On 11th November 2011, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology replaced the probe in the automatic weather station measuring temperatures at the Alice Springs airport and the number of days with temperatures recorded above 40 degrees Celsius increased dramatically. This is likely to have everything to do with the change of equipment and nothing to do with the weather. To know this for certain, the bureau needs to make the parallel data for Alice Springs airport public, that is the daily temperature data recorded manually from a mercury thermometer at the same weather station from 21st March 1991 until at least 1 April 2019 (metadata here).
Alice Springs is close to the centre of Australia, and there are very few other weather stations in the region. Because the Bureau, and other IPCC-affiliated institutions, use a gridded method for calculating climate variability and change, and because weather stations are far and few between in the centre of Australia, temperatures as recorded at this station disproportionally affect not only the calculation of the average temperature for Australia, but also the global average temperature.
While Alice Springs is a globally important weather station, I doubt it is reliably recording temperatures.
I have explained in earlier posts within this series that the bureau uses a selection of different types of custom-designed probes and that it does not numerically average with the highest instantaneous spot readings becoming the maximum for that day. We also know that while there was a mercury thermometer also recording temperatures beside the probe in the Stevenson Screen in the Alice Springs weather station for at least 28 years, the bureau will not allow the 28-years of data from this mercury thermometer to be made public. The Bureau has denied every Freedom of Information request I have so far been a part of, and our most recent request is still under consideration (in mediation) with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Making this data public would be a quick way of confirming whether the probe in this automatic weather station is, or is not, reliably recording temperatures.
To be clear, since 1996 the Bureau has been transitioning from manual recordings of daily temperatures from liquid in glass thermometers (mercury for maximum temperatures and alcohol for minimum temperatures) to an automated system using probes, with the probes more responsive to fluctuations in temperatures and therefore likely to record both hotter and colder for the same weather – except the Bureau has placed limits on how cold temperatures can be recorded.
In the Bureau’s Research Report No. 032 ‘The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT)’ Version 2 (October 2018) Blair Trewin states:
In the absence of any other influences, an instrument with a faster response time will tend to record higher maximum and lower minimum temperatures than an instrument with a slower response time. This is most clearly manifested as an increase in the mean diurnal range. At most locations (particularly in arid regions), it will also result in a slight increase in mean temperatures, as short-term fluctuations of temperature are generally larger during the day than overnight.” (Page 21)
The limited parallel data that I have from the Bureau’s Mildura weather station shows that for the same weather the third probe installed at Mildura on 27th June 2012 often records 0.4 degrees Celsius warmer than the mercury thermometer during summer. I have also explained that on the very hottest days from June 2012 until January 2015 (the period of available parallel data) the observer did not enter a value from the mercury onto the A8 Form. I suspect because the discrepancy between the value from the probe and the mercury was so great, this data was denied – was never enter into the official record.
It is evident from calculations and charting by my friend and colleague Chris Gillham that after the new probe was installed at Alice Springs in November 2011 and compared with 2009-2010, there were 56 more days at or above 40 degrees Celsius (see chart that features at the top of this blog post).
What is now critical is for the bureau to make public the measurements from the mercury thermometer that has been recording temperatures in the same weather station at Alice Springs since 21st March 1991 through until at least April 2019. These 28 years of data would enable some comparison with temperatures from the new probe at Alice Springs that I hypothesis is hyping maximum temperatures and thus the global average temperature given the significance of Alice Springs to national and global temperature databases.
Mercury thermometers were used to measure official temperatures at Alice Springs until 1 November 1996.
According to the Bureau’s 2020 publication ‘An updated long-term homogenized daily temperature data set for Australia’, the Bureau tested one second variations within the minute at 6am and 3pm for replacement temperature probes at 98 official weather stations. The Bureau reports an average increase in 1-minute temperature variation of approximately 0.2 degrees relative to the previous probe at Alice Springs, while dismissing this as insignificant. The breakpoint is visible, and the comparison is only with the previous probe, giving no indication of the difference relative to a mercury thermometer or how this affects record hot days. To properly evaluate the effect of the replacement probes at all 98 official weather stations the available parallel data from mercury thermometers recording temperatures at the same weather stations needs to be made public as a matter of urgency.
In the absence of access to the parallel data – and the absence of any quality assurance and credible research into issues arising from the transition to probes by the Bureau – no reliability can be placed on any claims by the Bureau and/or other scientists using their data, of record hot days, fewer extreme cold days or the claimed accelerated warming trend, or anything similar.
To be clear, we cannot know if the 1.5°C tipping point is imminent or if we have significantly more time. It could be the case that we have more time, if most of the probes at most of the 695 automatic weather stations spread across the landmass of Australia, like the probe currently recording at Mildura, are sometimes measuring up to 0.4°C hotter for the same weather.
The extent of any contrived warming is likely to vary with the type of custom-designed probe and the local environmental conditions. As Blair Trewin wrote in the Bureau’s 2018 report (page 21): in arid regions an electronic probe is likely to generate higher maximum. This hypothesis could be easily tested if the Bureau provided access, for example, to the 25 years of parallel data for the desert location of Giles.
Access to this data from Giles was requested under Freedom of Information by John Abbot on 9th November 2017, and denied by the Bureau on 14 November 2017.
The chart featuring at the top of this post was drawn by Chris Gillham as part of a series of reports that we are working on together, focusing not just on the change to probes in automatic weather stations but also the switch from Fahrenheit to Celsius and associated discontinuities in the historical temperature record.
There is some major cherry-picking in that graph of temperatures. It shows just a couple of hot summers 2012-3. Here is a list over 22 years of number of days over 40C:
LOL, measured with the a warm(ing) probe … talk about cherry picking … ROTFLMFAO
Measured with the same probes as in Jennifer’s plot. Just a fuller picture.
Strangely I see no reference to a Stevenson Screen. I guess the probe is sitting in full sun.
And they removed a lot of trees.
Here is the corresponding graph over this century. Not convincing evidence of an instrument change effect at 2011
“Access to this data from Giles was requested under Freedom of Information”
Here is the corresponding plot from Giles. It doesn’t have the probe change at 2011, but still looks pretty similar to Alice.
Not from what I am seeing. I see far less spikes. Oh to be fair 40 C is below our average high temperature for the summer. It was a bit humid last summer we only hit daily highs of 46 a few times and most day were on about 40 C. Far cry from my native state where records in the winter ar in the -40 c.
Giles is just not such a hot site. It is 50 m higher and 1.2° further from the Equator.
Why are you guys still drawing squiggly lines, Nick has found your two parameters… who needs more?
The back story of Giles is a much more interesting subject to explore than Nick’s graph.
The place is referenced frequently in desert explorer and 1950s central Australia “highways” builder Len Beadell’s journal books (one of the most entertaining reads I’ve ever had)-
And more about the siting and history of Giles here –
By my count, from your figures above, there are 163 days over 40C for the 10 years prior to 2011 and 280 days over 40C for the 10 years from 2011 to 2020.
Seems to support Jennifer’s argument very well.
Well, for Giles the count from 2001-2010 is 168, and 273 are in 2011-20. Very similar, though I think the ratio for Giles (1.625) is very slightly less than for Alice(1.718). All it means is that 2011-20 was hotter.
Hi Nick, We can only really know if it was hotter because of the weather, or the equipment change, after the parallel data is made public. I would have thought by now the Bureau would be itching to release it to embarrass me, and prove you and Bill correct. :-). Not to mention the Bureau’s Director Andrew Johnson who has also been most insistent that I’m a ninny, that I don’t understand how their purpose-designed probes work. :-).
The evidence you give for saying that the probe may have been responsible for higher temperatures is to show that the change in 2011 was followed by the Angry Summer. But that was, famously, a summer of heat records all over inland Australia. It wasn’t due to any one probe.
I thought it was getting hotter and hotter in a linear sort of way? But let’s for a moment consider the rainfall stats because more rain generally means cooler.
