Category Archives: BoM Australia

Weather Bureau for Australia

Greens ask the BoM Director Dorothy Dix questions at Senate estimates hearing which highlights that no MP’s have the guts to ask the BoM serious questions

The Canberra Times has this story – Bureau of Meteorology rejects Maurice Newman’s climate claims – recounting how Greens Senator Larissa Waters lobs the BoM Director Vertessy a series of Dorothy Dix questions that he can bat away.
It is truly disgusting that no MP ever questions the BoM in depth on for example say the ACORN adjusted temperature data.

Example where the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is told about a fault in rain recording but in two years fail to correct their data

I was told by a reader about a loss of ~18mm rain recorded at Montague Island Lighthouse 69017 (NSW south coast near Narooma) on 6/7th April 2013. I checked this out and sure enough the 30 minute data shows 20.6mm at 2.30am on the 7th which at 3am is reset to 2.2mm – so 18.4mm of rain was lost in what must have been an electrical/electronic fault. I kept the www page of 30 minute data.

I sent the following fax to BoM Sydney on 9 May 2013 and never got a reply.
[MONTAGUE ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE ID: 069017 Rainfall 7 April 2013
Dear Manager,
Your webpage “Latest Weather Observations for Montague Island”
www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.94939.shtml
records around 18.8mm rain ~10.30am to 11am on Saturday 6th April.
There was another 1.6mm recorded ~9.30-10pm that evening making 20.4mm.
A further 0.2mm made the total 20.6mm around midnight.
Then at 3am on the 7th the rain total reset to 2.2mm which was the 9am total recorded.
You can check the Canberra radar archive at –
www.oscilmet.com.au
and there were rain signatures at “~10.30am to 11am on Saturday 6th April” and
“~9.30-10pm that evening”.
So perhaps your Montague Island telemetry has lost 18.4mm of rain in the signal somewhere.
All the best,]
Checking daily rain for station 069017 at Climate Data Online we see that 2.2mm is recorded for the 7th April 2013 –

What would it take to get the BoM to correct an error ?

Evidence of urban heat island (UHI) at Cobar, New South Wales, Australia

The BoM Cobar Meteorological Office is adjoining housing on the north edge of Cobar, a mining and pastoral town in remote New South Wales population ~4,000. A BoM MO is professionally staffed.

The Airport is several km away to the SW – these minimum temperature readings for May show a UHI of a few degrees most mornings.
Obviously if mornings are too breezy – the relationship gets perturbed. You can see here that lately there are only light zephyrs in the early mornings when minimum temperatures are recorded.
The BoM classifies Cobar MO as “non-urban” – despite housing a stones throw away. Not on this planet.

Dubious BoM claim about Brisbane rainfall – “Wettest May day in 175 years” – thats the 2nd of May 2015

Fairfax are running this story Brisbane weather: Wettest May day in 175 years
The claim that 182.6mm on the 2nd May represents the “Wettest May day in 175 years” is not even technically clean because many early years had no data – so the 175 years is shonky. But let’s ignore that. Facts are that rain data are so noisy that any claims based on one station need examining. In this case on 2nd May 2015 for the BoM’s own rain district 40 South Coast Moreton & Brisbane.
These stations exceeded the 182.6mm figure. I have tried to avoid the higher altitude stations which have heavier falls.
ALDERLEY (040224) 252.4mm
BEERBURRUM FOREST STATION (040284) 233.2mm
BOONDALL (040531) 213.6mm
CALAMVALE ALERT (040784) 186mm
DECEPTION BAY ALERT (040980) 278mm
HILLTOP GARDENS (040911) 209mm
MORAYFIELD ALERT (040979) 296mm
PEACHESTER (040169) 269mm
TOMEWIN TALLOWOOD (040899) 187.4mm
WATERFORD ALERT (040878) 193mm

Let’s look at a four day period 2nd to 5th May 1996 – there may be others but my time is limited –

I think by any standards the 2nd to 5th May 1996 swamps any record claimed from 2nd May 2015. Count some of the 4 day totals.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology claims Caboolture rainfall is “off the scale” – yet their own maps show higher daily totals in May 2009

Fairfax media reports – Brisbane weather: ‘An extreme weather event’ takes five lives – The ABC reports – Queensland weather: Five people killed after three cars swept away by floodwaters; storm moves into northern NSW
A BoM contour map shows the rainfall to 9am on 2nd May – this map is for 20 May 2009 – note the higher rain contouring into the purple zone.
The 7th, 8th and 9th of May 1980 had heavy rain in the Brisbane region too. Note I have only scanned for May rain – there would be many more floods if I looked at all months.
I have not yet seen numbers convincing me that the last couple of days was worse than 2009 – and daily data is very poor for the earlier in the 20th Century.
There are many more rain gauges now but data is not easy to access. This AWN site is useful for eyeballing daily rain at the many Brisbane region stations. Here are the rain maps from above BoM links to compare for yourself –

Purple is above 200mm per day
Dark blue is 150-200
Light blue 100-150.
Obviously the station data is more spotty than the contour maps – and BoM computing has to somehow average to get the contour positions.

Bending over backwards to clear trees for the new BoM weather station in Adelaide parklands

First let me say I am not in any way against the clearing of whatever trees have to be cleared for the new BoM weather station. Australia has no shortage of trees or places to replace a few.
I am simply pointing out the utter hypocrisy in classifying these trees so nitpickingly adversely – see extract from Adelaide Park Lands Authority Agenda – page 60/143.

Not significant – atypical in form – low vitality – poor structure – regrowth – and low life expectancy – pass me that chainsaw quick.
The photo shows ordinary enough mallee struggling to establish itself a bit of a habitat. If a mineral exploration company wanted to say clear 18 trees like this for a drilling program – hundreds of km from anywhere at Outer Black Stump – they would expect to have to lodge a Review of Environmental Factors or REF report – probably running to many dozen pages and usually requiring a consultant costing up to or over $10,000. They would also have lodged upwards of $10,000 as an environmental bond to have an exploration licence granted in the first place – to ensure that the site was rehabilitated.
All this before your drill bit touches soil. In the case of a REF there would have to be assessments of fauna too which the BoM seems to be escaping in this case, yet there must be birds and insects inhabiting these trees.