NOTE: There’s an error here. I misidentified the Laverton airport in the Google Earth Map. My bad. But I will say when I typed in Laverton Airport, thats what GE gave me. There are two Laverton Airports in Australia as it turns out.
Willis located the correct one and has a guest post on it here
That’s what I get for posting on the run and not having enough time. Thanks Willis – Anthony
Yesterday I visited Tasmania’s Hobart weather station and found it surrounded by buildings and a collection of air conditioners. Today we have a complaint about another BoM weather station from a working scientist.
The discontinuity with a step shown above is a bit of a puzzle. Perhaps the station was moved or the airport upgraded or both?
A letter below from Marc Hendrickx to Australia’s Peter Garrett MP Minister for Environmental Protection has some interesting points. Why does GISS tag this station as having a nearby population of 2.5 million when it clearly does not? See below:
Looking at the town and airport from the air, it is obvious the number is wrong:
The aerial photos at Google Earth are not of high enough quality to determine where the weather station actually is, and all of the lat/lon published at GISS and NCDC are very coarse. Perhaps somebody knows someone who lives in Laverton who can go to the airport and help us location the station.
Here’s the letter:
23 June 2010
Marc Hendrickx
Berowra Hts NSW 2082
Hon Peter Garrett MP
Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts
PO BOX 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
RE: Urban Heat Island effect Laverton, Victoria
Dear Minister,
I was recently contacted by a senior member of Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) staff Dr
David Jones in regard to a comment I published in the Journal Biology Letters1. My comment discussed problems with an earlier publication2 that claimed a link between changes in butterfly emergence times and dangerous man made global warming around the Melbourne area. Dr Jones is the head of BOM’s Climate Monitoring and prediction unit within the National Climate Centre. I am a working geologist with a MPhil and a PhD candidate at the University of Newcastle.
Dr Jones inquiries were restricted to discussion of the quality of weather station data used in the emergence study and my comment in which I called the quality of this data into question. In particular Dr Jones was concerned with assertions that BOM weather station Laverton (ID 87031) was potentially affected by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. This effect has a significant impact on temperature and is derived from man-made changes in the energy balance in urban centres, to the point where sites that are affected are not useful for monitoring climate unless they are adjusted. The bias arises as a direct result of two different but associated processes. The first involves direct heating of the air surrounding an instrument from vehicle emissions, air-conditioning, industry etc. The second involves land surface changes that include changes over time due to human influence in albedo (change in vegetation for instance), thermal aerodynamic properties (buildings that change air flow around a site), hydrology (affects evaporation) and morphology of the surface.
BOM currently regards Laverton as a “High Quality” site and uses it as part of its climate
monitoring network. BOM currently does not adjust station records at Laverton for UHI.
The population around the Laverton station has changed significantly since the station was first opened. ABS statistics indicate a population increase from 7853 in 1933 to over 132,000 in 2008. It is also clear from aerial photographs that there has been significant urban development around the station since its inception, with significant growth in residential development over the last three decades.
In the course of my correspondence with Dr Jones it has become clear that no measurement has been made of the potential affect of UHI on Laverton’s temperature data. A study published in the Australian Meteorological Magazine3 used as evidence by Dr Jones merely assumed the station was “rural” but provided no proof to support this. Contradicting Dr Jones claims this study states: “It is possible that the measured Melbourne UHI is a slight underestimate, as measurements across the Urban-rural boundary were not continued far into the rural area.” I understand from Dr Jones that Laverton occurs near the end of the transect used in the study and hence lies inside the urban side of this boundary.
Additionally this study determined a quantitative relationship between UHI and population for south east Australia. Using the equation furnished in this paper and ABS statistics, the UHI at Laverton can be calculated at 5.18 degrees over and above rural temperatures. Clearly on this basis Laverton cannot be considered a ‘rural’ site.
An additional study4 quoted by both Dr Jones and myself used Laverton as a “proxy” for
rural conditions. This study states (p.1933-1934). “Using the mean value from these three
airport monitoring stations (includes Laverton 87031) has probably resulted in a slight
underestimation of the UHI magnitude because of their proximity to the CBD, and urban
modified surfaces such as buildings and roads/runways, along with the heat output from
anthropogenic activities”. The study does not attempt to quantify the effect. Dr Jones claims this study supports his assertion that Laverton is unaffected by UHI. It clearly does no such thing; it clearly implies the stations are indeed affected. It does not support Dr Jones’ claims.