2010 had a whopping 769.6mm, thus the very low three cases of 40C+. However, 2009 had the miserly 76.8mm and 16 days of 40C+, whereas 2012 had a much wetter 210.4mm and 36 40C+ days, while 2013 had 184.2mm and 39 40C+ days.
How do you get 16 extremely hot days out of 76.8mm and 36 extremely hot days out of 210.4mm?
“How do you get 16 extremely hot days out of 76.8mm and 36 extremely hot days out of 210.4mm?”
This makes no sense at all. Obviously, it can be hot some days and raining on others in the year. Not that 210.4mm is very wet. Average for Alice is 282.
But Giles had 167mm in 2009, 337 in 2010, and then 233 in 2012, 301 in 2013. A similar pattern, with similar temperatures.
What is going on here!
Discussions with Jennifer have been going on for eight years. In that time, I learnt that she is often wrong, never retracts even the most basic misinformation or mistake in her methods or reasoning, she rarely faces an issue, but side-tracks incessantly, she pulls the gender card (less now than she used to), and at one point in a scientific argument, she threatened legal action.
In this series of threads, she is up the Bureau for sites they did not operate at Wilsons Promontory and Cape Otway (run by the Lighthouse Service, then Parks Victoria), Thredbo, run by the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service and/or the resort people, Charlotte Pass, run by people at the Chalet. The site at Goulburn was a BoM automatic weather station (there is probably a previous set of data from 1939 for the Aeradio office, which apparently has not been digitised, but the Bureau has heaps of undigitized data).
The site at Mildura was also originally an Aeradio office that transitioned to the BoM in June 1946, ditto for Alice Springs and Deniliquin. The site at Giles was a Federal Weather Station paid for by the Brits, and installed by the Department of Supply to monitor British N-tests and activities carried out at the Woomera rocket range – ditto the site at Woomera and a third site they established at Port Hedland. Of the two other sites at Port Hedland one (the previous Aerado office) transferred to the BoM after 1946, the third was operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. I think the RAAF got out of the met-business in the mid-1950s. Their met-section was based at RAAF-base Laverton near Melbourne, which is now covered in houses.
Wommera and Giles were handed to the BoM around 1955, possibly 1957, and all the sites I have referred to have moved from their original locations at least once. As many of the old offices, including Giles were clad in asbestos cement sheeting, they were either demolished or re-furbished once the danger posed by asbestos became known.
I have researched all of those sites and many more, and written detailed reports for some, which are available at http://www.bomwatch.com.au some also at https://joannenova.com.au/.
So why is all this important?
Because site moves and changes affect T-data measured using thermometers and PRT-probes in Stevenson screens, not tiny differences that are less than the uncertainty associated with individual measurements, which rounded-up is +/- 0.3 degC. Such errors are additive, thus the uncertainty of comparing two equally precise individual values on a particular day for example, is 0.6 degC.
Why was the issue with Goulburn important?
The site moved from one place to another between the time I was there and photographed it on 27 April 2016, and when Jennifer was there a year later. You can read through the post here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/12/legacy-electronics-botch-temperature-recordings-across-australia-part-1/
Lance and Marohasy basically said that I could not see/photograph the screen because it was hiding. Because they saw it and photographed it a year later, I was wrong, so there. Then Lance went-off over WMO standards that were not standards. They said the BoM was not NATA-certified which it was, and on, and on.
I demonstrated (again) how paired t-tests of time-correlated differences resulted in highly inflated probability statistics. Her use of that particular test (in relation to data for Mildura) was and still is, invalid, a fact she could find-out for herself, but she ignores.
These are scientific arguments, that hold little interest for others, but they are important nevertheless. Claiming differences are real, when they are not, is highly relevant to Marohasy’s claims regarding differences between probe readings and thermometer observations at Mildura of 0.22 degC.
Shouting more loudly when her test is fundamentally flawed does her no credit and misleads everybody, and I don’t care how many negative brownie-points I receive by pointing that out. Claiming differences are ‘real’ when they are not is also unethical and wrong. As readers and consumers of information, you should be demanding credible science from both of us, and from the BoM as well. In that regard, she should put her data in the public domain as I do for each of my reports published on http://www.bomwatch.com.au.
The short answer for Goulburn is that the screen was not hiding, it simply was not there in April 2016. She and Lance never checked metadata, satellite images or the data to determine the truth of their argument, they just went on shouting. However, as I concluded: “Between my photographs, your photographs and Google earth Pro, unless you have further to add, the mystery of the Goulburn Stevenson screen is now solved”.
Importantly, she and Lance never take anything back or adjust their messages. They just shout more or go off on irrelevant tangents, like Jennifer ringing up her un-named mate at Goulburn to confirm beyond any shadow of doubt that it was impossible for me to have seen/photographed the screen from the door of the hanger, which her own photographs show is not true.
The Bureau IS NATA accredited, the screen DID move, and there is NO WMO requirement to measure temperatures beyond limits determined by local climatological conditions. Further, while the probe (the “WIKA TR-40) IS capable of measuring comfortably outside the range of Lance’s ‑80 to 60 degC extending the range would have made NO difference to the data in question.
Jennifer’s intransigence gets in the way of conducting rational, evidence-based conversations. However, irrespective of gender or anything else, it is still important that her arguments and messages are soundly based.
Dr Bill Johnston
We all know how to resolve this problem with the data. It’s got nothing to do with comparing one site with another or even flicking back to a longer period.
The ANSWER is to release the data that shows the matched temperature recordings for a mercury thermometer and the electrical unit. Surely you can see that as the SIMPLEST solution.
So let me rephrase the issue for you. Do you support the free release of the raw data from a public funded entity or not. The public paid for the data Why not release it?
It isn’t the simplest solution. What did we ever learn from the release of the 10000 A8 forms from Mildura. Only Jennifer ever saw the data, and then she was reading them the wrong way around
In fact there is no evidence that a useful record of the thermometer at Alice can be found. All we know is that there was a thermometer in the enclosure. We don’t know if it was read, and how often. We don’t know if its calibration was regularly checked. And if you do somehow get a stack of hand written forms, you still won’t know.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done to raw data before a reputable organisation can publish it. Just grabbing the raw forms won’t help at all.
The simplest solution is in fact to compare the Alice data with published data from other nearby stations, as I did. Bu no-one seems interested in that simple solution.
You are sounding desperate. And now you are lying again.
We went through the fact that it is the 32.3C probe value that ended up in the ADAM archive so I have it the right way around.
And we have been through the whole issue of the Bureau not changing the A8 Forms after 1 November 1996 — when the probe became the primary instrument — but changing what went into each box so the headings don’t correspond with the content. And so it is difficult for an outsider to read the forms. And easy for someone like Bill to tell everyone to laugh at me when I present a form and explain its content.
Maybe you all thought I wouldn’t work out how to to read the A8 Forms, but somehow I managed. Despite the instructions from Anthony Rea that were wrong in crucial details. The joke, in the end, will be on you all. And much thanks to Lance, Phill and Ken for their help, in the very beginning.
And you know that I got the same numbers as Blair Trewin for the first probe, for that first period of the record, minus 0.22.
I will be publishing this chart as part of a report in due course. And as I have already explained, and why not recap from Part 2:
“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. [end of quote]
“And we have been through the whole issue of the Bureau not changing the A8 Forms after 1 November 1996 — when the probe became the primary instrument — but changing what went into each box so the headings don’t correspond with the content.”
This is just nuts. Probes don’t need any kind of form, A8 or otherwise. They are electronic. No-one hand-writes the numbers they produce as part of a record. If someone fills out an A8 form, it is because they are reading a thermometer.
If someone did take it into their head to hand write probe results into a form, there is no way they could sensibly write numbers corresponding to those headings. The numbers written correspond to the process of reading and then resetting a min/max thermometer. One can’t even manually read a probe, let alone reset it.
“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.”
You don’t know that the probe was recording cooler. The only data is on the difference with the mercury thermometer. The probe was the official instrument; there is no evidence that the mercury thermometer had calibration checks in that time, after the comparison period was over.
