standard rain gauge, was corroborated by similar readings close by, and was officially verified by meteorlogical experts at the time, who actually visited the site and checked the equipment etc.

    Yet the Met Office’s pathetic response is that the 1917 record is not included in their digital archives.

    BTW the new record just happens to have been set half way up a mountain, at an automatic rain gauge which has only been operational for a few years.There was nothing remotely unusual about the rain that day last month, as measurements nearby confirm. It is simply the Met Office playing their “extreme weather card”.

        • Reality is just part of the tyrannical white patriarchy’s way of maintaining dominance over wimin and brown people. Check your privilege.

          Get down on one, knee bow you head and repent for being born white.

    • That link is a great article and you have a cosistently very good website Mr Homewood.

      Everyone here should visit.

      Real science has nothing to do with coverups, hiding data and claiming new temperature records that are not really records.

      Our planet has been warming since the late 1600s and almost all real time temperature data have been collected DURING a warming trend.

      So we should EXPECT new record high temperatures frequently until the warming trend finally ends.

      No prior warming trend ever lasted forever.

      Ice core data suggest hundreds of years of warming are followed by hundreds of years of cooling.

      Eventually the current Holocene nterglacial will end and the planet will get cooler and cooler and cooler … making the current moderate climate seem like the good old days.

      If any climate alarmist is reading this — you can return to your always wrong, for 50 years, predictions of a coming climate crisis !

      I know you can’t be happy unless you believe a climate crisis is coming — the climate is never good enough for you and always getting worse.

      The climate was allegedly perfect on June 6, 1750, at 3:06 pm EST …. and any change since then is an existentual crisis !

      Or even worse !

  2. Here in Australia, the BOM and all government presentations show the temperature only from 1910 onwards.
    However, gistemp and hadcrut both show temperature before 1910.
    The BOM excuse is that Stevenson screens were not widely used, but the real reason is they don’t want to show the late 1900s warming in Australia.

  3. Going back to basics, the brutal reality that the BoM and all the alarmistas just refuse to accept is that for various technical reasons the surface temperature record is simply not fit for purpose for determining any long term trends.

    Lack of or scattered use in geography and time of Stevenson screens is one contributor as is instrument relocation and the dramatice increase in distribution of buildings, bitumen and concrete in proximity to instruments and perhaps finally the switch to electronic instruments which capture extremely short span spikes from some local willy willy on a hot day all contribute to a system that will produce an inevitable uptrend in temperature over time.

    ABout all that is useful is that the record will indicate that temperature varies from year to year and decade to decade which simply confirms the effects of the various global oscillations from the PDO, the IOD, Rossby waves and the like all of which are about what you would expect from a spinning planet with an orbiting moon, in turn orbiting a star in concert with the rest of a solar system of objects ranging from large planets to clouds of microdust.

    Human intelligence is based on pattern recognition, the downside being wrong attribution of certain patterns to reality and more importantly vice versa. Accordingly and the spectrum of human psychology remaining fairly steady, the shamanistas have never left us but have just rebranded themselves.

    • Not to mention surface temperature in general it is the worst variable for determining the Earth’s energy budget.

  4. The fact that Craig Kelly MP had to go to Chester Hill himself and look up the recorded temperatures at stations nearby Bourke, namely Brewarrina, evidences that no one at BOM did due diligence before rejecting the Bourke temperature record.

    It seems trivially obvious to test the validity of a meteorological temperature recording by whether nearby readings are similar. But BOM didn’t check, likely because they didn’t want to know. They just wanted that high temperature gone.

    They should be fired, the lot of them.

    • So much thanks for this comment, Pat. It was so much effort to check the Bourke record back in 2014, and so much effort for Craig to access this record for Brewarrina just yesterday. They don’t make it easy. But we must never give up.

      • Will Craig’s work be enough to get a parliamentary or an independent commission of enquiry into this fiaso?

      • You have to admit the Bourke reading is somewhat questionable. A 112 in black over written as a 125 but a red 112 also distinctly written plus check marked in red as if someone verified the red 112, and followed by a 125 in black on the line below with no other readings. This doesn’t instill confidence in the recorded observation, unlike the 123 at White Cliffs, simply a perfunctory entry “that’s what it read, be back tomorrow”, no second thoughts or later red proofreads. If somebody asked me what the temp to transcribe from the Bourke photo and enter into my computer database, I would say 112, my opinion.