The US and IPCC rely on NASA GISTEMP as one of its primary sources of world
temperature data. In contradiction to Dr Jones claims that Laverton is “rural” this premier
climate agency regards Laverton as an urban site with a population of 2.7 million for climate monitoring purposes5. In our discussion Dr Jones appeared unaware of this fact and suggested I contact NASA to determine why this might be the case. I find it astonishing that the head of BOM’s Climate Monitoring and Prediction unit would not be aware that NASA considers the Laverton site as urban for climate monitoring purposes. Even more astonishing is that on being informed of this he appears dis-interested in following this up further on behalf of the BOM, stating “I suggest you contact NASA GISS as to why they define a particular station as urban”. I would have thought this would have been a primary responsibility of Dr Jones and of the BOM. I would be happy to follow this up on BOM’s behalf in return for a fee for professional services.
Based on the evidence it is clear that Laverton experiences some UHI affect. In our
correspondence, Dr Jones moves from an early position of “no effect” to admitting the effect is “small”. However Dr Jones is not able to provide any supporting references or data to demonstrate how “small” this might be. It could in fact be quite significant. This is
remarkable given the importance of Laverton to BOM’s network of High Quality stations.
Based on correspondence with Dr Jones and the available published science literature it is
clear that BOM simply does not know how much UHI affects temperature at Laverton. I find this of great concern given the site is used as part of BOM’s climate monitoring network. A UHI of just 0.1 degree per decade at Laverton would significantly affect the station’s influence on regional trends. Indeed a UHI of just 0.1 degree per decade would mean Laverton would no longer be considered a “High Quality” site, ruling out its use for climate monitoring purposes.
Clearly further work is required to quantify the potential affect of UHI on temperature
measurements at Laverton. Indeed Dr Jones appears to agree stating “this strike (sic) me as a research project and not an operational activity – perhaps a nice Honours project.”
While this issue may seem a mute point, a disagreement between scientists, of little interest to you as the responsible Minister, I think you would agree that ensuring the accuracy of Australia’s network of meteorological instrumentation is of critical importance. If there are problems with BOM’s climate network it casts significant doubt on the ability of politicians to make responsible policy decisions. The apparent dis-interest in the issue shown by BOM is of concern and I bring it to your attention. As the Minister responsible, I request that you investigate further the issue of UHI at this key monitoring station. What is the affect of UHI on Laverton, and what is the impact of UHI on this key climate monitoring site?
A complete transcript of the email correspondence between Dr Jones and myself is available at your request, should you require it.
Yours faithfully
Marc Hendrickx
CC Greg Ayers Director of Meteorology
Opposition Spokesperson Hon Greg Hunt MP Media
1 http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.short/reply#roybiolett_el_31
2 http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.abstract
3 Torok SJ, Morris CJG, Skinner C and Plummer N., 2001. Urban heat island features of SE Australian Towns.
Australian Meteorological Magazine 50, 1-13.
4 Morris CLG and Simmonds I., 2000. Associations between varying magnitudes of the urban heat island and
the synoptic climatology in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Climatology 20: 1931-1954
5 GISTEMP 2010. NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – Station Data ‘Laverton’
GISTEMP ID 501948650000 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgibin/
gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501948650000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1)
(accessed 18 March 2010).
Marc Hendrickx
25 Holliday Ave
Berowra Hts NSW 2082
0406320248
marchgeo@gmail.com
Hon Peter Garrett MP
Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts
PO BOX 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
RE: Urban Heat Island effect Laverton, Victoria
Dear Minister,
I was recently contacted by a senior member of Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) staff Dr
David Jones in regard to a comment I published in the Journal Biology Letters1. My comment
discussed problems with an earlier publication2 that claimed a link between changes in
butterfly emergence times and dangerous man made global warming around the Melbourne
area. Dr Jones is the head of BOM’s Climate Monitoring and prediction unit within the
National Climate Centre. I am a working geologist with a MPhil and a PhD candidate at the
University of Newcastle.
Dr Jones inquiries were restricted to discussion of the quality of weather station data used in
the emergence study and my comment in which I called the quality of this data into question.
In particular Dr Jones was concerned with assertions that BOM weather station Laverton (ID
87031) was potentially affected by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. This effect has a
significant impact on temperature and is derived from man-made changes in the energy
balance in urban centres, to the point where sites that are affected are not useful for
monitoring climate unless they are adjusted. The bias arises as a direct result of two different
but associated processes. The first involves direct heating of the air surrounding an
instrument from vehicle emissions, air-conditioning, industry etc. The second involves land
surface changes that include changes over time due to human influence in albedo (change in
vegetation for instance), thermal aerodynamic properties (buildings that change air flow
around a site), hydrology (affects evaporation) and morphology of the surface.
