Hyping Maximum Daily Temperatures (Part 2)

From Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

Jennifer Marohasy

Available Australian Bureau of Meteorology parallel maximum temperature data for Mildura – temperatures recorded from both a mercury thermometer and a platinum resistant probe on the same day in the same shelter – show no equivalence. They are different. Therefore, it is impossible to reliably compare official temperatures recorded from probes with historical temperatures recorded with mercury thermometers for the town of Mildura on the banks of the Murray River.

This has implications for claims of new record hot days for Mildura. If the issue of non-equivalence extends to all 700 automatic weather stations spread across the landmass of Australia, it was implications for the calculation of the global average temperature by NASA that relies on Bureau data. Indeed, if the instrument change has created a non-equivalence in the record, then no reliability can be placed on any claims by the Bureau and/or other scientists and institutions using Australian data, of record hot days, fewer extreme cold days or a claimed accelerated global warming trend.

I can’t know, because I was only able to secure the data for Mildura and this was following the intervention of then Minister for the Environment Josh Frydenberg back in October 2017. The intervention occurred after then popular 2GB radio broadcaster Alan Jones wrote to the Minister on my behalf asking that this data be made available to me.

It all began for me when on 23 September 2017, the Bureau reported a record hottest September day for the state of Victoria based on an instantaneous reading of 37.7 °C from its uncalibrated purpose-built temperature probe in a weather station at Mildura.

The media then repeated that this was the hottest September day ever recorded back to 1889.

Back in 1889, indeed for the period up until 1 November 1996, the Bureau used a properly calibrated mercury thermometer to measure official temperatures at Mildura.

I was sceptical of the instantaneous reading from the probe as representing a new record hot day. I set about getting access to the parallel data for Mildura that I hoped would allow me to see what the mercury thermometer in the same Stevenson screen had recorded on that day.

A Freedom of Information request, lodged by my husband John Abbot in December 2019, for parallel data for the other 34 official weather stations purported recording temperatures from mercury thermometers and probes in the same shelters has so far been denied by the Bureau.

Boris Kelly-Gerreyn from the Bureau initially claimed provision of the scanned A8 forms too onerous and of no public interest. More recently, and as preposterously, Boris Kelly-Gerreyn has claimed the information does not exist in the form of reports and therefore cannot be provided. On 29th November 2021, Elizabeth Hampton, Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner, absurdly sided with the Bureau. John Abbot lodged a complaint with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that will be heard on 3rd February in Brisbane.

I received scans of the A8 Forms from Mildura at the direction of Minister Frydenberg as two tranches in October and then December 2017.

My immediate and initial analysis of the first tranche indicated that the probe was recording too cool relative to the mercury. I wrote to the Minister asking for more A8Forms and recommending that the Bureau:
1. Suspend the announcement of new record hot days;
2. Inform the World Meteorological Organisation that its temperature measurements from probes are not comparable with historical measurements from mercury thermometers;
3. Establish an audit mechanism.

I was ignored by the Minister. Australian science writer and blogger Joanne Nova did publish something at her blog. It was most disheartening when Bill Johnston in the same thread set about discrediting my findings.

After receiving the second tranche, and tediously manually transcribing more mercury and probe values from the scanned A8 Forms from Mildura, my second go at analysis again confirmed that the first probe – recording official temperatures from 1 November 1996 until 3 May 2000 – erroneous recorded temperatures too cool by 0.2 °C, and with a strong seasonal variation. The difference is statistically significant.

On 3 May 2000, the Bureau changed the Stevenson screen to a smaller design, and while there is no record of a change in the type of probe, this almost certainly also occurred based on the very different recording pattern relative to the mercury that I found through analysis of the data after transcribing the values from the scanned A8 Forms.

Initially the temperatures as recorded at Mildura, from what I am assuming was a new second probe in the new shelter, where more consistent with the measurements from the mercury thermometer. But then I could see from the data that the temperatures from the probe started to cool relative to the mercury thermometer for the period to 27 June 2012. Cooling was at a rate of nearly 1°C per 100 years.

Then on 27 June 2012 the probe which had now been recording the official temperature at Mildura for 12 years while drifting to record ever cooler, was changed.

The limited available parallel data indicates that this third probe records too hot relative to the same mercury thermometer – often by 0.4 °C.

The changing pattern in the difference between recordings from the mercury versus probe for maximum daily temperatures shown as monthly averages.

After the 27 June 2012, the Bureau stopped recording parallel data every day, particularly on hotter days. To be clear, on the hottest days from the period 27 June 2012 through until 31 January 2015 there are no recordings from the mercury thermometer and so this data is not normally distributed. I explained all of this in a blog post on 11 February 2018, that again received surprising little attention.

I notified mainstream climate scientists and various journalists but they didn’t seem to want to understand what it all meant. I had been concerned about the issue since 2014, when I wrote to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel. Now I felt I had some more and compelling proof. I was concerned that the entire historical temperature record for Australia was becoming compromised, and I lost interest in my weather forecasting using machine learning so dependent on reliable temperature data.

Meanwhile, these same university professors who showed no interest in any of the quality assurance issues associated with the change in instrumentation that I was alerting them to by email, claimed that it had suddenly got a lot hotter here in Australia.

Sophie C. Lewis and Andrew D. King, for example, publishing in Geophysical Research Letters (volume 42, Issue 18) conclude that it has gotten significantly hotter here in Australia since 2012. They attribute the ‘dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian temperatures’ to human-caused global warming.

