JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Announcing BomWatch: Auditing the fake warming created by site changes near the Great Barrier Reef

Fake Warming in Queensland: The BOM says the sites didn’t move, but photos show they did.

Great Barrier Reef, Queensland, Map, Satellite view.

The warming at these four sites alongside the Great Barrier Reef is due to site changes, incompetence, poor record keeping and “adjustments”. Map: Terrametrics, Map data Google 2020

All along the coast near the Great Barrier Reef, the BOM has claimed temperatures have warmed in the last 50 years, and they’ve calculated it to a tenth of a degree. To get that kind of accuracy the thermometers need to be carefully placed, and the BOM needs to know exactly where they were, but they don’t.

The BOM keeps long pages of site descriptions and exact dates of moves and equipment changes, but historic photos show the records are wrong. The BOM will solemnly swear a site was in the same place for decades but photographs and archives show the sites were often moved as developments sprang up around them. The BOM didn’t keep the records and didn’t bother to check. If the thermometer moved to a warmer location or it warmed because they replaced the standard 230-litre Stevenson screen with a 60-litre toy one, or no longer cleaned it of dust and grime that’s climate change at work (Ka-Ching).  There’s probably a thermometer 500km away that can be used to “correct” the record. (Like say, Coen or Musgrave which are used to “adjust” Cairns and are 452 km and 746 km away!).  Near enough’s rough enough! Homogenisation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned.

“The notion that the Great Barrier Reef is threatened by climate change and warming depends on incompetent records, unjustifiable ‘corrections’, super-sensitive thermometers in smaller boxes, and neglected sites” says Johnston.

Dr Bill Johnston has done the work documenting our sites that the million-dollar-a-day Bureau of Meteorology can’t find time to do. He uses aerial and satellite photos as well as ground based shots from the national archives. The BOM says the climate is the most important issue for life on Earth, but it isn’t important enough for the BOM to find the archived photos and documents that show the thermometers kept moving and the area around the thermometers kept changing.

If Blair Trewin and the Bureau director Dr Andrew Johnson had even the slightest interest in the Australian climate they would welcome the dedicated, historical work of Dr Johnston with a big thank you. Instead the BOM stopped answering questions, and Bill Johnston finds it difficult to get published anymore in meteorology journals. As the Bureau became an advertising agency for Big Government projects, the  scientific evidence apparently became a pain in the neck.

The same team that holds the raw data and the metadata, is also the same team that analyses it and makes political statements it. They are the only ones who know what the instruments are really measuring, they won’t explain in full how they adjust it. The raw data is deleted. The methods are a secret, and the team have become unaudited political actors.

So Bill Johnston has started publishing his meticulous work on his own website. There are four stations there and so many more to come. A life’s expertise and several years of work, done unpaid. The BOM say they are independent, but they are totally dependent on Big Gov for their existence. Bill Johnston really is independent. It’s cost him to publish this and do this work, but he’s done it anyway.

Say hello to BoMWatch!

 BoMWatch:  Climate of the Great Barrier Reef

Press Release June 5th, 2020

“Despite all the catastrophism and free money, there is no evidence that the climate of the Great Barrier Reef has changed or is likely to change in the future”, says Bill Johnston.

Dr Johnston uses maps and plans from the National Archives and National Library of Australia and aerial photographs and satellite images to check if changes in temperature data align with site changes detailed by Bureau of Meteorology site-summary and ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature) metadata.

The site at Gladstone has changed dramatically from 1965 to 2016.

See the slower transition here.

BoMWatch: Gladstone

He has investigated and analyzed more than 300 of Australia’s most important long term sites, and 80 of supposedly top notch ACORN-SAT sites (which is about 75% of them).

Across Australia no sites have stayed the same. They’ve moved, the original 230-litre Stevenson screens have been replaced with more responsive 60-litre ones; automatic weather stations (AWS) have replaced thermometers; new sites have opened using PVC-screens in the hottest places they could find; observers have gone and they scrimp and save by not mowing the grass or cleaning equipment of dust and grime. “Australia’s warming is mostly due to poor maintenance and electronic thermometers operating in small Stevenson screens”, Dr. Johnston said.

“Evidence that the Bureau adjusts their datasets to support the warming narrative is unequivocal” Bill said; “sometimes they recognise a site change, sometimes they don’t; it’s a non-random pattern.  Many forgotten site changes create a trend they can blame on the climate”.

“Furthermore, as AWS are hard-wired to Melbourne,  Weather language has also changed. “They cook-up a record wherever you are and the weather is always extreme”, Bill said.

“Photographs, aerodrome plans and documents show metadata relied on to make adjustments are faulty and misleading”, said Bill. “For instance, at Gladstone, they replaced the radar; cleared the bush and installed a 60-litre screen 30-metres away; sacked the staff, demolished the office and its unsurprising that as instruments are no longer regularly serviced and cleaned, temperature has increased relative to the climate”.

It’s a debacle up at Cairns as well. They didn’t know what happened at the Post Office or that the original aerodrome site was located beside the old apron. They said that in December 1992 the site moved 1.5 km northwest (to the other side of the runway). However, they forgot that it moved to a mound near the centre of the airport in 1966 and that it moved again before September 1983. Also, as one was bulldozed to build the other and no data was missing, another site must have opened in the interim.