On the second probe reading too hot, you give this diagram. I’ve marked the section of that probe with blue:
The differences now seem quite close to zero. There is just one outlier at about 0.18. There is nothing to say that it is often too hot by 0.4 °C.
It is a sad reflection on the Bureau that from 2000 to 2012 good parallel data was collected showing the official instrument (the second probe) was drifting relative to the mercury and nothing was done about it.
Nothing was done, because no-one was transcribing, digitising and analysing the data.
Nor was then any independent checking and calibration of the new probe.
Then it was replaced, again.
A mercury thermometers seem to be good for decades, but the probes appear to never read consistent with these thermometers and then need changing after just a few years.
Anyway, that second probe was changed, with the new probe design that records hotter replacing the probe that was drifting cooler on 27 June 2012, and the pattern relative to the mercury was again completely changed.
As I have previously explained, this chart shows the difference as a monthly (not daily) mean between the mercury and probe, including from 27 June 2012.
I have previously explained that the mercury data is not normally distributed because there was no manual recording from the mercury for hotter days. This makes analysis after June 2012 difficult.
Considering the available daily data (not shown in the chart) the probe often recorded 0.4 degrees hotter than the probe during summer for the same weather. I detailed this in a blog post back in 2018. ’tis here: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/02/bom-blast-dubious-record-hot-day/
“Nor was then any independent checking and calibration of the new probe.”
You don’t have any evidence of it being a new probe. There is no record of a change in 2000. That is your invention.
“A mercury thermometers seem to be good for decades, but the probes appear to never read consistent with these thermometers and then need changing after just a few years.”
In fact the maximum thermometer was changed much more frequently than the probe, especially during the decade where you want to use it as a reference. It was changed in 2003, 2006 and twice in 2007, although there may be more than one thermometer. The minimum thermometer was changed even more often.
You say yet again “I have previously explained that the mercury data is not normally distributed because there was no manual recording from the mercury for hotter days. This makes analysis after June 2012 difficult”.
However, NO maximum temperature data are normally distributed – all daily datasets are short-tailed, so what tests did you use to come to that conclusion.
Here is 10-years of Tmax probe data for Alice springs to 3 April 2019, which is the last time I analysed the dataset using BomWatch protocols. The curve on the histogram is a normal distribution curve, while I’m sure you are familiar with a Q-Q plot on the right.
I did not tell anyone to laugh at you, and your inflammatory remarks are not helpful. I see no evidence either that justifies you accusing anyone of lying. Will you take those comments back?
In this post you missed that there is NO maximum or minimum temperature data for Alice Springs after those particular thermometers were removed on 28 April 2016. But you said they were removed three years later on 1 April 2019. Was that a lie? A mistake? Are you again going to bother the Bureau for data that does not exist like you did for Wilsons Promontory and Cape Otway? Did you actually time-sort metadata, and are you going to retract and set the record straight?
You also say, referring back to the second post in the series that “The limited parallel data that I have from the Bureau’s Mildura weather station shows that for the same weather the third probe installed at Mildura on 27th June 2012 often records 0.4 degrees Celsius warmer than the mercury thermometer during summer.” But there was no second probe at Mildura and you did not take into account the Wind-profiler array and other development in the vicinity of the Mildura site in 2012.
You say “The Bureau reports an average increase in 1-minute temperature variation of approximately 0.2 degrees relative to the previous probe at Alice Springs, while dismissing this as insignificant.”
But given the uncertainty around individual observations (+/- 0.3 degC), it truly is insignificant. They clearly spray-out the grass at Alice Springs (check-out the sat image for January 2016), but when they started doing that is unknown. While the site (Lat/Long -34.79 133.89) is mostly dusty and brown, this would make a difference to the annual mean.
The picture that you show of 1-minute temperature variation at Alice Springs (Figure 7 from Trewin et al (2019): https://doi: 10.25941/5d28a5d352de7) shows the difference between the highest and lowest values within each 1-minute interval over time (averaged for each year) for data observed at 1500 (around the warmest time of the day) and 0600 (about the coolest time of the day) through the probe change, which at Alice Springs happened in November 2011.
The graph is not of the maximum and minimum values, but their differences within discrete 1-minute sampling periods. Values are also not what you incorrectly refer to as instantaneous values that occur at the end of each discrete minute. The purpose of the graph was to evaluate response-time changes.
Trewin goes on to say that at 17 of 98 sites there was “a likely change in the effective instrument response time and hence the sampling of maximum and minimum temperatures”, and that Alice Springs was one of the most extreme examples of this. In relation to the probe change at Alice Springs, he then said “Assuming that the increased variation is distributed symmetrically about the 1-minute mean, this equates to a shift of approximately +0.08°C for maximum temperature and −0.015°C for minimum temperature, well below the normal threshold for adjustment”, which incidentally is 0.3 degC.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
Q: Why not release [the data]?
“Nick Stokes”: a lot of work that needs to be done to raw data before a reputable organisation can publish it.
Answer the question.
Here is a question for you. What data do you actually want released? How do you know it exists?
here’s a question for you!
Is there a possibility the data no longer exists? If so, why?
If you don’t know what it is, how can you know if it ever existed?
Nick, I would have thought you would appreciate that FOI applications are about documents. When you try to change the focus from documents to data you disingenuously try to change the subject.
Look. A squirrel!
“…the bureau will not allow the 28-years of data from this mercury thermometer to be made public.”
If there’s anyone who has doubts that “Climate Change” is political…..
Maybe it just means that they don’t want to hand-scan another 10000 A8 forms whenever Jennifer gets a hunch.
Hey Nick, I’m not sure why the Bureau bothered to collect all that data if they never intended to analysis it. I would have thought they had a duty to analysis it, otherwise why waste tax payer monies collecting it. There are many more man hours involved in taking those manual readings than in any analysis. Furthermore, the Bureau could have digitised the data for Mildura themselves, but choose instead to make it as difficult as possible for me. The data is nevertheless now all digitised, thanks to Moi. Those interested can read something about it here: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/01/hyping-maximum-daily-temperatures-part-2/ Full report/peer-reviewed publication to follow soon. And I’m also happy to go in and do the scanning for Giles, as well as transcribing and analysis. :-). It doesn’t need to be a bother for the Bureau. A team of us could do it for all 34 stations with parallel data. :-).
Expert witness gets it wrong again
(I thought you were up all night busily digitising, digitising …. suffering all that burnout, cussing the BoM for not obeying your will, but it was Moi who was doing all the work!!!)
You confused your thermometers, again like at Cape Otway, which was not a bureau-run site by the way… (I note that you never corrected the record).
Metadata has always stated that the Tmax & Tmin thermometers at Alice Springs were removed on 26 April 2016, so good luck with the data up to 2019. Save Moi a bit of effort I guess.
After they installed the humidity probe on 28 May 2017 they ran a 2-year comparison with dry and wet-bulb thermometers until 1 April 2019.
Now for a test: Which thermometers are used to measure Tmax (a) a maximum temperature thermometer; (b) a minimum temperature thermometer or (c) a dry-bulb thermometer. Time starts now.
Rigor, we need rigor … tell Moi to put her glasses on!
All the best,
Maximum temp and minimum temp are both dry bulb.
Technically yes, but a dry bulb thermometer in a Stevenson screen is not used to measure Max and Min. Check the metadata and see if you too can pick the difference.
The point I have been making is that whichever side of the divide you are on, it is vital to be accurate when arguing with the BoM. Metadata is fundamental to that argument.
Incidentally, Jennifer could easily say she missed that, thank you Bill and move on.
I haven’t checked the metadata and have no interest in doing so. I shall just fall back on my previous experience of selling scientific equipment (and knowing how it’s used). I would suggest, most politely, that you have no clue.
Wet and dry bulb thermometers for measuring humidity come as a pair in one unit/structure. You top-up the wick of the wet bulb with distilled water.
I don’t know if your brain can handle a whirling hygrometer.
