Jennifer Marohasy
In the five years following the installation of probes in automatic weather stations (AWS) as they replaced mercury thermometers across Australia, the annual frequency of extremely hot days increased by an average 18.7%.
This new analysis by Perth journalist and climate researcher Chris Gillham makes a mockery of claims by the Bureau that the transition from mercury thermometers to automatic weather stations has had no effect on temperatures, and so there is no need to transcribe or make public the parallel data.
Chris has found that a majority of these AWS stations had an average 62.8% increase in their 99th percentile observations. These are the hottest 1 per cent of days calculated since the start year of each station.
Chris also found that apart from a sudden increase in the number of these extremely hot days, they were on average also a bit warmer than in the thermometers days before AWS installation.
As well as increasing the likelihood of a record maximum temperature on any given day, the significantly increased frequency and heat of extreme maxima is likely to also warm monthly and annual averages.
Chris has analysed Australian Bureau of Meteorology unadjusted raw temperatures at the 105 weather stations that have transitioned from thermometers to AWS platinum probes within the Australian Climate Observation Reference Network – Surface Air Temperatures (ACORN SAT) used by the BoM to estimate national averages since 1910.
Last year, Chris and I made a joint submission to the NSW Flood Inquiry showing that for the 20 longest rainfall records for locations in the 2022 Australian east coast flood zone, there has been no overall increase in the intensity or frequency of extremely wet days.
The wettest year, measured as the year with the highest number of 99th percentile rainfall days by volume since 1900, is still 1974.
Chris used a similar methodology that we used to calculate the rainfall data in his analysis of this temperature data that the bureau considers to be of the highest quality and most reliable. His findings are consistent with my analysis of data from Brisbane Airport.
Chris writes:
Sixty-nine of the 105 automatic weather stations had a 62.8% increase in their 99th percentile observations.
Fifty-nine of the stations have had their platinum resistance probes replaced and in the six years following these replacements the annual frequency of 99th percentile days increased by 50.4%.
These increases are calculated by correlating the years of original or replacement probe installation to synchronise annual counts of extremely hot days, with the 99th percentile based on all daily observations since the start year at each individual station.
This analysis supports the findings of Dr Jennifer Marohasy who in April 2023 obtained the August 2019 to July 2022 daily as A8 Reports that she subsequently transcribed and analysed.
Dr Marohasy found the probe recorded higher maxima 41 per cent of the time, the same 32 per cent of the time and lower 25 per cent of the time.
The Brisbane Airport probe recorded an average 0.15C warmer than the thermometer after December 2019 with extreme differences on some days being as high as 0.7C.
The broader national analysis compares extreme daily maxima frequency within the 90th, 95th and 99th percentiles averaged in the five years before and after original and replacement probe installations.
Original probes maxima at 105 stations
90th percentile : 11.8% increase
95th percentile : 14.6% increase
99th percentile : 18.7% increase
Original probes maxima at 69 stations with increases
90th percentile : 30.8% increase
95th percentile : 41.0% increase
99th percentile : 62.8% increase
Six years pre/post replacement probes maxima at 59 stations
90th percentile : 20.6% increase
95th percentile : 29.2% increase
99th percentile : 50.5% increase
This national analysis also calculates annual minima frequency within the 10th, 5th and 1st (coldest 1 per cent) percentiles.
Original probes minima at 105 stations
10th percentile : 7.1% increase
5th percentile : 11.8% increase
1st percentile : 11.2% increase
Original probes minima at 58 stations with increases
10th percentile : 28.4% increase
5th percentile : 40.7% increase
1st percentile : 54.1% increase
Six years pre/post replacement probes minima at 59 stations
10th percentile : 0.6% increase
5th percentile : 3.2% increase
1st percentile : 2.0% increase
This national analysis also found the temperature of these extreme observations warmed when comparing the five years before and after original probe installation or replacement.
Original probes maxima at 105 stations
90th percentile : 0.15C increase
95th percentile : 0.12C increase
99th percentile : no change
Original probes maxima at 69 stations with increases
90th percentile : 0.32C increase
95th percentile : 0.25C increase
99th percentile : 0.37C increase
Six years pre/post replacement probes maxima at 59 stations
90th percentile : 0.20C increase
95th percentile : 0.15C increase
99th percentile : 0.36C increase
Original probes minima at 105 stations
10th percentile : 0.09C decrease
5th percentile : 0.05C decrease
1st percentile : 0.10C decrease
Original probes minima at 58 stations
10th percentile : 0.16C decrease
5th percentile : 0.08C decrease
1st percentile : 0.12C decrease
Six years pre/post replacement probes minima at 59 stations
10th percentile : 0.05C decrease
5th percentile : 0.05C decrease
1st percentile : 0.07C decrease
Examples include the ACORN station of Gunnedah where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 28.8 to 50.8 in the five years before and after 2001 AWS installation, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 35.4C to 36.3C. Gunnedah’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 7.0 a year, with their temperatures rising from 39.7C to
Gunnedah’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 7.0 a year, with their temperatures rising from 39.7C to 39.9C.
The increased frequency and temperature of extreme percentile maxima is likely due to BoM instrument averaging of AWS one second observations that are more sensitive to brief gusts of hot air not previously observable in mercury thermometers that had slower response times when the air temperature changes in their Stevenson screen.
Similarly, the increased frequency but lower temperatures of 10th, 5th and 1st percentile daily minimum observations are consistent with AWS probe sensitivity, and with observations within Bureau Research Report 32:
In the absence of any other influences, an instrument with a faster response time [a probe] will tend to record higher maximum and lower minimum temperatures than an instrument with a slower response time [a mercury thermometer]. 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.
Automatic weather stations became the primary instrument for official temperature observations at a slight majority of ACORN stations in late 1996, with 54 other stations converting from thermometers to AWS in following years.
Chris said:
The diurnal temperature range for unadjusted observations at the 105 ACORN AWS stations was 11.57C in 1986-1995 and 11.87C in 1997-2006, a 0.30C increase.
The average overall minimum at the 105 stations was 13.25C in the five years prior to their original AWS installation and 13.42C in the five years following, an increase of 0.17C.
Their average overall maximum was 24.97C in the five years prior to original AWS installation and 25.33C in the five years following, an increase of 0.36C.
These findings comparing observations between parallel mercury thermometers and probes in the same Brisbane Airport screen, as well as similar findings among stations spread across Australia’s national temperature network, raise questions on whether climate trends in recent decades are due to instrument change rather than climate change.
Chris has provided his analysis of the extreme percentile details and spreadsheets at http://www.waclimate.net/aws- corruption.html
It is now time that the Bureau made all the parallel temperature data public.
These are the measurements from probes in AWS and mercury thermometers in the same shelter at the same location.
So far the bureau has claimed a variety of reasons for not making this data public. In the case of the Brisbane Airport data, it initially claimed that manually scanning the handwritten A8 reports/Field Books would be too onerous. When the FOI request ended up with the Information Commissioner it was somewhat bizarrely claimed by the bureau that the parallel data for Brisbane Airport did not exist.
On Friday I discussed the issue of the non-equivalence at Brisbane Airport with Michael Condon on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s NSW Country Hour. You can listen by clicking here. I begin at about 11 minutes, or is it 15 minutes?
I was on Rowan Dean’s Outsider Sky TV program last Sunday,
Additional Information:
While I often refer to the official transition beginning in November 1996, Chris will argue there wasn’t a transition in 1996 or in any specific year. It can be argued that the transition to probes in AWS started in the late 1980s up to Karijini North in 2018. More usually the data in the ADAM/CDO Online database is mercury before 1 November 1996, and progressively more probe after this data. According to the documentation where there were both probes and mercury, the probe became the official instrument from November 1996. Yet, for example, there was no mercury at Cape Otway lighthouse from April 1994, so the ADAM database numbers from this date must be from the probe. For more information about Cape Otway, etcetera, read my blog.