The 60L boxes are too small to allow all the equipment to operate at it’s best. The highly sensitive electronic thermometers at the back are barely 2cm away from the hotter north facing side of the screen. They will record one second spikes in temperature, and the Bureau of Meteorology accepts these spurious spikes as new “hottest day ever” records.

 

Townsville Screen, Thermometers, Stevenson, Bureau of Meteorology.

Inside the crowded little 60-litre screen at Townsville. Note the electronic thermometers at the back are about 2 cm closer to the north facing rear of the screen than maximum and minimum thermometers are; which is enough to make them warmer on warm days. Photo courtesy of BoM (http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/townsville/photos.shtml)


The Bureau claims the Townsville airport weather station has absolutely not moved: “There are no documented moves until one of 200 m northeast on 8 December 1994”. However, the site moved at least three, possibly four times while it was on the eastern side of the main runway and probably twice between January 1970 when it moved to a mound on the western side and the most recent move to the AWS. “By pretending the site didn’t move before 1994, they attributed trends and changes in the data to the climate”, Bill said.

Similarly at Rockhampton, where before it moved to a mound near the middle of the airport in about 1956, the original Stevenson screen was near the airport’s northern boundary beside the USAAF garrison and canteen. Warming caused by a satellite communications module installed close-by the second site in 1986 was ignored to imply it was due to the climate.

Sensible scientific debate about the Reef has been lost in the wind of public opinion shaped on the one-hand by catastrophists like the WWF-aligned Climate Council, AYCC and GetUp!, which are intent on driving social agendas; and on the other by saviours like the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, JCU, UQ, CSIRO …

“Follow the money”, Bill says. “So long as it lasts everybody wins; a bit for them and much for us and central to the enterprise is the creation of climate fantasies by the tax-payer funded Bureau of Meteorology”.

“The notion that the Great Barrier Reef is threatened by climate change and warming depends on incompetent records, unjustifiable ‘corrections’, super-sensitive thermometers in smaller boxes, and neglected sites”, says Johnston. “Everything they depend on is modeled and all those models are either wrong or skillless”, he says.

On a site-by-site basis there is no evidence that Australia’s climate has changed or warmed. “Of those that I’ve studied, only Tennant Creek appears to have stayed in the same place”, he said, “and even there, installing the 60-litre screen, a wind profiler array, getting rid of observers and reducing maintenance to just one or two site visits per year has warmed the data relative to the climate”.

Email Dr Johnston: scientist AT bomwatch.com.au

PDF link to a summary of this work with more information and for printing.

Bill Johnston’s past work

All Bill Johnston’s posts: http://joannenova.com.au/tag/johnston-bill/

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (104 votes cast)
Announcing BomWatch: Auditing the fake warming created by site changes near the Great Barrier Reef, 9.7 out of 10 based on 104 ratings

104 comments to Announcing BomWatch: Auditing the fake warming created by site changes near the Great Barrier Reef

  • #

    Thanks Jo. I agree totally that the BOMs homogenisation practice is utterly wrong and distorting.

    This was bought home to me a couple of years ago when I saw a composite graph of rural temperatures and then city temperatures. The former were doing nothing at all, but the latter, due to the heat island effect were rising.

    Now along come the unscientific BOM and homogenise it all, and hey presto – we are all warming!

    Greg Hunt wrecked it all when he stood up against Tony Abbott when Tony wanted an enquiry into the BOM. This is massively overdue. But any attempt to converse with Sussan Ley, our useless Environment Minister (and responsible for the BOM) on this meets with delays and no answers.

    I am an engineer who day in day out needs to report accurately – if I don’t I get the sack, and I expect the same of those who report to me. But with the BOM they knowingly distort and tamper to produce what they think should be the outcome. As readers here know. But the real villains are Scott Morrison and most of his ministers, who know this is going on, but are too gutless to do anything. My Federal Member, when I had it out with him, admitted that a “certain idealogy” had taken over the BOM – well what are YOU going to do about it I asked. All I got was mumbling and claims of “looking into it”.

    511

    • #
      Interested

      Excellent post, Aussie! Thank you.
      I’m no scientist but I have a degree in applied science and I used that degree every working day for over 30 years. In a similar way to your own circumstances, thousands of people relied on my accurate application of that knowledge and the precise numerical results arising from it. There was time, money, health, and even day-to-day personal safety involved and there was nowhere to hide. If the job wasn’t done right, every time, there would be repercussions.
      So I truly understand your frustration that BOM can get away with the deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation of the facts like this. And also your anger(?) that elected representatives like Greg Hunt are permitted to go on aiding and abetting BOM’s inexcusable deception of the Australian people.

      And the deceit isn’t just an Australian aberration, of course, as I’m sure you’re well aware. NASA’s ‘adjusting’ and homogenising’ of U.S. climate data is another prime example of just this kind of orchestrated misleading of the populace for political reasons.
      In fact, New Zealand’s equivalent of BOM has a track record of manipulating the numbers too.

      Our Joanne (God bless her!) does a sterling job of shining a glaring light on all climate related shenanigans and if only 10% of her invaluable work were given as much publicity as the nonsense spouted by poor Greta Thunberg, the world would be in an uproar over the lies we’ve all been told.
      But there’s the rub.
      The same people who pull the strings when it comes to data manipulation apparently ‘own’ the mainstream media, which means the truth is rarely given an airing in public. And our politicians seem unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
      Over the years tens of thousands of eminent scientists have signed various strongly-worded petitions against the climate scare propaganda. You know it and I know it but the great majority of people, who get their information from the 6 o’clock news on TV each night, never get to hear about that sort of thing.

