Today has been electrically charged, first my interview with Andrew Bolt and Steve Price on their radio show in Melbourne, then rush to the airport, trying to do a radio interview on a cellphone while checking in, make a quick post on the skeptic blacklist, off to Hobart, then discovering your luggage never made the plane.
All was not lost though (well it might be if I don’t get my luggage). The first stop my trusty guide Alan made was to the Hobart Weather Station next to the Anglesea Army Barracks at Battery Point. He said, “you have to see this”.
Looks pretty nice doesn’t it? It is very picturesque looking out over the bay and the Wrest Hotel/Casino (the tall building).
This station was showcased by the ABC radio network om 30 May 2008, here and ABC supplied this photo with the story:
Notice anything interesting? I did, but nary a mention from the ABC. They write:
“The Battery Point site being the official site is where temperatures are verified against” said Malcolm.
Malcolm went on to explain that one of the limitations with the Battery Point site is that due to its location it will be affected by the sea breeze thus the temperature may not climb as high as places further inland such as Glenorchy or Brighton.
The major change in the operation of the site over the years is that where once a person would be on hand to measure the temperature, these days everything is done electronically.
In regards to the future of the site Malcolm said it is important from the Bureaus perspective that conditions remain as constant as possible as any major changes to buildings or even trees surrounding the site can influence the temperature readings.
Whilst such changes may only alter the readings by a tenth of one degree it is just such evidence that the Bureau need to establish long term trends in climate change.
They didn’t mention the most important feature – air conditioners. Lots of them. Here’s more of my photos:
Here’s a reverse angle, a composite of two photographs to take in the wide angle:
Here, David Archibald poses next to the Stevenson Screen and the A/C heat exchanger units:
The industrial sized unit in the foreground was working so hard it had iced up its coils. David scraped about an inch of frost off of it.
Here’s the aerial view.
Note that just measuring the distance to asphalt and the nearest building, the station is less than 10 meters away, making it a CRN4 station, which would be considered unacceptable by NOAA standards. It would fail by either the old 100 foot (30 meter) rule, or the new Climate Reference Network siting rule.I don’t know how much of the building built up around it or when, but it clearly fails.
Here’s the temperature data, via NASA GISTEMP:
The jump around 1970 may be of interest related to siting, but without more time to research that metadata I can’t speculate if it is related or not. Note the plunge though the last two years. Quite a drop.
And here is what the data looks like after GISS finishes with their “homogenization” adjustment:
While I don’t have time right now to do a full analysis as I’m due for a metting shortly, I can say it appears that GISS flattened out the could snap in the 1940-1960 period, making the long term slope more positive. I’ll look at that later.
The point here is, it seems no matter where I go in the world, I seem to find siting issues with official weather stations used for climate monitoring. Stations that are long period records of historical importance suffer the most from such siting issues, because their record is valuable. Worse, when the data is adjusted, it seems to add to the warming.