Dr David R.B. Stockwell writes, Progress on the surface temperature front as follows:
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment Bob Baldwin established a Technical Advisory Forum comprised of leading scientists and statisticians to review and provide advice on Australia’s official temperature data set in January following recommendations by an independent peer review.
The Forum’s report has been published at
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf.
Here are the links to the press articles from the Australian included below
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/questions-remain-on-bom-records
****
Questions remain on BoM records, The Australian, June 20, 2015
Graham Lloyd
The results of an independent review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s national temperature records should “ring alarm bells” for those who had believed the bureau’s methods were transparent, says a key critic, Jennifer Marohasy.
Dr Marohasy said the review panel, which recommended that better statistical methods and data handling be adopted, justified many of the concerns raised.
However, the failure to address specific issues, such as the exaggerated warming trend at Rutherglen in northeast Victoria after homogenisation, had left important questions unresolved, she said.
The review panel report said it had stayed strictly within its terms of reference.
Given the limited time available, the panel had focused on big-picture issues, chairman Ron Sandland said.
The panel was confident that “by addressing our recommendations, most of the issues raised on the submissions would be addressed”, Dr Sandland said.
The panel is scheduled to meet again early in the next year.
Dr Sandland said that, overall, the panel had found the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network — Surface Air Temperature was a “complex and well-maintained data set that has some scope for further improvements”.
It had made five recommendations that would boost transparency of the data set.Although the panel reviewed 20 public submissions, Dr Marohasy said it had failed to address specific concerns.
“While the general tone of the report suggests everything is fine, many of the recommendations (are) repeat requests made by myself and others over the last few years,” Dr Marohasy said.
“Indeed, while on the one hand the (bureau’s technical advisory) forum reports claims that the bureau is using world’s best practice, on the other hand its many and specific recommendations evidence the absence of most basic quality controls in the many adjustments made to the raw data in the development of the homogenised temperature series.”
BoM said it welcomed the conclusion that homogenisation played an essential role in eliminating artificial non-climate systematic errors in temperature observations, so that a meaningful and consistent set of records could be maintained over time.
*********
Bureau of Meteorology told to improve data handling, analysis, Graham
Lloyd, The Australian, June 19, 2015
Better data handling and statistical methods and the use of pre-1910 temperature records would improve the Bureau of Meteorology’s national temperature data set ACORN-SAT, an independent review has found.
A technical advisory panel, brought forward following public concerns that the bureau’s homogenisation process was exaggerating a warming trend, said it was “generally satisfied” with BoM’s performance.
But it said there was “scope for improvements that can boost the transparency of the data set”.
Scientists who queried BoM’s management of the national temperature data said they had been vindicated by the report.
The review panel made five recommendations and said it was “not currently possible to determine whether the improvements recommended by the forum will result in an increased or decreased warming trend as reflected in the ACORN-SAT dataset”.
The independent review panel was recommended by a peer review of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network — Surface Air Temperature, but it not acted upon until public concerns were raised.
BoM’s technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM’s work “do not provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall
need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau’s climate records.”
Nonetheless, the review report said it considered its recommendations for improving the bureau’s communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, would address the most important concerns.
David Stockwell, who raised concerns, said he was “very pleased with the recommendations”.
“They largely identify and address all of the concerns that I have had with the past BoM work,” Dr Stockwell said. “When implemented, it should lead to considerable improvements.
“The panel recommended strongly that the BoM communicate the limitations and it agreed that errors in the data need to be corrected and homogenisation is necessary, as I do, although it must be communicated clearly that the ACORN result is a relative index of change and not an observational series.”
The forum received 20 public submissions which questioned;
• The 1910 starting date (although some pre-1910 records are available) and its potential effect on reported climate trends;
• The treatment of claimed cyclical warming and cooling periods in the adjustment process and its effect on reported warming trends;
• The potential effects of site selection and the later inclusion of stations in warmer regions;
• The treatment of statistical uncertainty associated with both raw and homogenised data sets;
• The ability of individuals to replicate or verify the data set; and
• the justification for adjusting historic temperature records.
Bob Baldwin, the parliamentary secretary responsible for BoM, said the bureau would work to adopt the recommendations.
“We believe the forum’s recommendations for improving the bureau’s overall communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, will help address the main concerns surrounding the dataset,” he said.
Mr Baldwin said the report was an important part of ensuring the bureau continued to provide world-class information on the climate trends affecting Australia.
