Thanks to Bill in Oz sending in the shot of Mt Barker, Ken Stewart started auditing other sites in South Australia and discovered this masterpiece of expert siting. And thanks to Ken, you can see The Wacky World of Weather Stations: No. 2- Murray Bridge.
Year opened: 1885. Who thinks the site looked like this 130 years ago? | Image capture Mar 2018, Google ©2019
As he points out:
The screen is in a houseyard near concrete paths, vegetable gardens and shrubs, close to a picket fence, within 5 metres of sheds, sheltered from the south by a 1.6 metre high fence, with buildings to the east, north, and west, and less than 10 metres from the bitumen road.
Like Mt Barker, this is another site which is not an ACORN “top ranked” site that the Bureau of Meteorology use, but results from here are used to adjust ACORN sites like Mount Gambier, so it is de facto a part of that network. Sites like this are also used to create propaganda, sorry, press releases about “hottest ever records”.
The BoM know exactly how bad this site is, and in carefully measured detail.
Somewhere a paid bureaucrat has dedicatedly measured and mapped all the things that shouldn’t be there within a 30 meter radius.
From their site data file PDF
Ponder the awesome attention to detail for a site that should never have been selected. In that single PDF link, there is not just one map like this but 14 separate maps of this same site dated roughly once a year since 2004. Would private industry spend so much money documenting failure or would they just … move the dang site?! And then there are more maps from before that of the site when it was located near the railway station (see below for that photo).
More meaningless expert data
Would any private company spend money analyzing the exact time of day shadows fall on this thermometer each month of the year, or would they just find a 30 by 30 meter square plot of clear land in the most empty inhabited continent on Earth? Does anyone think a supercomputer could calculate what the thermometer should have recorded, and if so, why bother having a thermometer at all?
Murray Bridge, skyline, Bureau of Meteorology, climate data.
As Ken says, don’t blame the householder, blame the BoM. As Jo says, send a message to your elected representative.
If life on Earth depends on climate science why don’t the Bureau of Meteorology care about the data? We give them over a million dollars a day, yet they use sites like this to tell us that Australia has “unprecedented” warming.
Modern junk used, old quality forgotten
The thermometers scientists installed in 1896 which recorded extreme heat then may be more accurate than the modern “expert” network, yet the BoM ignore those and use junk like this.
Here’s the expanded view of the site that was chosen in 2004 (white arrow marks the spot). At a glance, there are other sites you might think were better, like the sort under the red dots. Just a thought?
Why put that thermometer in a backyard? Murray Bridge is not exactly a metropolis without open space…. | Imagery ©2019 Google, Map data
Before 2004 the site was near the railway line which must have had big upgrades. But the question remains, why did the thermometer move from a bad site to a worse site?
Murray Bridge former thermometer site, train station. | Imagery ©2019 Google, Map data
Note the ideal open space on the other side of the railway line…
But who really wants to know if Murray Bridge is getting warmer? Not the Australian BoM.
___________
If people want to send in more site photos, start at the BoM page for Climate Data Online. Type in the town, and “Find” the nearest site. On that site’s page look to the top right for a button marked “Details” to find out the lat and long. If you visit a site, please respect the privacy of any homeowners, don’t share street addresses or car number-plates publicly. Email me: joanne AT this site domain.
Ken Stewart blogs at Ken’s Kingdom: The Wacky World of Weather Stations: No. 2- Murray Bridge.
I have not yet located the site for Adelaide, nor Adelaide airport.
If anyone has better GPS co-ordinates?
90
Adelaide (Kent Town) -34.9211 138.6216
Airport -34.9524 138.5196
70
Adelaide airport is directly in line of the Jet exhaust as they turn to take off.
They were right air travel does cause warming!