      I’ve sent a dozen lengthy emails (4,000+ words each) to 16 email addresses on my Contacts list (friends and acquaintances), explaining in detail why the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism is unfounded. I felt I simply had to do it, even at the risk of losing friends who’ve fallen for all the climate nonsense. I had no response at all from 12 of those contacts and only a few encouraging words from the other 4.
      I’ve donated to Jo in the past, and have sent a total of $600 to Professor Ridd in the last year or two for his struggle against the totalitarian attitude of James Cook University.
      Am I sharing this with you to elicit kudos? Sure! Why not? We all love approval. But I do these things because I’m able to do them and because of my frustration with the way we and science are being treated today. We HAVE TO BEAT THIS THING SOMEHOW! I’m genuinely afraid of where it’s all leading
      Thanks again Aussie!

      50

  • #
    nb

    Second year running the average high and low temperatures in my neck of the woods has dropped. Average highs and lows are:
    2017-18: High = 19.5, Low = 9.7.
    2018-19: High = 19.3; Low = 9.5
    2019-20: High = 18.4; Low = 9.3
    Method:
    BOM daily highs and lows;
    sum of highs for year, sum of lows for year;
    divide each sum by number of days.

    190

    • #

      You obviously need to remeasure. There must have been a huge uptick , really huge.

      60

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Don’t you need to homogenise (add a fudge figure) then model the results ?

      120

      • #
        Analitik

        No, the proper technique is to start with the desired result and work back to find the adjustments needed for the model to produce them from the raw measurements. Back in uni, we used to refer to these as the “rig’s constants”

        80

        • #
          Bill In Oz

          All ‘rigged’ or homogenised
          Why argue about the words used to describe a crap process ?.

          12

        • #
          StephenP

          We called it ‘cooking the results’.

          20

        • #
          StephenP

          [Duplicate]AD

          10

        • #
          Broadlands

          A researcher at the CRU that provides statistics on climate change to the United Nations has admitted in a confidential memo that the database at the CRU in England is a hopeless mess – that includes faked, missing and unreliable data.

          “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series AFTER adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

          00

    • #
      William

      Don’t panic about a cooling climate nb, ACORN-Sat 3 will correct this glaring error at your location in due course, in a few years time you will be able to look back at those hot balmy days that just kept getting warmer.

      30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I haven’t gone to as much trouble as nb did, but locally over the last four or so years average maxima have been consistently higher than the average from base about 1991. Last summer the average max was much higher, 3+ degrees for several months and 5.2 degrees for December.

      A chart shown here from Jennifer Marohasy showed a 3 degree spike in the summer of 1938/1939 (?), which returned to average the year after.

      So, here at least, this summer’s extraordinary figures are not without precedent.

      In recent months we are running below average.

      20

  • #
    Strop

    Senator Gerard Rennick was on Outsiders last Sunday discussing the BOM’s observation and homogenisation practices.
    7min video.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFSUiSHEous

    180

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      He spoke very well, and it’s good that this sort of presentation is allowed on Australian media.

      He kept to the message that he is critical of the scientific methodology and that this needs examining.

      132

      • #
        Steve of Cornubia

        I have lost count of the number of times my hopes have been raised by a conservative pollie talking tough about the issues that the Left has hijacked: climate change, immigration, ballooning public service, excessive and economically-destructive environmental regulation, energy policy, etc. But always, without exception what follows is … zip, nada, zilch. Even Tony Abbott folded at the first sight of resistance.

        As the saying goes, “Words are cheap.”

        100

        • #

          To provocatively overgeneralize:

          on the left, the heroes are lionized not criticized, and the crowds gather to support them on the merest pretext and no one keeps a score of actual outcomes.

          On the right, the good guys face the bullying throng on their own. Then we wonder why they fold.

          140

          • #
            Steve of Cornubia

            Very true and a phenomenon I have pointed out for years now. One of the defining differences between Left and Right is that those on the Left are much more tribal, seeing themselves as part of a collective keen to mobilise on command. The typical conservative however,sees himself/herself as an individual with individual responsibilities. We do not easily and naturally form into tribes and gangs, so mobilising the Right is pretty near impossible.

            This tendency to resist ‘ganging up’ puts our political representatives at a disadvantage, because when the poor buggers look over their shoulder, there’s nobody there.

            71

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Tony Abbott got cut off half way.

            He was assembling a litany of blocked policies to put to a double dissolution.

            His double dissolution got hijacked and squandered.

            40

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          True, but at least this bloke pushed the message.

          41

          • #
            Analitik

            Yep, hope for the best but be prepared for disappointment is the way I look at all “conservative” politicians and commentators when energy and climate are discussed

            40

        • #
          Dennis

          PM Abbott did not “fold”.

          He recommended to his Cabinet that an independent audit be conducted at the BoM, due diligence, following the Minister for BoM reporting on a complaint from Dr Jennifer Marohasy and colleagues.

          The motion was lost by a slim majority, and in September 2015 he lost the leadership by a similar majority.