The review panel said its recommendations predominately addressed two key aspects of ACORN-SAT.
They were: to improve the clarity and accessibility of information provided, in particular explaining the uncertainty inherent to both raw and homogenised datasets; and refining some data-handling and statistical methods through appropriate statistical standardisation procedures, sensitivity analysis and alternative data filling approaches.
Readers might find this essay from Willis Eschenbach enlightening:
Out of the 112 ACORN-SAT stations, no less than 69 of them have at least one day in the record with a minimum temperature greater than the maximum temperature for the same day. In the entire dataset, there are 917 days where the min exceeds the max temperature …
As I have said before, 112 stations to “calculate” the average surface temperature of a continent the size of Aus, really? That is, if we “average” (Heh!) them. That’s 1 device for every ~68,500 square kilometers of land! Rediculous!
And what about the globe!
Clearly there is lack of spatial coverage to enable one to draw any firm conclussions..
You can’t draw a conclusion on the globe, you can draw a conclusion on what measured by surface stations, the rest not being measured is IMO unknowable .
Yes, exactly and it’s totally meaningless!
Actually, because there is substantial spatial homegeneity of temperature variations at scales of several hundred kilometers, 112 stations would more than adequate The rub is that they are unevenly distributed geographically, are of very much different record lengths, and vary immensely in terms of UHI effects. Separating the wheat from the chaff in extracting the regional signals is the real challenge.
Well that’s what’s claimed, but it isn’t true, where I live there’s a 10-20F swing based on where the jet stream is running today, the temperature field is not linear, and it isn’t just on the coasts.
Australia has a boarding house full of biased investigators. The overall error here is using temperature to infer a biased cause. The proper order is to understand what would naturally produce a rise in temperature and then see if it does. When the oceans are calm, it is well understood that warm water evaporates and sends heat into the atmosphere. This heat would show up as warmer humid conditions. Does it? Why yes it does. I have experienced the normally cold Oregon Pacific Coastline when the wind has died down. It gets hot and humid. Fortunately it doesn’t happen very often. I would rather leave all the heat and humidity where it normally occurs, IE Indonesia and places like that. Since it is well understood why Indonesia is a hot and humid climate, if the conditions that cause this heat and humidity occur elsewhere, it is reasonable to assume that temperatures will rise. And sure enough, that happens.
What amazes me are the sheer number of climate scientists who disregard this large body of research that has confirmed this naturally occurring relationship between oceanic-atmospheric conditions to produce land temperatures to instead blindly beat the drum of human-sourced CO2. That they do so blindly can easily be seen in the research record. Many times and even now, biased researchers try to show that human sourced CO2 is causing an increase in the occurrence of oceanic-atmospheric heat producing set up, only to have observations kill those notions one by one. The desperation is so rampant they even try to blame human sourced CO2 when it gets cold.
Just fricken amazing.
Pamela,
Actually, I find it “fricken amazing” that you imagine that “the sheer number of climate scientists who disregard this large body of research that has confirmed this naturally occurring relationship between oceanic-atmospheric conditions to produce land temperatures to instead blindly beat the drum of human-sourced CO2.” …….. haven’t !
And have found it inadequate to explain continued warming. Not least in the oceans themselves. Now do you think that the heat emerging the oceans has come from other than the Sun? and given you agree that it obviously has, how do you explain the fact that overall the TSI has been slowly ramping down this last 50 years. The conclusion must be that more solar is being retained than used to be …. and guess what? that matches empirical science’s known conclusions from ~150 years of investigation (MINUS internal natural cycles).
@Toneb,
One problem is of course, that the oceans are chaotically dynamic and how can you possibly determine such a massive thermal sink’s temperature average to a hundredth of a degree when it wont sit still? . I think we’re up to 13 hypotheses as to why it is conjectured that heat is entering the oceans and staying there longer than before in recent decades.
Do you support one of these 13 or so, or do you have your own hypothesis?
Bob:
IMO There is no conjecture on the fact that the heat entering the oceans comes from the Sun. All the heat in the climate system comes from the Sun. The only other places could be geothermal (which would be detectable via deep convection and would need to massive anyhow), or from the air (nope, not that either as the oceans heat the air (overwhelmingly) and not vice versa. The oceans are a storage radiator (containing ~93% of climate heat) and move it around, sometimes hiding it, sometimes releasing it.
That is my hypothesis and the only one that makes logical sense. Some heat is also being lost via LH uptake to melt Arctic ice.