90
The current Adelaide measurement site is behind Adelaide High School, you can see it from Henley Beach Rd, it’s a fenced off area which actually meets criteria (except for all the watered lawns North and East…..but hey, better than the Kent town site)
110
I think the land based temperature readings are a waste of time (unless you work for big gov met services). They are fatally flawed in their measurements and locations. As in the last post too many useless stations providing (flawed) data. They dont ‘prove’ anything except how bad they are at recording real temperatures.
Just watched Tony Heller’s good vid (posted by someone on the previous thread) on the fakery around ALL the temperature records from the late 19th C to present.
130
None of those sites can provide any meaningful long term measurements. They are just a temperature at a site ..thats it!
110
This is Tony Heller’s video that I posted:
“Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?”
https://youtu.be/yqZGgaZaXig
Tony should be getting a lot more views than he does but I think the YouTube algorithms minimise recommendations to any videos questioning global warming orthodoxy or political conservatism in general.
100
Melissa Price will organise an audit very soon.
60
Only if she is so completely embarressed
By BOM’s incompetence.
And the simple practical way to do that is
To show how many clunker
“Weather recording stations”
The BOM has in operation.
If it can’t do the simple stuff accurately
Why would anyone believe their
Tales about the complex stuff
Such as Global Warming
180
Apologies Bill, I misspoke, Melissa has been moved to Defence Industry, Sussan Ley might do the job. Its really up to Morrison.
60
I like this person, she is capable of leaning on Morrison for an audit.
“You’ll often need to change your name to what’s happening in your life and, really, your energy totally changes,” she said.
“It might not be just be putting another ‘s’ on the name, but by doing that, this minister – or whoever the person may be – is consciously making a paradigm shift and there is a domino effect of changes that happens after it.”
70
We obviously need an Australian version of Anthony Watts and his surfacestations.org project.
140
Completely off topic but all is no so good with the German wind energy “business” or subsidy sucking business.
https://www.thegwpf.com/collapse-of-wind-power-threatens-germanys-green-energy-transition/
150
A space blanket on the Hills Hoist and a family of rodents in the screen box should up the ACORN nicely. Pity there’s no BBQ or fire pit…but one must have standards.
160
Wait until you see Number 3!
The BOM are a joke really!
How much a year do they get?
Super Computers, Expert Staff, etc etc
And yet the basic equipment is totally non-conforming!
190
No Dave
They take their role very seriously.
And their role is to “Save the Planet from Global warming”.
But they have become so blinded by this ideology
That they can’t do their basic job !
To collect & record accurate & honest weather data.
As they cost us $1,000,000 a day
This is not a joke.
It is expensive idiocy
210
Inigo, Inigo, Wherefore art thou, Inigo?
120
Bill
“They take their role very seriously.
And their role is to “Save the Planet from Global warming”. ”
Well then all they need to do is a “Mann-upside-down+ with their “corrections”
30
May I venture to suggest, the BoM will by intent, NEVER do their job properly.
Until the unsustainable climatism frawd implodes, or the questing totalitarians at the UN simply give up and relay the order to start pointing barrels, the BoM have a required fudge factor inherently resident in the appalling sites of temperature measurement. Call it the deniability of error.
Consider, were the data to be scrupulously accurate, transparent, and captured from flawlessly maintained compliant sites, there would be literally no where to go with the climatism charade. They’d be done, like the proverbial dogs dinner that they are, before they even started. No amount of frenzied MSM fuelled belief would or could contradict the data, which I guarantee would demonstrate UNFCCC defined ‘climate variability’ to a tee, and toss UNFCCC defined ‘climate change’ into the rectum of history.
60
Come on everyone, what’s the issue the station is above the fence line (do I need to?) sarc/
Wonder if the rain gauge is impacted by the retic for the vegie patch 😉
100
Jennifer Marohasy and Jaco Vlok have Brisbane covered.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/07/understanding-brisbanes-temperature-history-part-1/
60
Oh, but that is only one site….Oh, but that is only one site….Oh, but that is only one site….
The fact is, EVERY site is only one site. One bad site contaminates the data. Many bad sites discredits all sites. If all sites are bad, it is not data about so called global surface temperature.