          60

          • #
            Steve of Cornubia

            Don’t get me wrong, because I have a lot of respect for Tony and would love to see him back, but as the Leader, it was up to him to command the party and if he couldn’t do that, he wasn’t really the leader. Maybe nobody really is these days. Trump is giving it a red hot go though.

            We need an Aussie Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Nothing against Morrison, but he doesn’t measure up against Howard, let alone Maggie.

            51

  • #

    I can’t really visualise the physical dimensions of a 60 lite box rather than a 230 lite screen. Can anyone help? Is the equipment inside the modern ones more or less sensitive than the equipment used in the 230 version?

    20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      One cubic litre is 10cm or 4 inches on all sides, go to a shop selling esky’s and compare the various sizes, also 60 litres is the space between a warmists ears.

      110

    • #
      Lawrie

      Put simply the older screen is four times bigger than the modern one. Another way to look at it is to pack 60 one litre milk bottles together and then to do the same with 230 one litre bottles. Big difference.

      20

      • #
        tonyb

        Lawrie

        I will go to my local supermarket and use their 1 litre cartons to make the stack and set it up on the floor. I will tell them that lawrie sent me and that it would be alright to do it. :)

        30

  • #
    Broadie

    Are the recent record low temperatures experienced in Queensland, records in comparison to the homogenised BOM data set or to the instrumental records Dr. Bill Johnson is referencing here?

    If these are records against the ‘adjusted for unknown reasons’ BOM homogenisation where earlier daily maximums have been lowered then they were of greater significance. Was the same averaging applied to the instrumental records as occurred for the record lows in Thredbo in recent years?

    The Harryreadme file of the Climategate emails I remember as having expressed exasperation at the state of the Australian data set and Bill has exposed these skeletons in the cupboard here. Great work!

    151

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      ‘Record’ low temperatures are either values for individual stations, like Brisbane airport for example, which hasn’t been where it is for all of its life; or they are Australian Water Availability Project ‘surfaces’ – daily temperature projected over the landscape using a modelling technique, which takes into account the geographical distribution of reporting stations for the day and derives a weighted value for Brisbane, Ipswich .. wherever. I don’t know which values they are actually talking about, but those pretty maps they show on the ABC what-passes-for-news-these-days are AWAP.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Thanks Jo and Bill Johnston for the work, effort and science that has gone into revealing the finer detail of the BOM drama.

    It details the mismanagement that is an insult to all Australians and surely must prompt revulsion in all those who value science.

    Sadly this is just another bump in the Rocky road of Australian government.

    With our publicly funded Media off the tracks; our national education system white anted from top to bottom and the weird New ecology religion based on CO2, we are Not in good shape.

    With that background we now look at the BOM.

    There’s absolutely no reason on Earth to take old readings from the deep past and “combine” them with slightly newer temperature records and then with even more recent ” current ” “electronic” temps.

    The weather is basically, the weather, and can vary in the atmosphere and nearer ground for so many reasons that the current “amalgamation” of historical data has no real obvious value apart from keeping employees at BOM occupied.

    There is no benefit to “combining” these records and no chapter in the scientific method that would endorse what has been done to our precious records accumulated over two centuries by smart, diligent, involved observers and recorders. Their records are a national treasure.

    That these records have been given what is essentially a Political treatment and then lost or destroyed is an affront to the Nation’s History.

    There are undoubtedly many good public service employees in federal, state and local governments who do great work but who are finding that their job is being tarnished by the sort of behaviour seen in the BOM.

    There is no doubt at all as to what the driving force behind this is.

    When attention is deliberately diverted towards something new, like “homogenized data”, you can be sure that something else is going on that doesn’t benefit the Taxpayers.

    Think about the seven tonnes of Gold that was sent to the Great Big Barrier Reef Foundation, Then consider our Submarines.

    Yes; they really do think we are Stupid.

    One of the most obvious signals comes from the continued erection of Wind and Solar farms: a continued affront to logic, science, economics, taxpayers and strangely, The Environment.

    We don’t need another four volume Royal Commission with a condensed 400 page summary to tell us we are being taken for a ride.

    The question is, what do we do about it.

    KK

    282

    • #

      I thought it was a criminal offence to alter records. I am sure it is in Queensland which also has a Public Sector Ethics Act which applies to all government organisation including local government, all educational establishments (eg TAFEs and Universities) and contractors to the public sector.

      70

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I thought it was a criminal offence to alter records.”

        Not if you are a far-left operative pushing a leftist cause.

        It gets you a promotion instead.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        No, it’s only a criminal offence to be caught out doing it without a suitably pseudoscientific reason.

        30

  • #
    AndyG55

    Let’s not forget Ken’s work at exposing nearly half of all BOM sites as being totally UNFIT for purpose.

    270

  • #
    AndyG55

    Reminds me of one Qld site discussed here. On a pier, near a metal roof.. iirc.

    Horrid siting, but it had been CONSTANTLY horrible

    And it had basically ZERO trend.

    Its the massive changes around site, like brick walls and air-conditioners, and in repositioning that cause the real problems.