BOM currently regards Laverton as a “High Quality” site and uses it as part of its climate
monitoring network. BOM currently does not adjust station records at Laverton for UHI. The
population around the Laverton station has changed significantly since the station was first
opened. ABS statistics indicate a population increase from 7853 in 1933 to over 132,000 in
1 http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.short/reply#roybiolett_el_31
2 http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.abstract
2008. It is also clear from aerial photographs that there has been significant urban
development around the station since its inception, with significant growth in residential
development over the last three decades.
In the course of my correspondence with Dr Jones it has become clear that no measurement
has been made of the potential affect of UHI on Laverton’s temperature data. A study
published in the Australian Meteorological Magazine3 used as evidence by Dr Jones merely
assumed the station was “rural” but provided no proof to support this. Contradicting Dr Jones
claims this study states: “It is possible that the measured Melbourne UHI is a slight
underestimate, as measurements across the Urban-rural boundary were not continued far into
the rural area.” I understand from Dr Jones that Laverton occurs near the end of the transect
used in the study and hence lies inside the urban side of this boundary. Additionally this
study determined a quantitative relationship between UHI and population for south east
Australia. Using the equation furnished in this paper and ABS statistics, the UHI at Laverton
can be calculated at 5.18 degrees over and above rural temperatures. Clearly on this basis
Laverton cannot be considered a ‘rural’ site.
An additional study4 quoted by both Dr Jones and myself used Laverton as a “proxy” for
rural conditions. This study states (p.1933-1934). “Using the mean value from these three
airport monitoring stations (includes Laverton 87031) has probably resulted in a slight
underestimation of the UHI magnitude because of their proximity to the CBD, and urban
modified surfaces such as buildings and roads/runways, along with the heat output from
anthropogenic activities”. The study does not attempt to quantify the effect. Dr Jones claims
this study supports his assertion that Laverton is unaffected by UHI. It clearly does no such
thing; it clearly implies the stations are indeed affected. It does not support Dr Jones’ claims.
The US and IPCC rely on NASA GISTEMP as one of its primary sources of world
temperature data. In contradiction to Dr Jones claims that Laverton is “rural” this premier
climate agency regards Laverton as an urban site with a population of 2.7 million for climate
monitoring purposes5. In our discussion Dr Jones appeared unaware of this fact and suggested
I contact NASA to determine why this might be the case. I find it astonishing that the head of
BOM’s Climate Monitoring and Prediction unit would not be aware that NASA considers the
Laverton site as urban for climate monitoring purposes. Even more astonishing is that on
being informed of this he appears dis-interested in following this up further on behalf of the
BOM, stating “I suggest you contact NASA GISS as to why they define a particular station as
urban”. I would have thought this would have been a primary responsibility of Dr Jones and
of the BOM. I would be happy to follow this up on BOM’s behalf in return for a fee for
professional services.
3 Torok SJ, Morris CJG, Skinner C and Plummer N., 2001. Urban heat island features of SE Australian Towns.
Australian Meteorological Magazine 50, 1-13.
4 Morris CLG and Simmonds I., 2000. Associations between varying magnitudes of the urban heat island and
the synoptic climatology in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Climatology 20: 1931-1954
5 GISTEMP 2010. NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – Station Data ‘Laverton’
GISTEMP ID 501948650000 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgibin/
gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501948650000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1)
(accessed 18 March 2010).
Based on the evidence it is clear that Laverton experiences some UHI affect. In our
correspondence, Dr Jones moves from an early position of “no effect” to admitting the effect
is “small”. However Dr Jones is not able to provide any supporting references or data to
demonstrate how “small” this might be. It could in fact be quite significant. This is
remarkable given the importance of Laverton to BOM’s network of High Quality stations.
Based on correspondence with Dr Jones and the available published science literature it is
clear that BOM simply does not know how much UHI affects temperature at Laverton. I find
this of great concern given the site is used as part of BOM’s climate monitoring network. A
UHI of just 0.1 degree per decade at Laverton would significantly affect the station’s
influence on regional trends. Indeed a UHI of just 0.1 degree per decade would mean
Laverton would no longer be considered a “High Quality” site, ruling out its use for climate
monitoring purposes.
Clearly further work is required to quantify the potential affect of UHI on temperature
measurements at Laverton. Indeed Dr Jones appears to agree stating “this strike (sic) me as a
research project and not an operational activity – perhaps a nice Honours project.”