Such data “correction” is nothing but scientific malpractice used as a bases for probable deniability. Thereby justifying “correcting” the data (circular reasoning). Data that has been “corrected”, for which the correction meta-data no longer exists, produces numbers but not data about reality. Especially if the “corrected” data is repeatedly “corrected” and the original data is “lost” because it costs too much to keep old data.
For this, the productive among us, are forced to pay trillions world wide to “save” the globe. A globe that has not needed saving for almost 4 billion years. Yet, based upon feloniously processed data and fake anxiety, must be “saved” at the cost of the destruction of modern technological civilization.
Why do we still keep on feeding them?
210
One tree ring ter rule them all.
140
Fact is , that even in places like the USA, you are hard pushed to find GOOD sites !!!
A LARGE PROPORTION of surface station sites are just plain HORRIBLE.
The alarmists KNOW this, and use it to full advantage.
100
You must realise this careful sighting of the stations is deliberate and done to allow BoM to achieve their stated aim of supporting the global warming/climate change/climate emergency/hyperwarming/whatever the buzzword of the week is.
At least these sited allow them some legitimate, but wrong, readings but do not excuse their low level of practical ability in following their own rules like their fudge of recording from the automated stations.
I suppose we should award them an F for the FUD they produce.
70
Yes and even yes to their so called stated aim. Unfortunately, they don’t state their true aim: the destruction of technological civilization. Which is the ultimate consequence of even a partial implementation of their preferred policies: more government, more spending, prohibition of the use of fossil fuels, ending in the prohibition of man using any aspect of his environment to support his continued existence.
70
You’ve got a lot of it there Lionell.
This definitely isn’t Science, it’s something else entirely.
It’s about the way humans think, react to their social environment and attach themselves to groups.
Reflecting back on a series of comments in a recent thread some of issues are mentioned:
“Unfortunately at all levels of community life in the west the reality is hidden by a number of factors which include:
# laziness/ indifference
# politics
# religious Dogma.
The reason I push this issue on this blog is because of the startling similarities in treatment by the powers that be and media when compared with the Global Warming meme”.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/abc-climate-zombie-myths-and-fantasy-strawmen-whos-feeding-the-trolls/#comment-2170750
When we understand why twenty thousand people will assemble in a sporting arena we may then come to understand the force that has allowed the global warming thing to flourish.
Are all of those people paying a total of possibly a million dollars really there to watch the football, rugby or baseball?
Or are they there to bathe in the power of the “group”?
At the link above there’s a comment that in hindsight I might have questioned; bad science on my part. Another comment shows the use of argument from authority.
This post by Ken is remarkable because it hits the very basis of science: observation, and he has observed and documented serious flaws in the BOM approach to science.
Getting at the truth is not always easy simply because of one thing:
We think like Humans, not like Scientists.
KK
60
The same thing is going on in ‘Blighty –
Met Office confirms record temperature in Cambridge
But no mention of the dramatic building development going on in the near vicinity, much of which is visible in the photos. Paul Homewood has blogged about this:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/met-office-claims-of-new-record-at-cambridge-look-very-dodgy/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/07/27/cambridge-botanical-too-compromised-for-climatological-purposes/
And in Germany, Pierre Gosselin reports similar poor siting:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/28/lingen-cheated-germanys-new-all-time-record-high-resulted-from-dwd-weather-service-lousy-station-siting/
110
Poor sitings in Germany made the recent heatwaves appear to be the hottest in human history
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/07/28/germanys-new-record-temperature-is-the-result-of-usy-siting/
80
when it comes to CAGW, so much is questionable:
29 Jul: Sky News: The Great Chinese Carbon Con
by Jack Houghton, Digital Editor
China’s carbon emissions are spiralling out of control and the world has turned a blind eye, opting instead to blame global climate woes on Australia and other western nations.
The world’s second largest economy will likely emit more than 16,000 mega tonnes of CO2 a year a decade from now
The figure is four times the entire world’s output in 1900 and more than double the 6511 mega tonnes the United States emits today…
The phrase “reach a peak no later than 2030” gives China infinite room to grow carbon emissions from 13039 mega tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2017 to a predicted 15951 mega tonnes in 2030, according to the country’s own predictions.
Comparatively in small countries such as Australia, which is regularly lambasted by European scientists for failing to do more, CO2 emissions rose from 420 Mtco2 in 1990 to 549 Mtco2 in 2016. An increase of 129 Mtco2…READ ON
https://2600.skynews.com.au/the-great-chinese-carbon-con/
from Peta Credlin’s Sky program tonite (Rowan Dean sitting in for Peta):
VIDEO: 9min05sec: 30 Jul: Sky News: Paris Agreement gives China ‘unfettered room to grow’
Sky News Digital Editor Jack Houghton says the Paris Agreement has given China “unfettered room to grow” between now and 2030 because of its status as a developing nation.
Mr Houghton explained how China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001 and dubbed itself as “developing”, which allows it to make bids for grants to reduce emissions through the Paris Agreement.
He said Australia has tried to limit emissions and while China has gone the other way despite its massive portfolio and its position as the biggest global exporter, “the world turns a blind eye”.
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6065546185001
100
pat:
Those emissions aren’t “spiralling out of control” they are exactly what the Chinese intended.
Whether the Chinese think that extra CO2 won’t cause warming (and why should they in the absence of any proof?) or think that they will do cause some warming but hope it will offset the solar minimum I don’t know, but it is an interesting spin on the old game of running rings around the dumb animals – have the dumb animals run round in rings while you get on with progress.
60
Just suppose the Chinese are a little bit Xenophobic. It Might be! And just suppose that they don’t “play fair” with the world when it comes to trade. This too is possible. And suppose that they get a wee bit antsy about dissent in, say, Hong Kong, and provide just a little bit of discipline there. And call some of their financial connections to the world into question.
And, in general, a flock of black Swans flies over the world.
China might have to grow more of her own food. And depend on a small number of nations for open trade. And depend on a world glut of protein to be able to buy on the open market at reasonable prices. CO2 Greening helps. And, if you are being tarriffed to distraction,
low cost coal fired power is an advantage too. A conspiracy is not required to do commonsense practical things.
90
Extraordinary Pat.
So simple, so clear.
10
pity this is for “coal exports” only:
Joel Fitzgibbon joins forces with Craig Kelly to spruik coal
The Australian – 30 Jul 2019
Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon has joined forces with outspoken Coalition MP Craig Kelly to spruik Australia’s coal exports in parliament. The opposition resources spokesman called on Labor to re-embrace the coal industry after Bill Shorten’s election campaign was hammered …
30 Jul: Facebook: Craig Kelly
PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF AUSTRALIAN COAL EXPORTS
Attached is the invitation that was sent out to all Members and all Senators from all parties and independents.
Interesting to see who joins up.
INVITATION
https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885/1244147705779861/?type=3
Craig Kelly, from Jones & Credlin tonite (Chris Smith standing in as host):
VIDEO: 58sec: 30 Jul: Facebook: Sky News
Craig Kelly and Joel Fitzgibbon have joined forces to spruik Australia’s coal exports. ‘I hope for our nation’s sake that the Labor Party understand the mistakes they’ve made where they’ve tried to demonise coal.’
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/2613536258680021/
40
Joel who almost lost his unlosable seat to One Nation just two months ago, all because his neighbour Pat Conroy declared “The End of Coal”.
Sadly the coalition hadn’t the wit to recognise the opportunity Pat had created.
Don’t expect these leopards to change their spots!