    131

  • #
    Rafe Champion

    On the corruption of the institutions, see this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/04/the-conversation-climate-change-is-the-most-important-mission-for-universities/

    and an alarming comment in the thread

    I had occasion to look at one of the members of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University given his appointment to the Binskin Royal Commission into the recent bushfires.
    I am sure that Professor Andrew Macintosh, the appointee, is well qualified, genuine and industrious and I mean to cast no aspersions against him.
    However, what staggered me was the sheer number of members of the Climate Change Institute at ANU (some 302 academics) and the breadth of activities and policy reach by this group.
    It dwarfs the more notorious University of New South Wales, I believe.
    I would invite you to examine their site if you have not already done so.
    From their substantial involvement in the UN IPCC at Madrid to the spread of policy ideas at the level of the smallest local communities, the extent of what I might term “infiltration” is enormously depressing.
    If the theory of CAGW is misconceived and the “climate crisis” is nonsense, what a waste of Human Resources.
    And this is one of innumerable universities worldwide!

    200

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    If you move a station to a new location you would expect a step change in the readings, not a gradual slope.
    Add to the fact that this warming trend is global and I can only conclude that this is just follows the tobacco lobby’s well worn playbook.

    326

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Exactly.

      Let’s all have a ciggy and relax.

      61

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Tobacco lobby? Two words: Al Gore.

        97% of climate doctors prefer camels. One hump or two?

        121

        • #

          Peter, read his paper, see his past posts. He finds step changes and flat trends in between the moves. Bill does incredibly detailed graphs. Sometimes he finds a step change and then checks historic documents for site shift. The step changes are a useful way to pin down the right year to look for a move.

          Bill, uniquely, looks at rainfall trends per degree of warming and finds that these change when stations move. In other words, the new site collects a similar amount of rain in the gauge but the temperatures are warmer or cooler.

          80

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Very good, but what you call flat I would call a slope. I don’t see how rainfall and temperature are correlated in the tropics.
            Finally temps are rising globally in and it is seen in the satellite, and SAT data.
            Your comments are correct in the OCD version of weather records, which is relatively unimportant, as you say ‘thermometers which measure to a 10th of a degree’ is irrelevant to a species which can tolerate a 35 degree temp band without any real problems.

            The trend is obvious, finding fault in the minutiae of temperature records does not reverse that.

            011

            • #
              AndyG55

              Temps are rising because of the Grand solar maximum, and less tropical cloud cover heating oceans.

              This manifests as the ONLY atmospheric warming being at El Nino events.

              The planet is probably no warmer now than it was around 1940, and is certainly less warm than the MWP, the Roman era and the first 7000 years of the current interglacial.

              As you have continually shown, there is no evidence that human released CO2 or any other CO2 has any effect on climate.

              The “Global” average surface temperature put forward by the likes of GISS and its mates, is a meaningless fabrication.

              It is based on a farcical amount of BAD DATA and assisted by ideology base “adjustments”.

              90

            • #
              Bill In Oz

              Nothing is ‘obvious’ Peter.
              Except that BOM have cooked their weather stations.
              So the data derived from them is all cr@p.

              I wonder, for a start, when BOM are going to work out that
              The Mt Barker BOM weather station is measuring
              The temperature of the air pumped out of the home owners Fujitsu air conditioner 2 meters away.

              So very professional they are at the bloody BOM !

              50

            • #
              Steve of Cornubia

              “The trend is obvious, finding fault in the minutiae of temperature records does not reverse that.”

              So, for followers of the Holy Church of Warming, itsty bitsy increases in temp are sufficient to warrant a complete redesign of western civilisation and driving millions of people into energy poverty, but when itsty bitsy changes don’t support warming, they are classified as inconsequential “minutiae”

              Got it.

              30

    • #
      AndyG55

      No, the warming trend is NOT global

      Some places warming (mainly urban areas or airports)

      Some places cooling or staying the same.

      There was no atmospheric warming from 1980-1997 or from 2001 -2015

      Certainly, places unaffected by tainted urban situations show temperature less than or similar to the 1930s/40s after a cool period in the 1960,70′s

      But don’t let actual FACTS get in the way of your mis-information.

      270

    • #
      Broadie

      Mind the step Peter Fitz.

      The Global Warming Science is claiming a warming of about a degree over one hundred years. Such a step would be difficult to discern from the usual daily variations. Anyone with any background in science would expect a change would require both measuring devices to be run in parallel and an adjustment made to account for any difference. An accepted adjustment could be made using models from other similar changes and this should be explained within the data set.

      Add to the fact that this warming trend is global

      Where is the warming fact? In the tree ring splice? In a solitary tree in the Yamal series? Visit Climate Audit, Stephen McIntyre is searching for your ‘fact’.

      Nice of you to out yourself with this comment. The tobacco lobby? Really?

      112

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Good for you, I’ll give you a distinction in cherry picking.

        every single temperature series shows that global warming is a fact. A point supported by the editor of this blog. What is now contested, is the influence of man.

        117

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Embarrassing.

          41

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Peter the margin for error from BOM’s hottest year ever is how much ?

          70

        • #
          el gordo

          Global warming is real, as Roy Spencer illustrates.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2020_v6.jpg

          Ocean warming is caused by geothermal activity, true or false?

          12

          • #
            Broadie

            Thanks el gordo. I stand corrected, the world most likely has been warming since the little ice age. Let us hope this continues and as Shakespear laments.

            And crows are fatted with the murrion flock; The nine men’s morris is fill’d up with mud, And the quaint mazes in the wanton green, For lack of tread, are undistinguishable.” The animals in the fields can’t help make the crops grow, the farmer’s work is also useless, the corn rots before the corn silk has appeared on the ears.