While this issue may seem a mute point, a disagreement between scientists, of little interest to
you as the responsible Minister, I think you would agree that ensuring the accuracy of
Australia’s network of meteorological instrumentation is of critical importance. If there are
problems with BOM’s climate network it casts significant doubt on the ability of politicians
to make responsible policy decisions. The apparent dis-interest in the issue shown by BOM is
of concern and I bring it to your attention. As the Minister responsible, I request that you
investigate further the issue of UHI at this key monitoring station. What is the affect of UHI
on Laverton, and what is the impact of UHI on this key climate monitoring site?
A complete transcript of the email correspondence between Dr Jones and myself is available
at your request, should you require it.
Yours faithfully
Marc Hendrickx
CC Greg Ayers Director of Meteorology
Opposition Spokesperson Hon Greg Hunt MP
Media
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Out of interest the Mean Max temp for Laverton Western Australia appears to have dropped since the late 1970s. You can compare temperature data at BOM’s climate data site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
Laverton WA Station ID 12045 covers 1900-1970-mean max temp over this period is about 27.45 C.
Laverton AERO Station ID 12305 covers 1990-2010 with a mean temp of 26.8 C. Gross cooling of about 0.65 C – WUWT!
Further to my post of 8:13pm above If the air photo shown in the link is indeed 1946 and I dont see any sign of an airport per sae, how do they have temperature data that goes 1943 to 2010?
Giss now exclusively uses night light brightness for the entire world to determine whether a station should be adjusted. A value of 10 or less is now considered the same as what was formerly called rural and those stations don’t get adjusted. The highest brightness value for any of the stations in the Giss database is 186 for Montreal McGill.
Giss shows Laverton Aero with a brightness value of 16. It gets adjusted. Surprise, surprise, the temperatures in most years become a few tenths higher after adjustment.
If Laverton brightness was 10 or less it would be considered rural, left unadjusted, and possibly used in making adjustments to other non-rural stations. That usage is distance dependent.
Changing from population to brightness has caused numerous stations to change classification. Seems to only have had a minor effect on annual anomaly values though. Of the 7364 stations in entire database 1037 have moved from rural to non-rural classification. 854 stations have moved from non-rural to rural classification. I’ve seen a few with actual populations of more than a million that are now considered rural. Lack of adequate electricity at night may be a reason.
70% of the database isn’t even generating data anymore, but they still figure in calculations for the years they do have data.
I probably already said more than you wanted to read. So I think I’ll hit the sack. 🙂
I think the weather station is close to the Admin centre near Sir Richard Williams Drive
If no runways in 1946 but Wiki reports the Australian Grand Prix race held on runways in 1948, there must have been some expansion in the interim. Also says airforce base was decommissioned in the early 1990s. In early 2007 the Victorian State Government gave approval for the land that was formally the Laverton airfield and runway to be developed into the new suburb of Williams Landing. Perhaps this information helps explain some of the peaks and troughs?
Cheers
another study:
23 June: UPI: Study: Some reefs adapt to global warming
Penn State University Assistant Professor Iliana Baums, one of the team’s leaders, said discovering how corals respond to ocean warming is complicated because corals serve as hosts to algae that feed on its nitrogen wastes…
The researchers found the response of larvae to changing conditions depends upon where the parent colonies lived…
The study appears in the online journal PLoS One.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/06/23/Study-Some-reefs-adapt-to-global-warming/UPI-67651277326800/
what is the point of this WaPo blog post? no-one has responded. i’m not rightwing, centre right, or anything remotely related to the right, yet the MSM keep repeating this nonsense.
WaPo: Dan Malouff: This year in global warming
Spring 2010 was officially the warmest on record both for Washington, D.C., locally and Earth as a whole.
Deniers can bicker about how inconvenient it all is, how it may or may not be due to human interference, or how Al Gore is a Democrat so he couldn’t possibly be right, but the bottom line is that climate change is real, and it is upon us.
So what should we do?
Dan Malouff is an Arlington County transportation planner who blogs independently at BeyondDC.com. The Local Blog Network is a group of bloggers from around the D.C. region who have agreed to make regular contributions to All Opinions Are Local.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/06/this_year_in_global_warming.html
23 June: EurActiv: Black carbon’s global warming role ‘still unproven’
Black carbon has recently been the focus of attention after some studies identified it as a major contributor to global warming, coming second only to CO2…
But EU policymakers speaking in Brussels yesterday (22 June) cautioned that more research must be carried out to ascertain its impact more accurately.
“From the scientific point of view, it is not that certain yet,” said Frank Raes, head of the climate change unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).