@Toneb,
I think you misunderstood the question. No one disputes that al those naughty ergs in the oceans originate almost entirely from the sun. However, some doubters of a pause in warming seem to believe that under various hypotheses (13?) the rate at which heat enters and leaves the oceans has mysteriously changed,
Are you believing in one of the 13, or do you have your own hypothesis?
We may feel suitably removed from superstition and biases but remember, just up the road a ways from OZ theer are still people who will believe getting naked anger the volcano Gods.
The terms of reference (1) appear to have been hurriedly drafted and lack the normal things like publication date, signatures of authority, or departmental logos. ‘Document properties’ for this PDF reveal that they were authored by a government staffer and accessed once in early March 2015 some two weeks before the joke of a one-day review between the “forum” and the BoM (2).
(1) http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/baldwin/2015/pubs/technical-advisory-forum-tor.pdf
(2) http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/baldwin/2015/pubs/communique-20150326.pdf
The “independent forum” panel was announced in January 2015 and it is planned to meet with the BoM for one day each year
Pre-1910 temperatures were a key part of my submission among the 20 to the ACORN Technical Advisory Forum.
My submission was essentially an invitation for panel members to look at the detail of http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html, where I’ve analysed historic records published in 1933 by Australia’s CSIR of annual average minima and maxima from 1855 to 1931 at 226 weather stations across the country, as well as 1911-1940 averages at 44 stations published in Australia’s 1953 Year Book.
The 226 CSIR stations suggest 0.5C unadjusted mean warming across Australia from <1931 to 2000-14, while the 44 Year Book stations show 0.4C mean warming since 1911-40. The 1954 Year Book provides more raw station records, totalling 84 weather stations that had a mean temperature increase of 0.3C from 1911-40 to 2000-14.
The historic CSIR and Year Book records encompass a network more than twice as large as ACORN and suggest homogenisation has doubled, possibly tripled Australia's mean temperature increase over the past century to 0.9-1.0C. Many of the temperature records analysed from the documents pre-date what is publicly available in the BoM's raw or ACORN datasets.
The page linked above considers the shelter screen question with most evidence suggesting 0.0-0.2C difference between annual means recorded in Glashier and Stevenson screens, although many Australian locations used neither shelter in the 1800s. The 1911-40 Year Book temperatures were all from Stevenson screens and the influence of non-Stevensons in a small proportion of total averages from 1855 to 1931 is unlikely to have caused even 0.1C influence. Conversely, the page considers UHI which has had an unknown influence since the late 1800s (ditto Airport Heat Island).
Station relocations, mostly from town centres to outlying airports, are not considered as each has a unique warming or cooling influence that may or may not be worthy of adjustment. The analysis also doesn't reference the use at most locations since 2000 of Automatic Weather Stations, which evidence suggests have contributed to warming trends. Also ignored is the whole .0 rounding of more than 50% of all Fahrenheit temperatures recorded before 1972 metrication, which the BoM concedes may be responsible for a 0.1C warming at that time but won't adjust because the early 1970s were also Australia's wettest and cloudiest period on record (?).
In my opinion, these numerous competing artificial influences result in averages that are no more or less reliable than ACORN, bearing in mind the latter dataset calculates Australia's hottest ever day was 51.7C in the cool south coastal town of Albany in 1933 (that day was 44.8C in raw). ACORN has a lot more problems than minima warmer than maxima and it's unlikely to deserve the review's endorsement as a "well maintained" dataset.
If adopted, several of the review recommendations will allow more accessible and transparent research. I hope the BoM takes action to expand the ACORN timeline back to the 1800s, digitises its mountain of Fahrenheit temp observations before 1957, and properly considers all of the many artificial variables that are or are not included within its adjustments.
@waclimate
an adjustment from 44.8 to 51.7C ?? That is over 10% adjustment!? WTF? Just seen your post, and will have a look at your link later, but I have to ask if that adjustment is reasoned/explained anywhere?