Thank you, Jennifer, for preparing the post, and thank you, WUWT, for cross posting it here.
Regards,
Bob
Totally agree with you, Bob; thanks to Jennifer and WUWT. Its also been great to see you back on the internet.
Sadly, this is the last posting on surface measurement issues I will be reading. Governments control the recordings and databases, thusly, owning the science. As they say, resistance is futile.
Let them have all the surface measurements that show continued warming. The fact that radiosondes, satellites and ARGO increasingly falsify surface records will eventually catch up with them. This will happen the same way that real data has falsified the UN IPCC CliSciFi models; eventually things get so far out of whack that all but the worst liars simply give up telling you its raining when they are pissing on your leg (gaslighting, as it were).
The first graph looks very much like an instrument artifact.
In fact it is a site change. The old site was at Burketown Post Office. It ran until 2009 and never had an AWS. The new site is at Burketown airport, 2 km away. It started with an AWS in 2001. I presume that is what is presented here as an instrument artifact. In fact, the ACORN guide explains the difference:
“The change in surface type from the Post Office (watered lawn) to the
airport (natural grassland) is clearly shown in the maximum temperatures,
which are substantially higher at the airport during the winter and spring
(dry season). There is little difference during the wet season when the
vegetation is normally green at both sites.”
For those who like that sort of thing, there are 8 years of parallel data here.
Nick Stokes.
You might be correct. Full marks.
This is exactly why the Bureau must not, should not, continue with the same site number either 1. after such a significant site move and 2. after the installation of an AWS measuring from a probe.
Please confirm the issue is that Chris has simply assumed the only change was the AWS because there was no change in the site number.
Of course, sorting out all of this would also be aided if the Bureau made all the parallel data publicly available, that is the data recorded from a mercury and also probe in the same shelter at the same time at the same locations. :-). There should be about 700 years of it (somewhere around 10-20 years for each of 38 locations).
Invoking precedent, BoM’s reply to Chris could be –
“why should we give you this data, when you’ll only try to find something wrong with it?”
The data is published. The PO data runs to 2009. The airport data begins in 2001.
Of course, if it is published, no-one is interested.
“This is exactly why the Bureau must not, should not, continue with the same site number”
The Bureau did not continue with the same site number. As they say in the Acorn guide:
Hi Nick
So Chris has joined two series, exactly as the Bureau does in the creation of the ACORN-SAT series?
Yes. But as the bureau says, the difference in maxima is due to the site change, not instrument.
The point of the ACORN series, is that they select series that are representative of their regions. So they make an adjustment for the change.
So they adjust the new data down? Or, do they just go right on and show it a trending increase from prior years? BTW you didn’t show the old station number, what is it?
The “History” entry shows the original site.
The problem is that anyone pulling the data out based on station number is going to get a mixed set of data.
There should have been a *new* station number applied and a new record started.
No, they adjust the old data up.
Just two comments up, I showed the BoM’s accounts of the station numbers. Here it is again
I have a lot of time for Nick and for Jennifer. They have complementary skills. Wouldn’t it be useful if they ran information past each other before Jennifer posts an article so Nick can direct her to any additional sources of information he knows about?
tonyb
I don’t understand it at all. The axes have no labels; it talks about 5 and 10 year somethings, yet the time axis is +/- 20 years. The 90th percentile is also the 90th percentile (i.e., a dataset constant) but it seems not to be so in this case?
I’m sure someone can explain what it means. Janice … anyone?
All the best,
Bill Johnston
Her is the CDF plot for the overlap (cumulative distribution function). I did differences too but I can’t post an EXCEL graph right now.
Basically the sites are different by about 1 DegC (32.29 vs. 33.23), Tmax is cooler by up to 0.6 degC at the airport when T-town less than about 29 DegC, and warmer by up to 1.6 degC when T-town greater than 35 degC.