            Global ccoling is for the birds / vultures.

            61

            • #
              el gordo

              Yes, the climate has been warming since the LIA, but there is a great deal we do not know. It may turn out that the earth will experience a brief cooling, similar to the 1950s and 60s, then temperatures could take off again.

              The argument would be that natural variability momentarily overwhelmed the positive feedback caused by increasing CO2.

              40

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘What is now contested, is the influence of man.’

          Correct again.

          From the micro scale of adjustments by biased individuals to the dizzy heights of atmospheric science, we see the hand of man. All carried along in a wave of enlightened self interest.

          CO2 does not cause global warming and any attempt to mitigate its use is a crime against humanity.

          50

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          Not true Peter – happy for you to send me an email with the stations you have in mind (scientistATbomwatch.com.au). You could start with Townsville for instance; or Cairns; no .. Darwin, say; Charleville, or Launceston; Meekatharra – that’s a classic old Aeradio site, so is Oodnadatta; Canberra (done that!); Halls Creek; what about the wind-profiler array at Coffs Harbour; the effect of moving the site at Cobar; or at RAAF Laverton where it was originally on the roof of the Meteorological Services building; or at Bourke (done that too); gravel mulching the site at Womerra, spraying-out the grass all over the place; knocking down the post office at Point Perpendicular and Gabo Island ….

          Cheers,

          Bill

          90

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Thanks Bill, but I fail to see the point. Every temperature series in the world is showing warming. Humans can not accurately tell the difference between 20 and 21C.
            The world meteorological organisation classifieds weather stations in to 5 groups (those you have identified would fall into the lower groups)
            https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/SitingClassif/CIMO_Guide_2014_en_I_1-2_Annex_1B.pdf
            does it matter? not to me, a hot day is a hot day. The temp measurement of even a perfect site is still just one point, and that is smeared over the surrounding area.
            If the BOM trends did not agree with the global observations then I would have a qualm, but they don’t

            19

            • #
              AndyG55

              UAH is matches NOAA’s own satellites and the unadjusted balloon data.

              Both show ZERO WARMING apart from El Nino events.

              You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that human have anything to to with the slight but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years.

              You have nothing but empty comments.

              90

            • #
              AndyG55

              “and that is smeared over the surrounding area.”

              Yep those urban heat island temperatures are smeared over huge areas where they do not apply, even stations hundreds of km away

              Thanks for pointing that out. :-)

              90

            • #
              AndyG55

              Current grid electricity

              NSW: Black COAL 93%, Gas 4%, Hydro 2%, solar 0%, Wind 2%

              Vic: Brown COAL 68%, Gas 8%, Hydro 24% wind and solar ZERO%

              Qld: Black COAL 74%, Gas 16%, Hydro 2%, solar 0%, Wind 2%

              And this is the really funny one…

              South Australia.. Gas 98% Wind ZERO% (-2MW), solar 2%

              if the wind doesn’t pick up as solar drops, gas will be carrying 100% of South Australia’s electricity supply

              I see two dead horses in that lot.. guess what they are ;-)

              110

            • #
              AndyG55

              LOL, are you saying you are surprise BOM’s data fabrications match other series, like GISS?

              Given the state of climate science I would be surprised if the didn’t.

              Did you know that May in Australia was the 25th warmest May in 42 years. !

              40

            • #
              Bill Johnston

              Thanks Peter,

              I have so far shown three important datasets used in part to convince taxpayers to shovel money at the Great Barrier Reef – plus more. Taken as raw data, yes they all show trends; however those trends are entirely due to site moves and changes that the Bureau claims never happened.

              It is not possible that the Bureau was not aware of the changes. They would have required negotiations with DCA, and the RAAF. Blokes didn’t just go out with a shovel one day and decide to move the site; it required approval of expenditure; the work was done on requisition by the Department of Public Works (Cwth) … it was a process that took a year or more. The 1970 move at Townsville took 5-years to plan and implement; the site move that didn’t happen at Cairns took 18 months, then at the last minute files at the National Archives show they changed their mind … and a couple of years later moved the site somewhere else.

              Furthermore Peter this is just a sample … I’ll roll more analyses as time goes by. If you are a data person and not just here for a whinge – go to BoMwatch.com.au – download individual site analyses – you can email me there and tell me of your concerns.

              I’ve catered for everybody – if you are not a data person, read the pictures or chase the links – there are aerodrome plans and maps showing where the original sites were; there are aerials and oblique photos and all are referenced or acknowledged.

              If you cant read data or understand pictures then I can’t help you except to suggest you take up reading tea-leaves; but then again …

              It is just simply not possible to tease legitimate trends from temperatures measured in Stevenson screens 1.2 metres above the ground!

              Cheers,

              Bill

              70

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                Bill, you probably know of Ken Stewart’s work on the BOM’s weather stations.
                of the 729 or so that he was able to examine, 300 did not even meet the BOM’s own siting guidelines
                And thus should never have been used as part of BOM’s ‘evidence’ for any climate change.
                From memory a further 200 were marginal as regards the BOM’s own siting guidelines.

                Here is the complete list of Failed BOM weather stations

                https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/the-wacky-world-of-weather-stations-index/

                21

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                It’s interesting, but it’s not a debunking of the gla always trend.

                05

              • #
                AndyG55

                No but it is showing that its mostly based on fabrication and bad data.

                As you continue to show, there is no evidence of human cause in any REAL global warming.

                Plenty of evidence of FABRICATED warming though… which you choose to deny.

                Only real warming has come at El Nino events.

                Earth is currently significantly COOLER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                Remember that Ken showed that around 50% of Australian surface temperature sites were UNFIT FOR PURPOSE.

                So of course that are what you put your belief in, Peter, unfit for purpose.

                America is not much better, and those are the places where you would expect some sort of functional surface data.. but it really doesn’t exist, does it.

                One can only imagine just HOW BAD the rest of the Global surface stations are, it really is a massive case of GARBAGE IN,, and utter garbage out.

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                “If you cant read data or understand pictures then I can’t help you”

                He can read and see pictures.. he just chooses to ignore anything that could hurt his ideology.

                Yes, he is past help, refusing to comprehend even very basic science and logic.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                “gla always “

                Is that what you have been drinking !

                30

            • #
              AndyG55

              “a hot day is a hot day”

              And you should learn to enjoy it instead of moping around in AGW enforced misery and panic.

              20

    • #
      Murray Shaw

      As would occur with the change fromMercury in Glass thermometers to the new digitalTensiometer thermometers. The question has never been asked, “were the old MIG thermometers run alongside the new digit equipment to measure any discrepancy”, or were the old MIGs just unscrewed and tossed over the shoulder

      40

    • #
      R.B.

      For Ditzy, as if it matters.
      Mildura airport http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
      If you look at the monthly average max temperatures, you can see a step up around 2000.

      Combine min and max, and use anomalies, the step up looks gradual.

      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151971

      And you will know see that they combine the PO and airport (airport starts mid 40s) even though they analyse the PO separately.

      If you look at the just monthly max, this supposed need for step corrections at 1970 and around the 80s is not obvious. But the obvious need for a step down doesn’t appear in the, inappropriately named, BEST.

      10

  • #
    Edwina

    Site changes have occurred in Brisbane too. The original site begun in the 1800s was beside Wickham Terrace, Spring Hill. It was next to the Trades Hall not far from the old windmill, the oldest building in Brisbane.

    The site was demolished for a high rise in the 1980s.

    A new site was established at the new Brisbane airport in 1988. It was embarrassing because the sea breezes lowered the usual maximum temperatures. In fact they often registered lower than Sydney’s which is recorded in its CBD.

    So in 1999 the site was moved again to Raymond Park, Kangaroo Point. This is next to a 6 lane busy Main Street to the Story Bridge and busy Baines street.

    Now I show my age. I lived there as a kid up to 12 years old only 200 metres from the park. It was a hot place to play there with no sea breezes, etc. Also there was never any frost even on the coldest mornings that we felt. But when our family moved to near Mt Gravatt we often saw light frosts during cold winter months.

    I say all this to point out that the present weather recording site is the warmest of the 3 sites used for Brisbane over the years.

    180

    • #

      Thanks Edwina,

      I took a photo of the Raymond Park site a few years ago; at the time I noticed some parts of the park were being watered.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      90

  • #
    Another Ian

    What’s the betting?

    “STM* Meeting BOM Headquarters 10 am”

    (STM* – shoot the messager)

    31

  • #
    Maptram

    I started looking at Deniliquin when I found that there are records going back to 1858 and that there is some overlap when sites changed.

    For Deniliquin, the BOM operated a site at the Visitor Information Centre from 1858 until 2003 and at the Airport from 1997 so there is some overlap and records can be compared. From 1997 until 2003 the Airport records show temperatures to in whole, I presume nearest, °C. The Visitor Centre records are shown to the first decimal.

    After 2003, when the visitor centre site closed, Airport data has been recorded to the first decimal. Made me think that perhaps the BOM was providing weather detail at the Airport for aircraft take off and landing and at the Visitor Centre for other purposes, and when one site had to go as a cost cutting measure, the Airport site was retained.

    The BOM provides observations, normally half hourly, but sometimes more frequently, for the previous 72 hours as well as the Climate Data Online record. I have noticed that the long term data maximum temperatures are always between 0.1°C and 2°C higher than the observations but long term data doesn’t show a time. For minimum temperatures the Long term data is usually between 0°C and 0.3°C lower that the minimum observed temperature.

    I also noticed that the BOM has operated two sites at Albury Airport. No 72146 opened in 1973 and closed in 2007. Records from 1983 are available. No 72160 opened in 1993 and still operates, so data from the two sites can be compared.

    60

    • #
      Another Ian

      FYI

      There is another “single down” at Charleville

      Currently Charleville Airport but that only started in 1942.

      Charleville Post Office started around 1875 and ran till 1959 so there is overlap there too.

      30

    • #
      Maptram

      Perhaps there is another issue, not sure if it’s good or bad, but it would cast further doubt on BOM’s records which are used as proof of global warming.

      The data for the Deniliquin Visitor Information Centre, all the way back to 1858, is shown in °C accurate to 0.1°C. The data for the Airport site, is shown in °C, accurate to the nearest 1°C from when it opened in 1997 until 2003, when the Visitor Information Centre site stopped recording temperature data, then accurate to 0.1°C from then to now. The Visitor Information Centre site still shows as open but only rainfall is shown.

      Perhaps the data back to 1858 was recorded in °F, accurate to the nearest whole °F and was converted to °C sometime after the changeover occurred. If that’s correct, there is inaccuracy in the data.