I wrote to Dr Lewis suggesting the step-up in temperatures could be because of changes in how temperatures are measured, specifically a change over to a third probe design. She never replied.

The World Meteorological Organisation provides a definition of daily maximum temperature: the highest temperature in that 24-hour period that can be read directly from a mercury thermometer, but when using a temperature probe ‘instantaneous’ values must be averaged over one to ten minutes.

Ignoring all of this, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology uses purpose-built probes and takes instantaneous readings. These are then used uncritically to claim catastrophic human-caused global warming – and record new hot days, including at Mildura.

I predict that this is going to all come crashing down one day, including on the careers of Sophie Lewis, Andrew King, Boris Kelly-Gerreyn and Elizabeth Hampton.

It could have started to be put right by Josh Frydenberg back in 2017, but he obfuscated. Much thanks to Alan Jones for at least trying to get something done.

There is still time for the current director of the Bureau, Andrew Johnston, to help me work out the extent of the problem by making all the parallel data public. But so far, he won’t even met with me; all-the-while emailing that the bureau’s purpose designed probes are equivalent to the old mercury thermometers making numerical averaging unnecessary. Except the limited data that I have obtained, transcribed and analysed for Mildura tells a completely different story. A story of incompetence, as much as malfeasance.

4.9 16 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 2:44 pm

 If the issue of non-equivalence extends to all 700 automatic weather stations spread across the landmass of Australia, it was implications for the calculation of the global average temperature by NASA that relies on Bureau data.”

No, it doesn’t. The transition from mercury to probes was studied and quantified at the time. That is why those overlapping records were kept. Adjustments were made. Of course, some here do not like adjustments.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 3:02 pm

If that is true and confidence is so high then the Duke of Wellington applies
publish and be damned!

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 3:30 pm

Nick,
I’d like to hear your opinions on the apparent degrading of alignment between the two thermometers in the chart shown above. In particular from May 2000 through June 2012.

It would appear that the comparison of the thermometers are showing a change in accuracy, either the mercury unit is degrading and reading hotter or the electronic unit is drifting cooler.

Whilst your statement that the probes were studied and quantified at the time, it would appear that the subsequent drift over time has not been studied and most probably has not been corrected, eliminated.

So, are the mercury units faulty or are the electronic ones? To know for sure, which thermometer was potentially swapped out in June 2012, was it the mercury unit or the electronic unit? I’d like to know which so that my confidence in the technology can be verified.

Would you like to be sure that your confidence in the BOM is well founded? If yes, then surely you would support the release of the data and information relating to the temperature probe data for this and other stations.

So, should the BOM release the data or not? What’s your opinion?

old cocky
Reply to  Eng_Ian
January 24, 2023 3:47 pm

There certainly appears to have been drift between the instruments during the 2000 – 2012 period.

An initial offset is comparatively easy to compensate for, drift over time much less so.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eng_Ian
January 24, 2023 8:03 pm

So, should the BOM release the data or not? What’s your opinion?”

Depends on whether it is data – ie something that someone stands behind. It looks to me that what happened here is that a transition study was set up, which would normally run for 18 months. But the mercury thermometer went on, with no check on calibration drift, and someone kept the readings. They were not intended or used for any BoM output, but when Jen started heavying them via Josh, someone found the file and forwarded it.

Bob Irvine
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 8:40 pm

Nick
You say,
 “But the mercury thermometer went on, with no check on calibration drift, and someone kept the readings.”
I’m sure we all understand that this is a possibility.
Why not release the data and let the public judge this and any other possibilities.
The BOM after all is getting a bit of a reputation.
If they have nothing to hide, I would have thought honest disclosure would be the best option for them.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 8:41 pm

Hi Nick,

This is not a transition study, the transition study ended after they removed the first probe in 2000.

And Blair Trewin wrote a report saying the probe and mercury were equivalent while providing data showing the probe was recording too cool, and my analysis shows that the too cool is statistically significant.

So no equivalence.

Now the probe at this locations is recording too hot, but there is no report. As regards the drift, this is of the second probe, which was being used to record the official temperatures at Mildura.

I would like to know what the situation is at the other 34 automatic weather stations where there exists parallel data.

This data is being denied me.

On the one hand I am being told that the manually recorded temperatures as written onto A8 Forms have never been digitised, and that it would be too much effort scanning these pages and sending them to me. On the other hand I am being told they do not exist.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 10:17 pm

Nick I think you were a scientist once. The key to whether it is data is actually in the eye of the beholder. It is up to people using data to determine if they are fit for purpose, not for someone to judge they are.

Here is a picture of the Mildura Stevenson screen taken by a friend in 2000, who has since sadly passed away.

There are two stories in the picture.

Firstly the serial number of the screen indicated it was installed in 1998, not May 2000 as indicated by BoM metadata. So in all probability they did conduct a comparison, but then it would have involved the former 230-litre screen (which by 2000 had vanished) verses the 60-litre one in the picture.

However, for some reason they continued manual observations in the same 60-litre screen, side-by-side with the AWS, which incidentally, if it was installed, became the primary instrument from 1 September 1996. Metadata shows the T-probe was not installed at Mildura until 1 October 1989, while the RH-probe was not installed until 27 October 2014.

Make of that what you will.

The second story is that off to the right you can see a white colourbond shed. That shed is associated with the wind-profiler array that was installed probably in June in 2012. You can see it on Google Earth Pro at Latitude -34.2318 Longitude 142.0876. It is the wind profiler and all the earthworks that warmed Tmax to its present level.

