The Wacky World of Weather Stations: No. 169- Eyre (WA)

Wednesday 23/10/2019

Please refer back to my first post for site specifications and to No. 92- Logan City for 2018 specifications.  If you wish to check on this (or any) site for yourself, go to my post on how to check for yourself.

Station: Eyre 11019

Opened: 1885

Daily Temperature data from: 1983

Data used to adjust Acorn sites at: Eucla.

Location:   Co-ordinates  -32.2464 126.3008

985km east of Perth.

BOM site plan 2019:

Google satellite image 2019:

The plan is misleading. The scattered 2.5 metre scrub is much closer than 10 metres, more like 3 – 4 metres or less, so the screen is too sheltered.

This station is non-compliant, with temperatures reported at Latest Weather Observations and used to adjust data at Acorn sites.


Percentage of all Australian sites not compliant: 23.34%.

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “The Wacky World of Weather Stations: No. 169- Eyre (WA)”

  1. Al Says:

    Hi, that satellite photograph was taken on 21/08/2018. If you had been to that site, you might find it to be completely different from that picture. In addition, even if that old photo was accurate, you have no way of knowing what height that greenery is. It could be very low, almost grass. Best to trust the trained people BOM send to these sites to verify and maintain them mate. Your page has so many assumptions and totally incorrect statements, its incredible. Stop spreading fake news bud.

    • kenskingdom Says:

      In March this year the BOM plan says the vegetation was scattered bush to 2.5m, so not grass. From what I’ve found I wouldn’t trust BOM to verify or maintain sites- some are pretty bad, and not at all well maintained.

  2. Bill In Oz Says:

    Al, I will be blunt : YOU ARE A LIAR !
    And here is the evidence of your lying.

    1 : Look at the Google Earth satellite photo of this BOM station at Eyre. Here is the link :,126.3008,7.68643165a,665.79554724d,35y,0h,0t,0r

    Lots of mallee obscuring the BOM weather station just as Ken states.

    2: And did you know this site is a well known ( world famous ) bird and animal sanctuary. ? There is an article about this area here :

    And guess what AI it has a lovely colour photo of the area with lots of 2 meter high mallee scrub all around the whole area. In fact life flourishes in this area because there is fresh water under the sand. That’s why the mallee scrub can grow there and the bird and possums. Eyre the explorer & his party which included 3 aborigines discovered this oasis after walking over the Nullabor plain. And becoming dehydrated and exhausted in the process. They stayed at this place for a month recovering where there was fresh water and some tucker.

    You are either completely ignorant or just here to spread misinformation : lies !

    And the BOM weather site here is NOT compliant.

  3. Mark Mayhew Says:

    Hi Ken,

    I have been following your evaluation of the compliance of BOM weather stations and it has been a real eye-opener. May I ask if further analysis of your overall findings will include some estimate of the error present in average temperature measurements, if that is feasible or even possible? I wonder if such an error is in the vicinity of say 0.8C.

    As a scientist (developmental biologist), I’m really concerned of the damage that is being done to the public confidence in science by current interpretations in climate science. What happens if it’s all wrong? I read a document by AAS the other day that simply ignored the Sun as a variable. This is not my field but many of the analyses I have seen published in climate science would be laughable in developmental biology. It would be considered an analysis of noise without demonstrating some casual effect or at least supporting independent data. And although my observations are anecdotal in nature, the apparent correlation between the weird weather since around Easter that has been hard for BOM to accurately predict and current trends in the solar cycle would warrant further investigation in my opinion.

    I look forward to your continuing posts.


  4. Mark Mayhew Says:

    Just wanted to add an additional point. I believe many of the failings in the interpretations of climate science come through an over-reliance on surrogate measurements. Am I correct in saying this?


    • Bill In Oz Says:

      Mark what do you mean by “surrogate measurements’ ?

      BOM relies on it’s 112 ACORN weather stations data for it’s global warming care story.

      Some of those ACORN stations are not compliant. Go look at what Ken has done earlier. Those stations not producing reliable temperature readings.

      Further all the data from these ACORN stations data by BOM “climate experts” in line with the data from the other 600 plus stations… And a good number of those stations are also not compliant & not producing accurate temperature readings.

      All in all that amounts to a gross stuff up by BOM !

      • Al Says:

        You really don’t understand how long term data trending works do you Bill?
        All the temps sensors are calibrated regularly, and maintain consistent reliable data. The temperatures are trending up over the years. This is the problem. It doesn’t matter what the start temp is, if it’s consistently rising we have a problem. Which is what is happening. Head to uni and do a science degree, you know, like all the BOM tech’s have.

        • kenskingdom Says:

          Your faith in BOM is touching. “Consistent reliable data”?? Data from poorly exposed sites, with nearby heat sources, with the nearby environment changing over the years is unlikely to be consistent or reliable, but is used to adjust for inhomogeneities at Acorn sites- and also is used by GISS and HadCruT. That is why the WMO and BOM go to the trouble of having specifications for weather stations in the first place- so data can be consistent and reliable.

  5. Bill In Oz Says:

    Ken yes some people’s faith in the BOM has no limits. After all the BOM folk are the ‘experts’ and have science degrees – all of them – and thus they can ignore the BOM’s own guidelines on the location of BOM’s weather stations and assess that they are all ‘Good “.

    And all the rst of with a brain and the capacity to observe what is actually happening, are naughty uneducated folks lacking any expertise, who should just shut up and go to sleep.

    Bugger me !

    BOM’s weather station network is a shambles ! They do not provide accurate temperature information. This series of blogs has exposed that. And all that BOM has based on this inaccurate data is itself not worth a tinker’s fart.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: