An analysis of Australian rural vs non-rural stations' temperature trends

Australia's weather stations
Guest post by Mike Jonas

 

Temperature change in Australia

The rates of temperature change in Australia at rural and non-rural weather stations are compared. Over those periods in which there were increasing temperatures, the rural stations appear to have warmed at about 60-70% of the warming rate of the non-rural stations.

Data

Data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is used, and is assumed to be sufficiently accurate for the purpose. It is not known whether any original measurements have been adjusted in the BOM records.

The data values downloaded from BOM are monthly mean max and monthly mean min. These are used in preference to monthly max and monthly min, as being more representative of each month’s temperature.

Weather Stations

47 weather stations were active from 1940 to 2000, ie. from 1940 or earlier to 2000 or later. Of these, 10 were rural.

Station Number Station Name Latitude Longitude Start Year Last Year Is Rural?
3003 BROOME AIRPORT -17.9475 122.2353 1939 2009 No
4020 MARBLE BAR COMPARISON -21.1756 119.7497 1901 2006 Yes
8025 CARNAMAH -29.6889 115.8869 1940 2009 No
8093 MORAWA -29.2103 116.0089 1925 2005 No
9510 BRIDGETOWN COMPARISON -33.9575 116.1375 1907 2009 No
9518 CAPE LEEUWIN -34.3728 115.1358 1907 2009 Yes
9534 DONNYBROOK -33.5719 115.8247 1907 2009 No
9581 MOUNT BARKER -34.625 117.6361 1907 2009 No
10073 KELLERBERRIN -31.6183 117.7217 1910 2009 Yes
10111 NORTHAM -31.6508 116.6586 1907 2009 No
10579 KATANNING COMPARISON -33.6886 117.5553 1907 2009 No
10614 NARROGIN -32.9342 117.1797 1913 2009 No
10648 WANDERING COMPARISON -32.6814 116.6756 1901 2003 No
12038 KALGOORLIE-BOULDER AIRPORT -30.7847 121.4533 1939 2009 No
12071 SALMON GUMS RES.STN. -32.9869 121.6239 1932 2009 Yes
12074 SOUTHERN CROSS -31.2319 119.3281 1907 2007 No
17031 MARREE COMPARISON -29.6481 138.0637 1939 2009 No
17043 OODNADATTA AIRPORT -27.5553 135.4456 1940 2009 No
18012 CEDUNA AMO -32.1297 133.6976 1939 2009 No
18044 KYANCUTTA -33.1332 135.5552 1930 2009 Yes
18070 PORT LINCOLN -34.7225 135.8558 1892 2002 No
21046 SNOWTOWN -33.7844 138.2133 1908 2001 No
26026 ROBE COMPARISON -37.1628 139.756 1884 2009 No
29004 BURKETOWN POST OFFICE -17.7425 139.5475 1890 2009 No
30018 GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE -18.2922 143.5483 1894 2007 No
30045 RICHMOND POST OFFICE -20.7289 143.1425 1893 2009 No
32040 TOWNSVILLE AERO -19.2483 146.7661 1940 2009 No
33047 TE KOWAI EXP STN -21.1642 149.1192 1908 2009 Yes
37010 CAMOOWEAL TOWNSHIP -19.9225 138.1214 1939 2009 No
38003 BOULIA AIRPORT -22.9117 139.9039 1888 2009 No
39039 GAYNDAH POST OFFICE -25.6258 151.6094 1893 2009 No
39083 ROCKHAMPTON AERO -23.3753 150.4775 1939 2009 No
46037 TIBOOBURRA POST OFFICE -29.4345 142.0098 1910 2009 No
55023 GUNNEDAH POOL -30.9841 150.254 1876 2009 No
66037 SYDNEY AIRPORT AMO -33.9411 151.1725 1939 2009 No
66062 SYDNEY (OBSERVATORY HILL) -33.8607 151.205 1859 2009 No
70014 CANBERRA AIRPORT -35.3049 149.2014 1939 2009 No
74128 DENILIQUIN (WILKINSON ST) -35.5269 144.952 1858 2003 No
78031 NHILL -36.3347 141.6367 1897 2008 No
82039 RUTHERGLEN RESEARCH -36.1047 146.5094 1912 2009 Yes
86071 MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE -37.8075 144.97 1855 2009 No
90015 CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE -38.8556 143.5128 1864 2009 Yes
91057 LOW HEAD (COMPARISON) -41.0567 146.7883 1895 2001 Yes
91104 LAUNCESTON AIRPORT COMPARISON -41.5397 147.2033 1939 2009 No
94029 HOBART (ELLERSLIE ROAD) -42.8897 147.3278 1882 2009 No
200283 WILLIS ISLAND -16.2878 149.9652 1921 2009 Yes
200288 NORFOLK ISLAND AERO -29.0389 167.9408 1939 2009 No

Whether each station was rural or non-rural was determined using Google Earth. The decisions were necessarily subjective. The Google Earth views of the stations are shown in RSelectedStationsGoogleMaps (10.7mb PDF)

Note : Station 9581 Mount Barker is obscured by cloud in the Google Earth view. The population of Mount Barker is over 4,000, and the weather station appears to be in or very near the built-up area, so it is classified as Non-Rural.