Nothing to do with the climate Nick. And a former CSIRO scientist, and expert I thought you would have spent a few minutes looking into the problem before marching forward into the blogsphere with yet more drivel in support of 60-litre screens and wind profiler arrays otherwise known as global warming.

There is no warming in maximum temperature data for Mildura.

All the best,

Dr Bill Johnston

http://www.bomwatch.com.au

Mildura airport 4_Resize.JPG
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 26, 2023 10:36 am

Data are. Why should somebody have to stand behind them?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 26, 2023 12:39 pm

Because without that they are just numbers on a page.

siliggy
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 27, 2023 9:10 am

Bill Twice in this comment section contradicting Both Jennifer and the BoM, you have quoted September 1 1996 as the date the probes became the primary instrument. The BoM and Jennifer give the date as November 1 1996. Are your analyses flawed because you get important things like dates muddled up?
Are you able to cite a source for this different date?

karlomonte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 3:35 pm

Stokes is just another cog in the GAT machine.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 3:42 pm

Records were kept, but no one outside the cult is permitted to see them.

As far as adjustments go, Nick once again has to mis-characterize what those who disagree with him have said, in order to build himself up.

What people object to are secret adjustments, not backed up by data. When someone has proven themselves to be untrustworthy in the past, just declaring “trust me, I know what I’m doing” is unsatsifactory.

Last edited 12 days ago by MarkW
Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 3:43 pm

Nick. Studied and studied. Agreed. Clear guidelines issued. Agreed. Guidelines ignored by The Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The Bureau has now changed the probe design at least twice since those initial studies back in the 1980s and stopped numerical averaging. Time for some assessment of where things have drifted to … along with that second probe used at Mildura. Nick, you can see the instrument/the second probe drifted can’t you, from the chart embedded above? And can you see the new/third probe used to record official temperatures at Mildura may record 0.4 degrees hotter as shown on the A8 Form for 28th February 2013; with the higher value taken forward and now the official maximum temperature

Last edited 12 days ago by Jennifer Marohasy
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 4:14 pm

You’ll get no answer because HOMOGENIZATION takes care of any and all errors.

I have said here many times, if a change is made at a station, for whatever reason, the old record should be stopped and a new station started with the new thermometer. ADJUSTING is not scientific until and unless detailed studies are made on the old and new equipment at a specific site, using properly calibrated standard thermometers and correction charts are created for each station. Hubbard and Lin found that one could not assume a study on one station translated to other stations. The environments were simply too different to assume a “standard” correction.

This whole mess is so lackadaisical that people familiar with field equipment and how it can drift from the day it is calibrated simply laugh at Nicks’s protestations. I’m sure Nick has no idea what microscopic mites, spiders, dust, bacteria, etc. can do to electronic equipment and its calibration. Anyone who claims to be able to divine milliKelvin as KM calls it, has simply never been responsible for making measurements subject to legal or contractual requirements. One would learn quickly that putting your signature to calculated values that are beyond the resolution of the measuring devices is a surefire way to end up on the short end of the stick.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 7:13 pm

Hi Jen,

Thanks for mentioning me in your post on Mildura, and also directing commentators to previous interaction we had about Mildura over at Jo Nova in 2017 (https://joannenova.com.au/2017/11/finally-bom-releases-some-secret-comparison-data-a-snow-job-revealing-new-thermometers-not-comparable/; comments from #16 and also from comment #25.

It is always a delight to try to inform instead of the other thing. At the end of the day, it was posts on Jo Nova and replies and discussion such mentioned above, that alerted Jennifer to the small screen/AWS problem. I was writing to the Bureau about it three or four years earlier for example, and I shared most of what I found with her at the time.

Other discussions showed she did not understand that one can back-calculate from means and SDs to standard errors and then knowing the number of samples, to a t-test of differences. In #25.5 I calculated using her data that: “The difference in this case (0.27) is less than 1.6, so the means are not different”. She said “I provided standard deviations, not error values. You misrepresent me”, but obtaining standard errors from SD’s is not hard and comparing sample means using a t-test is probably the most basic and robust of statistical tests. In another conversation, I pointed out that her use of paired t-tests on highly autocorrelated data-pairs is invalid. Which was then and still is the case.

I finalised my comments #25.5 by saying “Don’t get me wrong here; I want Jen to succeed. There is hardly any info that I have about Mildura that she does not also have; these various comments add even more insights and are intended to be helpful”.
 
So why do you dish-out on people who have openly tried to assist your understanding of weather data?
 

All the best,

Dr Bill Johnston

http://www.bomwatch.com.au

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 24, 2023 8:44 pm

Hi Bill, There are none more dangerous than those who profess to want to help while continually undermining and misrepresenting. I think it is called ‘white anting’. You have done a huge amount of damage over the years, and destroyed groups that were otherwise working harmoniously, and you know so.

Last edited 11 days ago by Jennifer Marohasy
Bill Johnston
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 11:16 pm

Dear Jen,

The early part of the Mildura record (pre-1899) was from Wentworth 18-miles away. The site was at various places in town until the post office opened in 1906 which is when a new Stevenson screen was installed. Between then and 1927, when it returned to the post office, the screen had moved away. After it returned, in July 1933 they (the post office people) re-oriented it so the door faced south not northeast facing the sun. The post office yard was disturbed when they built a slit-trench air-raid shelter in March 1943, and in 1947 they moved the official record to the Royal Australian Air Force Aeradio office at the airport, which had been operating since 1937. The BoM operated nothing at Mildura before at least 1946 and more likely after the Radio Aids office opened in 1969 (I have a picture).
 