10
plenty of China apologists.
links to analysis at Nature Sustainability:
29 Jul: Carbon Brief: China’s emissions ‘could peak 10 years earlier than Paris climate pledge’
by Josh Gabbatiss
It is not the first time a study has suggested a premature dip in China’s emissions, but its timing is significant given an imminent UN summit where world leaders will under pressure to step up their Paris targets…
Using data on future population size and level of economic development from the World Bank, they “optimistically” suggest that the nation’s total emissions will therefore peak at 13-16 gigatonnes of CO2, which should take place between 2021 and 2025. Wang explains:
“This reflects China’s great efforts in mitigating climate change and the ‘new normal’ of [the] economy, which would be a great contribution of China to ensure the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2C or less by the end of the century.”…
Dr Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a climate economics expert at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research, explains that while the analysis is “convincing when read on its own terms”, it should “not be read as a definitive projection” for China’s peak emissions. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s a statistical estimate based on historical data for how developments in emissions and economic wealth have correlated over time in 50 of China’s main cities. Other estimates using other data sets or other estimation techniques could give different results. You need to look at many such analyses and triangulate.”…
https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-emissions-could-peak-10-years-earlier-than-paris-climate-pledge
30
good news:
Protesters not like Anzacs — they’re like Martin Luther King: Jonathan Sri
Geelong Advertiser – 7 minutes ago
Councillor Sri, who yesterday ***lost a proposed motion for Brisbane City Council to declare a “climate emergency”, said his comments had been “deliberately blown out of proportion”…
30
He’s right; Martin Luther King is dead too.
40
The most important thing is NOT TO FIDDLE WITH THE DATA . We are more interested in the trend of the data than its absolute accuracy, so we would rather accept some inaccuracy than somebody fooling with the data in order to affect the trend to suit some ulterior motive.
40
i’m getting dizzy just from reading Reuters’ spin:
30 Jul: Reuters: China Belt and Road power investments surge from 2014-2019: study
by David Stanway
SHANGHAI – Chinese equity investment in solar, wind and coal power projects in Belt and Road countries has surged from 2014 to 2019, with planned capacity up more than tenfold compared to the previous five-year period, environmental group Greenpeace said…
According to a study published by Greenpeace on Monday, China’s wind and solar power investments in Belt and Road countries amounted to 12.6 gigawatts (GW) since the initiative was launched in 2014. It had invested in just 0.45 GW of solar prior to 2014…
The country has also invested in 67.9 gigawatts of new coal-fired power in Belt and Road countries since 2014, but Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Liu Junyan said the increase in the share of renewables should be welcomed.
“Chinese investors’ ratio of coal to solar is now the same at home and abroad – both are still six-to-one (in favor of)coal, unfortunately, but I’m amazed to see what five years of equity investment in solar made possible,” Liu said…
China’s total coal-fired capacity also expected to rise by another 45 GW this year, with the total eventually expected to peak at around 1,300 GW, up from 1,140 GW at the end of last year, researchers from China’s State Grid said this month.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-silkroad/china-belt-and-road-power-investments-surge-from-2014-2019-study-idUSKCN1UP093
same piece, different headline:
30 Jul: SouthChinaMorningPost: Reuters: Chinese renewable energy investment abroad soars – but coal still dominant
•Greenpeace study of growth in energy projects in Belt and Road Initiative countries shows solar investments rocketing
•But coal capacity continues to rise after earlier study had found China was supporting more than a quarter of all new coal-fired plants worldwide…
30 Jul: Xinhua: Guangdong carbon market closes higher
Carbon emissions allowances closed at 23.1 yuan (3.36 U.S. dollars) per tonne on Tuesday, 0.52 percent up from Monday, at the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), the largest local carbon market in China.
A total of 510 tonnes of allowances were transacted on Tuesday, with a turnover of 11,779 yuan…
Since its opening in December 2013, the market has traded 132.61 million tonnes of GDEA, with a total turnover of 2.58 billion yuan…
So far, more than 240 enterprises in sectors of power generation, steel, cement, petrochemicals, paper making and aviation have been included…
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/30/c_138269909.htm
30
extraordinary. read all for AGL’s Brett Redman saying “The cheapest energy being produced right now is already renewables” and worse:
30 Jul: SMH: NSW warns of ‘going it alone’ on energy as industry moans federal gap
By Peter Hannam and Colin Kruger
The NSW government is prepared to “go it alone” in the absence of a national climate and energy policy, with global warming “a material risk to our prosperity and way of life”, the state’s Energy and Environment Minister said.