You can read all the metadata that you like, but if you don’t understand basic scientific equipment, then shut-up.
Thank you Alexy. I get tired of, what over the years, seems like endless bullying.
I remember once going to great lengths to try and understand why Bill was getting a different result from the same statistical test that I had done.
He was going on endless to this email group that I had got a wrong answer. That what Graham Lloyd had written in the newspaper was wrong, I think he even contacted my then employer to complain about me.
I ended up on the phone to Bill for some time, desperate to understand what I had done wrong.
As it turned out I had done nothing wrong.
After about an hour on the phone I realised that where there was missing data he had simply removed those dates, before undertaking the statistical test.
Anyway, he told me he routinely deleted missing periods, then closed the gaps, then did the test.
I was beside myself in disbelief. Particularly given that after deleting about 18 months of missing data and closing the gap his program then came up with a discontinuity where the two seasons didn’t matchup.
But try and explain the absurdity of what he routinely does to non-technical people and it is difficult. Especially if he is phoning around/emailing around telling people Jennifer Marohasy has got something wrong and people will tend to believe him. And in the beginning I used to always say, let me check.
Then after I checked, I would find that I was right and he was just white anting.
Over the years it is enough to want one to just give up and go scuba diving. :-).
The problem with being a public persona. There is always some idiot trying to pull you down to elevate themselves. Time wasters who don’t have the capacity to raise themselves.
They simply don’t understand that people who research something have self-doubts. They gleefully point out non-existent errors.
I refuse to be polite to them.
Examine Bill’s bank account.
It will explain his strange opinions.
I doubt that anyone is paying him. Having him on their side makes them an idiot.
“I don’t know if your brain can handle a whirling hygrometer.”
That is a really good point. That should never be forgotten. The change to the thermal dynamics due to wind speed should never be ignored. In early Pre BoM Australia at the main city sites they used a sling psychrometer to help differentiate between the real air temperature and the slower screen temperatures. They were comparing different screen types and had decided upon the Stevenson screen despite it’s slow wind speed error problems about two decades before the BoM existed. However the expense and logistics made the change slow and they were doing it with many side by side comparisons.
On the net you will find many pictures of Australian Stevenson screens during comparison to platinum thermometers with seven thermometers inside. 5 dry bulbs and two wet ones. 3 of the dry bulb thermometers being self recording. Two of those alcohol. One of those two is to lay on the grass overnight and record the coldest surface temperature. One of the two wet ones is a platinum thermometer. One of the dry ones is another platinum thermometer. This means there were two water bottles to prolong thermal time constants and worsen slow screen problems. The removal of the bottles when a humidity probe and platinum thermometer alone remain is yet another alteration of the overall time constant, changing those wind speed effects.
Alexy here is a picture of the Darwin side by side comparison between a Stevenson screen and Glaisher stand.
Here is a picture of the seven thermometers and two water bottles during the Darwin platinum thermometer comparison.
I have some of the data from the Darwin Glaisher – Stevenson comparison.
Good for you Alexy I hope you sold heaps.
With colleagues I observed the weather for about a decade from 1971, including temperatures measured by meteorological thermometers held 1.2 m above the ground in a standard, well-maintained, 230-litre Stevenson screen. The same kind they used at Alice Springs until 30 August 1998. Oops, Jennifer may not know that important tit-bit!
So, aside from knowing the routine by heart, what thermometers look like (I have photographs), things to check, changing the wick and charts on chart recorders on days starting with M, and writing it all down in the BoM’s A8 field book week-in-week out, compared to you, of course I don’t have a clue.
Wet and dry-bulb meteorological thermometers also do NOT come as a pair. They come individually boxed with a calibration certificate for each instrument, which because errors are so small you can mostly ignore.
Unfortunately, while an esteemed entomologist, Jennifer has never observed the weather, can’t read metadata, won’t justify her statistical tests … however, its clear that she knows more than anyone else.
At this point I’ve saved her from going to Alan Jones to demand maximum temperature data from the BoM for Alice Springs, between April 2016 to 2019, which had she researched the metadata she would have found does not exist. It is a similar problem to her wanting data for Wilsons Promontory and Cape Otway, that never existed either.
This is bizarre and surreal. You all deserve better than this. She needs to do her homework.
Dr Bill Johnston
Really poor form Bill.
Isn’t maintaining the temperature record their job?
They do maintain and publish the temperature record.
My first scanner was in the 1990s. They should have just scanned everything they had.
Good for you Alexy, and I had one as well (may still be under the house where I used to live) and an OCR program and another program to stitch it all together into a PDF (on a pile of those 720K very floppy disks ..))
So although PCs cost four or five times as much then as now, at the National Library of Australia I have scanned whole books of pre-1900 weather data into a single ‘book’. So, nothing to see there, except data.
Forms referred to Marohasy were not single sheets but were stapled pages in an ‘A8’ Field Book.(A8 was actually the back-to-back page size, but don’t tell her that.) The field book was also not a Register, but were cross-checked before being entered in the official record.
Because you and Marohasy never observed the weather, neither of you would know about the process of digging-out Field Books and scanning individual pages across the spine of the open book . It is so easy if you don’t have to do it. Consequently I admire your obvious expertise about what is involved. Having never seen or used an A8 field book, obviously you know everything. Yay for team Alexy, he sold thermometers, yay, yay ..
The fact is that blowing her own horn, expert witness Jennifer, claimed maximum temperature thermometer data for Alice Springs existed after April 2016, which metadata showed is not the case, Don’t look at me, its right there in her own words.
Like reasoning with a stump, it is in her feminist, self obsessed DNA that although evidence is right there in site-summary metadata, she will never go back on what she said.
After her other missteps in her current series, I would have no problem if the BoM considered her a politically connected (via the Institute of Public Affairs) serial pest.
As a retired senior natural resources research scientist, and fee-paying member of the IPA, Marohasy’s shallow understanding of weather data and their analysis, and her constant hand-waving is ethically and scientifically unacceptable.
As she is putting them in a loosing position, the IPA should aim much higher than this.
While you may criticise me for demanding rigor and scientific credibility, it is you that have been enticed to take sides. You also deserve better than what she offers. Rather than putting me down, demand that she justifies her stuff; her data, statistical methods and protocols.
As she wrote in a goo-piece in the Spectator in 2017: looking up from his corn flakes or whatever, her husband John Abbott said, it is all about her, which is essentially true (https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/not-really-fit-for-purpose-the-bureau-of-meteorology/).
Be careful and critical of both sides of the argument, but in that process don’t take sides.
Dr Bill Johnston
I am glad you liked my piece in The Spectator. John was impressed that I had achieved so much, in his own quiet way.
He does worry that I expend so much energy and it is not always obvious that I am always making progress. That AWS report was a big break through. And there will be more to come.
And sorry, but not really, that you have problems with me being a feminist. I think your problem is more fundamental, that I am a woman.
His emotional arguments are evidence that you are correct.
Wow. I am so disappointed. I was hoping that someone had hijacked Bill Johnston’s name.😟
While I try to be objective, my frustration is obviously building, which I’m sure Janice, you can understand.
I did not pull the ‘last in the pack’ gender card Janice, and I said nothing that is untrue. And no Jennifer, I was really put-off by the Spectator piece, I found it embarrassing that you would publish such an article, and refer to it!
As a fee-paying member of the Institute of Public Affairs I also expect much better from those whose salaries I contribute to, and particularly the stunt at the AAT.
All the best,
“Because you and Marohasy never observed the weather, neither of you would know about the process of digging-out Field Books and scanning individual pages across the spine of the open book . It is so easy if you don’t have to do it.”
This is total BS. REMOVE THE SPINES! Or staples. Or whatever is holding the pages together. They can then be scanned and put back together using binding clips or another method!
I’ve *done* this for 30 years worth of student records at a middle school. It’s not a human intensive process!