Kev-in-Uk … yes, there is some explanation by ACORN architect Blair Trewin on p64 of Techniques Involved in Developing the ACORN-SAT Dataset (http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf) …
“At a small number of locations, the PM95 method could not adequately homogenise some extremes. All such locations were coastal locations where the observation site moved from a highly exposed coastal site to a site further inland. The issue is most acute for summer maximum temperatures; on coasts with a strong land-sea temperature contrast, the coastal-inland temperature difference tends to increase with increasing temperature, before collapsing to near zero on the very hottest days as offshore winds override any marine influence (Fig. 14). The 95th or 99th percentiles are insufficient to resolve this behaviour at some locations (where extreme heat with strong offshore flow occurs on much less than 1% of days), leading in some cases to highly unrealistic adjustments for the most extreme values. Figure 20 shows an example of this at Albany – the differences between the airport and town sites for the 95th and 99th percentiles of summer maximum temperatures were between 6-8°C (Figure 15), and hence pre-1965 extreme high temperatures at the town were typically adjusted upwards by this amount, but on the very hottest days the difference between the two sites is in reality near zero (Fig. 14), resulting in a few very unrealistic values (e.g., a value from the town site of 44.8°C in 1933 was adjusted to a clearly unrealistic 52.5°C). The method produces a realistic time series for mean temperatures but a highly unrealistic one for extremes.”
So the 51.7C has seemingly been corrected from 52.5C originally calculated by ACORN.
If you compare ACORN daily and RAW daily for the southern town of Albany via the BoM website, you’ll find that just about everything above 30C is grossly exaggerated, starting with …
2 Feb 1940 – raw 39.7C / ACORN 46.1C
6 Feb 1940 – raw 40.8C / ACORN 47.2C
12 Jan 1958 – raw 41.7C / ACORN 47.9C
12 Feb 1915 – raw 42.8C / ACORN 46.8C
14 Mar 1922 – raw 40.8C / ACORN 46.0C
20 Jan 1930 – raw 41.1C / ACORN 46.8C
24 Jan 1948 – raw 40.6C / ACORN 46.8C
26 Feb 1934 – raw 38.8C / ACORN 45.2C
23 Dec 1945 – raw 41.1C / ACORN 45.1C
02 Jan 1954 – raw 39.5C / ACORN 45.7C
11 Jan 1954 – raw 38.9C / ACORN 45.1C
22 Jan 1956 – raw 39.3C / ACORN 45.5C
05 Jan 1969 – raw 45.6C / ACORN 45.7C
31 Jan 1991 – raw 45.3C / ACORN 45.4C
18 Feb 1910 – raw 40.1C / ACORN 44.1C
27 Jan 1931 – raw 39.1C / ACORN 44.8C
25 Feb 1932 – raw 37.8C / ACORN 44.2C
07 Feb 1943 – raw 38.3C / ACORN 44.3C
02 Feb 1945 – raw 38.1C / ACORN 44.1C
16 Jan 1953 – raw 38.3C / ACORN 44.5C
26 Jan 1957 – raw 38.0C / ACORN 44.2C
25 Feb 1957 – raw 38.4C / ACORN 44.4C
04 Jan 1965 – raw 38.0C /ACORN 44.2C
12 Feb 1914 – raw 39.7C / ACORN 43.7C
etc, etc down to about raw 30C. Each of these single day errors increases Albany’s relevant monthly mean max by about 0.2C and are carried through all ACORN calculations to estimate Australia’s official temperature trend since 1910. Because of an observation shift from Albany’s town centre 11 km north to the airport in 1965, there are ACORN upward adjustments of pre-65 to counter the warmer inland daytime climate. However, airport raw mean monthly max in summer are about 2C warmer at the airport than in Albany itself, compared to an average 5.25C difference in the examples listed above.
This is one of those rare situations where an inbuilt ACORN error actually increases rather than decreases historic temps, and this is apparent if you view RAW and ACORN timeline chart temperature trends for Albany. Nevertheless, the joke of 51.7C at Albany as the hottest day ever anywhere in Australia has been referenced on various skeptical websites and other forums for almost a year but the BoM doesn’t seem interested in doing a few hours work to correct the Albany database.
As in my earlier comment, this is the ACORN Technical Advisory Forum’s definition of “well maintained”.
@waclimate,
I made a substantial submission too, and one of the things that annoys me is that after all the hard work detailing inconvenient FACTS, that although the Hon MP Mr Bob Baldwin’s office confirmed that it had been forwarded to the “forum” (presumably to chair Ron Sandland ex CSIRO), I’ve had no advice since and don’t actually know if it was ever given a tracking identity or even if it now sits in some file somewhere.
I’m aware of several others who are perplexed with somewhat similar experiences.
I’ve long wondered how they expect to maintain the charade. Do they really believe an end point, or are they just hoping against hope their impossible visions will come true?
=================