{"id":4233,"date":"2022-07-16T03:29:29","date_gmt":"2022-07-15T17:29:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/?p=4233"},"modified":"2022-07-16T03:29:29","modified_gmt":"2022-07-15T17:29:29","slug":"craig-kelly-bureau-deleted-heat-records-bureau-responds-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/?p=4233","title":{"rendered":"CRAIG KELLY: BUREAU DELETED HEAT RECORDS. BUREAU RESPONDS"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/h3>\n
\n

https:\/\/www.heraldsun.com.au\/blogs\/andrew-bolt\/craig-kelly-bureau-deleted-heat-records-bureau-responds\/news-story\/6a4ce002c9e8a1be7fde26bf7fc0491b<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Liberal MP Craig Kelly has gone through the National Archives and found four records<\/a> \u2013 all before 1940 \u2013 of heat waves in NSW that were hotter than the Bureau of Meteorology\u2019s list of the hottest ever days in the state. Why were these records deleted?<\/p>\n

For instance:<\/a><\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s highest recorded temperature (using standardised equipment) at an official government weather station was 51.7\u00b0C (125\u00b0F) recorded at Bourke on the 3rd January 1909, followed by 51.1\u00b0C (124\u00b0F) at White Cliffs on the 11th Jan 1939.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

However these records have been purged and hidden by Australia\u2019s Bureau of Meteorology.was 49.7\u00b0C.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I discussed this with Kelly:<\/p>\n

The Bureau\u2019s response:<\/p>\n

The Bureau of Meteorology rejects any suggestion it has deleted temperature records or that a handful of individual extreme temperatures would alter the conclusions about Australia\u2019s warming climate, which is based upon millions of observations from hundreds of sites. <\/em><\/p>\n

While temperature records for a number of locations stretch back into the mid-nineteenth century, the Bureau\u2019s national daily records for temperature begin in 1910. The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country did not occur until 1910, and there is a lack of documentation available that outlines how temperature observations were recorded at many sites before this period. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau does not discount that certain sites may have recorded temperatures in excess of 50 degrees before 1910, but there is a lack of appropriate documentation and information at many sites, that would verify that the methods and equipment being used were consistent with post-1910 practices. This is essential if we are to appropriately compare things like daily temperature records.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau has previously carried out thorough analysis of the 3 January 1909 Bourke observation and is confident the recorded temperature was highly likely to be a reporting error. A comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau understands that an undigitised paper record from a site in Brewarrina was recently found in an archive. It\u2019s important we understand the instrumentation and methods that were used at this site before making comparisons. Based on the data and evidence currently available to the Bureau, we remain confident the Bourke measurement from 3 January 1909 was either a reporting error or an observation from a non-standard piece of equipment.<\/em><\/p>\n

The 1939 observations from White Cliffs were recorded on non-standard pieces of equipment that were outdated even for the time. This site was only upgraded with standardised Stevenson Screens in the mid-1940s. To appropriately compare daily weather observations, it\u2019s critical that the instrumentation being used is the same. This way we are comparing apples with apples.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau is aware of the 1939\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

observation of 50.0 \u00b0C, and this is currently the highest daily record that has been discovered for NSW using a standardised Stevenson Screen. The record does not appear on official Bureau publications since the daily records from that period for Wilcannia are undigitised. Nonetheless, it has been referenced in a recent Special Climate Statement on extreme heat in NSW. Work to digitise historical daily temperature paper records from Wilcannia, along with other historic paper records, is ongoing. Once this has occurred, the Wilcannia observation will be made available on the public web, including on the table of historic extremes for NSW, which is based on observations that have been digitised. The Bureau notes the current NSW maximum temperature record based on data that has been digitised is also from 1939. It\u2019s entirely possible that further extreme historic temperatures both maximum and minimum will be uncovered through the process of digitising paper records. The discovery of such historic extremes will have no influence on the well-established conclusions that Australia\u2019s climate has warmed by more than one degree since 1910.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau has digitised a sufficient amount of monthly data from paper records, to provide a good understanding of how climate has varied and changed in Australia since 1910. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Craig Kelly responds:<\/p>\n

Firstly the BoM\u2019s response is an acknowledgement that their glossy brochure<\/a> of \u201cExtreme Records\u201d is false and misleading. And it\u2019s a vindication of the issues I have been raising.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s scandalous that the BoM continues to publish information showing that NSW never had a day 50C or over, when they confirm they are fully aware that is untrue and that Wilcannia hit 50C in 1939.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Bureau is aware of the 1939 Wilcannia observation of 50.0 \u00b0C, and this is currently the highest daily record that has been discovered for NSW using a standardized Stevenson Screen\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

But go to the BoM\u2019s current published list of hottest days for NSW and this record is not there. The excuse given by the BoM for not including this in their published list that\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cThe record does not appear on official Bureau publications since the daily records from that period for Wilcannia are undigitised\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is farcical. \u2018\u2019Undigitised\u2019\u2019 means the record exists, it\u2019s detailed in the original Observation records, but simply it has not yet been put into a computer format.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s of concern that 9 years ago, a report by the Independent Peer Review Panel into the BOM\u2019s practices in 2011, in recommendation A4 stated;<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Review Panel noted that most but not all of the possible historical monthly temperature records have been digitised, and that some daily ACORN-SAT data remains undigitised. The Panel welcomes the statements they received from Bureau staff that undigitised ACORN-SAT records will be targeted for future digitisation. The residual set of non-digitised data and metadata paper records for ACORN-SAT observation stations should be located as a matter of priority,<\/strong> and imaged. It is important that the digitisation of these remaining paper only daily temperature records then be completed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.bom.gov.au\/climate\/data\/acorn-sat\/documents\/ACORN-SAT_IPR_Panel_Report_WEB.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

And yet here we are almost 9 years later, and the BoM have still failed to get around digitising what they acknowledge as NSW\u2019s hottest ever day, and then they use their failure to digitising the record as their excuse for not including it list of extreme temperatures.<\/p>\n

The BoM should immediately, as in to today, take down the page of \u2018Extreme Records\u2019 from their website because it is false and misleading, and they should also immediately re-instate it with 50\u00b0C Wilcannia record.<\/p>\n

THE BOURKE RECORD<\/p>\n

The 125F (51.7C) recorded at Bourke in 1909 is recorded in the official Meteorology Observations for Bourke, and the Bureau admit that this was measured with standardised equipment.<\/p>\n

The reason given for its exclusion is that the BoM\u2019s \u2018previous analysis\u2019 concluded that the Observer that meticulously recorded all meteorology observations onto the official government form, at the Bourke weather station back in 1909 \u2018highly likely\u2019 made a \u2018reporting error\u2019. In other words, he was either too stupid or too incompetent to accurately record the temperature properly. And because we are so much smarter now, we know it couldn\u2019t have been that hot back them (never mind all the newspapers reports of the day with the body counts of people dying for the heat).<\/p>\n

In making reaching their conclusion of this \u201cobserver error\u201d the BOM refer to;<\/p>\n

\u201ca<\/em> comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

However, the this comparison overlooked the very closest weather station at Brewarrina, which recorded 50.6 C on the same day that Bourke recorded 51.7C. Such difference between Bourke and Brewarrina are par for the course. Further, the comparisons with the overnight minimum at Brewarrina on the 3rd Jan 1909 and the temperatures on the preceding and follow days all move in a similar manner to those at Bourke.<\/p>\n

It remains a mystery to why the BoM would overlook a comparison with the very nearest official government weather station, especially when this assists in confirming the accuracy of the Bourke record.<\/p>\n

The BoM\u2019s responses states;<\/p>\n

The Bureau understands that an undigitised paper record from a site in Brewarrina was recently found in an archive. It\u2019s important we understand the instrumentation and methods that were used at this site before making comparisons.<\/em><\/p>\n

Firstly this response demonstrates that the BoM doesn\u2019t know what the \u2018instrumentation and methods that were\u2019 at Brewarrina in January 1909 \u2013 they are searching for an excuse for exclude the nearest official weather station.<\/p>\n

Secondly, in considering the possibility of a \u2018reporting error\u2019 at Bourke it is irrelevant as to what the exact instrument was being used in 1909 at Brewarrina. This was an official government weather station that had been in operation since the 1871. What is relevant is if the the closest official government weather also recorded unprecedented heat very same day, 3rd January \u2013 not just the maximum but also the minimum, and if the movements of recorded temperatures over the preceding and following days on 3rd Jan 1909.<\/p>\n

The BoM also argue;<\/p>\n

A comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler<\/strong> at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days<\/strong>. <\/em><\/p>\n

This is also false.<\/p>\n

Firstly, the comparison that BoM refers to compares temperatures recorded at Bourke, with those of Walgett, Coonamble and Thargomindah (conveniently overlooking the nearby Brewarrina). However this comparison was not taken in the years around 1909, it was undertaken during the period 1959-95 \u2013 that\u2019s half a century later.<\/p>\n