However, he said black carbon was “likely” to contribute to climate change…
But a senior Commission official warned against allowing the black carbon discussion to distract from the EU’s focus on cutting CO2 emissions, which he said remains the top priority…
The existence of both black and white aerosols, with warming and cooling impacts, makes it less straightforward to make a case for political action on black carbon, the speakers added….
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/experts-call-action-black-carbon-news-495488
it,s a wast of time contacting Peter Garrett MP as he will be kicked out at the next elections along with the rest of the rat bags.’ God Save Australia ‘ we need your help
Yeah, I hate to say it, but Anthony made a sloppy error by putting up the wrong photo (not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the letter).
Now let’s “show them how it’s done” and make a transparent correction.
Which is what I fully expected to see whether I mentioned it or not.
Yes, I picked up the error with the station locations.
I have done some research on 2 country stations, located in QLD. Both towns have populations of less than 1,500 people. Both stations show an UHI effect. It is possibly simply bad siting, but the effect is there.
As I will be meeting Anthony shortly; I will show him my research and get his opinion. I will then look to a posting.
It appears that the UHI appears even in small country towns. If this is the case it will throw into doubt all the adjustments to temperature data, made in the name of UHI effect.
Regarding the missing data in the GISS plot, the Laverton RAAF station in Victoria -37.86S, 144.76E is both an Australian BOM Reference Climate Station and part of the High-Quality Australian Daily Temperature Dataset. The data set has values of Mean Annual Temperature for the years missing in GISS. The interesting thing is that since 1985 the BOM temps. are significantly different to those of GISS – mostly quite a degree higher. The values (in degrees C) from the BOM site for 1985 onwards are:
1985 – 14.4, 1986 – 13.9, 1987 – 14.1, 1988 – 15.1, 1989 – 14.4, 1990 – 14.9, 1991 – 14.3, 1992 – 14.0, 1993 – 14.5, 1994 – 14.3, 1995 – 13.8, 1996 – 13.7, 1997 – 14.6, 1998 – 14.2, 1999 – 14.9, 2000 – 15.0, 2001 – 14.6, 2002 – 14.9, 2003 – 14.9, 2004 – 14.6, 2005 – 15.3, 2006 – 14.7, 2007 – 15.9, 2008 – 15.0, 2009 – 15.4.
Somebody has lost the plot!
Congratulations Marc on your letter to Minister Garrett. There is clearly a need for more sharp pencil work to be done on the readings from the BOM sites around Melbourne to qualify their validity as a basis for determining temperature trends.
As a resident well within the Melbourne UHI affected area, I had a look at much of the readily available temperature data when studying the Brown Butterfly episode.
Papers and other publications from both Melbourne and Monash Universities, all of which are readily available to Dr Jones, clearly show that Laverton is well within the boundary of the Melbourne UHI effect. The question is not a matter of whether, but of how much, and how much is critically important for sound decision making.
Looking further afield, I could not find a site in Victoria that was quality controlled for accuracy, situated in a clearly definable rural area, and with a long enough record to be capable of establishing a statistically valid long term trend. I have concluded that the the claims made by the BOM about a long term temperature trend caused by humans are not very soundly based. There are too many likely errors in the data.
@ur momisugly John Westman says:
June 24, 2010 at 12:17 am
“Yes, I picked up the error with the station locations………….
It appears that the UHI appears even in small country towns. If this is the case it will throw into doubt all the adjustments to temperature data, made in the name of UHI effect.”
Dr. Spencer has shown that to be true. You can see his work right here at WUWT! He’s posted 2 or 3 times here regarding this issue.
Hey! I just looked at a post from Oz-Land, and it says that all of a sudden Kevin Rudd is OUT???
Watt’s Up with That????
(not that I mind, certainly!!!)
I’m not from Australia. However based on that picture from the Satellite, if that town has 2million people in it…
Hmm well maybe they include the dingos, dingbats, wallabies, and kangaroos as people?
“While this issue may seem a mute point,”
Must be “irrevalunt” then!
Marc, slightly off topic, but is there any research done on the UHI of the Melbourne CBD? And are the figures”corrected” in any way. The AWS now reads much higher than surrounding areas in Southerly or SW winds due to buildings now covering the whole area. Ten days ago Melbourne CBD was the highest temp in Victoria, higher than Mildura by 1 degree which is some 600kms further North. Seems ridiculous to me that this could happen. Would be great to find out if any UHI factor is taken into account, but from what i know its disregarded by the BOM as it suits their obviously biased stance.
Did it occur to you that the discontinuity in the temperature record might have something to do with the “two Lavertons” problem? If you can get fooled by them why not some lackey at GISS who’s never been down under?