Cheers,
Dr. Bill Johnston
“I’m sure someone can explain what it means. Janice … anyone?”
I think the 90th percentile is a fixed number for the site. Then the black means the number of days that is exceeded in a year. And the red means the average temp C for those days.
The latter is a tricky statistic. Suppose the 90th % is 90F, and in one year you have two days, 94 and 98, average 96. The next you have three days, 91, 95, 99. Most people would say that is a hotter year, but the average is 95.
I thought everything was in degC. However, maybe they are using degM (for Marohasy).
Does anybody know what is going on, or are the tribes simply taking sides?
Nite time for me.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
The same thing was found for Germany’s transition. Posted at Pierre Gosslin’s site a couple of years ago.
The underlying probe physics are simple. You switch to a lower thermal mass probe, it will automatically record more thermal transients.
Stuff the ‘climate scientists’ do not (but could) correct for, because it enhances their false global warming narrative.
“Stuff the ‘climate scientists’ do not (but could) correct for”
They do correct for the change, as in the Burketown example above. But what they do that is better is they (or the measuring authority) match the thermal mass to LiG.
Why adjust at all? If a new station is started after a move like this, there is no reason to adjust anything from a climate science standpoint of looking at anomalies. The anomalies should only be calculated with a baseline appropriate to the “new station”.
Because that would be proper data management instead of proper propaganda management.
Fairly clear that there are inflection points at the change from mercury to platinum probe. There does not appear to be any world-wide dramatic change in 1996 (only the Super El Niño of 1998 might qualify for this),suggesting, as Jennifer says, an instrumental mis match. Let’s get on with things and never mind the CAGW nonsense.
Hi Ron,
Point of clarification, that I should have made clearer in the post:
The equipment change from mercury to probe were NOT all done at the same time, in the same year.
What Chris Gillham has done, is laboriously centred the graph so we can see at-a-glance the years before and after the shift.
It was a lot of work.
The official change over was 1 November 1996.
In fact the change over at Cape Otway Lighthouse was in April 1994. The most recent was in 2018 at Karijini North. There are still a few stations measuring with mercury. So it is theoretically ongoing.
Cheers,
Karijini North was a replacement station for Wittenoom – the town they abandoned due to asbestos contamination (most people who lived and worked there are now dead). Karijini North is about 13 km E of the former site, it started operating on 31 August 2018, the previous site closed on 30 August 2019, so there is one year of overlap. Here is a picture of the site.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
It’s proven, global warming is men made, but not the way so called 97% of so called climate “scientists” claim.
Am waiting for, teflon man, B.Johnson’s denial essay.
Macha,
B. Johnston doesn’t only post essays here at WUWT. He writes to my colleagues, he writes to university statisticians, he phones well known journalists. He has been unrelenting in his indignation at anyone, but especially me, who dares claim the parallel data is of any significance, and worth pursuing.
He has the capacity to make, what appears, a strong case.
A problem is that many people have no idea whether what Bill says has any merit or not. And they have no idea whether a paired t-test, for example, is appropriate for assessing the equivalence or otherwise of data from a probe in an AWS versus a mercury.
Thankfully there are forums like WUWT in which over time, issues can be explored, discussed, and nonsense exposed.
Bill’s approach of focussing on the site metadata has merit, as does yours.
It’s quite unfortunate that bad blood has built up over time.
OC,
O/T but I followed up on your suggestion of costing the USA48 model
here
Thanks, Nick. I added some cost calcs on that WUWT thread as well, based on IEA US costs, and added fission for good luck.
It’s probably too far O/T here, but maybe we can progress it further on the current Francis Menton thread.
When two different sites have the same station number then how do you handle getting a mixed set of data when it is pulled by station number?
There should have been a new station number and a new record started.
Yes, that’s one of the reasons that Bill’s detailed site history approach is valuable.
Dear Jennifer, you are again loose with the truth.