        • The 125 F is listed as the high reading of Jan 3 on the ‘Abstract of Results’ page for Bourke as well, DM.

          Also, it looks to me as though the agent wrote 125 F on the prior day’s line on top of 112 F, crossed it out, re-entered 112 F in red , and then entered the 125 F on the correct day (Sunday).

          Maybe he’s had a late Saturday night.

          • But the “abstract of Results” was written at month end, 4 weeks later than the date in question and could easily be the result of a hurried month end report….

          • Either the station agent was unaccountably careless and conveniently forgetful, or else you’re grasping at straws, DMac.

    • If they had done “due diligence” they would have destroyed the inconvenient records, just like UEA Climatic Reseach Unit managed to ” lose ” all their paper records to avoid anyone checking their data manipulation.

    • “Brewarrina, evidences that no one at BOM did due diligence before rejecting the Bourke temperature record”
      This is a red herring. Rejection of the Bourke 3 Jan reading had nothing to do with Brewarrina. It was because of the irregularity of the record itself, with incomplete data for the day and liberal overwriting.

      • “…Rejection of the Bourke 3 Jan reading had nothing to do with Brewarrina. It was because of the irregularity of the record itself, with incomplete data for the day and liberal overwriting…”

        Trewin did cite the fact there were no other extremely high readings in the region. And he didn’t say it was because it was irregular. He claimed to have been able to deduce that this 125 took place on the 4th, not the 3rd. And since the 2nd had 125 corrected to 112, a similar correction was applied to the 4th to 113.5. He completely ignored the monthly summary which stated the 3rd was the hottest at 125 and gives no explanation as to the corrections.

      • Red herring yourself, Nick.

        The reading is clear and underlined. The same temperature reading appears on the Bourke abstract with the Jan. 3 date given.

        1909 January 3 being a Sunday, a holiday, it’s no surprise that the rest of the data are missing. It seems entirely likely that the station manager came in specially to record what he must have thought would be an unusually high reading.

        Likewise, Brewarrina makes the Bourke reading entirely credible. The apparent fact that the BOM apparently rejected the Bourke reading without checking Brewarrina is a clear case of negligence.

        • “It seems entirely likely that the station manager came in specially to record”
          No, the station manager is the one wielding the red pen, which crossed out the initial 125.

          • You mean the 125 F that was mistakenly written on top of the previous day’s 112 F, and then crossed out, the 112 F reiterated above in red, and the 125 F entered into its correct date in black. And underlined.

            That 125 F. Which also appears on the Abstract of Results page.

      • “…liberal overwriting.” We should try not to use phrases that have no meaning. For a long time overwriting has been a standard, with rules. It’s better than erasing. What kind of overwriting do you prefer if not the liberal variety? The overwriting tells a story to others at a later date. Some think it means delete the value. But those people aren’t too bright. Paper was made to show erasure marks. So people were encouraged not to erase and expect fraud when they could see the marks. (Accounting.) So you overwrite instead. In overwriting was truth and disclosutr. Liberal overwriting. Think first. I mean the official deleter.

    • I posted this link to the January average of daily maximums for White Cliffs in response to a question at Jonova about the temperature in 1939:
      Clearly January 1939 was unusually warm compared with subsequent years. The only average that comes near is about 5 years earlier. It would not all be surprising for that particular month to have the record daily maximum temperature.

      • There would be no global warming without data tampering.

        The only real change is the willingness to officially embrace data tampering by calling it data “homogenisation”. The arrogance of current generation of those in charge of the records to think they know better because they have models that tell them the temperature should be rising.

        During my career I was always delighted when my model did not fit reality. It highlighted the weakness of my modelling and the need for better understanding. It took some real life experience to get to that point though.

      • “Clearly January 1939 was unusually warm compared with subsequent years.”

        People should look at the Australian Tmax charts if they want to compare today’s temperatures with temperatures from the past. Tmax charts clearly show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. This means there is no unprecedented warming today, and that means CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s climate.