The monthly mean max and monthly mean min temperatures for all these stations were downloaded from the BOM website http://www.bom.gov.au/. The temperatures were downloaded in January and February 2011, but unfortunately the December 2010 temperatures for some of the stations had not then been posted. For those stations, data was in fact complete to November 2010. Note that “Last Year” for stations that are still open is given as 2009, and that 10 of the stations closed between 2000 and 2009. A further 3 stations (29004, 39039, 91104) appear to have closed in 2009.

The data as downloaded is in http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/QMeanTemps.pdf

(2.8mb)

Please see the Acknowledgements and Licence information

Product code “IDCJAC0002″ is Monthly Mean Maximum Temperature, and “IDCJAC0004″ is Monthly Mean Minimum Temperature.

Calculations

Temperature trends (least-squares linear fit) over various periods were calculated separately for each calendar month, for each station, using only the monthly temperatures that were given. There was no attempt to fill in any missing data.

For each period, only the stations active for the whole of the period were used (there could be some missing data, but the test was that there was data for the first year of the period or for an earlier year and that there was data for the last year of the period or for a later year).

The overall trend for each period was then taken as the average of all trends for that period – ie, the average across all calendar months and all active stations.

The reasons for using this method are:

  • If an attempt was made to fill in missing data, then there would be a risk that the filling-in method used could introduce errors or biases.
  • Each calculated trend is for one calendar month only (eg. all Januaries), so has no seasonal bias.
  • If trends were calculated on annual averages, instead of by calendar month, then any year with a missing month’s data could not be used, because that would introduce a selection bias.
  • If trends were calculated on all months, instead of by calendar month, then the least-squares algorithm would bias the result towards the hottest and coldest calendar months. The previous issue – a missing month’s data affecting a whole year – also applies.
  • Each calculated trend is for one station only. If station data was averaged before calculating the trend, then it would not be possible to use any month for which any station’s data was missing, because it would introduce a selection bias.
  • The station / calendar month trends for each period were only calculated for stations active in that calendar month over the whole of the period (individual months’ data may still be missing). Thus when trends are averaged for any given period, there is no station selection bias. Note that the number of selected stations can be different for different periods.

It is possible that there may be a geographical bias in the data, ie. the stations used may have different geographical distributions for different periods, or that the geographical distribution of stations is not representative of the region. It is also possible that missing data could affect results, especially if missing values are clustered (eg. same calendar month missing over consecutive years, for a given station).

The full results, where there were at least 5 stations used in each trend average, are given in this table:

Also in: http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/RAverageMeanTempTrendsSummary5.pdf (42kb)

and are as follows:

Trends are given in deg C per year. So, for example, the first number, 0.0036, for the period 1910-2000, means that the average trend of Monthly Mean Max temperatures from 1910 to 2000 for Non-Rural stations was 0.0036 deg C per year. (All results are given to 4 decimal places, so there may be rounding errors).

For stations whose Dec 2010 data was missing, the average trend shown to 2010 is the average of the Jan-Nov trends. Stations are only included for periods over which they have both “Max” and “Min” temperature data.

These figures indicate that over those periods in which there were increasing temperatures, the rural stations only warmed at about 60-70% of the warming rate of the non-rural stations.

There are some curious numbers in the results, which could deserve further analysis – for example, the rural trends for 1980-2000 and 1990-2000 are much lower than the non-rural, yet for 2000-2010 they are about the same as the non-rural. Also, there is no warming trend from 1910-1940, a period of quite rapid global warming (see, eg.,

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.gif).

Where there were at least 2 stations used in each trend average, the results are given in

http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/RAverageMeanTempTrendsSummary2.pdf (43kb)

and all trend averages are given in

http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/RAverageMeanTempTrendsSummary.pdf (45kb)

All of the individual station / calendar-month trends (rounded to 4 dec places) are given in this document:

http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/QMeanTempTrends.pdf (734kb)

This too could deserve further analysis, eg. there may be significant summer / winter trend differences.