Yer, right. Here is one of Jennifer’s pages. There are 31 double sided pages per month, in a field book, with covers, bound with staples.Twelve of those in a year, stored somewhere in the dungeon … you can do the math. Jennifer said she ended up with >10,000 of such double-page scans. Each one like the one pictured would have been a single A4 sheet (two side-by-side A8 forms = A4). If they scanned each page and collated them, it would have been 20,000 A4 sheets. A ream is 500 sheets.
It is not a simple exercise of pulling-out the staples and because data for each day spread across two pages and pages are back to back, simply stacking them in a scanner … then putting the whole lot back together again Actually nothing like 30-years worth of single sheets of student records or even a normal book or scientific paper.
Thanks anyway Tim.
“Twelve of those in a year, stored somewhere in the dungeon … you can do the math.”
Twelve books of 31 pages each, stapled? 15 minutes to unstaple them and 1/2 hour to put them in the feeder to the scanner? 15 min to re-staple them? Less than an hour per year? You could do 40 years worth of records in less than a week! And that would be for a low-payed clerk!
“you can do the math.”
I just did! Stop trying to make it sound like a huge, time-consuming task. It isn’t. At least for an efficient operation!
“Each one like the one pictured would have been a single A4 sheet (two side-by-side A8 forms = A4). If they scanned each page and collated them, it would have been 20,000 A4 sheets. A ream is 500 sheets.”
You’ve already been told how long it should take to scan 10,000 pages! The collation would remain while passing through the scanner. You just pull the 30 pages per book and put them in a mechanical stapler! You *do* know they make mechanical staplers today, right? You staple 11 of them while the other books are being scanned!
“It is not a simple exercise of pulling-out the staples and because data for each day spread across two pages and pages are back to back, simply stacking them in a scanner … then putting the whole lot back together again Actually nothing like 30-years worth of single sheets of student records or even a normal book or scientific paper.”
Malarky! You are making a fool of yourself! They make flatbed scanners with mechanical feeders that can take A4 pages!
You are just making a fool of yourself. It shouldn’t take more than a week to scan all these. IF the BOM was willing to join the rest of us in the 21st century in terms of office mechanization!
“You are just making a fool of yourself. It shouldn’t take more than a week to scan all these.”
So what organisation can function where anyone can come in off the street and say “Hey, I have this idea. You’ll have to scan 10000 forms for me, but it will only take a week! This time.”
Organizations responsible to answering to the public that pays their salaries!
The taxpayer PAID for that data, not the government!
You’ve got the same worldview that pisses people off so bad at bureaucrats! The people don’t exist for the bureaucrat! The bureaucrat exists for the people.
You would fit right in at most Dept of Motor Vehicle offices!
“The taxpayer PAID for that data, not the government!”
I paid for the time BoM had to waste on this useless stunt.
uh…. Boo Hoo?
Wow Bill. If I understand correctly you are saying that the parallel data was collected by pen and paper but has never been used.
Perhaps you can launch a personal attack against me as well but rather have data collected by a government authority available to the public rather than hidden by a motivated bureacracy.
An interesting thing would be to know if the records he meticulously kept for a decade, are the same now as he recorded. Did BoM homogenize his data?
Who meticulously kept what records?
But you can’t homogenise hand written data.
Bill claimed he was taking readings for BoM. Maybe not homogenise, but adjust or manipulate in some way
I am not launching personal attacks, but every person who works for Government is not automatically at the beck and call of every taxpayer or activist.
You would have to ask the Bureau why they collected on-going data for Mildura. Jennifer got it wrong by claiming they continued to collect the data she wanted after thermometers were removed at Alice Springs after 2016. She made a similar mistake about Cape Otway and Wilsons Prom, the second probe at Mildura, so what right does she have to have everyone jumping up and down, even if they do work for government.
Most people are normal people who go to work and do their job. None of those people automatically owes anybody anything else, because of whom they work for.
Other sites that were not run by the Bureau including Wilsons Promontory and Cape Otway. Contributed data makes-up most of the Bureau’s data collection.
Jennifer has also made fundamental errors in each of the posts in this series, which as a scientist, I consider to be unacceptable and misleading to readers.
(I also don’t and have never worked for the Bureau, and although I’m getting mightily turned-off, by her unsupported claims I also contribute to the Institute of Public Affairs, who pays her as a “Fellow”.)
Dr Bill Johnston
Bill, the purpose of FOI legislation is to provide a formal mechanism for obtaining public disclosure of government records.
It is a complete mischaracterization to describe it as requiring public servants to be at the beck and call of every taxpayer and activist.
My personal opinion is that the documents Jennifer seeks should be publicly available without any need for an FOI request. The BoM should facilitate citizen science.
And yes you launched a personal attack on Jennifer. You diminished yourself in the process.
Realistically, the scanning would have been the easy part. It would have taken more effort to dig them out of wherever they were stored and then to email or upload the subsequent scans.
The actual scanning would just have been a matter of sticking a batch of pages in the paper feed and then hitting “scan to email”.
Actually, that might be a useful exercise anyway. Storage is cheap now, and it’s something for the apprentices to do instead of going down to ask the storeman for a left-handed screwdriver, box of emery sparks or a long weight.
“ matter of sticking a batch of pages in the paper feed”
Feeds don’t take 10000 pages. And a set of hand filled forms over 28 years probably won’t feed all that well.
But you’re right, digging the stuff out would probably be even harder. Especially when Jennifer is going to kick up a fuss about any hat are missing.
Most big multifunction printer/scanner/FAX devices can easily handle a couple of hundred sheets at a time, so a year’s worth only needs two feeds.
And that’s leaving out the dedicated bulk scanners.
I don’t know how BoM handles their document retention obligations, but a lot of organisations use a company like Iron Mountain for document storage, and they often digitise and shred the originals. The pages might have already been available in digital form in a database.
Overall, the worst case would be to get the site’s forms back from storage and have somebody spend a couple of minutes to feed batches into the scanner (probably paying 2c/sheet to the company providing the equipment), going back every half hour to do another batch, then upload or email the resulting PDFs.
The best case would be a database search to extract the relevant forms, then upload or email the PDFs.
Yes, the worst case would be a hassle, but not near as much as people might think if they only have experience with a flatbed scanner attached to their PC.
Thanks old cocky. I gather that while they have problems using scanners they have no problems with shredders. I gather they have shredded the 30 days of priceless (in my opinion) A8 Forms that correspond to Mildura September 2012.
I have no doubt that both Nick and Bill are sufficiently motivated to prevent you (and the rest of the world), Jennifer, from seeing this data; that they would happily eat it all themselves, even without a couple of beers to wash it down.
BS. Obviously you have never scanned a book stapled at the spine at the rate of 30 or so pages/month and 12 books/year for the overlap data at Wilsons Promontory that you bleated about, but which did not exist.
You also use statistical methods on time-series data that you cannot justify.
Why not end this by putting your stuff and data, on your opinion-dominated site for all to see and fact-check like I do on www,bomwatch.com.au.
As scientist and IPA member I am of the opinion that you are an embarrassment.
Fee-paying supporters and members of the IPA and the general public deserve better than this.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
Contact me at: firstname.lastname@example.org
“BS. Obviously you have never scanned a book stapled at the spine at the rate of 30 or so pages/month and 12 books/year for the overlap data at Wilsons Promontory that you bleated about, but which did not exist.”
Ever hear of a *staple remover”? It actually takes longer to pull the rivets out of hole-punched books or the spiral-wrap out of hole-punched books!
Sadly, Dr. Bill, you have embarrassed yourself royally on this thread.
Agreed Janice. And worse still is that Dr Bill apparently lacks any sort of ability to understand the effects of the things he writes on his personal reputation.
Ah, now that WOULD be a scandal.
So you all stop talking nonsense about scanning. My business archives documents for businesses. 10,000 pages is a blip of a job. A single operator on a bulk scanner will run at about 3500 pages per hour. If it needs OCR depending on the data complexity you would have all of it in a spreadsheet in about 4 hrs. Accuracy of the data would be greator than 99% even for hand written scribble.
Thanks. I knew the heavy-duty gear was pretty good, but didn’t know just how good it is now. That 99% OCR hit rate is impressive, even if somebody has to validate the fields and correct errors.
Hi Simonsays, It would be great if you could get in touch. best email is jennifermarohasy at gmail.com best phone number is 61 41 887 3 222 or within Australia 041 887 3 2 22 :-).
Have Nick and Jennifer ever taken any temperatures or calibrated any equipment themselves ? RTD’s will commonly read .1 C different before and after replacement in a thermowell or dipped in dry ice and alcohol bath or water and ice bath to calibrate. With sufficiently accurate test gear, you won’t get two sensors from the factory that read the same. The pressure of the sensing wires on the holder can make a few hundredths of a degree difference. For thermowells, relocation of the sensor by a couple of millimeters (on repositioning) can make a whole degree difference. And you’re not really calibrating the sensor, you are calibrating the readout electronics. Those will drift a little for various reasons including the rate at which humidity in the air discharges capacitors in the sensing circuits amongst many other things.
Looking at a strip chart of a thermometer over a year’s time…well…its just foolish to think that what you are looking at is actually accurate to even .1 degrees over the whole time.
The real purpose of weather stations is for pilots and outdoors people to know temperatures to the nearest degree…..so meteorologists consider people looking for temperature errors in their data below a couple of degree to be the same as ghost hunters….
And statistically believing that averaging a thousand readings will result in an accuracy proportional to 1/sqrt(n) is foolish because the errors are non-random from also non-random sources…..
While I not an electrical engineer and I have never worked in a metrology lab, I wholeheartedly agree, and that is because I have been involved in calibrating such instruments. It is even more difficult in uncontrolled environments such as in the open in meteorological enclosures.
All the best,
Which is most likely to be troublesome and expensive:-
(A) ‘hand scanning’ 10,000 A8 sheets (assuming they have no document feeder);
(B) achieving “Net Zero” by 2050?
Enquiring minds need to know.
And people who are paid to promote GangGreen lies, need to prevent from knowing, Mr. Stokes.
That is 10000 sheets per Jennifer. And when she gets them, she’s already working on the next one.
Nick the cost of making data publicly available is nothing compared to the cost of reputational damage to the BoM failing to make data publicly available. And of course FOI applicants are routinely asked to pay the cost of making data available.
There is a vast difference between the BoM requiring payment and refusing to release the data at all.
And then you just add motivated slurs. If you are capable of feeling shame you would be feeling it now.
The Mildura release was forced via the then minister, not via FOI.
Nick. Look over there. A squirrel!
“Maybe it just means that they don’t want to hand-scan another 10000 A8 forms whenever Jennifer gets a hunch”
This is just pure MALARKY! We were mechanically scanning 30 years worth of student records at a middle school into a database back in 2004! It’s almost 20 years later and I know the technology has progressed since then. The biggest human effort was removing staples and paper clips from the paper! The records weren’t “columinzed” but stored as PDF files. They were *still* able to be printed and provided as needed as well as accessed via the database.
It’s a true indictment of the BOM if they don’t have access to 20 year old technology for scanning in paper records. And it’s a true indictment of your antipathy for Marohasy for you to try and use such a pitiful excuse for not providing the records!
Modern technology and crowd sourcing means it’s not a major problem.
About 15 years ago I had nothing much to do at work for a month or more, and while wanderin round the internet I came across a project to digitize scanned paper temperature records from across Europe. So I did a couple of weeks data entry. If memory serves correctly the website was Zooniverse
All BOM needs to do is scan the A8 sheets and get Zooniverse to do the rest. Publish a request on websites like this and Jennifer’s and Bob’s your uncle. There’d probably be enough people interested and committed enough to get every record enter twice, the classic method of removing transcrition errors.
I’ve no idea what happened to the small project I was involved in
They didn’t have to hand-scan 10,000 A8 forms. They chose to do that to obfuscate. It was their disingenuous, non-responsive, data dump attempt to avoid answering the discovery request in a meaningful way.
In a court of law, an attorney in a civil suit doing such non-responsive data dumping during discovery would be sanctioned per the court rules.
If it wasn’t the forms, then what did she want?
Nick, people are entitled to examine the public record for whatever purpose they want.
What did she want?
Nick. Being purposefully dim does not help your quest.
Janice says that the BoM dumped non-responsive data. But, I ask, what would have been responsive? What did she actually ask for? Simple question.
Nick, you speculating about squirrels in an attempt to obfuscate is of no consequence.
I repeat that people are entitled to examine the public record for whatever purpose they want. And that means any part of the public record.
Even you should understand how bureaucracies work when they are defending the indefensible. In FOI applications they dump non-responsive data as a means of avoiding producing responsive data. And they attempt to charge fees known in the legal world as “are you serious” fees.
As a friendly hint. Give up defending the indefensible when you don’t even know the answers to what you call simple questions.
That’s why the people seeking the information under FOI are generally asked to pay for the costs of producing the information. But I haven’t seen that issue discussed.
To anybody with a scientific approach your speculation in support of hiding information is abhorrent.
The Mildura information wasn’t sought under FOI. She got Frydenberg to intervene.
Nick. Relevance factor zero. Even you can do better if you try.
It’s certainly relevant to whether she had to pay the costs.
Which of course Nick you fail to ask her directly.
Try harder and do your own homework.
Isn’t the weather station at the Alice Springs airport adjacent to the runway about halfway down its length on the west side? Every time a Quantas jet taxis along the length of the runway, it briefly shoots a blast of jet wash over the weather station. Any quick acting temperature probe would easily pick up the quick change in temperature.
The Alice Springs metadata is here. The current map is here. There is nothing major within 60 m.
A 2.5 m Cyclone (mesh) fence within 20 m of the station isn’t a significant wind break?
It’s endless, isn’t it. It’s next to the runway? No. So it’s a built-up area? No. Ah now we have it. There is a wire fence!
Most stations are in an enclosure with a wire fence quite near.
Three or four plain wires maybe. Which is not 2.5 m of close mesh fence.
IIRC there is literature around about this starting a long time back IIRC – here is a start
And IIRC boundary layer vortices do interesting things too
Here is a picture of the fence. It doesn’t obstruct the view. It isn’t something I’d rush to to shelter from a cold wind.
Almost every weather station has such a fence, usually enclosing a much smaller space. In Australia we need high fences to stop kangaroos pissing in the rain gauge.
Is this a photo of the Alice Springs airport site?
Yes, from the ACORN catalogue.
Big change then in site characteristics if they are the same site.
Genuine question, how do they account for this type of continual vegetation change as there would be an effect on the readings.
This is the Australian interior. It really greens up after rain, which isn’t common. And they shouldn’t account for it. The goal for a site is to be representative of the region, and that is how it is.
In a study of modifications to orchard climates in New Zealand, McAneney et al. (1990, Agricult. Forest. Meterol. Vol 49), showed that screening could increase the maximum temperature by 1°C for a 10 meter high shelter. :-).
I agree Jennifer, but if it did, it should be detectable as an up-step. As all stations are different, it should never be assumed that it should.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
“There is nothing major within 60 m”
Really? It looks like there is concrete. Is it standard to have temperature measuring devices over concrete? Are the stations calibrated while placed over concrete?
The airport is a major built up area. It’s no place to be placing an instrument to record climate. Operating an airport, yes. But it’s location cannot be used for both purposes.
Here is a Google map of the site. I’ve marked the AWS site with a red dot. Scale is bottom right. It is about a mile from the airport buildings. There isn’t much else around.
Yes Nick, it’s just wonderous in this day and age what detailed digital information we can avail ourselves of with just few clicks of our fingers.
And most of it for FREE!
So it kinda beggars belief that also in this day and age the taxpayer funded BoM can’t share what info it has in its possession with the public in the same fashion.
They expend more time and energy in their attempts to keep the info hidden from public scrutiny.
Publicly funded research data is now “Top Secret” or proprietary.
It reminded me of the Chinese response to the Covid-19 origin investigation. The CCP acted just as you would expect of someone who had something to hide.