  5. Kudos! Nice archival detective work by Craig Kelly MP! 125F is alive!
    And here’s hoping we don’t have another hissy fit from the “It ain’t in Celcius!” curmudgeons…

  6. It was supposed to make 100F today in Denver. It’s close at 98F but now the forecast is for 99F, 3F below the record for the date.

  7. I agree with Pat Frank. Clearly unprofessional to delete or dismiss the record at Bourke as discussed above or to allow this to be done under one’s authority. Lazy, dishonest, or incompetent? A professional can not do such things without taking great care to ensure the deletion is valid.

    Thanks to JM and other good people down under for trying to keep ’em honest. And, excellent work Mr. MP. I wish I could vote for you.

      • “Blair Trewin is an activist, NOT a scientist…His one desire would be…”…

        Scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organisation’s annual Global Climate Statement in 2016
        President of the Australian Meteorological and Oceaonographic Society in 2012-14
        University of Melbourne, Ph.D
        ANU, Bachelor of Science (Hons)

        …to be more like you I suppose?

        • I have actually met Blair.

          He is an ACTIVIST first and foremost.

          Why d you think he gets given those politically based positions.

          Your naivety is showing through, yet again.. DOH !!

    • I wish I could vote for him too Bill, he’s one of the few politicians in Australia who really does have the best interests of the nation at heart. That and his quest for the truth.

    • “Lazy, dishonest, or incompetent?”

      My guess is “dishonest”.

      As this post proves, figures could have easily been doublechecked. So they either didn’t check readings from other stations, which would be standard operating procedure for a reasonable person seeking such information, or they did check and didn’t like what they saw.


  8. Interestingly, the Brewarrina max’ temperatures seem to be recorded to the nearest degree in all but two cases, while the min’ temperatures are recorded to the nearest 0.5 deg F in all but two cases. It was probably careless notation, but it appears that the precision was at most +/- 0.5 deg F.

    • Yet the climate alarmists want us to believe they can calculate anomalies to the hundreth or thousandth digit.

    • Older mercury thermometer can’t be read with a precision better than that. The accurate (lab quality) mercury in glass thermometers covered small increments of temperature, usually 10°C, and could be read to ±0.1°C. I had several sets of these, carefully calibrated, in my lab. We never used them because I had a decent platinum resistance thermometer with a precision of ±0.01°C and an equivalent accuracy if I calibrated it over enough points. It was calibrated against a secondary standard PRT, which was calibrated against a primary standard at a good metrology lab. The primary standard was calibrated against fixed triple point or freezing point cells.

      • I’ve published on the accuracy of the global air temperature record, Loren. here (870 kb pdf). You’re right, it’s no better than ±0.5 C, even granting a general LiG thermometer accuracy of ±0.2 C.

        I’ve finished analysis for a paper that will blow the 20th century record out of the water. Hope to write it up and publish next year (other stuff first).

        The professionals in the field are plain not competent experimentalists. It’s as though they’ve never struggled with an instrument or made a measurement.

        • “I’ve finished analysis for a paper that will blow the 20th century record out of the water.”

          Like the last one, with it’s 10 year gestational period and NO relevant superterranean citations? Be still my heart…

          • “Like the last one that disproved the alarmist position, bigoilbob. Like that one.

            Folks, click on Pat’s link. Click “article impact”. Find the ONE citation to Dr. Frank’s article. Click on that article. Find the context of it’s citation of Dr. Frank’s paper. Then post us on how one has anything to do with the other. Wonder why. Could it be the lost units? The ridiculous error propagation, free of any energy conservation constraints?

            Not quite meteoric, Dr. Frank. But g’luck with that next truly “disturbing” bomb shell that you’ve got us waiting for, breath baited….

          • Congrats on your transparent diversion, bigoilbob. The issue is my paper, not its citations. Let’s see you refute word one of it.

            As to the citation, it’s directly relevant.

            From the paper: “However, the small standard deviations of the GO calculations reflect only on a high precision of the computational algorithm. The accuracy of calculation results is defined by comparison to the experiment [34], …, (my bold)” where reference 34 cites my paper.

