The "Climate Data Derivatives" Market

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".

Where did Cunderdin Go?

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.

The Air Bases

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

1. 014932 - Tindal RAAF (NT)
2. 040004 - Amberley RAAF (Qld)
3. 061078 - Williamtown RAAF (NSW)
4. 067105 - Richmond RAAF (NSW)
5. 068072 - Nowra RAN (NSW)
6. 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!