=============================================

For further information and discussion, see

http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/AustraliaTemperatureChangeNotes.pdf

This document includes:

  • List of the 47 weather stations.
  • Google Earth maps used for Rural/Non-Rural identification. [link]
  • BOM website (data source). [link]
  • Source data. [link]
  • Individual station / calendar-month trends. [link]
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

74 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jean Parisot
February 21, 2011 5:07 am

If the temperature record is critical and with billions of dollars at stake – why are stations closing?

observa
February 21, 2011 5:22 am

Mount Barker in South Australia was a sleepy rural town but has become a dormitory commuter suburb of Adelaide over recent years, particularly after the completion of the freeway and Heysen Tunnels through the Adelaide Hills. As Wiki notes-
“Mount Barker is an expanding city, home to 10 258 [2] residents that is 33 kilometres up the South Eastern Freeway, east of Adelaide, in South Australia……..
Mount Barker has since developed into a large urban centre, which is developing very rapidly. The Mount Barker district council is the area that experienced the fourth largest growth between 1996 and 2006 in South Australia, with an increase of 3,800 new residents (3% growth per year). Mount Barker is ranked fifth for fastest growth in South Australia.[8] During the last 10 years, many new subdivisions have been developed, such as Martin-Dale and Waterford. During this period, there has also been an economic boom in Mount Barker and a number of additional malls and shopping centres,…”
Consequently, given the location of Mt Barker’s weather station you might notice in the raw data some accelerated warming over the last decade or so.

John Brookes
February 21, 2011 5:33 am

Nice work, although I suspect you may want to get O’Donnell & Steig to check your statistics!

ozspeaksup
February 21, 2011 5:36 am

Tibooburra NOT? rural?
what!
any country person can tell you the city temp is at least 5C if not more hotter as you get into a city. and its always a pleasure to leave a city in summer!
in winter it’s the opposite.
I wouldnt trust the BoM figures any more.
theyve been “housekeeping” a bit in the last couple of years..

Michael R
February 21, 2011 5:37 am

Can I just ask, I am not the best looking at pages of numbers. I do try but it can be hard at times to actually see what is being referred to in a page of numbers. It may be helpfull to also graph the trends for each set of data and include them in the article for those like myself that really benefit from a very visual representation. 🙂

Steamboat Jack
February 21, 2011 5:40 am

I am just a Simple Red-Neck and I have a question. Elsewhere on this blog, the accuracy of temperature measurements was discussed. As I recall, the measurement accuracy was about +/- 0.5 degree C when inherent instrument accuracy and reading accuracy were considered. Since the “trend” here is within the accuracy of the measurements, is the “trend” any trend at all?? Or, are the errors in the measurements random enough and the sample big enough to justify calculations to four decimal places?
Still, I appreciate the labor involved here and it does seem to use techniques similar to those of the Goracle. It appears to this Humble Red-Neck that there is zip for a trend even with the Goracle’s dubious methods. But, it is worth a chuckle when you start with measurements that are +/- 0.5 and mention possible rounding errors when your calculations are 0.0001.
Yours in befuddlement,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

Jit
February 21, 2011 5:46 am

Just eyeballing the tables, some of the min values of the slope are *higher* than the max values. (Check out the top line for rural stations)

Patrick Davis
February 21, 2011 5:47 am

Dosen’t matter, the fix is in, here in Aus anyway. Crickey, ignore the resession in New Zeland, largely brought about by the new ETS tax and GTS increases. A Price on “carbon” (What Ms. Gillard? Its not a tax, really?), that’ll fix that nasty climate change “carbon” monster. Ms Gillard must have seen the kiddie scare program from the UK. But, as long as footy is on TV, KFC and Crust pizzas are at the end of a phone, she’ll be right mate in Aus!
In recent weeks I have seen many, almost to vomiting point, pro-AGW aritcles in the MSM and on TV. Many documenaties profiting doom. Many light entertainment programs with “wind farms” in the background. You name it, its on Aussie TV. It is overload! BLECH!

John Brookes
February 21, 2011 5:55 am

Actually, are you sure Ceduna AMO is not rural? It looks very rural to me.

February 21, 2011 6:29 am

Please can someone convert these findings into graphs like Peter and his dad did for rural and urban sites in the USA?

Thank you.

February 21, 2011 6:30 am

No composite graphs, like average of all rural vs all urban? Puleeeez..

Latitude
February 21, 2011 6:32 am

yet for 2000-2010 they are about the same as the non-rural
==========================================
That’s because there has been no increase and exactly what you would expect with no increase.

tom in indy
February 21, 2011 6:41 am

A single chart containing both series for the study period would be a great way to summarize your results.

richard verney
February 21, 2011 6:43 am

Very interesting post. I am going to need to study this in more detail since a quick glance suggests that there has been little warming over the period reviewed.