            That citation expresses agreement with the calibration error analysis of my paper. Another oops-notch for your coup stick, bigoilbob.

            Notice also that the authors express the distinction between precision and accuracy, another core point in my paper: standard in the physical sciences and completely foreign to climate modelers.

            Total support.

          • I just noticed this one, bigoilbob: “… free of any energy conservation constraints?

            Yet another guy who doesn’t know the difference between a calibration error statistic and a perturbation on the model.

            Yet another hopeless incompetent.

            How about it, bob — does a plus/minus uncertainty in projected temperature mean the model is wildly oscillating between thermal extremes?

            That’s another deeply educated climate modeler critique of my work. Do you want to claim that one, too?

        • Not competent is an understatement. One of my pet peeves is that database providers DO NOT require a disclaimer be made when using their modified data along the lines of:
          “The data supplied in these records are a combination of recorded, modified, and interpolated temperatures.” To my thinking, not informing people that data contains modified and created temperatures is very unethical. Studies using this information should provide justification using calculated uncertainities.

          • Ethical violations from the folks who brought us “hide the decline,” “Mike’s Nature trick,” and short-centered PCA, Jim.

            It’s part of their tool-kit.

        • Pat
          When I was young and married, my wife and I lived up in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We owned a couple of horses, which gave me insight on why cars generally took over from horses so rapidly. It took two hours to ride from the pasture in Felton to our cabin on Love Creek in Ben Lomond, mostly over a deeply rutted back road. I griped about how slow it was and my wife replied that I couldn’t drive my Corvette over the road. I took the challenge and drove the same course in 20 minutes that took the horses two hours. But, I digress. My experience with the horses was that they were smart enough to get themselves into trouble, but not smart enough to get themselves out of trouble. Bigoilbob reminds me of the horses.

          • “How about it, bob — does a plus/minus uncertainty in projected temperature mean the model is wildly oscillating between thermal extremes?”

            No, it’s just that you have a bogus propagation method, that has nada to do with actual GCM processes. FYI, we all know the difference between precision and accuracy. For you to claim that your ONE citation was made to make that point defies credulity. More like a thrown bone from an old chem buddy.

            Bigger pic Dr. Frank, can you explain to the rest of us, without the usual Dr. Evil conspiracy theorizing, why your earth shaking paper is gathering e dust? Folks, if this paper had any actual tech cred, the deniersphere would be Allah Akbarring from AM to PM. Dr. Frank would be flying from one 5 star venue to another in a Saudi Aramco A380 to “present” it, with the concomitant appearance fees. He would be dodging both gold bars and the entreaties of those 72 vestal virgins, pre mortem. Getting anything like that Dr.?

          • Maybe you ought to expound on this more Bob:

            No, it’s just that you have a bogus propagation method, that has nada to do with actual GCM processes.

            I mean, at least you’ve actually said SOMETHING there.

            This argument just pretty much credits you addlepate for any thinking man:

            Folks, if this paper had any actual tech cred, the deniersphere would be Allah Akbarring from AM to PM.

            Derp. Your cognitive failing is: argumentum ad verecundiam

            That’s right folks, give Big Oily Bobby Boy a round of HEARTY applause for that slippery (un)intellectual contribution to the discussion.

            Brilliant ‘ole son! Magnificently done!

          • No no Bob . . . in YOUR words. You DO have words OTHER than someone else’s right Bob? I mean, you talk a lot so I’m assuming you do.

            Am I wrong?

          • Welp, okey dokey Bob . . . I’ve waited long enough. I’m pooped. Gotta take off now. I had hopes for you but you just went and dashed ’em didn’t you?

            So what have we learned?

            I’m thinking we’ve learned you’re really nothing more than one of those fake intellectual wannabe kind of guys that just shoots his smart arse mouth off to critique, but then when he’s asked to actually explain WHY he believes something well, he can’t.

            He CAN “Paper Push” though.

            He can always push the questioner off to this or that criticism ELSEWHERE, done by someone ELSE, that purports to deal with the subject matter. Then he says, “See? See? It’s all wrong cos I gave you that paper and that’s what I think TOO!