I did some research and found that up to the time the former Aeradio office was demolished before 1974, the Stevenson screen was white-painted (or whitewashed) pressed-metal. I have a photograph. It also shows the A-pan evaporimeter and aerial photographs also confirm what happened.
 
You say that “Back in 1889, indeed for the period up until 1 November 1996, the Bureau used a properly calibrated mercury thermometer to measure official temperatures at Mildura”, but early data were from Wentworth, the Bureau did not run the site, and you don’t know whether what you said is true. I also did not discredit your “findings” at Jo Nova’s site, I simply corrected the record, which you ignored.

We have also talked at length before about statistical methods and I have pointed out repeatedly that when comparing runs of autocorrelated data (when one data-pair depend for their response on data for the previous day) paired t-tests are invalid. I even did a mock-analysis using real data to make the point (see comment 41.1.1 in the Jo Nova Post).

Your work would be much more credible if either you undertook a basic statistics course, or rather than call names and make accusations, you defended your approach. For the record, it was around the time of the Jo Nova post that I ceased collaborating with you.

As I explained earlier to Nick Stokes, the cause of the up-step in Mildura Tmax from June 2012 is there for all to see at Latitude Longitude: -34.23053 142.0876. However, take no notice of me, as Jennifer says I may be “white-anting”. Instead, grab Google Earth Pro, paste the coordinates in the search-bar and see for yourselves.

After all I’m just a climate scientist!

All the best,

Dr Bill 

http://www.bomwatch.com.au

Mike
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 25, 2023 1:23 am

After all I’m just a climate scientist!

Lol. So when are going to be a proper scientist and admit your kind have done enormous damage to society, that you are sorry, and from now on you will stop pretending that you can predict the future?

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Mike
January 25, 2023 1:09 pm

Thanks Mike,

However I’m not in the business of predicting the future – ask Jen about that. I’m in the business about understanding past data and what it means for global warming.

Just yesterday I released a study relating to Learmonth, which you can read at http://www.bomwatch.com.au; and comment on if you wish.

Across all the sites I have analysed I have found no global warming; none zilch. Although not reported-on yet, Mildura is one of those.

Cheers,

Bill

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 9:16 pm

Jen,
And can you see the new/third probe used to record official temperatures at Mildura may record 0.4 degrees hotter as shown on the A8 Form for 28th February 2013;”

I’m puzzled by your interpretation of that form. You have labelled in orange the single value 31.9 on the left as thermometer, and the right hand block of numbers as probe, with a max of 32.3, which is indeed 0.4 warmer.

But if you look at all the printed entries on the right, in the form, they refer to thermometer readings. And all the numbers written down only make sense if a min/max LiG thermometer is being reset. It asks for numbers before and after reset. I don’t know what these could mean for a probe.

I think in fact the left number is the probe, returning a single max value, and the right is, as it says, the thermometer data. And the probe is not 0.4 warmer, but 0.4 cooler.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 9:37 pm

Hi Nick

I’m glad you are asking about interpretation of the A8Forms. The Bureau used the same forms after 1 November 1996 when the recordings from the probe because the official temperature, as they used before this date when the mercury value was the official. But the origin of the numbers in each column changed.

So confusing.

So, when I got my first tranche of forms from the Bureau, specifically Anthony Rea, I sent in a series of questions checking my interpretation was correct and Anthony Rea replied that it was.

And to be sure, as a check, look up the official CDO/ADAM value for 27th February 2013. And you will see the value entered is the probe value.

From 1 November 1996 the probe became the official instrument at Mildura.

And since 2012 the probe reliably records warmer.

Also, I sent a series of those values to Andrew Johnson/Bureau Director and he confirmed my interpretation was correct and that the probe was indeed often recording 0.4 warmer.

But said that was just a small sample, only my data from Mildura and only since 2012. While denying me access to the parallel data from all the other sites, which he claimed gave an equivalence.

Cheers,

Last edited 11 days ago by Jennifer Marohasy
Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 9:51 pm

How to read the A8 Forms for Mildura after 1 November 1996.

EXPLAINATION.jpg
old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 9:37 pm

if you look at all the printed entries on the right, in the form, they refer to thermometer readings. And all the numbers written down only make sense if a min/max LiG thermometer is being reset. It asks for numbers before and after reset. I don’t know what these could mean for a probe.

That’s an interesting point, but the heading on the left column has the word “muslin” visible. Those might be the wet bulb readings.

The scan without the overlay would make the column headings clearer. That may clarify things somewhat.

p.s. Jennifer clarified the column contents while I was composing this comment.

Last edited 11 days ago by old cocky
Nick Stokes
Reply to  old cocky
January 25, 2023 1:39 am

Those might be the wet bulb readings.”
No way that Mildura was 31.9 C wetbulb when dry was 32.3.

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 25, 2023 2:25 am

Jennifer clarified the readings at the same time I was posting that comment.
In the absence of readable column headings, the word “muslin” is a clue as to what the column was intended for. The columns don’t seem to have been used for their original purpose, which adds another complication to unravelling what was actually happening.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  old cocky
January 25, 2023 1:51 pm

Thanks Old Cocky,

The word “Muslin” referes to noting when the muslin on the wet bulb thermometer is changed (usually on Mondays, but also at other times if it gets badly stained). Muslin is a small square of white muslin which folds over the bulb of the thermometer, held by a loop of cotton wick which dips into a small cup of (distilled) water.

