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
Gene Zeien
February 21, 2011 8:11 am

Looks like the Aussies had the reverse of the North American temperature trend 1910-1940. Sure would prefer a temp vs. time graph.

February 21, 2011 8:34 am

“Whether each station was rural or non-rural was determined using Google Earth. The decisions were necessarily subjective.”
“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.”
1. What this means is that the result cannot be replicated. The criteria, objective or subjective, have to be documented.
2.Your method isnt clear
I’ll say the same thing I say to Jones or mann. Post your data as used and your code.
Thanks.

Peter
February 21, 2011 8:46 am

You explained that the decision to classify stations as “rural” or “non-rural” was subjective, based on Google Earth (i.e., satellite photos). So what subjective criteria are different in rural stations as opposed to non-rural stations.
When I look at the Google Earth photos of some of these station locations, it seems to me that many, if not most, of the stations you have identified as “non-rural” are in locations that in my subjective opinion would consider rural. Places like Salmon Gums or Camooweal — just to pick a couple at random — are dots on the map. There can’t be more than a few hundred people living in either of these places. How could they be considered anything but rural?

JohnH
February 21, 2011 8:49 am

SteveE says:
February 21, 2011 at 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.”
LOL, seems the Giss adjustments are actually the opposite, increase the rural so it matches the Urban.

Robuk
February 21, 2011 10:14 am

SteveE says:
February 21, 2011 at 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.
If you have a long trend for RURAL stations and a long trend for URBAN stations ask yourself why you need to remove the UHI influence from the URBAN stations when you have PRISTINE RURAL data in the first place, and don`t tell me there are not enough rural stations up to the mid 1990`s.

A C Osborn
February 21, 2011 10:19 am

I suggest you guys also check out http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
he has done a lot of analysis and he is the one mounting the challenge against the Australian BOM.

MarkW
February 21, 2011 10:25 am

SteveE.
The groups you cite claim that the increase in UHI over the last 100 years is only 0.01C. This work clearly shows that at least as far as Australia is concerned, the so called “adjustments” for UHI are not accurate. Not even in the same ball park as accurate.

MarkW
February 21, 2011 10:26 am

Another point SteveE. Very few people have ever claimed that there has been no warming over the last 100 years. The argument has always been how big the warming is, and what is the cause or causes.

A C Osborn
February 21, 2011 10:29 am

JohnH says:
February 21, 2011 at 8:49 am
SteveE says:
February 21, 2011 at 7:03 am
You forgot to add that they adjust the wrong way as well, they adjust the past down and the present up.

Graeme
February 21, 2011 10:35 am

re observa says…
there are 2 towns called Mt. Barker in Australia. The article obviously refers to the West Australian one.
The SA one is somewhat larger than you think, as the suburbs on the other side of the freeway are considered as a different town. From the air it would look like a town of 25,000.

max_b
February 21, 2011 10:48 am

A C Osborn says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:19 am
I suggest you guys also check out http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
thanks for that link… jeez, some of those adjustments he’s uncovered… if his analysis is correct it’s shocking.

Dr A Burns
February 21, 2011 10:58 am

How about some graphs ?

Editor
February 21, 2011 11:35 am

Jean Parisot : I don’t know why the stations are closing. My understanding is that the stations’ primary purpose is for local weather, not climate, so nothing sinister need be read into the closures. Given the attention being given to climate, however, and the role of weather stations, the closure of a significant number of stations in the last few years does seem a bit odd.
Michael R : Yes it could be very interesting to graph some of the data. All I need is more time, in short supply at the moment …
Steamboat Jack : The longer the period, the more valid the four decimal places are. And bear in mind that the exact same trends reported as deg C per century would be only 2 decimal places.
Jit – yes, what you are looking at are trends. If a “Min” number is higher than a “Max” number, it means that Minimum temperatures have been rising faster than Maximum temperatures. There were seasonal differences too, but I haven’t had time to examine them properly.
Pyromancer76 : I think a lot more analysis of Australian (and other S.H.) temperatures would be interesting. Does the S.H. Match the reported global trend, or does it go its own separate way? I noted the apparent big difference from global temperatures to 1940, but I don’t have any answers.
Corey S : Apologies, the correct link is http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/QMeanTemps.pdf
k winterkorn : If I have time (unlikely in the near future), I’ll look at summer vs winter, rural and non-rural. Division into 3 station categories would make sense, but it would also make the number of stations in each category even smaller.
Steven mosher : The data is posted, see the last link in the post and my note to “Corey S” above. The Google Earth maps used to classify the stations are there too, as are all the individual trends by station / calendar month. Least-squares line-fitting is a well-known process. Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Peter : In the Google maps, the position of each weather station is given. If it’s among the buildings of a settlement, even if the settlement is small, I have tended to classify it as non-rural. Anthony has made the point before that it isn’t the size of the settlement that matters, but its growth. If the station is well away from the buildings, runways, etc, then I could classify it as rural. But it still in the end can’t be anything but a subjective process.

Alex
February 21, 2011 12:24 pm

In case you are not trolling, the point is that the magnitude of UHI is much greater then the AGW crowd admits.