James Sexton
February 21, 2011 6:59 am

“Note that “Last Year” for stations that are still open is given as 2009, and that 10 of the stations closed between 2000 and 2009.”
=========================================================
Is there any indication as to why they’re closing stations with such good history?

pyromancer76
February 21, 2011 7:00 am

Forgive me, but I don’t understand this post. The only graph is from CRU showing :”massive” global warming from ~1980 to 2010 of ~.45C. Are you going to present a comparison graph of Australia rural and non-rural stations over the same period during which the rural stations warmed by 60-70% of the non-rural? The Weighted Average Trend of these stations is wildly different than the CRU global, if I am reading this correctly. Are you going to point this out? I had to look and look and I don’t know if I understand very well. Also, we don’t know if BOM data are adjusted or not? Why not? Can you ask them and tell us if you got an answer or not? (Forgive me, again, for this request. I can see that the effort that went into this post is very, very extensive. I simply don’t understand its purpose.)

SteveE
February 21, 2011 7:03 am

So you’ve managed to observe that global warming is happening and that it’s happening in both rural and non rural areas.
But this has been well documented for years. That’s why NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend.
Glad to see WUWT is catching up to what climate science has been saying for years.

Corey S.
February 21, 2011 7:17 am

“The data as downloaded is in http://members.westnet.com.au/QMeanTemps.pdf (2.8mb)”
The link does not work.
“404 Error
File Not Found
The file or location you have specified does not exist.
Possible Reasons
The address you entered may be misspelt.
A typographical error with dots or slashes.
The page may no longer exist.
The page may have been renamed or moved to a new location.
Possible Solutions
Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
Click the Back button to try another link.”

February 21, 2011 7:32 am

I have also done some analysis on summer Au TMax data. See:http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/darwin-jan-tmax/

jaypan
February 21, 2011 7:37 am

Beside rural and non-rural stations, wouldn’t it make sense to have airport stations as a special category?

February 21, 2011 7:44 am

Super work, brilliant.
Here deviation (UHI?) between UAH and GISS for continents 1979-2010 as a function of population growth rate:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UHIINDICATOR/fig3.jpg
AUSTRALIA appear to have rather low divergence UAH-GISS in general 1979-2010. (UAH is basiccaly UHI free).
However , this is the case for all industrial continents/areas 1979-2010:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UHIINDICATOR/fig13.jpg
Its the undevelloped areas that shows more heat in ground stations than the UHI-free UAH data.
In fact the area Africa+Latin America + Asia(not Russia) has en average extra heat in ground based GISS data of 0,46 K com pared to UHI free UAH data.
This is a huge area, this is a huge difference over just 31 years.
So far at joanne Novas, no alternative explanations than UHI has come up:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-urban-heat-island-effect-could-africa-be-more-affected-than-the-us/
K.R. Frank
PS: same data shown as a LOGARTHMIC function: Spot on the same picture:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UHIINDICATOR/fig14.jpg

HLx
February 21, 2011 8:01 am

Hi! Great job!
But I also think the article could have been a bit easier on the eye, if it contained some graphs. They are massively more illustrative than tables :)..
Thanks!

steveta_uk
February 21, 2011 8:01 am

Wot, no graphs?

k winterkorn
February 21, 2011 8:05 am

It would be interesting to see the same analysis performed for July (winter in Oz). The AGW models, as I understand them, indicate CO2 forcing should have more effect in winter than summer—-But this should be unchanged for rural vs. urban. At a common sense level, it seems that UHI effects should be exaggerated in winter, since cities are filled with buildings, cars,etc, that are aggressively heated during winter—-and that heat is continuously distributed into the atmosphere.
So a winter month analysis, if UHI is important, might show a greater rural/urban discrepancy.
Methodology comment: Perhaps given the “subjective” nature of assignment to “rural” and “non-rural”, in the future one might divide three ways: “clearly rural”, “clearly non-rural”, and “unclear”, and perform the analysis for the “clearly…..” categories. This might produce an even stronger signal for a UHI effect.
Of course, easy for me to say, since I am not doing the hard work, which is much appreciated.

February 21, 2011 8:11 am

Good stuff – who did this? Anthony? Or Jonas somebody?
Now all that’s needed is the same analysis for the rest of the world.
So some of the key facts seem to be
* Only 10 of 47 BOM sites are rural.
* For the rural sites the longterm trend is only about 0.4C/century.

1 2 3