Evaporation from the muslin removes heat in proportion to the relative humidity of the air, the resulting “wet-bulb depression” relative to dry bulb, is used to calculate actual relative humidity and dew-point temperature.

These days they use a calibrated probe (sintered bronze or other material) which records continuously. The RH probe was not installed at Mildura until 27 October 2014.

Cheers,

Bill

old cocky
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 25, 2023 2:20 pm

Thanks for fleshing that out, Bill.

My memories of weather stations date back to high school, where we had an agricultural weather station set up From memory, the was a Stevenson screen containing the wet and dry bulb liquid in glass thermometers, a rain gauge, a wind vane, anemometer and an evaporation tank.
The thermometers would still have been Fahrenheit back then.

Rainfall and evaporation seemed more important to us at the time.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 9:53 pm

Thanks Nick. Anthony Rea from the Bureau confirmed with me back in October 2017 that the interpretation as per the attached image is correct. Albeit confusing because they never changed the forms after 1 November 1996, while making the probe the official instrument.

EXPLAINATION.jpg
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 11:33 pm

Jen,
If that’s the Tony Rea I know, he’s a reliable fellow. But the interpretation makes no sense. The right hand section has “Thermometer” written all over it, even as a hand addition. Here is a picture where I’ve underlined in green where it is labelled thermometer:

comment image

siliggy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 27, 2023 9:44 am

The right hand section has “Thermometer” written all over it”
Platinum resistance thermometer data written into primary instrument location on form. There is a video of the temperatures being recorded at Mildura somewhere on the ABC or one of the TV network sites. The Platinum resistance thermometer is read from the Met consul in the office.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  siliggy
January 28, 2023 1:36 am

The entry locations, and the data entered, only make sense referring to a LiG min/max. For this, you read the max prior to resetting (at 9am here); that becomes the max for the previous day, as it indeed appears in the table Jen showed. Then you shake down (reset) the pins, and record the current temperature. Same with min. Exactly these steps are described on the form. There is no way you can do that with a probe or resistance thermometer.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 28, 2023 4:34 am

My Vantage Vue weather station updates every 10 seconds. I have an attached raspberry pi that can read the vantage view every 10 seconds. The raspberry pi records those readings in its memory in a mysql data base along with a time stamp. I can go back through the past 48 hours and determine the max and min temps for the previous day (with a +/- 0.5C measurement uncertainty). I don’t need “pins” on an LIG thermometer in order to determine max and min temp.

Are you trying to imply that current temperature measurement stations used by NOAA, NWS, etc. don’t have the same capability?

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 28, 2023 11:26 am

From what Jennifer, Lance and Bill have described, the A8 forms were designed for liquid in glass minimax thermometers, and carried over for use with the later probes.
It’s quite possible that this was only during the transition.

You and I have both worked for large organisations, so know what the bureaucratic inertia is like.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  old cocky
January 29, 2023 3:03 am

OC,
the A8 forms were designed for liquid in glass minimax thermometers, and carried over for use with the later probes.”
You’re missing the point. There is no carry-over use possible with later probes. The A8 forms track the process for resetting the min/max LiG. You can’t reset a probe. You can’t get corresponding numbers to write in the form.

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 29, 2023 12:21 pm

It doesn’t make much sense, but large organisations have lots of internal processes which don’t make much sense.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 11:49 pm

Dear Nick and Jennifer,

Reality is that after 1 September 1996, for sites where AWS were operating, they became ‘primary instruments’. By 2013 the AWS was the ‘primary instrument’ at Mildura NOT the thermometer.

Having filled out A8 forms on and off from 1971 for almost a decade, given instrument uncertainities and the additional uncertainity associated with manual observations, which are additive, the difference of 0.4 degC could not be regarded as significant.

The only possible test is to consider the values in the light of instrument and observational uncertainties, otherwise everything else is an opinion. You are welcome to convince me I’m wrong – then call me names if you are so inclined!

All the best,

Bill

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 25, 2023 12:19 am

By 2013 the AWS was the ‘primary instrument”

Bill, I’m not sure what you mean by that in terms of the form. I would rather expect the left column to be the primary instrument. But the right columns have lots of reference to thermometer readings, which were filled in in 2013. And I can’t see what those entries could mean if not for being, and the labels say, readings taken during resetting the min/max thermometer.

Which do you think that A8 form is saying is warmer (32.3C)?

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 25, 2023 12:47 am

Dear Nick,

By 2013 the AWS was the primary instrument so irrespective of anything else it is AWS data that is in the BoM database.

Any other questions you may have about A8 should be directed at the Bureau. You and Jennifer may be interested that through the 1970s the BoM deployed analogue Fielden AWS at Australia airports (including Mildura). As you may still have contacts you may be able to elaborate on their role in in-filling the Bureau’s temperature records.

Nevertheless, like you, am perplexed that local met-staff were reading-off AWS data and manually recording it on A8. If you find something out please let me know at scientist@bomwatch.com.au.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Johnston

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 25, 2023 2:08 am

Bill,
“Nevertheless, like you, am perplexed that local met-staff were reading-off AWS data and manually recording it on A8”

I can’t believe it is AWS data. It corresponds exactly to what you would expect for a min/max thermometer. At 9am 28/2 they read the max, before touching, at 32.3. That is then recorded as max for 27th. Then they reset, and it showed 15.3. That is indeed the 9am temperature; resetting the min showed the same.

Correspondingly the min showed just before 9am at 14.9C. That is recorded as the min for 28/3. 