Don’t forget how much effort and money the BBC put into preventing the public knowing the identity of the “leading Scientists” who attended the BBC’s “28gate” conference set up to justify the change to the BBC’s Charter obligation of impartiality.
Such effort and money including appointing at least 2 QCs to argue their case (said Barristers being the type who won’t get out of bed for less than £1,000 per hour).
When the list was eventually found on the internet months after repeated refusals, there was only a couple of individuals who might reasonably be described as “scientists” (albeit of the ‘activist’ variety). The rest were fulltime activists with a sprinkle of vicars, US Embassy spooks and other people on a mission.
See details on WUWT etc.
Anything to obfuscate and avoid honest truth.
My guess is that the source documents have been shredded without first being scanned for posterity. Covering up some sort of inconvenient fact like that usually triggers all sorts of bureaucratic defense mechanisms.
The trick is to ask the right question of the right person. And that’s not easy when dealing with a bureacracy with a history of cover ups.
But I speculate too much. Right Nick? Right Bill?
What do you think these source documents actually were?
Nick, these are not the droids you are looking for.
What type surface was the station calibrated over?
What we need to know here is the ‘Frequency Response’ of a Mercury thermometer, ideally the ones used in Aus to record their historic data
Two ways pf doing that but the fastest and easiest would be to measure its ‘transient’ or Impulse response – and compare.
(Holy cow I’ve just realised, I’m repeating Tyndall. in a small way – no carbon oxide here coz it’s perfectly irrelevant)
Get yourself the 2 thermometers, Mercury and Platinum, and let them acclimatise to a bowl of water on your workbench, Room temperture, no matter the actual value.
Then, set yourself off a pot of boiling water. This is your temp reference exactly as Tyndall used.
You may need a video camera to watch/record the Mercury thermometer, the Platinum will already be recording (or be told to) at – what? 10 second intervals.
(I’m saying Platinum, it may be a Thermocouple thermometer or just a simple Silicon diode)
Then, set of the camera and the data logger and simultaneously put both thermometers in the hot water
Let it go until they both record the same temperature
Folks familiar with frequency analaysis and Fourier Transforms will then be able to construct a mathematical Low Pass Filter to as to get the Platinum to replicate the Mercury.
It might not be quite this simple. The heat transport into a device is a time function. The amount of heat transferred is also a function of the material and that will determine the temperature reading. If the heat source changes before the material can reach equilibrium then it will read a lower temperature than another material with a higher thermal conductivity that can reach a higher equilibrium point in a given amount of time.
Not sure a low-pass filter will help with this. But your experiment should be able to identify the differences in thermal conductivity which could then be used to develop an adjustment for the differences.
Are the reported liquid thermometer readings measured by eye or some sort of electronic device?
globally maxima have been dropping
Every time there’s a discussion of historic daily high and low temperatures, the question arises on ‘how accurate were the high and low temperatures indicated and recorded’. Presumably, when bulb thermometers were used, there was some sort of indicator in the capillary tube that held at the high and also the low points, and then the observer recorded these temperatures manually. This process also involves properly resetting the indicators and properly recording the data. It also assumes that after the reset, the high will arrive before the low. The potential for errors in this process is certainly non-zero, and likely changed significantly over time. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the earliest data was made without the indicators, but rather required a wet finger in the wind to indicate the best time to read the thermometer. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the indicators were not perfect.
It appears that the BOM, or those that run it, have something to hide.
Otherwise, why would you not release the data if it was in your favor?
This is very similar to the BBC and the Balen report. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report
This report into the BBCs bias in reporting of middle East issues, has been subject to years of litigation.
If the BBC had nothing to hide why not release it.
There is a distinct pattern here that the many detractors who comment here try to deny.
If the BOM is not corrupt or stupid or embarrassed or just naive then release the data.
If they are worried about the costs only joking, looking at their budget! then a crowd source website can be quckly be setup to get multiple readers to read each record and digitise the data.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then it is a duck…
Perhaps, they CAN’T release the data. Perhaps, that is what they are now hiding — they destroyed it. It is, however, highly likely, given their past actions, that by now they have synthesized some “data,” so, why not release THAT? That is odd.
Heh. THAT’s what “Nick Stokes” is telling is in his comments about needing to do a lot of work before data can be released. They’re still working on their fake data. Great.
Query: Who in the world would be fooled by “Nick’s” blatant stall tactics?
Answer: The AGW “base.” “Nick” is willing to swell the ranks of the data-driven science people (i.e., with those who see that AGW is highly suspect of not false, given his tissue paper arguments) in order to maintain the bulk of the”AGW is Real!!” voter base.
Nick is a strange case. So much obfuscation and misdirection. He damages his already negative reputation every time he posts.
And then there’s Bill Johnson. Wow. Just wow.
Once two strong willed people get into a flame war, if one is really lucky [s]he might achieve a Pyrrhic victory.
Just not true Janice.
Each of those 10,000 pages of datasheets was scanned/photocopied by someone who went to work on the day and were allocated the task. They probably went home and complained bitterly to their families about having wasted days, possibly weeks of their lives because Jennifer went to Alan Jones, who went to the weak-kneed Minister, who wanted the fire she started, extinguished ….
There is nothing worse than pointless work and they probably did not write nice gooey stories in the Spectator about themselves and their hard work. Neither would they have had glowing thoughts had they read Jennifer’s tasteless exercise in self-praise. In my view this whole episode is unseemly. Someone said to check my bank balance. I am paid by nobody and whatshisface who has no business to suggest such a thing, can go jump.
Furthermore, as a member of the IPA, I voluntarily contribute to Jennifer and husband John’s remuneration, and on that basis it is reasonable to have high expectations about what she writes on her own site and on WUWT.
With that in-mind, Jennifer’s blathering-on to find a 0.22 DegC difference between T-data and probe data that had already been published by Blair Trewin, and which could not possibly be significant is simply reprehensible.
The Bureau and all government departments and other institutions, have procedures in-place to limit the extent to which every man/woman in Australia with an axe to grind, can make unreasonable demands on their human and physical resources. While there are certainly some duds in high places, not everyone falls into that category. The BoM could get rid of their parasitic marketing branch, and send some others off to reopen the Meteorology Office at Halls Creek or Oodnadatta, for instance.
However, as a result of this series of posts, and having worked for government, and observed weather data for about a decade, I now see the issue of public access in a different light.
The Bureau’s response has nothing to do with conspiracies. In this case employees who went to work to do their job, have been subject to a level of harassment by Jennifer and the Institute of Public Affairs that by any measure is unreasonable.You can judge that surely.
Across all these posts she has also gotten too many things wrong; there is nothing gender, there is just nothing to see. Check out the saga about Goulburn for example. Bagging me because they could not be bothered to research the site themselves, is a gross and unpardonable insult.
This thing has become obsessive and crazy. There are other ways of tacking the problem which I have outlined on http://www.bomwatch.com.au.
Furthermore, riding and stirring on the back of the IPA, Marohasy is not a law unto herself and in my view, the BoM should tally-up the costs of this particular exercise and send her an account, with full on-costs, that she alone should be responsible for.
For their part, the IPA should also get on with the job of protecting Australian’s freedoms, which is why I became a member in the first place.
Dr Bill Johnston
The routine collection of scientific data, as outlined above, should be collected and uploaded to publicly accessible ftp servers.
Many countries do this routinely for data amassed at public cost.
The odd thig is, it appears that lots of data was collected but not converted into electronic form. Why bother to go to the trouble of collecting data that is not stored in a searchable form.
It just does not add up.
Still, it continues the BOM fine tradition of data fiddling.
“Each of those 10,000 pages of datasheets was scanned/photocopied by someone who went to work on the day and were allocated the task. They probably went home and complained bitterly to their families about having wasted days, possibly weeks of their lives because Jennifer went to Alan Jones, who went to the weak-kneed Minister, who wanted the fire she started, extinguished ….”
That is no one’s problem except those in charge of the office and their inability to keep up with the state of the art in office operations!