      10

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      There was no Visitor Information Centre at Deniliquin in 1858 – the site was at the post office; neither is likely that Fahrenheit thermometers were read to the equivalane of 0.1 DegC accuracy.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      30

      • #
        Maptram

        Thanks Bill. When I go to the the BOM’s Climate Data Online website, for Deniliquin, the data shows as Station:Deniliquin (Visitor Information Centre)Number: 74128 Opened: 1858. Nothing about moving from the Post Office. The point I was trying to make about the measurements was that they were recorded in °F to the nearest whole number and at some stage, were converted to °C at 0.1°C accuracy.

        30

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          There is more to data than meets the eye, including alternative statistics such as annual medians; skew, kurtosis, variance etc. and also ratios relative to benchmarks such as the ratio of upper and lower extremes above/less than thresholds. Following from discussions years ago with Chris at http://www.waclimate.net/ I routinely include a data-quality check when summarising daily data into annual timeseries. The check is based on ’roundings’ – the decimal portion of daily readings, which indexes precision.

          Step-changes in precision are mostly indicative of a change in observer or protocol, sometimes because a station moved say from a post office to a met-station, but also if data were in-filled (poor data were replaced by manufactured data for instance). I’ll leave you to check, but at Deni there were five ‘precision’ groups. Changes were in (about) 1915, 1941, 1968 and 1991.

          Remember also that Fahrenheit is a more sensitive scale than Celsius. Between freezing and boiling there are 100 Celsius divisions compared with 180 divisions for Fahrenheit; hence that 1.8 conversion factor.

          Cheers,

          Bill

          20

  • #
    John in Oz

    I am in agreement with the tone of this blog but have an issue with the blink comparison photos showing site changes at Gladstone.

    Both photos are attributed to Google Earth which I am fairly sure was not around in 1965.

    The 1965 photo could be a BOM homogenised one though.

    20

  • #
    Michael Hammer

    Hmm temperature to 1/10 of a degree! How easy is it to measure temperature to 1/10 of a degree over a reasonable area and a period of years? Thought I would do a very simple experiment. It is now 9:52 am here in Melbourne on a bright sunny calm day. The BOM has a number of sites (14) measuring temperature in the Melbourne area – say over a region about 40km in radius – much less separation than the sites they homogenise. So I collected the current temperature for each site and computed the mean and standard deviation. The result, mean 7.9C standard deviation 1.2C. That means we can be 68% confident that the average temperature is 7.9 +-1.2C and 95% confident that the average is 7.9 +- 2.4C. Of course this is for data all collected at the same instant in time using similar certified equipment, over about 40km radius, not comparing data collected decades apart over an region of 100′s of km.

    Forget about 0.1C the variation. Even at one instant in time over a small area on a calm day the uncertainty is significantly more than the total claimed warming over the last 50 years; and that’s before allowing for 50 years worth of equipment changes, site changes, land use changes. It makes a mockery of the report.

    180

  • #
    bulldust

    Off topic, I know – but in case it hasn’t been mentioned before, doctors in Italy are saying the CCP virus appears to have lost its potency:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus/new-coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-doctor-says-idUSKBN2370OQ

    Needless to say. the WHO immediately leapt into action to negate this view:

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-virus-potent-italian-doctor.html

    42

  • #
    Destroyer D69

    At Mackay airport the airport temp, measured at the airport site outside the fire station, was always at least 5 degrees above the BOM temp from the station near the harbour on Mount Basset, 100 ft above sea level and in direct exposure to sea breezes. This difference was obvious in the data given to pilots in Met info for Mackay.

    50

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Jo, thank goodness we are back to Climate topics. I was getting sick of Corona/Chinese/Covid-19 virus discussions. We know it can’t be too serious (sarc) when our State Premiers, and their overzealous police force, has decided left-wing protests are now OK. Whereas, funerals, weddings, Christenings and a few people in a restaurant are not.

    121

  • #
    Lindsay Moore

    The accuracy and reliability of the data has and will always be an arguing point and thus an issue. The use of “average temperature as the metric of choice in Climate Change science has led us into a scientific cul de sac..Any changes in the value are not specific as there can be multiple factors affecting it, not to mention the the fact that a lot (most?)of the historical data is not fit for purpose (thus requiring adjustments!)
    Surely the appropriate metric is Tmax-Tmin which is a measurement over time of the heat trapping capability of the atmosphere. When you weed out the records affected by UHI, the effect of the enhanced greenhouse effect due to elevated CO 2 can be revealed and measured. If heat is trapped Tmin must surely rise. This is also a daily record therefore can’t be fiddled.
    Best place in the World to look at this is central Aus (no oceans, low humidity, high diurnal variation etc)
    Easy to check using BOM data…. no reduction in Tmax-Tmin therefore NO additional heat trapped. Simple

    20

  • #
    Rolf

    The world is in lock down. Emitting a fraction of the dangerous climate gas co2. Mauna Loa still records CO2 going up as usual. This probably show the raise in co2 is natural ? As is the change in temperature everywhere !

    60

  • #
    Broadlands

    It’s the surface water temperatures that count, not the air values.

    https://seatemperature.info/great-barrier-reef-water-temperature.html

    There have been no abnormal values associated with coral ‘bleaching’.

    00