|
|
Post by knot on Apr 7, 2018 18:37:59 GMT -5
This thread was established for records and statistics that were discarded or unnaccepted by the country's foremost meteorology agency or the government itself, perhaps due to unwanted evidence that will sunder the pitiful hoax of AGW. One such example is the discarding of the Bathurst Gaol maximum heat records (commenced 1858):  The real maximum heat record for Bathurst is 44.7° C; this was held on 12th January, 1878. As you can plainly see, the red lines are by leagues at their highest during the 1880 period. These records have been declined by the Bureau of Metoerology and the government, of course; this was done by setting the "new" maximum heat record (since 1990, Bathurst Airport) as 40.2° C, held on 12th January, 2013; then, as 41.5° C held on 11th February, 2017. www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15620 Now, as for national records, Bourke's 51.7° C was also pitifully discarded: Bourke's temperature of 119 degrees was six degrees below the record of 125 degrees, made on January 3, 1909. Bourke is credited with having experienced a temperature of 127 degrees in 1877, says the State Meteorologist. Mr. Mares, but this is not accepted by the Weather Bureau because the thermometer was not enclosed in the wooden screen which is used as a standard throughout the world. These wooden screens containing the thermometer are usually placed about four feet from the ground, and permit the free circulation of air about the instrument so that the real air temperature is recorded. The screens have now been set up in most New South Wales country towns. However and probably because the BoM will not accept the validity of temperatures recorded before 1910, Australia's record maximum of 125° F (51.7° C) at Bourke on 3rd January, 1909, is discarded. www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.html#bourke |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Apr 7, 2018 19:04:01 GMT -5
^How convenient for them then that "new" records were set in 2013 and 2017! They and their ilk should all be lined up and shot publically. It's quite easy to manipulate stats...
|
|
|
|
Post by Beercules on Apr 7, 2018 19:27:39 GMT -5
53.1C in Cloncurry, QLD in 1889, nonstandard measuring methods used (a beer crate apparently).
50.7C in Mildura, Vic, Jan 1906. Nonstandard measuring methods used. Oddly it still appears in the BOM's climate data page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 7, 2018 19:52:52 GMT -5
-38C to -40C in Turku in the early 19th century (thermometer froze).
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Apr 7, 2018 21:48:27 GMT -5
almost all early pre-1940 extreme heat records are discarded for weather stations being non-standard. Both the Death Valley and Libyan 136°F & 134°F records in the 1910s. WeatherUnderground had a great blog post on old records but the webpage link moved and I can't find it
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Apr 7, 2018 21:50:38 GMT -5
^How convenient for them then that "new" records were set in 2013 and 2017! They and their ilk should all be lined up and shot publically. It's quite easy to manipulate stats... or maybe they're real? They're daily weather station data that gets reported everyday; I doubt meteorologists are engaged in a conspiracy to push recent temperatures upwards.  |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Apr 7, 2018 22:15:24 GMT -5
^How convenient for them then that "new" records were set in 2013 and 2017! They and their ilk should all be lined up and shot publically. It's quite easy to manipulate stats... or maybe they're real? They're daily weather station data that gets reported everyday; I doubt meteorologists are engaged in a conspiracy to push recent temperatures upwards. I'm sure the recent records are real. They just discarded the old records for questionable reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Apr 7, 2018 22:26:21 GMT -5
or maybe they're real? They're daily weather station data that gets reported everyday; I doubt meteorologists are engaged in a conspiracy to push recent temperatures upwards. I'm sure the recent records are real. They just discarded the old records for questionable reasons. oh ok, but a lot of the old records do sound untrustworthy IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Apr 8, 2018 0:09:56 GMT -5
53.1C in Cloncurry, QLD in 1889, nonstandard measuring methods used (a beer crate apparently). 50.7C in Mildura, Vic, Jan 1906. Nonstandard measuring methods used. Oddly it still appears in the BOM's climate data page. They should get rid of them if they have decided that it's not legit. I know the Cloncurry one is gone but yes, the Mildura record still remains. Maybe one of your beer crates can muster up a 50°C for Renmark  |
|
|
|
Post by boombo on Apr 8, 2018 3:52:31 GMT -5
I notice the Met Office here still claims our national record for September is 35.6C (measured at the time as 96F) in Bawtry, South Yorkshire in 1906, even if it does have a little asterisk next to it.
There are two reasons why this one sounds dubious: firstly that somewhere as far north as Yorkshire was warmer than anywhere in the south under a heatwave setup (unlikely/very unlikely, even if I wouldn't say impossible), and secondly that somewhere inland at 53N could have managed a higher temperature in September than anywhere else in the region has ever managed even in the hottest July/August heatwaves for more than 100 years afterwards (pretty much unheard of).
Doubt they'll ever bother officially debunking it but it must be have been recorded with non-standard measuring methods or somebody just misread the thermometer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 8, 2018 4:05:12 GMT -5
A lot of old stations were misplaced or had insufficient radiation cover. For example, thermometers don't just need radiation cover from the sun, but also from albedo. A lot of old heat records were set because sunshine reflected off the ground adding an additional 2-3'C just from that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 4:48:52 GMT -5
38.1c in July 1911 at Greenwich.
|
|
|
|
Post by rozenn on Apr 8, 2018 17:42:58 GMT -5
The 44°C in Toulouse back in 1924 or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by edmountain on Apr 8, 2018 19:32:47 GMT -5
This thread was established for records and statistics that were discarded or unnaccepted by the country's foremost meteorology agency or the government itself, perhaps due to unwanted evidence that will sunder the pitiful hoax of AGW ...deleitia... So by your account the entire argument for global warming rests on a few dubious and improbable records from the netherworld of Australia? If those records are reinstated then the whole case for AGW unravels? Seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Apr 9, 2018 1:28:42 GMT -5
So by your account the entire argument for global warming rests on a few dubious and improbable records from the netherworld of Australia? If those records are reinstated then the whole case for AGW unravels? Seems unlikely. Because it is unlikely. In fact, the Australian government does the exact same thing with other statistics, but only it is in favour of AGW  I am merely biting them back in the arse, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by edmountain on Apr 9, 2018 21:09:16 GMT -5
So by your account the entire argument for global warming rests on a few dubious and improbable records from the netherworld of Australia? If those records are reinstated then the whole case for AGW unravels? Seems unlikely. Because it is unlikely. In fact, the Australian government does the exact same thing with other statistics, but only it is in favour of AGW I am merely biting them back in the arse, so to speak. I don't get what you're saying. If you agree that it's unlikely the records affect the case for AGW why mention AGW at all? Why not just focus on the validity (or lack thereof) of the measurements? |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Apr 9, 2018 21:49:23 GMT -5
I don't get what you're saying. If you agree that it's unlikely the records affect the case for AGW why mention AGW at all? Why not just focus on the validity (or lack thereof) of the measurements? In my original statement atop this thread, I plainly said " PERHAPS due to unwanted evidence that will sunder the hoax of AGW"—as a reason to why they might have discarded the records, that is to say. Also, the only records that are dubious are the Bourke/national records; the Bathurst records are all very much valid. There is a reason the 19th Century fellas used to call it the "hot Bathurst plains", I'll have you know! Chief words, lad; they help quite a bit |
|
|
|
Post by edmountain on Apr 10, 2018 8:23:32 GMT -5
I don't get what you're saying. If you agree that it's unlikely the records affect the case for AGW why mention AGW at all? Why not just focus on the validity (or lack thereof) of the measurements? In my original statement atop this thread, I plainly said " PERHAPS due to unwanted evidence that will sunder the hoax of AGW"—as a reason to why they might have discarded the records, that is to say. Also, the only records that are dubious are the Bourke/national records; the Bathurst records are all very much valid. There is a reason the 19th Century fellas used to call it the "hot Bathurst plains", I'll have you know! Chief words, lad; they help quite a bit They're called weasel words because they allow you to be deliberately ambiguous and selective. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the records from Bathurst Gaol are valid. All you've done is said you want them to be true and hinted at a grand conspiracy theory that's trying to suppress them. Your conspiracy theorists conveniently neglect the fact that the BOM also reject many implausibly cold temperatures as well. For example, Bathurst Gaol recorded a temperature of -8.9°C on December 5, 1903, which is clearly wrong; this record was discarded as it should have been. So do you still think that the "Bathurst records are all very much valid"? Instead of getting distracted by conspiracy theories why not talk about the properties of the station itself and the processes by which records were kept back in the day which may (or may not) have affected the accuracy of the readings? www.bom.gov.au/climate/extremes/images/tr.extremes.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 8:29:44 GMT -5
The most famous is the former world record, recorded in Libya in 1913. 58°C.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Apr 10, 2018 8:33:31 GMT -5
They're called weasel words because they allow you to be deliberately ambiguous and selective. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the records from Bathurst Gaol are valid. All you've done is said you want them to be true and hinted at a grand conspiracy theory that's trying to suppress them. Your conspiracy theorists conveniently neglect the fact that the BOM also reject many implausibly cold temperatures as well. For example, Bathurst Gaol recorded a temperature of -8.9°C on December 5, 1903, which is clearly wrong; this record was discarded as it should have been. So do you still think that the "Bathurst records are all very much valid"? Instead of getting distracted by conspiracy theories why not talk about the properties of the station itself and the processes by which records were kept back in the day which may (or may not) have affected the accuracy of the readings? www.bom.gov.au/climate/extremes/images/tr.extremes.pdfRighto then, you win. Good on ya. |
|
