A Look at the Australian Climate Network

The "Climate Data Derivatives" Market

2010-04-11T12:16:00.005+10:00

To understand how the CSIRO+BoM can make the assertion that "all of Australia has experienced warming over the past 50 years" it is essential to pay close attention to the language used in the introductory paragraph of their brochure:

Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C.

The key is in the words "mean temperature", which is also used in the caption accompanying the Figure on page 1 ("Trend in mean temperature 1960-2009 (ºC/decade)"). To understand the precise significance of this term "mean temperature" requires a bit of digging.

Firstly, a bit of history. The BoM maintains a network of weather observation station across Australia. These stations (and their data) can be accessed from the following web page:
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/index.shtml

The BoM also maintains a Reference Climate Station (RCS) network. This is the so-called "high quality, long-term climate monitoring" stations, which are in fact a subset of 103 of the weather observation stations detailed above. These RCS stations can be access from the following web page:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml

When accessing the underlying data for these weather observation stations, the navigation ultimately takes you to the same search-engine page, namely:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml

On this page, there are a number of options as to the temperature data series that can be searched, as follows:

The options available are:

- Mean maximum temperature
- Mean minimum temperature
- Highest temperature
- Lowest maximum temperature
- Highest minimum temperature
- Lowest temperature

Hmmm ... no "Mean temperature" search option.

It turns out that the BoM also maintains what it calls the "Australian high-quality climate site networks". This is accessible from the following web page:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi

Why do we need yet another "high-quality" climate data network, you ask? The answer can be found on their explanatory page:

Several high-quality (or homogenised) observational datasets have been developed to identify, monitor and attribute changes in the Australian climate. These datasets have been produced using a variety of quality control and correction techniques.

Interesting. It's not a "real" weather station network after all. It is a "climate data manufacturing" facility. And this is where they cook up the "mean temperatures" that they quote in their brochure.

To understand just how this climate data manufacturing process works, it is instructive to compare and contrast the last three stations that were examined in Queensland District 4 yesterday, namely:

031011 - Cairns Aero (1941)
032004 - Cardwell Marine Pde (1871)
032025 - Innisfail (1881)

We shall examine and compare the data that is obtainable for these three stations from both the Weather Observation stations network, and the "High-Quality Homogenised" climate data networks.

031011 - Cairns Aero (1941)

As we saw previously, the Cairns Airport station was established in 1941 and weather data is more or less continuously available from this site from 1942 onwards. When we look at the "Annual mean maximum temperature" graph, we see that temperatures were more or less stable for the first 40 years, then took a small upward jump when the airport was extended and the international airport opened:

However, once the data fabricators have had a chance to play with the data, they concoct an "Annual mean temperature" graph which paints a completely different story:

In this graph we see that the "annual mean temperature" has been climbing steadily since 1942.

Also fascinating to see is the temperature "spike" in the mid-1920s. Given that this station didn't open until 1941, one wonders where this additional 30 years' worth of data has materialised from. Presumably this is not a difficult problem to a competent "homogeniser".

However, if we look at the GISS "adjusted" data for Cairns Airport, we can perhaps see why this bogus data for the years 1910 to 1941 has been grafted on. The addition of this spurious earlier data, which is then "adjusted" downwards, turns what was a 0.18ºC/century gradient into a 0.63ºC/century gradient.

This is climate data baking at its very best!

032004 - Cardwell Marine Pde (1871)

Cardwell is another interesting subject to examine closer. When we look at the "Annual mean maximum temperature" graph, we see that there are some missing early years of data, and that there has been a noticable decrease since the late 1980s.

However, once the "homogenisers" have worked on the data, we again see a different picture. Who would think that the following graph represents exactly the same station as above?

032025 - Innisfail (1881)

Cardwell is another interesting subject to examine closer. When we look at the "Annual mean maximum temperature" graph, we see that the temperature trended up to a peak around 1950, dropped significantly over the next ten years, and has been more or less stable since then.

The homogenisers see a completely different history, though, as illustrated in the following graph. To them it is all "up".

There is an endless series of "high-quality" homogenised stations that could be examined in this fashion - all with the same result. However, my favourite so far is 029063 - Normanton Airport. The station was only opened in 2001, yet here is its graph with 100 years of homogenised data:

The really curious thing about this graph is - if you're prepared to go to the trouble of manufacturing 90 years worth of historical data, why baulk at cooking up the last five years' worth?

Summary:

If an accountant were to use these same methods in preparing financial reports, he would surely go to jail for his efforts. And yet this obvious data manipulation seems to be the mainstay of modern "Climate Scientology". It bears similarities to the financial manipulation that underlies the derivatives market in that the end product is almost unrecognisable from the data on which it is based. One wonders whether this "homogenised data" might better be labelled "Climate Data Derivatives".