            But you really don’t know why you think it do you? You can’t explain the details of what you believe. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

            Get you a little somethin’ written up and post it here for later when you’ve had a few hours to actually read that paper over there for the first time by that other guy that ain’t you but you know for sure he’s right okay?

            I’ll look at it tomorrow.

            Take care!

          • I was thinking along the same lines Sy, unless he has a paper that he would like to present then Bob has nothing to offer. Same stock standard insults.

          • Either the station agent was unaccountably careless and conveniently forgetful, or else you’re grasping at straws, DMac.

          • I’ve dealt with Ken Rice, Mr. ATTP.

            In Ken’s analysis, he couldn’t even figure out where the calibration error came from, even though cloud simulation error is described and analyzed in detail, and it’s entry into the emulation equation completely explicated.

            He thinks the systematic model error in the iterative simulation of a dynamical system is a constant offset, just as Pat Brown does.

            He thinks that cloud simulation error is a base-state error, despite that the error is the annually calculated difference from observations. It’s not from any base-state.

            Then he touts Patrick Brown’s video as “very nice,” impervious to the fact the fact that Pat Brown thinks a (+/-)uncertainty in temperature is a physical temperature, and that an uncertainty in forcing is a perturbation on the model.

            Apparently, Ken does too.

            All of that, and much, much more can be found in the debate I had with Patrick Brown beneath his original video, linked above.

            Interested parties here are encouraged to read the exchange and convince yourselves.

            And be sure to read drdweeb0’s comment.

            It starts like this: a) I watched Dr. Frank’s video
            b) I watched Dr. Brown’s rebuttal
            c) I followed the discussion closely and fully.
            d) I also read both of Dr. Frank’s blogs at WUWT and all of the comments

            It is clear to anyone who has any understanding of calibration that Dr. Brown doesn’t – …

            Ken Rice’s comments in the debate indicate that calibration uncertainty and error propagation through a series of calculations are foreign to him, too.

            These people make mistakes typical of an untrained college freshman. They seem to have no inkling of physical error analysis.

            And apparently bigoilbob, neither do you.

            Climate modelers give no evidence of being actual scientists.

  9. According to Jo Nova today the ‘1909 “hottest ever record” was deleted after an investigation in 1997 by Blair Trewin’.
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology employee Blair Trewin is the lead developer of the main long-term Australian temperature data set ACORN-SAT and an occasional contributor to The Conversation website usually to report ‘hottest ever’ news.
    In a recent paper ‘An updated long‐term homogenized daily temperature data set for Australia’ (2019) in which he is cited as the lead author there is the following:
    “… A homogeneous data set is one where changes in the data reflect changes in the long‐term background climate, as opposed to changes in the way the observations have been made or the conditions under which they have been made …”.
    It is worth pondering that statement, as British economist Ronald Coase is supposed to have quipped: “If you torture data long enough it will confess to anything”.

  10. 1) Please note that the photograph of the data book from the weather station at Brewarrina shows 123 (°F) entered on the line for January 4 (not January 3, as stated in the article) 1909 and on a sheet pre-printed with “9 am LOCAL TIME” and in a column pre-printed as being “shade temperature”. Obviously, a given day’s max and min temperature can only be determined AFTER the day is completed, but that alone is no reason to not have the data listed for the correct date (even if the entry is made a day later). In any event, I wonder what significance the “9 am LOCAL TIME” label has vis-a-vis daily max/min temperatures . . . what would be the reason to require the data entry to be made at this same time each day? Very confusing.

    2) The photo of Meteorological Observations Book for Bourke for January 3, 1909 with an entry of 125 (°F, but obviously not degrees C as stated in the photo’s caption) say that the data entries are for 3 pm or later (assumed to be local time). Therefore, who is to say that it wasn’t actually a bit hotter than 125 °F sometime on that date? Confusing.

    3) The last photo in the article, that of the data in the White Cliffs Meteorological Observation Book shows an entry of 124 (°F) shade temperature on the line for January 12 (not January 11, as stated in the article) 1939. Similar to the case in Item (1) above, the pre-printed form clearly states “9 am METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS”. Again, very confusing as to what relevance this has for daily max/min temperature records.