Ed Waage
February 21, 2011 12:34 pm

Using the bird’s eye view in Bing.com maps for the lat-lon given for Mt Barker shows the area where the met station is located is rural.

Adam Gallon
February 21, 2011 12:41 pm

Having a play around with WolframAlpha is informative.
I plugged in the town nearest me (Grantham) and the weather station is RAF Cranwell, showing a warming of 0.036F/year. I then looked for London, where it used the City Airport, a few miles to the East of central London, which is warming at 0.072F/year.

Ian George
February 21, 2011 12:42 pm

Mike
I compared the raw temp data (max temps) from 50 long-term w/s throughout Australia and found that 1914 was warmer than 2008. Yet on the official record 2008 is shown to be warmer than 1914.
I then discovered that when comparing an individual station’s raw data with that station in the BOM’s high-quality climate site network, I found many of the raw temperatures to be adjusted downward for temps prior to 1950. Why?

Scott
February 21, 2011 1:18 pm

The data you can download from the BOM site is modified. Shamefully they call it ‘raw data’

TimiBoy
February 21, 2011 1:51 pm

A coincidence! I was having a jolly good look at BOM last night, and it’s fascinating that their very own Trend Map, when loaded with the 1910 – present data (that’s as far back as it goes) shows a trend of an average maybe 0.5 degrees or a fraction more over the whole Country, in 100+ years!!! Give man’s CO2 is what, 3.5% of total CO2 output, let’s be generous and say Man’s contribution to warming is, say 10 percent? Wooo, so we have warmed Australia by 0.07 degrees? Mmmm, better sell the Silver to fix that…
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&period=1910

Annei
February 21, 2011 2:08 pm

You might find a good bird’s eye view of the various sites on NearMap. Worth a try.

Mindbuilder
February 21, 2011 2:29 pm

The sample size looks too small. This is basically a sample size of 10 stations. Given the accuracy of the measurements and the random variation of heating and cooling trends between stations, I doubt this reaches statistical significance. You may have just got a couple of unusually low trend rural stations by chance.
If the purpose of this study is to show that the climate science establishment’s results are invalid due to UHI, then I think this study fails. Of course, it is not clear at all to me that the results of the climate science establishment are themselves statistically significant.

Graham
February 21, 2011 3:03 pm

In February 2010, I analysed all 51 of Australia’s Long Record Temperature Stations (LRTS) with the aim of demonstrating a UHI signal, if any, in BoM’s Annual Climate Statement. (LRTS have records covering all, or very nearly all, of 1910-2009.) Following is a summary of the results.
There are 3 values in each row. The first 2 are the mean temperature anomalies (degC) for 1910-1959 and 1960-2009 respectively. The third value is the difference (warming).
Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009
BoM (2009 Report) -0.34 0.16 0.50
Melbourne -0.26 0.25 0.51
Sydney -0.48 0.16 0.64
LRTS (51 stations) -0.11 0.14 0.25
LRTS (43 rural stations)-0.08 0.13 0.22
Clearly, national warming as reported by BoM (0.5 degC) is closer to a known heat island, Melbourne, and more than twice that of the national long-standing records.
BoM’s Reference Climate Station Network, on which its reports are based, overlaps but does not coincide with the LRTS. Even so, the foregoing analysis adds to the disquiet concerning UHI bias in official BoM reports.
Mike Jonas’ study differs in the method of analysis and selection of stations. As other readers here have urged, it would be really useful if Mike could summarise his findings, perhaps in tabular form as here, and wind up with a definitive conclusion.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml

Graham
February 21, 2011 3:06 pm

In my previous comment, the second paragraph should read:
There are 3 values in each row. The first 2 are the mean temperature anomalies (degC) for 1910-1959 and 1960-2009 respectively. The third value is the difference (warming).
BoM (2009 Statement) -0.34 0.16 0.50
Melbourne -0.26 0.25 0.51
Sydney -0.48 0.16 0.64
LRTS (51 stations) -0.11 0.14 0.25
LRTS (43 rural stations)-0.08 0.13 0.22

Brian H
February 21, 2011 3:21 pm

The amateur American study mentioned above seems better designed and based on much more data. It was also mentioned on JC’s ‘Defunding IPCC’ post, here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/19/u-s-to-kill-funding-for-the-ipcc/#comment-45205
Cross-post:

ferd berple | February 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Reply | Reply w/ Link |
Here is what a father and son team were able to do without funding. It looks a lot more meaningful than what we are seeing from the IPCC and well worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded

Brian H | February 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Reply | Reply w/ Link |
Excellent stuff! Zero increase rural since 1900. So the AGW/CRU/GISS numbers in the range of .7°+ are basically 50% composed of the 1.5°C UHI increase.
Heh. Precisely what we Deniers have been scurrilously alleging. Put that in your bungholes and smoke it, Mike and Phil et al.!

P.S. Attempted to put the link on T&N, but it seems to be in periodic purge mode, or something — no comments box. Reloading from the Home page doesn’t help.

JimF
February 21, 2011 3:26 pm

@Steamboat Jack says:
February 21, 2011 at 5:40 am
“Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)” I knew a Jon Jewett once; did you ever work for a major oil company, like in the 1980s?