I have not written to your so-called colleagues. I have also not phoned any journalists. I have written to the IPA, complaining as a member, that your continued use of the wrong test is disingeneous and misleading. However, you still go on. Perhaps I have to write to the IPA Board. I have also sought advice from statisticians, which you should have done yourself; however, as I explained previously, none wish to be bothered with such fundamental issues.
Here is what I replied to you about paired t-tests:
Dear Jennifer,
Again:
The paired sample t-test has four main assumptions:
That time is a sequence is immaterial. The issue is whether your sequence of y-values (the differences you are testing) are independent (i.e., not serially correlated). If values ARE serially correlated, your use of the paired t-test is invalid. It is for this reason that the paired-test is not generally used on time-series.
The real test is whether the means are statistically different, not whether individual data points are different.
I have previously provided an example using overlap data for Halls Creek. In that case the paired t-test found the mean-difference was highly significant (P <0.0001). But hang on, the mean-difference was only 0.04 DegC (the means were 33.52 vs. 33.48! (N=1571 data-pairs)). A t-test for equal means showed they were the same.
If the means (of the populations of values) are NOT different it cannot be argued that the instruments have a measurable effect on trend or other attributes of the data.
There are several graphical and statistical methods for testing autocorrelation in your differenced data.
While there has certainly been a tribal response to me criticizing you claims of significance, the test you are using is simply not fit for purpose. Having argued this thing with you for the best part of a decade I’m out of patience. You are misleading people (including the IPA) into believing something that is not true.
I have no doubt the BoM monitors WUWT.
Therefore, they are in a position to convince the Minister and others that your conclusions are unsound and thereby cause the wind to rapidly blow out of you sail. My question to you is what do you hope to gain?
All the best,
Bill Johnston
Thanks Bill. The means are statistically different. The observations are independent of one another. Not sure how many times I need to repeat myself on all of this.
Dear Jennifer,
All you need to do is to place your data in the public domain. I have analysed enough parallel datasets and compared the outcomes, to know that your paired t-test results are spurious (check out Halls Creek for example).
Instead of polishing-up for the cameras, why not do some real research?
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
Although I tend to overuse sarcasm, irony and cynicism in my own posts I have great difficulty in detecting them in other people.
Does Poe’s Law apply here ?
If the answer is “No”, then please re-read (/ read for the first time ?) the ATL article, along with Jennifer Marohasy’s other WUWT cross-posts, and remind everyone what she is asking the BoM to do.
She is asking the BoM to spend huge amounts of money so she can get herself featured in The Australian proving absolutely nothing of substance.
While bemoaning the lack of data she has yet to look at all the parallel datasets that exist.
Poe’s Law seems like an oxymoron. Fun though (:-) or have I got it rong perhaps (:-(
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
One of my personal “red flags” is seeing people questioning other people’s motivations, i.e. asking “Why are you asking that ?” instead of trying to clarify “What are you attempting to show ?”.
Until the requested data has been provided, and the “analysis” actually performed, how can you possibly be so certain that there will be “absolutely nothing of substance” resulting from it ?
How can you “know” that next time Jennifer Marohasy will not take your objections into account ?
How can you “know” that with a weather station you haven’t looked at yet she will not come up with a “smoking gun” ?
More importantly, the BoM is funded by Australian taxpayers.
Why is all of the data not already publicly available ?
Many people fail to see when I am “obviously” being ironic / cynical / sarcastic in my posts.
I have the same difficulty, in the other direction, with many other posters … all around the Wibbly Wobbly Web, not just here on WUWT.
To me Poe’s Law “seems like” an astute observation.
Me too…. lets explore, discuss and debate. But lets face it, you have never undertaken regular weather observations and filled in a single A8 form. In contrast, I took my turn with colleagues, every morning at 9am – doing the met for almost a decade.
Why have you not carefully examined the parallel data that does exist?
Halls Creek for example, Burketown and more. What about Ruthergeln research and Corowa airport? Just how many of these parallel datasets have you examined, using your magical paired t-test of differences?