    I’m appealing for explanations, if someone has them.

  11. “Dear Public,

    We find these facts to be inconvenient, and therefore are deleting them from history.

    Please move on, nothing to see here.

    Signed, Climate Researchers”

    • Climate Researchers = Ministry of Truth? Or do I have the incorrect designation? It’s been a couple of years since I read the book.

  12. “…then every Australian… must be honest to history and these truths.”

    Jennifer, I presume you mean all the history and truths, not just Bourke. By focussing on the accuracy of a single data point, as interesting as it is, are you not ignoring a clear and global warming trend-i.e., almost +1.5C caused by emissions since 1850? Is that not also part of your true history? If it is then is that not a bigger issue?

    • Since the coldest period in 10,000 years

      SO WHAT !!

      Global temperature is still well below what has been for MOST of the last 10,000 years.

      Most of that warming is UHI effects and smearing them over large areas where they don’t belong.

      And you have absolutely zero real evidence that this highly beneficial warming has been caused by human CO2 emissions !

    • Loydo:

      Jennifer, I presume you mean all the history and truths, not just Bourke.

      Isn’t your presumption unwarranted? It seems to me the author is specifically addressing a single data point because that was her intent. The article is about this particular data point and the circumstances surrounding its [in/ex]clusion in/from the historical record.

      Your reference quote in context, “…then every Australian…must be honest to history and these truths” is prefaced by how Australians, “should be equally concerned with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology removing temperature records from our history.” Thus I’m not sure why the author should be asked to deal with the further issue of AGW. That’s not the subject of her article.

      Doesn’t your logic suggest that if, e.g., a reporter should choose to write an article dealing with a specific matter concerning government waste in defense spending, then they’re also required to cover all the possible examples of government waste across all departments?

      • “Thus I’m not sure why the author should be asked to deal with the further issue of AGW. That’s not the subject of her article.”

        Whatever you say Sy.

        • “Whatever you say Sy.”

          Hmm, well that DOES put an interesting spin on things. You know, I think I must’ve had this idea in the back of me pointed head all along but just couldn’t quite bring it up to the fore. But now that you mention it, yes . . . no make that, “YES!” we’re agreed!

    • “… are you not ignoring a clear and global warming trend-i.e., almost +1.5C caused by emissions since 1850? …”.
      Nonsense the putative rise since 1850, even if one can believe that a reliable global average temperature record from that date exists and excluding the most recent natural El Nino warming, is only about half that:
      And about half that rise, if valid, occurred before human CO2 emissions were significant:

    • Lloyd, How do you know the world has warmed 1.5 C? The oceans make up 71% of the Earths surface, the average depth is 4000 metres, we have 3000 Argos bouys to monitor millions upon millions of square kilometres of ocean. Seventeen % of the Earths surface is basically uninhabitable, deserts- hot and cold, polar regions, mountain ranges etc. Humans live on the remaining 12% of the surface. Latent heat from mega cities can be measured hundreds of kilometres away. You don’t know, you are putting your faith in the guesstimates of a computer programmer.

    • Loydo, on July 10 at 5:35 pm, you posted: “By focussing on the accuracy of a single data point . . .” in reference to the above article by Jennifer.

      Therefore, on must presume you either (a) did not read that full article, or (b) did not comprehend what you read.

      The major point of the above article was that the weather station at Brewarrina, the nearest official weather station to Bourke, recorded a temperature of 123°F the same day of the Bourke entry of the record 125°F maximum temperature. Jennifer summarizes “This totally contradicts claims from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that only Bourke recorded an extraordinarily hot temperature on that day.”

      Bourke data point and Brewarrina data point makes TWO data points, not one as you careless asserted.

  13. The ice age is coming. A Beluga whale was sighted down south at the California coast. One whale to signal global cooling just the beginning. Hahahaha.

  14. Australia pays AUD1M/day to its national broadcaster, Australia Broadcasting Commission, usually simplified to ABC.

    A large fortune spent each day by the ABC and the honorable member for the Federal electorate of Hughes has to do his own investigation into data tampering by our Bureau of Meteorology.