I just can’t see how you could even find such numbers to write down with a probe.

I agree that there is then a mystery as to why they were writing down LiG temps in the 2013 data (32.3).

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 25, 2023 4:31 am

Thanks Nick. I was as incredulous as you back in 2017 when I first got a tranche of A8 Forms and tried to make sense of them. I’m happy to forward the four pages of correspondence with illustrations I had with Anthony Rea at the time. I am unable to attach this information here as it is not a jpg or png. I have the correspondence as a Word file and also a PDF. You can email me at my gmail account.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 25, 2023 4:14 pm

Dear Jennifer and Nick,

I submitted a paper to the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science featuring the Mildura weather station in 2019, which was knocked back of course, and the notes I’ve included in this post are from the early site-research that I undertook for the paper. Data used were to the end of 2018. I’ve since updated the datasets, downloaded the latest site summary metadata and the latest ACORN-SAT metadata and adjustments files. The photograph in the ACORN-SAT catalogue was dated 13 January 2012 8:49 am, and it was taken from the north i.e., towards the rear of the screen; the one I sent Nick previously was taken from the south.
 
It seems to me that they did a screen comparison (230-litre vs. 60-litre) from sometime in 1998 when the small screen was installed, until May 2000, which is plausibly when they transferred to the small screen; but I don’t actually know that for sure. The only evidence is that they did transfer to the small screen, and that the small screen serial number indicated it was probably installed in 1998.
 
We also know from site-summary metadata that the first T-probe of an unknown type and serial number was installed on 1 October 1989, which would most probably have been in the small screen (there is a cable within conduit running down the leg of the screen in both photographs). That probe was replaced on 27 June 2012 but according to metadata that probe is still in service (there is no metadata record of a third dry-bulb probe).

We know also that the humidity probe was not installed until 27 October 2014 (before then they used a T-probe with a muslin wick). It is strange that they installed three dry-bulb thermometers on 12 October 2000, but removed them on 13 October 2000!  
 
BomWatch protocols indicate some evidence that they did not switch to a fully automated system until around 1999. It is possible that in the interim, they reported AWS data from a console in the office, by hand via. the A8 field book. But of course, that is speculation based on your field-book evidence.
 
Data from 2000 to 2012 seem sound by a number of measures, but before that they were more variable. I can’t detect a cooling in maximum temperature from 2000 to 2012, but the impact of installing the wind profiler array and associated earthworks in 2012 is very clear. The rainfall adjusted jump in average Tmax from 1999 to 2010 vs 2011 to 2019 was 0.84oC. I also cannot find any report specifically about Mildura written by Blair Trewin.  
 
As soon as I can I will update the datasets to the end of 2022, re-analyse everything using BomWatch protocols and put a report on BomWatch for all to see.  In the meantime, good luck with your case at the Appeals tribunal Jennifer.
 
All the best,
 
Bill

Bill Johnston
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 25, 2023 11:43 pm

Getting all the dates catalogued is important and I have not done that very well.

The photograph I sent Nick was probably taken in spring 2020, not 2000, because due to computer breakdown I cannot at this point track the original email, and also because my late friend had not set the date on his camera. However I’ll look into it.

The second issue is whether the first probe installed on 1 October 1989 was installed in the previous 230-litre screen or the 60-litre one. While it may not matter, or it may, as the small screen was not installed until at the earliest sometime in 1998, the original probe must have been the large screen, which by May 2000, was taken down. (The general state of metadata is appalling.)

While questions remain and it does not change anything in terms of A8, setting the record straight may make a difference in the overall scheme of things.

Bill

siliggy
Reply to  Bill Johnston
January 27, 2023 10:06 am

Reality is that after 1 September 1996, for sites where AWS were operating, they became ‘primary instruments’.”
This date contradicts both the BoM and Jennifer. I suggest that you are just gaslighting and could not cite a source for this date.

Bill Johnston
Reply to  siliggy
January 27, 2023 10:57 am

Thanks Lance,

From the ACORN-SAT catalogue

“Observations have been made at the airport site (76031) since 1946. Site moves took place on 11 August 1992 (from the aerodrome apron to the Meteorological Office) and in July 1989 (only a small move). The automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1989, and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996.

My 1 September was indeed wrong!

Makes no difference to the debate tho!

The original (1946) aeradio site was actually outside the office on a watered patch of lawn, and they used a pressed-metal screen (I have a picture and an AP).

All the best,

Bill

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 25, 2023 11:34 am

Perhaps it is time to run some carefully calibrated mercury thermometers in parallel again to see where we are now.

DD More
Reply to  It doesnot add up
January 25, 2023 8:52 pm

Been there / done that. From the forgotten graveyard of studies.

What they say.

Climate Etc. – Understanding adjustments to temperature data 
by Zeke Hausfather All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

What He measured

Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement. One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ ” For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/12/university-of-augsburg-44-year-veteran-meteorologist-calls-climate-protection-ridiculous-a-deception/

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  DD More
January 26, 2023 1:09 pm

Thank you very much for these links/for this information.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 5:38 pm

It is a good thing you have someone to swab the spit out your throat, otherwise you would drown stupid f*ck.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
January 24, 2023 6:40 pm

So 2hotel9 (the Ford Lightening test driver) is once again swearing and being abusive.
This time at a man who said something he clearly didn’t understand. So what does he do, he resorts to his kindergarten level abuse. What an angry fellow he must be.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2023 4:08 am

Ahh, look! The lie spewing liar is back to spew lies.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
January 25, 2023 11:28 am

What? Is it not true you said you drove a Ford Lightening before they were even released?