“There is nothing worse than pointless work “
Why is it pointless work to make public data available to the public? You are only showing us your bureaucratic mindset with statements like this!
“With that in-mind, Jennifer’s blathering-on to find a 0.22 DegC difference between T-data and probe data that had already been published by Blair Trewin, and which could not possibly be significant is simply reprehensible.”
When we are being told that the global average temp growth is in the hundredths digit, discrepancies of .22DegC is *certainly* significant!
I’m not in a flame war.
I am a scientist questioning another scientist, who has never observed the weather, who has made numerous mistakes in previous posts (which she has not corrected), who calls people and institutions liars because she does not get her way, and who attributes words to others, that they did not say, and actually do not believe.
Some of the things she has claimed are simply outrageous. As a paid-up member and supporter of the Institute of Public Affairs I expect better than that from someone whose salary I contribute to. By any measure that is a fair expectation. I don’t expect a broken product simply because with the IPA behind her, she can rattle a few bars.
On my behalf and that of other members, the IPA needs a process that filters misinformation and argy-bargy from what is essentially in this case a scientific argument.
You readers of these posts deserve better also. No site is a “Bureau site” by association. They run some sites but in proportion to the total, those are a minority.
Everything I have said in these posts has involved research. Hands-up anyone else who has bothered to examine metadata for any of the sites mentioned, let along looked at any data during the process of these discussions. The Bureau has on their books at the moment a total of 1,811 stations that measure Tmax (or have data that has been digitised at some time in the past), 637 of those are automatic weather stations. In 2014, they had a total number of reporting stations (temperature and rainfall) of 10,176.
If any of you are truly interested, you could have obtained that information, put it a spreadsheet and made some lookup tables that summarised that information. And everyone is saying all this mountain of paper should be scanned (plus all the rest that has not been digitised) and put on a server somewhere. What justification could there possibly be for spending the zillions of dollars that would cost.
It is also a fact that Jennifer’s A8 forms are not single pages in a book, and that they are adjacent pages in a Field Book, not the final cross-checked product.
Pull-out one page from the Field Book and there is one A8 for 1-day on the left, that does not correspond with the same day on the right, ditto on the reverse, where in fact the pages are transposed. The left-hand page of one, is actually the right-hand page of the previous day and there are 30 of those in the book for 1-month. So, by all means take out the staples and stick that up your scanner!
The easiest most error-free way to copy data for a day is to scan or photocopy and turn the pages by hand.
Many people reading this post take sides. But there are no sides to be taken. I am angered by the crap I put up with – directed thoughtlessly to me because I am pointing out obvious problems and inaccuracies in Marohasy’s commentary that she never corrects.
Where are these much-famed citizen scientists who want to get their hands on millions of pages of “public data” that is possibly not fit for purpose, actually checking Marohasy’s claims against metadata that is freely available (but is still not necessarily up to date and accurate).
Why aren’t the citizen scientists commenting on the misuse of paired t-tests on data whose differences as a time series are autocorrelated? Why aren’t they demanding a higher level of trustworthiness in commentary supported by the IPA.
Her claim that I attack her because she is women is blatant hypocrisy – where are the women citizen scientists; what would she say to them if they pointed-out her missteps?
The issue about the Bureau adding fuel to global warming via their constant stream of propaganda, at least four or five times every day is different, has nothing to do with A8 filed books, and I deplore it. It is shameful, driven by politics and it is a disgrace. But it still has nothing to do with A8 field books.
I am tackling it bit-by-bit, using objective BomWatch protocols and careful research of data that is available, and publishing that seemingly unending work, as reports and frontstories at http://www.bomwatch.com.au.
Since we started BomWatch two years ago, chief data-masseur at the BoM Blair Trewin, once one of the public-faces of warming in Australia has fallen silent, at least on The Conversation. Homogenising data to agree with models, which in turn claim to reflect the data is unscientific and an abuse of public trust. The models that claim to be the science that guides policy are nothing but expensive over-rated computer games.
The science is supported by “communicators”, including the WWF-affiliated Climate Council, and the brass-band at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University. There you will find misinformation expert, 97-percent consensus- Reichsfuehrer-SS Dr John Cook (pictured, from https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/01/reichsfuehrers-of-the-climate-con-job/).
Go to there site and look at what they do (https://www.monash.edu/mcccrh/home). Ask questions and demand answers of them (email@example.com). Tell Reichsfuehrer-SS Dr John Cook what you think (John.firstname.lastname@example.org) about the crap he produces at public expense.
Ask why COOK or all those other dolts, whose job it is to scare children and mothers by whatever means possible, deserve to have any sort of publicly-funded job – even cleaning the dunnies.
However, this has nothing to do with A8 Field Books or the scanning of, and it won’t be fixed by citizen scientists who do not correct mistakes made by Jennifer Marohasy using metadata that already is available in the public domain.
(This is the last you will hear from me regarding this post.)
Dr Bill Johnston
“Pull-out one page from the Field Book and there is one A8 for 1-day on the left, that does not correspond with the same day on the right, ditto on the reverse, where in fact the pages are transposed. The left-hand page of one, is actually the right-hand page of the previous day and there are 30 of those in the book for 1-month. So, by all means take out the staples and stick that up your scanner!”
Stop whining! No one ever said the copies have to be collated by date. If you get two different dates in one PDF it’s up to the recipient to handle putting the data into a database. As has already been pointed out to you, OCR programs today can do that, it doesn’t have to be done manually although doing it manually is also a feasible process.
The issue is *getting* the copies – period. All I’m hearing is excuses as to why that is impossible. PATHETIC EXCUSES!
No argument from me, you certainly ARE an expert and I’m surprised they don’t reserve an office for you next to the photocopier at the BoM.
This is NOT an IQ test by the way, it is a test only to be done by EXPERTS.
The picture is the fold-out twin A8 pages for Mildura on 20 February 2003 that was originally posted by Jennifer and has been posted several more times since
What do you notice about it (time starts now):
There are page numbers (Yes/No)
The date in the box on the right is on the same page that contains the values of most interest to Marohasy, which are actually the T-values on on the left (Yes/No)
While random is an option, the numbers Jennifer is interested in on the left, do not need to be collated so they align with dates in the BoM database? (Yes/No)
Some writing is right-handed, some is left handed; some values are over-written (not a problem for Tdata in this case, but see 6am rainfall in Col 71-73 or the scribble under Cols 19-21). No worries, give it to the OCR to sort out (Yes/No). (After all AI/OCR is soooo cool and advanced these days.)
So what do we reckon, we pull-out the staples toss it through the scanner (which are also very advanced and clever these days) and leave the collation to Jennifer?, or for all those eager citizen-scientists out there with absolutely nothing better to do?
You say “No one ever said the copies have to be collated by date”, but Jennifer is doing paired t-tests – data paired with data for the same day from the BoM’s database. How does that work when the data she wants and date on which they were observed are on different unnumbered pages. Quick …. time’s up.
And why do you bother me in such disrespectful and abusive tones, with a foolish comment, that you could have researched yourself?
How did you score on the EXPERT test by the way?
Dr Bill Johnston
You are *still* whining! The important thing is getting the data she requested. If she has to put in time getting into a digital format, so what? That’s her problem not yours.
You are *still* making up excuses for not getting the data in the public’s hand.
The destruction is of course speculation but quite reasonable in my estimation. The BoM might well be faced with a choice between a loss of reputation if they have destroyed the records and a loss of reputation is they haven’t.
All debate aside on the technical side of things, if the publicly funded raw data has been requested and is there, it should be released. The data release poses no threat to national security or any such similar pushback excuses.
If there are data quality issues, then release the caveats with the info.
If the data is not there, fess up and provide the rationale as to why the data was either not recorded or destroyed.
As the twitter files haver highlighted, transparency from government institutions is vital if they are to rebuild public trust, which is at an all-time-low, often for valid reasons.
It is not rocket science and there is no valid reason to withhold information that has been presented so far.