    It makes me wonder if the ABC is not colluding with the BoM to deceive the public about the claimed correlation between surface temperature in Australia and the rising concentration of CO2 in. the atmosphere.

    • If it was $1 million a day, that would be $365 million a year.
      The ABC is actually given $1.1 BILLION of taxpayers money every year – 3 times as much.
      And they want more.

      • ABC presenters also bitch about how much presenters are paid in the private sector, like channels 7, 9 and 10. Difference is ABC presenters are paid by the taxpayer.

  15. If it was recorded before the satellite era -it didn’t happen.
    Like the hot dirty 1930’s in the US.

  16. Maybe the data in historic newspapers should be trusted.

    3 Jan 1909 :
    Bourke 51.7C; Brewarrina 50.6C; Pilliga and Jerry’s Plains 47.8C; Carinda, Cobar and Mogil 47.2C; Maitland, Parramatta, Picton, Quambone, Cudgellen and Wilcannia 45.6C; Mount Hope, Marslens, Barmedman, Cowra and Scone 45C; Walgett and Menindie 44.4C.

    Also worth noting that White Cliffs recorded 51.7C on 14 December 1909 …

  17. Catastrophic AGW climate change is a theory about the long term trends in global mean temperature driven by fossil fuel emissions. In this context, temperature events localized in time and space have no interpretation. It may be a fun debate to have but (a) it is irrelevant to agw, and (b) it legitimizes this fallacy for climate science to use selected localized temperature events in their climate fear propaganda.

  18. chaamjamal
    Basically, I agree with the general irrelevance to CAGW. However, the historic data points speak to the false claims of “unprecedented” and claims that the average is monotonic upward. That is, actual historic data exposes as lies the claims that current temp’s prove we are “going to Hell in a handbasket’ because temp’s are higher than ever recorded by Mankind.

  19. I am trying to understand whether the BOM is just incompetent or engaging in malfeasance, either way they have been captured by the green, socialist, warmest movement and therefore nothing the BOM says can be regarded as correct.

  20. What’s so disturbing about this is those that cite historical records are considered skeptics. In the USA the NOAA records are so compromised as to being useless but they are still a touch stone for temperature records….. not much different in the rest of the world apparenty. Truth always wins in the end.

  21. In some cases I shy away from acusing someone one of neferious actions. In this case I wound put it to, “The computer says…” syndrome. Many believe that their computer, or computers in general, can’t possibly be wrong. So they blindly repeat what’s on the electronical suthsayer that’s in front of them. It never crosses their minds that “people” are responsible for what shows up on their screen. Never crosses their mind that people are fallible.

  22. Nick Stokes, is the article in this thread factual? If it is, STFU. If it is not, then provide the reason why, or STFU!

  23. You think the BoM are warmist charlatans?
    The Canadian equivalent agency trashed all their temps records prior to the 1950s.
    Man, it’s gotten hotter since then!

  24. This is the same BOM who refuse to state how they manipulate the temperature record saying’it is too complicated and requires professional judgement’!!!!

    • I think it is, just about everywhere. I don’t know why some public interest group hasn’t sued to get Mann’s data, it was government funded.

  25. In Marble Bar, West Australia, there was a plaque in 1988 claiming the record for the hottest temperature on earth at C 54. Still true? Was it ever?

  26. Thanks everyone for taking the time to read and comment! The 125F needs to be reinstated!

    Somewhere in the above thread there is mention of this very hot day at Bourke being a one-off, while the actual trend at Bourke is one of increasing temperatures … but that is NOT the case. Only the homogenised data shows temperatures getting hotter at Bourke. For much of inland Australia there was cooling through much of last century to at least 1960, at some locations longer because of improvements in land management and more trees and irrigation.

    If you scroll down to the table with the Bourke data from the next link, you will see how the Bureau adjusts down the earlier temperatures for Bourke, in the creation of the official record. They cool the past, artificially through the application of algorithm.

    If you consider just the actual maximum temperatures as measured at Bourke, and also Bathurst that also has a very long record, you can see that through much of last century the situation was one of cooling:

    The Bourke record ends in 1996, because that is when the weather station was moved.

Comments are closed.