Whatever claims the BoM may have to operating an efficient weather station network, it is all for nothing when they let their data disappear into this cesspool of "homogenisation". As we can see from this small sample, none of the "homogenised" records bears any resemblance to the graphs produced from the presumably more realistic station data records. And when a whole century's worth of "homogenised" data can be produced out of thin air, one has to ask - "what happened to the quality assurance procedures we were told about".

Cairns - Making Numbers Work For You

2010-04-10T11:02:00.001+10:00

The Queensland District 4 (North Tropical Coast and Tablelands) lists twelve weather observation stations, of which ten have historical data.

Two of these stations (032004 - Cardwell, and 032025 - Innisfail) have temperature data records which go back as far as 1908. Both of them show no significant warming over the last 100 years.

The Cairns Airport station, on the other hand, was only commissioned in 1941 and, at first glance, indicates a period of warming beginning in the mid-1980s and extending through to current times.

It will come as no surprise, then, that Cairns Airport is the station that has been selected as the District 4 representative in the RCS network.

The following is a complete list of the weather observation stations in District 4.

031011 - Cairns Aero (1941) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1942 (1 year missing)
031037 - Low Isles Lighthouse (1887) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1967 (80 years missing)
031192 - Green Island (1992) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1993 (1 year missing)
031209 - Cooktown Airport (2000) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 2000
031210 - Mareeba Airport (2000) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 2000
031213 - Cape Flattery (2003) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 2003
032004 - Cardwell Marine Pde (1871) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1907 (36 years missing)
032025 - Innisfail (1881) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1908 (27 years missing)
032037 - South Johnstone (1920) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1944 (24 years missing)
032141 - Lucinda Point (1980) - [data] [graph] - Data start date: 1980
200845 - Norman Reef (1993) - [no data]
200846 - Moore Reef (1993) - [no data]

The BoM represents Cairns Aero as a "rural" weather station - certainly the photo in the station record gives that impression. But just how "rural" is Cairns Aero?

Google Earth shows that the weather station is situated adjacent to the main runway of Cairns Airport, which in turn is less than 6 km from the centre of Cairns itself, a fairly densely populated urban centre:

Cairns and its surrounding district has undergone rapid growth since the late 1970s - its population having doubled in this period, as indicated by statistics taken from Wikipedia:

A significant part of this growth has been fueled by tourism - which received a major boost when the Cairns airport was extended and upgraded to an international airport in the early 1980s.

If we check the Cairns Airport website (http://www.cairnsairport.com.au/airport-history) we note the following significant dates:

1982: Stage 1 redevelopment begins - Runway lengthened to 2600m
1984: Completion of Stage 1 - Dual international and domestic terminals opened.

Following the completion of this redevelopment, Cairns Airport has grown to become the seventh busiest airport in Australia.

No surprise, then, that the weather station adjacent to this runway should record temperature increases during the period when air traffic movements increased to a level which generated this growth:

Summary:

Once again, Cairns Airport demonstrates the problem of cherry picking "data" to support a narrative. Two more representative rural weather stations in this district (Innisfail and Cardwell) - both with much longer data histories - have been passed over, presumably because they support the wrong narrative. Instead, a station which is located at one of Australia's fastest-growing airports, in one of its fastest-growing regional centres - has been selected. Again, presumably because it provides some support for the politically correct narrative.

Only if we ignore all the substantial population and infrastructure growth over the last 30 years does the Cairns Aero weather station data provide any support for the CSIRO+BoM Climate brochure assertion of temperature increase over the last 50 years. All it demonstrates is that Cairns has, indeed, been at the epicentre of a remarkable explosion in the tourist industry during this period. A look at the records for Innisfail and Cardwell provides the proof - if indeed any more is required.

Richmond - More Confusion

2010-04-07T22:47:00.001+10:00

The Queensland District 3 (Northern Goldfields and UpperFlinders) lists only four "everyday" weather observation stations. All four are airports, and the oldest has measurements only back as far as 1992. The stations are as follows:

030022 - Hughenden - [data] [graph]
030124 - Georgetown - [data] [graph]
030161 - Richmond - [data] [graph]
034084 - Charters Towers - [data] [graph]

And again, there is a disconnect between the "everyday" weather stations and the RCS "high quality" stations, which includes:

030045 - Richmond Post Office - [data] [graph]

Because all four of these stations have less than 20 years worth of data, none of them would satisfy the BoM's objective of "high quality and long climate records", and accordingly Richmond Post Office has been selected as the RCS station for this district.

A couple of observations can be made about this Richmond PO station. Firstly, as was highlighted in the "More Dodgy Post Offices" item, the siting of this station does not appear to meet CRN1 standards, with paved roads on all boundaries.

Secondly, in spite of this, where is the warming that the CSIRO+BoM have noted in their Climate brochure?

At best, this graph illustrates continuity or perhaps a slight cooling over the 100 year period.

Summary

From a quality assurance point of view, it is suprising that a station can qualify as a "high quality" RCS station, but not be part of the everyday weather observation station network. Yet this is exactly what we find for both Queensland District 2 ("Burketown PO") and now also for this "Richmond PO" in adjoining District 3.

Furthermore, the CSIRO+BoM Climate brochure makes the assertion that "All of Australia has experienced warming over the past 50 years". Clearly on the basis of the only station record for this District 3 which stretches back over 50 years, this is not the case.

Where is the Quality Assurance?

2010-04-06T18:35:00.003+10:00

When the BoM+CSIRO released its "State of the Cliimate" prolefeed brochure in mid-March, the BoM website listed 103 climate stations that comprised the RCS network. At that time, this listing included the following three stations:

010035 - Cunderdin (1914 - ) [data] [graph]
029004 - Burketown PO (1886 - ) [data] [graph]
078031 - Nhill (1897 - 2009) [data] [graph]

The proof of this is that - as at today - these three stations still have their photographs and station details included in the RCS "Site Details" database, and clicking on the station numbers above will take you to these records.

Following the coverage of the "Dodgy Post Offices" item (which included Cunderdin) on the Andrew Bolt blog, Cunderdin was summarily dropped from the RCS network. Dropped at the same time was Nhill - a station which had actually been closed last year. Substitute stations were added to the RCS network for both of these dropped stations. Just like that!

After completing the "Burketown - Which One?" item, it was pointed out that the 029004 station had also been summarily dropped from the RCS network listing.

As at today, the following three stations have been substituted for the ones noted above:

010286 - Cunderdin Airfield (1942 - ) [data] [graph]
029077 - Burketown Airport (2001 - ) [data] [graph]
078015 - Nhill Aerodrome (2003 - ) [data] [graph]

Apart from the glaringly obvious quality control issue whereby a station which has been closed a year ago (078031 - Nhill) continues to be a "high quality, long-term climate monitoring station", it also raises the question of just how valid it is to substitute newer stations for ones with a data history stretching back over a century.

Taking these three in sequence, we notice that:

Cunderdin, a station which began in 1914 (but only has data since 1950) has been replaced by Cunderdin Airfield, which began in 1942 (but only has data since 1996). A loss of 46 years' worth of data for this location.
Burketown PO, a station which began in 1886 (and has data since 1890) has been replaced by Burketown Airport, which began in 2001. A loss of 111 years' worth of data for this location.
Nhill, a station which began in 1897 and was closed in 2009, has been replaced by Nhill Aerodrome, which began in 2003. A loss of at least 106 years' worth of data for this location.

In simple terms, for Cunderdin, this:

...has been replaced by this:

For Burketown, this:

...has been replaced by this:

And for Nhill, this:

...has been replaced by this:

Apart from the obvious issue of older stations being substituted with newer stations, where are any of these changes documented? How can a closed station be simply left in the network for a year? And how can one station simply be substituted for another on the basis of bad publicity?

When the CSIRO+BoM released their Climate brochure in mid-March, Greg Ayers, Director of the BoM, was interviewed by Sarah Clarke on the ABC, and he offered the following self-assessment:

GREG AYERS: For the Australian region, we have around 100 climate reference stations, as we call them, where we pay a great deal of attention to doing the best possible measurements, making sure that there's quality assurance on the way the data is brought in and then used

Where is this quality assurance process and where is it documented? How do the above three station pairs fit within this quality assurance process? How much of this statement is a work of fiction?

Summary:

In their Climate brochure, the CSIRO+BoM make the assertion that "since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C". Over a 50 year period, this represents about 0.014°C per year, and for this conclusion to be drawn, some exceedingly accurate record keeping would clearly be required. Of the stations which have been examined so far, it is hard to see how either of these assertions (namely, a quality assurance process or the temperature increase) can be supported.

Burketown - But Which One Is It?

2010-03-31T20:56:00.001+11:00

Burketown (029004 - [data] [graph]) is the representative station for Queensland District 2 (Gulf Country) in the Australian RCS Network. In the RCS, this station goes by the name "Burketown Post Office", but it is difficult to find in the underlying BoM data.

A look at the map shows that there are (apparently) eight stations in the Gulf Country District:

029012 - Croydon Township - [data] [graph]
029038 - Kowanyama Airport - [data] [graph]
029039 - Mornington Island - [data] [graph]
029063 - Normanton Airport - [data] [graph]
029077 - Burketown Airport - [data] [graph]
029139 - Sweers Island - [data] [graph]
029167 - OZ Century Mine - [data] [graph]

Plus the eighth station that goes by the name "Burketown".

But - where is this "Burketown" station? It doesn't show up on the list of stations on the Queensland Weather Observations page. And if we click on the "Burketown" legend on the map, it takes us here:

A non-station, apparently. But given that the data starts in 1890 for 029004 - Burketown PO, the assumption is that "Burketown PO" and "Burketown" are one and the same station. But would you bet the house on it?

After looking at the data for the rest of the stations in this District, the answer is "probably not". Here is a brief summary of the discrepancies between Station start date and Data start date for the remaining seven stations (oldest to newest):

029012 - Croydon Township. Station date: 1889; Data date: 1912 (23 years missing)
029139 - Sweers Island. Station date: 1893; Data date: 2001 (108 years missing)
029038 - Kowanyama Airport. Station date: 1912; Data date: 1965 (53 years missing)
029039 - Mornington Island. Station date: 1914; Data date: 1972 (58 years missing)
029063 - Normanton Airport. Station date: 2001; Data date: 2001
029077 - Burketown Airport. Station date: 2001; Data date: 2001
029167 - OZ Century Mine. Station date: 2003; Data date: 2003

Clearly, apart from the first station (029012 - Croydon Township), the remaining stations are useless for assessing long-term climate trends. They give a whole new meaning to "the dog ate my homework".

Consequently, the choice for the RCS representative station comes down to two candidates, geographically separated by 290km:

A) 029012 - Croydon Township. A station with a 98-year history, albeit one with data missing from the middle years, which shows a pronounced cooling trend over the period:

B) 029004 - "Burketown Post Office". A poorly-sited station of questionable origin (which doesn't appear in the day-to-day list of weather stations), but does profess to have a slightly longer data history (again with missing data in the middle). And does indicate a period of warming between 1950-1990.

Answer: Let's go with the "Dodgy Post Office" - the one that can have a warming "signal" teased out of it.

Summary:
The data from the stations in the No. 2 Queensland District are a shambles, to say the least. Across all the stations, there are no continuously unbroken data history prior to 1990, which means that any contribution to "climate records" from this District is - at best - guesswork. There also appears to be very little quality control of the basic station records - "Burketown" and "Burketown PO" seem to be used interchangeably. And finally, when in doubt about which station to include in the RCS, the default position appears to be to select the one that indicates a warming trend - however tenuous.

Weipa? Why Weipa?

2010-03-28T16:32:00.005+11:00

It is hard to understand how Weipa Airport (027045, [data], [graph]) qualifies as a RCS station with "high quality and long climate records".

Presumably the fact that it is located at an airport gives it preferential treatment:

51 of the 103 stations (49.5%) in the RCS Network are located at airports or airstrips
11 of the 18 RCS stations (61.1%) in Queensland are located at airports or airstrips
60 of the 134 stations (44.8%) currently active in Queensland are located at airports or airstrips

However - for the Peninsula District of Queensland (which includes Weipa Airport), 7 of the 8 active stations are located at airports or airstrips, so the chances of selecting an airport for the RCS station are high.

The other seven stations in Peninsula District are:

027054 - Coconut Island - [data] [graph]
027058 - Horn Island - [data] [graph]
027073 - Coen Airport - [data] [graph]
027075 - Scherger RAAF - [data] [graph]
028004 - Palmerville - [data] [graph]
028007 - Musgrave - [data] [graph]
028008 - Lockhart River Airport - [data] [graph]

On the surface of it, Weipa Airport seems to meet none of the qualifications for a "high quality, long term" station.

1. It is sited next to an airstrip

2. It is missing most of its data

3. But for the few years that it has been collecting data, it does have a slight warming trend.

Of the remaining airport stations, five (027054 - Coconut Island, 027058 - Horn Island, 027073 - Coen Airport, 027075 - Scherger RAAF, 028004 - Palmerville) have less years of data than Weipa Airport, and are therefore less suitable candidates.

The sixth (028007 - Musgrave) has most of its data missing, and is therefore even less suitable.

028008 - Lockhart River Airport has far more years of data than Weipa Airport, but unfortunately it would seem to support a different narrative - namely 40 years of temperature stability:

By far the best candidate is the remaining non-airport station, 028004 - Palmerville. Its qualifications are:

1. Situated in a rural location, with no apparent contamination from human habitation or machinery:

2. A long term, almost complete set of data:

3. Unfortunately, like Lockhart River Airport, it also tells the wrong narrative - over a century of temperature stability:

Summary:
Weipa Airport could not be more untypical of the stations that the RCS claims to represent, namely "high quality, long term" records. The only two stations in this District which, on the surface of it, appear to more fully satisfy these requirments have been passed over - presumably because they support a different narrative. Unless there is another explanation, this would appear to be blatant cherry-picking of the worst kind. But then - why hasn't this been picked up by the "peer review"?

More Holes than a Swiss Cheese

2010-03-27T19:44:00.003+11:00

It seems that looking at the effective data start date is not the only yardstick by which to evaluate the BoM "high quality" RCS stations. It is also necessary to graph the data to look for the additional holes in the data.

In the previous post, we noticed that several stations had data missing for 40 or more years beyond their notional commencement date. One of the stations looked at was 008039-Dalwallinu, which has a notional start date of 1912, but a data start date of 1955 - or 43 years of missing data. Upon closer examination it appears that the continuous data start date is actually 1957. A closer look again shows that there is missing data for 1970 as well, which clearly shows on the graph of the data:

There are several stations that have incomplete data in the early years, including:

002012 - Halls Creek Airport - [data] [graph]
005026 - Wittenoom - [data] [graph]
006011 - Carnarvon Airport - [data] [graph]
008051 - Geraldton Airport - [data] [graph]
009193 - Rottnest Island - [data] [graph]
012038 - Kalgoorlie Airport - [data] [graph]
050052 - Condobolin - [data] [graph]
061089 - Scone SCS - [data] [graph]
073054 - Wyalong PO (one of the "dodgy post offices") - [data] [graph]

As bad as they are, the sample above are by no means the worst of the bunch. Several of the stations have large gaps in the middle of the data as well, including:

014508 - Gove Airport - [data] [graph]

017043 - Oodnadatta Airport - [data] [graph]

063005 - Bathurst Agricultural Station - [data] [graph]

200790 - Christmas Island Airport - [data] [graph]

... and even 300000 - Davis Station - [data] [graph]

Summary
As noted in the previous post, there are 32 RCS stations that have data missing from the beginning of the dataset. From this analysis, we see that there are 22 RCS stations that have data missing beyond the initial start date. Eight of these RCS stations are in the same list as the previous post, which means that there is a total of 46 RCS stations (or a staggering 44.6%) that have significant missing data.

In the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file from the CRU ("Climategate") files, the author of the READ_ME makes the following telling comments:

"getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented."

"Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was."

It is very hard to disagree with these comments. In this and the last two posts it has become apparent that:

Cunderdin station has been summarily dropped out of the RCS network and substituted by Cunderdin Airport (with no documentation to indicate the change).
Many stations exhibit the same problems as "Harry" observed with Cobar Airport
Over 44% of the stations have sigificant amounts of data missing - in a number of cases, enough to make the data that is left unusable.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to appreciate the frustration that "Harry" must have gone through in attempting to make sense of the RCS data. How bad is the RCS data? It's all hidden in plain view for anyone who takes the time to look.

Where has all the data gone ?

2010-03-25T19:28:00.001+11:00

As noted yesterday, the BoM temperature data for the "new" Cunderdin station (010286 - Cunderdin Airfield) begins at 1996, while the station record indicates that the station commenced in 1942.

Apparently, there are 52 years worth of data missing from the record for this "new" Cunderdin station.

Which begs the question - is this a unique occurence, resulting from the late-night changes at the BoM to substitute station 010286 for the inconvenient Cunderdin station 010035?

A look at the listing of RCS stations on the BoM site shows that there are 103 "high quality" stations in this network. They have notional station start dates ranging from 1860 through to 2003, with 65% of them having a notional start date prior to 1969. Overall, the average notional station start date is 1950.

However, when you look at the data start date, a different picture emerges. For openers, 32 of the stations (32%) have a data start date which is later than the station start date by more than a year, or have significant gaps in the data in the early years.

Some of these missing years of data are considerable - several are in the order of the 52 year gap noted for Cunderdin, above. For example:

008039 - Dalwallinu Comparison. [data] [graph]
Station date = 1912, Data date = 1955 (43 years missing)

010592 - Lake Grace PO. [data] [graph]
Station date = 1914, Data date = 1956 (42 years missing)

017031 - Marree Comparison. [data] [graph]
Station date = 1885, Data date = 1939 (54 years missing)

And several more in addition to these.

The net effect of all this missing data is that for these 103 stations, the oldest station data start date moves forward by 4 years (to 1864), while the average station data start date moves forward by 9 years (to 1959).

Where's the Beef?

Just how "high quality" are the stations in the RCS network? What is the overall impact on the derived climate record of all these missing years? With so much data from the early years missing, how can anyone make a valid long-term climate assessment? Is this RCS data of any practical value at all?

Where did Cunderdin Go?

2010-03-24T18:03:00.000+11:00

An all-time favourite quote of mine comes from "Alice in Wonderland":

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

And so it is with the BoM and - I would guess - with most institutions engaged in promoting the greater man-made global warming narrative.

Last week, I downloaded the list of RCS stations from the BoM website. Included in this list was the following station:
10035 - CUNDERDIN

This station, and its accompanying photograph, was included in the "Dodgy Post Offices" blog entry early this week, which in turn was given air time on the Andrew Bolt blog. This apparently has instigated a response from the BoM (via the Andrew Bolt blog), as follows:

At Cunderdin, parallel observations between the two sites took place between 1996 and 2007. Temperature observations ceased at the old site in 2007 and 10286 is now the only temperature measuring site in the area. The photo displayed on Andrew Bolt’s blog, in any case, is not the pre-2007 site - it is a rainfall-only site which continued under the 10035 site number at a different location after temperature observations ceased.

So, in simple terms, while the BoM documentation states that temperature data is (and has been) gathered from one station, it has in fact been gathered from a second station before being moved to a third station.

And who knew this - apart from the BoM, that is?

Today, the list of RCS stations on the BoM site no longer includes 10035, and in its place we have this entry:
10286 - CUNDERDIN AIRFIELD

So, it would seem that history can simply be rewritten at the stroke of a mouse - the visible public record can be altered in the middle of the night, with nothing to indicate that changes have taken place. Nothing on the station site record indicates the anecdotal history described above. An older site has simply been replaced by a newer site.

Which raises the question: how has the temperature data for this 10286 site been sourced or reconstructed? The 10035 Cunderdin station lists a start date of 1914. The 10286 Cunderdin Airfield station lists a start date of 1942, but the BoM website only appears to have data from 1996 onwards - which is in line with the BoM comments noted above. Where are the missing years? And more importantly, how can this 13 years of data support the CSIRO+BoM assertion that "since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C"?

Perhaps a more appropriate quote for the pursuit of Climate Science comes from George Orwell's "1984":

'Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'.

For the record, here is a view of the "new official" Cunderdin Airfield station:

And it would probably surprise no-one to learn that this new Cunderdin Airport station exhibits a warming trend:

Which in turn looks almost nothing like the one that it replaced (10035):

I think I am beginning to understand where their "about 0.7 °C mean temperature increase" comes from.

Townsville Airport - A Case in Point

2010-03-23T19:23:00.001+11:00

A comment we see thrown around quite a lot these days is: "Does it really matter if a weather station is located at an airport? Surely all this gets lost in the background noise." Well, let's look at Townsville Airport, and see what we can learn.

032040 - Townsville Airport (FNQ) - [data] [graph]

Townsville Airport (1940)

Firstly, the obligatory BoM "rural scene" photograph of the Townsville Airport weather station:

Followed by the Google Earth view of the same:

As can be seen from this image, Townsville is anything but a "non-urban" location. It is a coastal city in Far North Queensland, and has a population (2008) of ~176,000, having grown from ~98,000 in 1981.

In addition, Townsville Airport is anything but the "rual" airstrip shown in the BoM image above. According to the history of Townsville Airport, the following significant activites can be noted:

1958 - the present 2438 metre long main runway was completed
1981 - the new international terminal was opened and B747 flights commenced
1986 - the present runway was resurfaced
2003 - the second stage of the airport terminal redevelopment was completed

I wonder if any of this is reflected in this graph from the BoM, particularly the pronounced uptick from the mid-1980s?

By comparison, when we look at the same graph for sleepy seaside Cardwell, 135km north of Townsville, what do we see?

Can you believe it? Pronounced cooling over the same period. Apparently we can have Global Warming in Townsville, while we simultaneously have Global Cooling a mere 135km away. Amazing.

Eloi's First Law of Climate Science: "No Airport - No Global Warming".

The NSW Regional Airports

2010-03-22T19:37:00.000+11:00

In this installment, we look at the remaining regional NSW airports that host weather stations for the RCS network. They are:

053115 - Moree Airport
060139 - Port Macquarie Airport
060141 - Taree Airport
072150 - Wagga Airport
074258 - Deniliquin Airport

A couple of important issues which this examination raises are: just what is the Australian BoM's definition of a "large urban centre", and what impact does siting a weather station adjacent to an airport runway have on "high quality" climate records? In all of these examples, we see that the weather stations have been located within an airport perimiter - and close to residential housing. Surely "Climate Science" can't be a totally standards-free endeavour?

In addition we see that (again) all of these sites have been photographed in such a way that none of this surrounding environment is apparent.

Moree Airport (1995)

Official BoM photograph:

Google Earth view:

Port Macquarie (1995)

Official BoM photograph:

Google Earth view:

Taree (1997)

Official BoM photograph:

Google Earth view:

Incidentally, this site would not be CRN1-compliant due to the station being less than 100m from the runway.

Wagga (1941)

Official BoM photograph:

Google Earth view:

This site also likely fails CRN1 status due to the proximity of the building and ashphalted car park.

Deniliquin (1997)

Official BoM photograph:

Google Earth view:

Summary:
We are now nearly at the quarter-way mark (23 out of 103) and are yet to find a station which clearly meets the twin objectives of high-quality siting away from urban population centres. What a disappointment!

Update:
I notice that his investigation has been mentioned by Andrew Bolt's blog, TWAWKI blog, Watts Up With That blog, and Australian Climate Madness blog. It is my understanding that in the world of "Climate Science" this entitles me to claim "robust, peer reviewed" status for this investigation.

The Dodgy Post Offices

2010-03-21T18:31:00.000+11:00

Next to airports, an historical location for weather stations has been post office buildings, and this is the next category of "high quality, long-term climate monitoring" stations under examination. When looking at the examples provided below, it is worth keeping in mind that stations such as these have been at the forefront of developing the narrative that global warming is real, is happening faster than we previously thought, and that man's contribution to this impending disaster is unequivocal.

The RCS stations surveyed in this installment include:

008039 - Dalwallinu (WA)
009510 - Bridgetown Post Office (WA)
010035 - Cunderdin (WA)
026026 - Robe (SA)
037051 - Winton Post Office (Qld)
073054 - Wyalong Post Office (NSW)

In these instances, there is no need for additional investigation with Google Earth. The BoM photos well and truly speak for themselves. This installment should therefore more appropriately be entitled "Spot the Deliberate Errors".

Dalwallinu (1912)

How many CRN1 criteria does this site meet?

Flat horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface ?
Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high ?
100m from buildings ?

The short answer is: probably none. CRN1 status: Fail.

Bridgetown Post Office (1887)

You've got to love this one - sitting in a back yard surrounded by tall brick buildings. CRN1 status: Fail.

Cunderdin (1914)

This has to be one of the favourites so far - the station is just dumped in a lot along with corrugated iron fences and builders' rubble. CRN1 status: Fail.

Robe (1860)

It looks like the original building is gone, and the station is now surrounded by what looks like a steel fence on all sides. A check of Google Earth also shows that there are sealed roads on three sides, all at less than 50m distance. If the photographer had stood at the other end to take the picture, you would also see that the ocean is roughly 60m in the background. CRN1 status: Fail.

Winton Post Office (1884)

Anyone see any problems here? Other than being next to a building with a tin roof, a concrete parking bay, an asphalted road, and behind a shade bush? Not sure what the water sprinkler contributes to the overall accuracy, either. CRN1 status: Fail.

Wyalong Post Office (1895)

Is there anything right about this picture? On an ungrassed surface, next to what looks like a steel fence, behind a building with an air conditioner unit on the roof and paved walkways? A "high quality" climate data gathering station? (A quick check of the BoM site shows that this station appears to be missing data between 1957-1965). CRN1 status: Fail.

Summary:
We have now looked at 18 separate stations (out of a total of 103), in three separate categories. So far, not one of these stations meets the criteria of being "away from large urban centres" and the CRN quality standards of NOAA/NCDC in terms of siting.

Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the remaining 85 stations, we would be well justified in asking the questions: "Just how reliable is the RCS network data and how valid are any conclusions that are drawn from them"?

The Major Airports

2010-03-20T10:31:00.000+11:00

Within the RCS Network, 49 of the 103 stations (47%) are located at airports, runways or air bases. We've already had a look at the 6 air bases, now let's turn our attention to the major airports which are serviced by commercial jets. There are (at least) 6 that fall into this category:

014105 - Darwin (NT)
015590 - Alice Springs (NT)
031011 - Cairns (Qld)
039083 - Rockhampton (Qld)
070014 - Canberra (ACT)
094008 - Hobart (Tas)

On the surface of it, it would appear that the BoM uses only the one photographer for airports. Here's a "compare and contrast" view of the six listed above.

Darwin Airport (1941)

First, the BoM "rural view". You could be forgiven for thinking this one was on the edge of a cow paddock:

Now the Google Earth "reality view":

Here we see that the station is actually sandwiched between the end of the runway and the encroaching suburbs of Darwin.

Update: For a discussion about the accuracy or otherwise of the temperature record at Darwin Airport, see Watts Up With That and Joanne Nova's blog.

Alice Springs Airport (1940)

BoM "rural view":

Google Earth "reality view":

Here we see that the station is more or less at the end of the runway. Planes landing or taking off will fly more or less right over the top of it.

Cairns Airport (1941)

BoM "rural view":

Google Earth "reality view":

Could it be possible to get any closer to the runway? The "Ruler" function in Google Earth shows that it is 92m from the edge of the runway.

Rockhampton Airport (1939)

The BoM pleasant "rural view":

The Google Earth view.

Again, sandwiched in between the airport runway and the encroaching town of Rockhampton.

Canberra Airport (1939)

The BoM view - looks like something out of the movie "Casablanca" with the igloo building:

The Google Earth "reality view":

Shock! Horror! Not only is it adjacent to a runway, but it's nearly sitting on top of a carpark which is a mere 10m away.

Hobart Airport (1958)

The BoM view - could there be a more splendid site anywhere in the world?

Uh oh! You mean it's next to the runway AND the parking apron?

Summary

So far we have looked at 12 of the 103 RCS stations, and we see a consistent pattern. All of them are located at sites that are covered by huge expanses of black concrete and visited by very large heat-belching equipment. In a number of them, we can see that large cities and towns encroach on the area - in spite of the BoM mandate to select locations "in an area away from large urban centres". In all of the sites looked at so far, the "official" photos seek to hide or disguise these basic facts.

Why?

The Air Bases

2010-03-19T20:03:00.000+11:00

Within the RCS Network, there are six air bases that are used to collect data. These are:

014932 - Tindal RAAF (NT)
040004 - Amberley RAAF (Qld)
061078 - Williamtown RAAF (NSW)
067105 - Richmond RAAF (NSW)
068072 - Nowra RAN (NSW)
087031 - Laverton RAAF (Vic)

The fact that military air bases are used as part of the RCS Network is important because, according to the BoM's website, preference has been given to stations with "a location in an area away from large urban centres".

In addition, the American NOAA/NCDC defines 5 classes of station quality ratings, as follows:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

Let's see how this first batch of stations measures up to the BoM's criteria and the CRN classification.

Tindal RAAF Base (1969)

The following two pictures provide different aspects of the station at the Tindal RAAF base. The first image is from the BoM website, and shows a typical rural setting for the weather station.

The second image is from Google Earth, which provides a birds-eye view of the general location. (The cross and numbers represents the co-ordinates of the station taken from the BoM site).

This image provides a vastly different aspect. As can be seen, the weather station is located adjacent to the runway and taxi-lane. Nothing in the BoM image indicates any of this environment. In fact, it provides a very misleading view of the situation of the station, IMHO.

Amberley RAAF Base (1941)

Again, we will compare and contrast the image provided by the BoM with the birds-eye view from Google Earth for this station. Again, the BoM image indicates that everything is fairly rural:

Meanwhile - check out the Google Earth view of the same location.

We see again that the station is adjacent to the runway and taxi-way of the airstrip. If we look at the top right of this image, we can also see the town of Ipswich (population ~155,000) encroaching on the air base.

Williamtown RAAF Base (1942)

Same drill for Williamtown RAAF base on the outskirts of Newcastle, NSW. BoM image:

Google Earth image:

Again, nothing in the BoM image that even hints at the close proximity of an airbase or runway.

Richmond RAAF Base (1993)

Same again for the Richmond RAAF base on the outskirts of Sydney. BoM image:

Followed by the Google Earth view:

Notice a pattern developing here?

Nowra RAN Base (2000)

BoM "rural view":

Google Earth "reality view".

Laverton RAAF Base (1941)

And for completeness, the Laverton RAAF base on the outskirts of Melbourne. First, the BoM "rural view":

Follwed by the Google Earth view:

As well as the nearby runway that we don't see in the BoM image, notice that a fair chunk of Melbourne also encroaches on the south-east.

Conckusion

This is quite a deceptive behaviour on the part of the BoM. A casual observer would be led to believe that the siting of these weather stations is fully compliant with both the internal BoM objectives, and the highest NOAA/NCDC classification (i.e. CRN1).

A more detailed examination indicates that nothing could be further from the truth. And of course Australia's "climate data" is sourced from these stations, amongst others.

The taxpayers that fund this should be outraged!