Not commencing this comparison until 50 years after the record in question is significant, as during that period, the average maximums and the extremes at Bourke declined significantly. The reason that Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures (recorded at the rear of the Bourke Post Office) declined throughout the last century are possibly because the Stevenson Screen in the backyard of the Bourke Post office became shadowed at times from growing trees and\/or new constructed buildings to the north and west of the Post Office.<\/p>\n

However whatever reason that Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures cooled , they render the BoM\u2019s comparison of Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures with other nearby stations during the period 1959-95 irrelevant when considering the 1909 record. It also leaves the question, why would the BoM jump half a century into the future and ignore decades of comparisons from around 1909 ? Where they ignorant of the fact of Bourke\u2019s cooling ?<\/p>\n

Further, if instead of ignoring these 50 years of comparisons, the BoM had of made comparisons in the years closest to 1909 they would have found that a 6 C temperature difference of between Bourke and other nearby stations as not highly unusual nor likely implausible on days of extreme heat.<\/p>\n

For example;<\/p>\n

Bourke v Walgett : On the 28th Jan 1913, Bourke recorded a maximum temperature of 47.5\u00b0C. In comparison Walgett recorded a temperature of 40.0\u00b0C \u2013 that\u2019s 7.5\u00b0C <\/strong>cooler \u2013 substantially cooler than the 6 degrees cooler that the BoM claim is \u201clikely implausible\u201d.<\/p>\n

Bourke v Coonamble : The daily Jan 1913 maximum temperatures for Coonamble are not digitised and it would require a visit to the national archives to determine the maximum temperature on the 28th Jan 1919. However, the BoM lists the highest daily maximum for the month of January 1909 at Coonamble as 40.6 C on the 22nd Jan. Therefore the highest possible reading at Coonamble on the 28th Jan 1909 would have been 40.5 C \u2013 which is 7 degrees cooler than what Bourke recorded in the same day.<\/p>\n

The BoM\u2019s excuses for ignoring the original observations at Bourke on 3rd Jan 1909 are a nonsense.<\/p>\n

Even though the official government weather station at Bourke recorded 127 F on 17th Jan 1877, this was not with the standardised Stevenson Screen and therefore Bourke\u2019s 125F (51.7 C) as recorded on the 3rd January 1909, in the official government meteorological observations of the day, should be officially recognised by the BoM as Australia\u2019s hottest ever recorded temperature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Liberal MP Craig Kelly has gone through the National Archives and found four records<\/a> \u2013 all before 1940 \u2013 of heat waves in NSW that were hotter than the Bureau of Meteorology\u2019s list of the hottest ever days in the state. Why were these records deleted?<\/p>\n

For instance:<\/a><\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s highest recorded temperature (using standardised equipment) at an official government weather station was 51.7\u00b0C (125\u00b0F) recorded at Bourke on the 3rd January 1909, followed by 51.1\u00b0C (124\u00b0F) at White Cliffs on the 11th Jan 1939.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

However these records have been purged and hidden by Australia\u2019s Bureau of Meteorology.was 49.7\u00b0C.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I discussed this with Kelly:<\/p>\n

The Bureau\u2019s response:<\/p>\n

The Bureau of Meteorology rejects any suggestion it has deleted temperature records or that a handful of individual extreme temperatures would alter the conclusions about Australia\u2019s warming climate, which is based upon millions of observations from hundreds of sites. <\/em><\/p>\n

While temperature records for a number of locations stretch back into the mid-nineteenth century, the Bureau\u2019s national daily records for temperature begin in 1910. The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country did not occur until 1910, and there is a lack of documentation available that outlines how temperature observations were recorded at many sites before this period. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau does not discount that certain sites may have recorded temperatures in excess of 50 degrees before 1910, but there is a lack of appropriate documentation and information at many sites, that would verify that the methods and equipment being used were consistent with post-1910 practices. This is essential if we are to appropriately compare things like daily temperature records.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau has previously carried out thorough analysis of the 3 January 1909 Bourke observation and is confident the recorded temperature was highly likely to be a reporting error. A comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau understands that an undigitised paper record from a site in Brewarrina was recently found in an archive. It\u2019s important we understand the instrumentation and methods that were used at this site before making comparisons. Based on the data and evidence currently available to the Bureau, we remain confident the Bourke measurement from 3 January 1909 was either a reporting error or an observation from a non-standard piece of equipment.<\/em><\/p>\n

The 1939 observations from White Cliffs were recorded on non-standard pieces of equipment that were outdated even for the time. This site was only upgraded with standardised Stevenson Screens in the mid-1940s. To appropriately compare daily weather observations, it\u2019s critical that the instrumentation being used is the same. This way we are comparing apples with apples.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau is aware of the 1939\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

observation of 50.0 \u00b0C, and this is currently the highest daily record that has been discovered for NSW using a standardised Stevenson Screen. The record does not appear on official Bureau publications since the daily records from that period for Wilcannia are undigitised. Nonetheless, it has been referenced in a recent Special Climate Statement on extreme heat in NSW. Work to digitise historical daily temperature paper records from Wilcannia, along with other historic paper records, is ongoing. Once this has occurred, the Wilcannia observation will be made available on the public web, including on the table of historic extremes for NSW, which is based on observations that have been digitised. The Bureau notes the current NSW maximum temperature record based on data that has been digitised is also from 1939. It\u2019s entirely possible that further extreme historic temperatures both maximum and minimum will be uncovered through the process of digitising paper records. The discovery of such historic extremes will have no influence on the well-established conclusions that Australia\u2019s climate has warmed by more than one degree since 1910.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bureau has digitised a sufficient amount of monthly data from paper records, to provide a good understanding of how climate has varied and changed in Australia since 1910. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Craig Kelly responds:<\/p>\n

Firstly the BoM\u2019s response is an acknowledgement that their glossy brochure<\/a> of \u201cExtreme Records\u201d is false and misleading. And it\u2019s a vindication of the issues I have been raising.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s scandalous that the BoM continues to publish information showing that NSW never had a day 50C or over, when they confirm they are fully aware that is untrue and that Wilcannia hit 50C in 1939.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Bureau is aware of the 1939 Wilcannia observation of 50.0 \u00b0C, and this is currently the highest daily record that has been discovered for NSW using a standardized Stevenson Screen\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

But go to the BoM\u2019s current published list of hottest days for NSW and this record is not there. The excuse given by the BoM for not including this in their published list that\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cThe record does not appear on official Bureau publications since the daily records from that period for Wilcannia are undigitised\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is farcical. \u2018\u2019Undigitised\u2019\u2019 means the record exists, it\u2019s detailed in the original Observation records, but simply it has not yet been put into a computer format.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s of concern that 9 years ago, a report by the Independent Peer Review Panel into the BOM\u2019s practices in 2011, in recommendation A4 stated;<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Review Panel noted that most but not all of the possible historical monthly temperature records have been digitised, and that some daily ACORN-SAT data remains undigitised. The Panel welcomes the statements they received from Bureau staff that undigitised ACORN-SAT records will be targeted for future digitisation. The residual set of non-digitised data and metadata paper records for ACORN-SAT observation stations should be located as a matter of priority,<\/strong> and imaged. It is important that the digitisation of these remaining paper only daily temperature records then be completed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.bom.gov.au\/climate\/data\/acorn-sat\/documents\/ACORN-SAT_IPR_Panel_Report_WEB.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

And yet here we are almost 9 years later, and the BoM have still failed to get around digitising what they acknowledge as NSW\u2019s hottest ever day, and then they use their failure to digitising the record as their excuse for not including it list of extreme temperatures.<\/p>\n

The BoM should immediately, as in to today, take down the page of \u2018Extreme Records\u2019 from their website because it is false and misleading, and they should also immediately re-instate it with 50\u00b0C Wilcannia record.<\/p>\n

THE BOURKE RECORD<\/p>\n

The 125F (51.7C) recorded at Bourke in 1909 is recorded in the official Meteorology Observations for Bourke, and the Bureau admit that this was measured with standardised equipment.<\/p>\n

The reason given for its exclusion is that the BoM\u2019s \u2018previous analysis\u2019 concluded that the Observer that meticulously recorded all meteorology observations onto the official government form, at the Bourke weather station back in 1909 \u2018highly likely\u2019 made a \u2018reporting error\u2019. In other words, he was either too stupid or too incompetent to accurately record the temperature properly. And because we are so much smarter now, we know it couldn\u2019t have been that hot back them (never mind all the newspapers reports of the day with the body counts of people dying for the heat).<\/p>\n

In making reaching their conclusion of this \u201cobserver error\u201d the BOM refer to;<\/p>\n

\u201ca<\/em> comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

However, the this comparison overlooked the very closest weather station at Brewarrina, which recorded 50.6 C on the same day that Bourke recorded 51.7C. Such difference between Bourke and Brewarrina are par for the course. Further, the comparisons with the overnight minimum at Brewarrina on the 3rd Jan 1909 and the temperatures on the preceding and follow days all move in a similar manner to those at Bourke.<\/p>\n

It remains a mystery to why the BoM would overlook a comparison with the very nearest official government weather station, especially when this assists in confirming the accuracy of the Bourke record.<\/p>\n

The BoM\u2019s responses states;<\/p>\n

The Bureau understands that an undigitised paper record from a site in Brewarrina was recently found in an archive. It\u2019s important we understand the instrumentation and methods that were used at this site before making comparisons.<\/em><\/p>\n

Firstly this response demonstrates that the BoM doesn\u2019t know what the \u2018instrumentation and methods that were\u2019 at Brewarrina in January 1909 \u2013 they are searching for an excuse for exclude the nearest official weather station.<\/p>\n

Secondly, in considering the possibility of a \u2018reporting error\u2019 at Bourke it is irrelevant as to what the exact instrument was being used in 1909 at Brewarrina. This was an official government weather station that had been in operation since the 1871. What is relevant is if the the closest official government weather also recorded unprecedented heat very same day, 3rd January \u2013 not just the maximum but also the minimum, and if the movements of recorded temperatures over the preceding and following days on 3rd Jan 1909.<\/p>\n

The BoM also argue;<\/p>\n

A comparison to observations of all inland sites with standardised equipment throughout NSW and Queensland on the same day, showed temperatures were more than six degrees cooler<\/strong> at all other sites. A temperature difference of this scale is highly unusual and likely implausible, as sites in inland Australia have a high degree of consistency on warm days<\/strong>. <\/em><\/p>\n

This is also false.<\/p>\n

Firstly, the comparison that BoM refers to compares temperatures recorded at Bourke, with those of Walgett, Coonamble and Thargomindah (conveniently overlooking the nearby Brewarrina). However this comparison was not taken in the years around 1909, it was undertaken during the period 1959-95 \u2013 that\u2019s half a century later.<\/p>\n

Not commencing this comparison until 50 years after the record in question is significant, as during that period, the average maximums and the extremes at Bourke declined significantly. The reason that Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures (recorded at the rear of the Bourke Post Office) declined throughout the last century are possibly because the Stevenson Screen in the backyard of the Bourke Post office became shadowed at times from growing trees and\/or new constructed buildings to the north and west of the Post Office.<\/p>\n

However whatever reason that Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures cooled , they render the BoM\u2019s comparison of Bourke\u2019s maximum temperatures with other nearby stations during the period 1959-95 irrelevant when considering the 1909 record. It also leaves the question, why would the BoM jump half a century into the future and ignore decades of comparisons from around 1909 ? Where they ignorant of the fact of Bourke\u2019s cooling ?<\/p>\n

Further, if instead of ignoring these 50 years of comparisons, the BoM had of made comparisons in the years closest to 1909 they would have found that a 6 C temperature difference of between Bourke and other nearby stations as not highly unusual nor likely implausible on days of extreme heat.<\/p>\n

For example;<\/p>\n

Bourke v Walgett : On the 28th Jan 1913, Bourke recorded a maximum temperature of 47.5\u00b0C. In comparison Walgett recorded a temperature of 40.0\u00b0C \u2013 that\u2019s 7.5\u00b0C <\/strong>cooler \u2013 substantially cooler than the 6 degrees cooler that the BoM claim is \u201clikely implausible\u201d.<\/p>\n

Bourke v Coonamble : The daily Jan 1913 maximum temperatures for Coonamble are not digitised and it would require a visit to the national archives to determine the maximum temperature on the 28th Jan 1919. However, the BoM lists the highest daily maximum for the month of January 1909 at Coonamble as 40.6 C on the 22nd Jan. Therefore the highest possible reading at Coonamble on the 28th Jan 1909 would have been 40.5 C \u2013 which is 7 degrees cooler than what Bourke recorded in the same day.<\/p>\n

The BoM\u2019s excuses for ignoring the original observations at Bourke on 3rd Jan 1909 are a nonsense.<\/p>\n

Even though the official government weather station at Bourke recorded 127 F on 17th Jan 1877, this was not with the standardised Stevenson Screen and therefore Bourke\u2019s 125F (51.7 C) as recorded on the 3rd January 1909, in the official government meteorological observations of the day, should be officially recognised by the BoM as Australia\u2019s hottest ever recorded temperature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

https:\/\/www.heraldsun.com.au\/blogs\/andrew-bolt\/craig-kelly-bureau-deleted-heat-records-bureau-responds\/news-story\/6a4ce002c9e8a1be7fde26bf7fc0491b   Liberal MP Craig Kelly has gone through the National Archives and found four records \u2013 all before 1940 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[657,1431,1428,661,44,1429,1395,1430],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4233"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4233"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4233\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4234,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4233\/revisions\/4234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.realclimaterecords.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}