In one of his first energy speeches since taking on the joint portfolio four months ago, Matt Kean on Tuesday said the Coalition state government still backs the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) launched by former PM Malcolm Turnbull but dumped by his successor Scott Morrison last year…
“If the Commonwealth won’t get on board, NSW will consider going it alone,” Mr Kean told the Clean Energy Summit in Sydney, without elaborating.
Mr Kean said having a “properly integrated climate and energy policy” was one way to cut investment risk. He also spoke of renewable energy “eventually surpassing the need for polluting power stations right across the nation”, and restated NSW’s commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050…
Mr Kean said more than 19,400 megawatts of large-scale renewable projects worth $26 billion had been approved or were in the NSW planning process…
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nsw-warns-of-going-it-alone-on-energy-as-industry-moans-federal-gap-20190730-p52c32.html
30 Jul: CarbonPulse: Financial firm pushes for NZ govt to go for Australian carbon credits
New Zealand should seek a deal where the government could buy Australian carbon credits and auction them off to domestic emitters as part of the strategy to meet its Paris treaty obligations, brokerage OM Financial said Tuesday..
20
pat:
Did he say anything about getting rid of Federal Govt. subsidies RET or paying for the necessary backup (Snowy2)?
10
if the CAGW mob can repeat daily that “renewables” are cheapest, who cares if CEI’s figures seem a little high? lol:
30 Jul: CompetitiveEnterpriseInst: Study: Green New Deal Would Cost Households in Five States More than $70K in First Year of Implementation
American households can expect tens of thousands of dollars in higher costs for energy, housing, transportation, and shipping if the Green New Deal is implemented, according to a new study released today by Power the Future (LINK) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
The joint study, co-authored by Power the Future Founder and Executive Director Daniel Turner and CEI President and CEO Kent Lassman, finds each household in five model states – Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania – will be on the hook for more than $70,000 in increased costs for electricity, upgrading vehicles and housing, and shipping in just the first year under the Green New Deal.
Alaska households would see an additional $100,000 in costs in the first year alone, due to the remoteness of the state and its dependence on fossil fuels. Those initial costs would be slightly lower in subsequent years, but households in the five model states should expect tens of thousands of dollars in higher annual costs going forward, if the Green New Deal is implemented. (See table below.)…READ ON
https://cei.org/content/study-green-new-deal-would-cost-households-five-states-more-70k-first-year-implementation
10
Back in the olden days when a person had to walk out to the instrumentation to take readings, I suppose the instruments were located within easy walking distance of the data takers, many of whom were volunteers. That worked well most of the time, especially since “western” countries were all more rural in the last century. Unfortunately, as communities grew, buildings were added, and more land paved over, many instrument sites were affected by UHI. Also, in the pre-remote reading days, people do what people do: they don’t take readings on time, or they “dry-lab” readings in torrential rain or driving snow, or they get sick and nobody takes readings.
If everyone involved in weather data acquisition over the past 150 years had known the data would be used to determine the earth’s temperature to 0.01 degree, they might have been more careful about siting instruments and recording data, although people responsible for siting and tracking instrumentation changes today don’t seem to be particularly interested, even though they know how the data is being used. They are perfectly happy “adjusting” and creating data to fit the current climate change dogma.
50
Yes. And the data would have been lucky to be accurate to a reading accuracy of 0.2C but with the wonder of curve fitting you can increase the accuracy by using the popular fantasy that adding a lot of data increases accuracy. It doesn’t.
50
Yes, the 1890-1909 records would be a better indication of the planet. What we are measuring, as in China, is the temperature of where we live and we have changed that. If only by having lawns and reticulated water and concrete and buildings and cars and motor mowers and washing lines and airconditioners and reflective surfaces and freeways and changing local air circulation. Whatever is being measured now, it’s not the same thing as when records started.
The Federal BOM started in 1909 and inherited all the State records and continued measurements with the same devices but has ignored the previous records. You would think 500 people could find the time to determine if the Federation Drought was warmer than the millenial drought.
Certainly from 1890-1920 Australia would have been the major source of data for half the planet. That’s some extrapolation and without the years of State data, is it valid? Why use overseas proxies for very different Southern Hemisphere temperatures? Why not use the real data, or does that sound like a conspiracy of silence?
60
Tony Heller, in his video I posted above, says how up until around 1920 most weather data was from the USA, Europe and Australia. From this, bizarre extrapolations are made such as temperatures at particular locations in Africa.
10
” . . . thermometers record junk every day . . .”
junk
Regarding the photo at the top:
My mind hopped to this:
“Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog”
[ Leroy Brown by Jim Croce ]
The only thing missing in the photo is the dog.
30
Note that on the other side of Short Street
there is a green area in the middle of a cemetery.
A site there, if trees/shrubs are trimmed,
likely would not change much in another 130 years.
30
Good idea.
00
BOM is just keeping up with NOAA (/s)
“‘Hidden’ NOAA temperature data reveals that 6 of the last 9 months were below normal in the USA – and NOAA can’t even get June right”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/hidden-noaa-temperature-data-reveals-that-6-of-the-last-9-months-were-below-normal-in-the-usa-and-noaa-cant-even-get-june-right/
10
O/T Jo made the list!
“An “Open Discussion” With All People Who Accept Their Lies”
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/an-open-discussion-with-all-people-who-accept-their-lies/
20
Mt Barker made it to Canada!
“Y2Kyoto: And The Heat Goes On…”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/07/30/y2kyoto-and-the-heat-goes-on/
And comments
10
Apart from bad siting in this case, it may interest readers to know that it was Luke Howard that first noticed the urban heat island effect in the early 1800’s in his book “The Climate of London” although didn’t call it by that name.
You can see an annotated copy here:
https://www.urban-climate.org/documents/LukeHoward_Climate-of-London-V1.pdf
Perhaps BoM members could add it to their reading list?
20
David:
Sparrows moved into London in the late fourteenth century. Previously they were rid of the open fields, but with the Little Ice Age getting serious they sought the warmer surrounds of the city.
Proof that a bird brain is 6 centuries smarter than a “Climate Change believer”.
20
How many people has this weather station killed due to its data causing energy poverty and low productivity agriculture plus how many billions/trillions of dollars of economic damage?
We have to start seeing these things as the dangerous and deadly items they are.
10
Climate “science” is highly politicised and of the Left and in Leftist ideology there is no such thing as objective truth. To Leftists, the truth is whatever you make of it. Therefore, this weather station that provides junk data is of no concern to them as long as the junk data produced fits the desired AGW narrative.
20
But, but, but, BoM lacks the funding to maintain stations, so they must rely on volunteers with any space in their yards. If the stations were in public places they would probably be vandalised. In Colac, Vic., for many years a retired minister with a rain gauge in his vegie patch was the go to person for rainfall reports by the local paper.
20
BOM gets plenty of money Robber.
But it chooses not to spend money on it’s weather stations
Not new computer cool ?
Or Not high tech enough ?
20
The WHO estimates that 3.8 million people die of energy poverty each year but that is a UN organisation and the true figure is likely a lot more.
The World Meteorological Organization also says there are 10,000 manned and automated weather stations around the world.
This means that each of these weather stations produces data that is interpreted and misinterpreted to kill 380 people each.
Imagine the government action if there was any other product of which each example would kill 380 people?
THEY ARE KILLERS!
20
Reminder to BoM employees (we know you read this site on your two hour lunch breaks):
Remember, if we ever get a rational government there will be a “climate Nuremberg trials” and you will be held PERSONALLY responsible for your falsehoods.
“Just following orders” will not excuse you of personal liability for your bad management of data and its manipulation (eg “homogenisation” or outright fabrication) to produce the particular results your controllers desire of you.
Have a nice day!
30
Nah David
No need for threats like that.
Simply sack ’em
For incompetence !
With NO redundancy payout !
Now that, the silly buggers
Will really fear in their boots.
🙂
20
All these badly selected sites . . So how much money does the BOM receive to collect all this shonky data ?
GeoffW
30
Doesn’t matter Geoff – as long as they collect their wages! And that usually means they stick to the party line…
00
I wonder about this whole system. From my personal observations, temperature varies significantly from place to place particularly in cities and towns without taking into account time of day sun exposure wind etc etc. So how is it reasonable to correct temperatures from one place to another that may be hundreds of kilometres apart or to interpolate between stations remote from one another. I have spent my working life in test laboratories or closely associated with test laboratories where a major problem is coordination of results between laboratories. So it seems to me that all of this interpolation correction and adjustment are dubious to say the least in the absence of agreed procedures to do it. We do not even consider that the measurements are supposedly accurate on the scale of fractions of a degree per decade when the daily variations are of the order of 10s of degrees. Can somebody enlighten me as to any standardised procedures for making corrections or adjustments to temperatures?
30
Tmatsi, we can enlighten you, but only up to a point. The BoM has admitted it will not and can not share it’s full methodology, which is profoundly unscientific, but just what we’ve come to expect.
They homogenize using roughly ten or so stations which are picked from the surrounding 1,000 km (I’m not kidding) by some magical mathematical checking procedure which finds the ones which “are the same” for the five or so years before some inhomogeneity or questionable event at a site. So the system “fishes” for these magical sites and uses different sites potentially each round. It may ignore nearby stations and choose ones further away.
And thus does a random artificial step change that occurs at several stations get spread to perfectly OK sites.
Ponder that they go to so much trouble to correct problems “statistically” but don’t move the b*&$**^ station.
60
Even if every station was correctly sited, it’s still an exercise in averaging temperatures across large regions, pretending that that means something.
Then they do Land-Only. And average all homogenised sites across the world to generate a single figure for the entire planet.
Then they compare that figure to last year’s figure and what? it’s different by 0.02C so the world is warming. Um, maybe. So what?
They have yet to demonstrate:
that warming is bad.
that it has any cause whatsoever.
that we can change next year’s temperature.
that we should.
that it matters at all.
40
“They have yet to demonstrate: ……………
that we can change next year’s temperature.”
They have demonstrated that they are very capable of doing that.
They have demonstrated that they can easily change any temperature reading, any time they want to.
10
Actually to me that photo looks as good as you might get for a country town. Even in our own town, where the official station at the airport was established in about 1990, there has been a lot of development encroaching in the time since, including wall to wall vineyards, some of which have since been pulled out, and some replaced by housing. This in less than thirty years.
The old in town site, which so far as I know is still recording, is thoroughly built in.
Why build it in a backyard? Probably because that was where they found somebody willing to service it.
20
There has been no noticeable change in Australian temperatures since Charles Darwin visited 180 years ago. 20 January 1836 Bathurst temp was measured at 96 Fahrenheit indoors, 119F outside, in his account in Voyage of the Beagle. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/darwin/charles/beagle/chapter19.html
96F is 35.5C
Bathurst on 20 Jan 2019 was 34.2C; a few days before it topped 40C.
Climate wise, no difference to 1836, well before the fossil fuel era. Darwin sailed to Oz.
20
Morning all.
Have you ever noticed this? When the BOM “homogenise” data, the distant past alwas gets colder, and the recent past always gets hotter. How could that be that be? Or why?
It seems that being a public servant means never having to serve the public…
Cheers,
Mike.
20