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2023 6:53 pm

Lie spewing liar, you are the one who said you had that turd,and you just keep spewing lies. Totally normal fopr you, all you do is spew lies.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
January 25, 2023 7:17 pm

Lie spewing liar, you are the one who said you had that turd,…”
Maybe time to up the medication(s). That does not make sense on any level. But….You did say you had been in a Ford Lightening before (you realised) they had not even been released. And that makes you either not in touch with reality or a liar. Now which is it?

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 6:09 pm

And of course the smaller screens. How to double up on warming.

prjndigo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 24, 2023 6:46 pm

mercury was an incredibly unreliable media for thermometer systems and quite literally has a margin of error of a degree per year not including farmers/ranchers simply not writing down correct information

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 25, 2023 4:35 am

The entire idea of “running in parallel” is a fraud. You simply cannot determine a single “adjustment” to use in bringing two different instruments into reading equally. Calibration drift is *NOT* a single adjustment to all recorded temperatures. If you don’t know the calibration drift over past time then you can’t adjust readings in “past time”. Since the “new” instrument will also be subject to calibration drift once it is placed in the field comparing one instrument with drift “x” units/time with another having “y” units/time simply can’t give you useful adjustment values for either.

The only answer for this is to either continue both or to stop one and start a new one.

Hubbard and Lin proved back in 2002 and 2004 that adjustments must be done on a station-by-station basis, even with co-located measuring devices. Small differences in microclimate between the two co-located stations can result in different readings even from recently calibrated instruments.

Dodgy Geezer
January 24, 2023 2:46 pm

Surely it must be obvious to you now that the only person likely to suffer from this debacle is you?

Senior met staff and politicians are supporting the climate change narrative. They will not lose their jobs over that, under any circumstances.

Your mistake is in thinking that scientific staff are interested in examining natural phenomena any more. They have jobs, and their job is to keep the narrative going so that grants flow in.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
January 24, 2023 3:50 pm

Dodgy, We can agree it is a ‘debacle’. Thanks for reading to the end. :-). And you sound like my husband, who also worries I shall be washed from that rock platform. Patrick is not concerned about sea levels, but does worry I will end up in jail.

observa
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 5:32 pm

Well in defence of skeptical husbands we don’t want to see you washed off the rock platform by a freak wave thereby confirming for the usual suspects that we’re all doomed.

Streetcred
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 24, 2023 11:33 pm

If you do get washed from the rock platform Jen, swim out a little and back in at Tea Tree. The only time I’ve ever seen that platform awash is in cyclone surf … and you can’t get to it 🙂

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Streetcred
January 25, 2023 4:36 am

Streetcred, and that will be fun, as long as I’m not also flying Skido/my drone. Then I will have to try and hold the controller for my drone above the sea level. :-).

Bryan A
January 24, 2023 2:57 pm

They will add an artificial warming trend into the record via the PROBE.
It will be found from time to time by watchful realists.
They will DENY it’s existence.
They are the PROFESSIONAL DENIALISTS

Giving_Cat
January 24, 2023 3:12 pm

In most record setting events there is a review. In most a repeat recording is necessary. So many of these probe excesses are bracketed by reasonable readings. Bad science from bad scientific methods.

Bob
January 24, 2023 4:11 pm

Liars and cheats disgust me. The leaders of Australia’s weather/ meteorological departments need to be fired immediately and blackballed from ever holding a government position for life. All the other people working in these departments should be fired but allowed to reapply for their job. If they can show they weren’t a part of this disgraceful crap show or if they can show they were forced to do things they knew were wrong by higher ups they can have their job back. It is past time to clean house on these disgusting organizations. This goes for the meteorological departments in all countries.

Chris Hanley
January 24, 2023 4:17 pm

They [Sophie C. Lewis and Andrew D. King] attribute the ‘dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian [since 2012] temperatures’ to human-caused global warming

Neither the satellite data for continental Australia nor the satellite data for the SH extra tropics (most of inhabited Australia is south of 20S) show any ‘dramatic increase’, discounting the 2011 – 2014 La Niña.
Clearly the ‘dramatic increase’ in heat extremes apparent on the BOM post 2012 surface record must be due to something other than the general atmospheric temperature trend whatever the factors.

Last edited 12 days ago by Chris Hanley
Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 25, 2023 4:52 am

Chris Hanley, You make a really, really good point.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
January 25, 2023 11:24 am

Thanks Dr Jennifer.

Rick C
January 24, 2023 4:45 pm

Mods: Somehow the graph of wheat yields seems to have migrated from Vijay’s post yesterday in place of Jen’s temperature data.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rick C
January 25, 2023 7:47 am

I was wondering what “The price of wheat in China” had to do with temperature records! 😎

Last edited 11 days ago by Gunga Din
Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 25, 2023 1:23 pm

MODS!
Several hours later the wrong graph is still in the post!
(Is it up to her to correct it? Is it the time difference between the US and Australia and she just doesn’t know yet?)

Mr.
January 24, 2023 5:18 pm

The temperature records cookbook requires a pinch of warming here, a smidgin of warming there, and smear of fresh warm bullshit over the top to set it all, ready for consumption by any ever-famished media.

“Please Sir, can I can I have some more?”

Tom Abbott
January 24, 2023 6:06 pm

Obviously, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has something to hide from the people they serve.

They refuse to make temperature data public as part of the ongoing Human-caused Climate Change scam, and they don’t want to be caught fudging the numbers.

The truth will come out eventually. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology fears that the most.

prjndigo
January 24, 2023 6:45 pm

Unless gravity changes then the temperature at ground level means nothing.

Peta of Newark
January 24, 2023 7:35 pm

I just *know* that the change from Mercury to Platinum (electronic) was and is an epic train wreck and that the data is junk.

I’ve known from the very start and is why I have 2 data-loggers recording temperatures in my garden:
One in a home made but same all the time Stevenson screen thingy, 5 feet above the ground/grass, dangling out of a modest little tree
The other is directly under the first but 15 inches underground.

Obviously they’re electronic, maybe not Platinum, but their operation is exactly the same as a Platinum might be.
So it comes to averaging. I knew, without really knowing why, that that would be an issue – hence the twin loggers.

Especially it is that the underground one, apart from recording the temperature of the *actual* ‘Surface of the Earth’ would have inertia (momentum), that it would record a ‘better’ average than the one measuring the air

e.g. Take a silly trivial example of my arrangement being at the end of the runway of an airport where large jets take off from.
The probe measuring the air will ‘see’ and respond/record the very intense but short lived blast of hot air as the jets open their throttles and go
The one under the ground wont see that.

What’s happening mathematically, without doing any sums, is that the underground probe is doing an ‘Integration’ of the temperature it sees – or more especially it is recording the Energy of the system.
And that is what a Mercury thermometer would do.
Compared to the Platinum probe, a Mercury probe has that inertia already built in. It wouldn’t barely register the few seconds of mega-blast from the jet taking off but the Platinum would go off its scale.

Soooooo, how do the BoM and the Met Office and NASA et al do the integration that is intrinsic/unavoidable to Mercury but has to be done mathematically in a ‘computer’ of some sort with Platinum probes, or any other sort for that matter.

(My probes are the Lascar data-loggers and they automatically have that ‘Mercury inertia’ They are about the size of your thumb but are hefty little things obviously with a battery inside of them. They are not exactly ‘thermally nimble’)

So that is my question: How do the official agencies do the integration/averaging of the Platinum probes? Especially to try and make them equivalent to how a Mercury probe intrinsically did it.

It is an absolutely essential step – it’s the disconnect between the digital world and the analogue world.
How many folks actually appreciate that. How many get it wrong BUT, if/when they do get it wrong and it gives the answers they expect (global warming) – simply don’t bother to investigate or check.

Even more especially when **everyone** knows that ‘electronic is good/new/modern’, that computers are infallible and that everybody prior to me was a silly, old fashioned and ill-educated duddy duddy.

I think we all know, THAT is where ‘Global Warming’ is coming from.
Every last fraction of a Centigrade. And more.
Unless:

Earth’s albedo has reduced,and/orEarth’s emissivity has reducedand/orEl Sol has become more powerfulThere is No Other Way for the temperature of ‘Earth’ to increase

Attached is yesterday’s Temp & Wind-speed plot from a ‘probe’ near me.
Why does the temperature wiggle about so much through the night *especially* when there’s no wind?
Is that a home heat-pump or air-con cycling on and off?
Yet through the day, when the breeze does pick up, the wigglyness disappears.

Point being, that was/is an electronic probe. How would a Mercury probe see that or, if the electronic probe there was installed in a gallon size bucket of water to give it some inertia, how would the plot and the observed average change?

edit to PS
Re-reading that, I’ve simply taken a huuuuge number of words to assert that:
Temperature is not = Energy
and that is at the root of global warming. The GHGE raves about ‘Trapped Heat’ but while you’re ‘digesting’ that, changes the subject to ‘trapped temperature’
Watch the pea as much a follow the money

Wisbe 240123.JPG
Last edited 12 days ago by Peta of Newark
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 24, 2023 7:53 pm

I checked. The are other weather stations/probes dotted all around town and they wiggle about, through the night, just the same – the rural ones as well as the urbans.
What **is** going on out there?

slowroll
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 25, 2023 12:05 pm

Well, I suspect that the only way to really know what the average temp is, thus its heating effect, in any given place would be take the temps every few minutes throughout the day, every day, and integrate them to determine the actual average each day. Not just grab an extreme and report it. The length of time a given heat is applied determines the heating effect.

Last edited 11 days ago by slowroll
Jennifer Marohasy
January 25, 2023 4:45 am

I used to spend some time trying to piece temperature records together for my artificial neural networks, to feed into arrays for rainfall forecasting. I would make adjustments/homogenise when it was obvious how a site move or equipment change would potentially affect a temperature series. I put the attach together some years ago, showing summer maximum temperatures (December, January and February) for Mildura and the nearby location of Wentworth … showing how they moved beautifully together and how at least up until 1996 (transition to probe) there was no ‘global warming’. Blue line is an amalgamation from Mildura. Orange dashed is the extent of the record for Wentworth. So often the early temperature records from these rural locations move in unison.

Mild-mine.png
Last edited 11 days ago by Jennifer Marohasy
Neutral1966
January 28, 2023 4:54 am

Can anyone tell my in the interests of gathering true and untainted temperature data, as well as ensuring temperature stations are unaffected by anomalous heat sources, there hasn’t been any attempt to establish a control?
Sorry for cumbersome question. It would seem obvious that as old style mercury instruments are replaced, by modern devices, that conventional thermometers should be used as a control alongside the new. That way, any deviation between the two would be evident.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Neutral1966
January 29, 2023 3:09 am

That is always done, and is what is happening here.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights