6 thoughts on “BoM temperature anomaly map for July revealed to be not exaggerated re Charleville data”
Sorry Warwick but the data is correct and you are not. The anomaly is against the period 1961 to 1990 – and the Charleville Aero is average minimum is 3.7c, not 4.3c as you advertised.
and for newcomers to the thread – my critical on the July minimum anomaly map is in comment six here.
Warwick
Go to the anomaly maps – click on “about the map” read on to the section where it says – “The anomaly maps show the departure from the long-term climate average calculated over the period 1961-1990”.
Go to your second link – select 1961-1990 for the “period for calculating statistics” – and read the value for July of 3.7c.
GB
Warwick
Do you agree now that the anomaly maps are, in fact, correct?
GB
Agree GB – the Charleville CDO data agrees with that area of the map.
Warwick
I was concerned when the post went briefly down – pleased to see you’ve acknowledged this. Thanks.
GB
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
Sorry Warwick but the data is correct and you are not. The anomaly is against the period 1961 to 1990 – and the Charleville Aero is average minimum is 3.7c, not 4.3c as you advertised.
GB
Both of these BoM sources say the July mean min is 4.3
CHARLEVILLE AERO 044021 Monthly climate statistics
www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_044021_All.shtml
CHARLEVILLE AERO 044021 Monthly mean minimum temperature
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=044021
and for newcomers to the thread – my critical on the July minimum anomaly map is in comment six here.
Warwick
Go to the anomaly maps – click on “about the map” read on to the section where it says – “The anomaly maps show the departure from the long-term climate average calculated over the period 1961-1990”.
Go to your second link – select 1961-1990 for the “period for calculating statistics” – and read the value for July of 3.7c.
GB
Warwick
Do you agree now that the anomaly maps are, in fact, correct?
GB
Agree GB – the Charleville CDO data agrees with that area of the map.
Warwick
I was concerned when the post went briefly down – pleased to see you’ve acknowledged this. Thanks.
GB