Due to autocorrelation, the test will almost always detect a significant difference for you to chat about with Graham Lloyd.
To be frank, I have never really paid much attention to parallel data. While there are site and instrument comparisons, I am yet to find a comparison between 230-litre vs 60-litre screens at the same site.
If you go and look at some of my more recent http://www.bomwatch.com.au reports, you will find out how I overcame that problem using objective statistical tests.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
That tends to indicate that context will be important on a case by case basis.
Depending on location, the PDO or IOD may be a large factor, as will temperatures to the north-west of the station.
Monthly rainfall may be inversely correlated with maximum temperature.
Observations centred a little before the 1996-7 summer will give a different result to those centred a little after.
WELL DONE, Dr, Marohasy!
(when they let you get a word in edgewise — heh)
Re: “Why [is BOM behaving like this]?”
Money. At the bottom of it all is money.
In the hopes that this might encourage you, the resignation letter from the APS (American Physical Society) of one of the finest, scientists in the world:
From: [The late] Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
***
As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. *** In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them.
So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word “incontrovertible,” which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one.
In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. [Nevertheless, t]his scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
==========================================================
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ )
You are in good company, Dr. Marohasy.
Moreover, you are on the side of TRUTH. Thus, in the end, your side will WIN.
I believe that the solar, wind, electric vehicle, cladding, and other scammers are actively bribing (via stock options, most likely) “scientists” and government officials. Probably the biggest one is one of the main manufacturers of all that junk: China.
“History is written by the winners” – Napoleon Bonaparte
So you have to win first, and only then can the truth be heard.
Joke Mike!
History is written by the winners, Science is written by the honest actual workers. Science is entirely about truth, but that is now so corrupted that science as such is impossible. Look at the last 10 Nobel przes in physics, which one is either honest or properly truthful? All of them demand more money for further research, is that a coincidence? Of course not, it is a gravy train.
“So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the [APS} Statement was the poison word “incontrovertible,” which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one.”
“Incontrovertible”! A religious zealot put that word in there. No real scientist would use that word in describing climate change or just about any other subject.
The APS isn’t the only professional organization that has been corrupted by the Human-caused Climate Change scam (and I’m so glad he called it a scam:). All the professional societies and mainstream science have been corrupted by this scam. They all bought into this, not because of the evidence, of which there is very little, but for some other reason, not connected to science.
Thanks, Janice, for posting this letter.
Every member of the APS should be sending a similar letter, if they had any integrity.
Science is never incontrovertible or fixed. Anyone who suggests this cannot be trusted. Real Scientists would love someone to overturn their theory, because it it a theory not a fact! That is how Science used to work. Now it is simply politics (in other words “give me more cash”).
Jennifer, you say that Chris said:
Examples include the ACORN station of Gunnedah where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 28.8 to 50.8 in the five years before and after 2001 AWS installation, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 35.4C to 36.3C.
The trouble is they don’t have an AWS at Gunnedah Resource Centre. I did the met there a coupe of times decades ago when visiting, and the last time I spoke to someone. they still operate 230-litre Stevenson screens (see pic in the ACORN-SAT cat, which was taken in January 2012).
Tut, tut, you really should pay more attention to detail, and depend less on paired t-tests!
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
“Examples include the ACORN station of Gunnedah where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 28.8 to 50.8 in the five years before and after 2001 AWS installation, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 35.4C to 36.3C.
The trouble is they don’t have an AWS at Gunnedah Resource Centre.”
Indeed, Gunnedah Resource Centre, which is the sole basis of the ACORN series, only ever had a LiG, and is still running. Gunnedah airport started with an AWS in 2001, but was never linked by ACORN to any other series.
This does seem to be flaky work.
Thanks Nick,
They had hoped to close the Resource Centre site and move observations to the AWS at the airport. However the sites were too different. Instead they hired a local contractor to undertake observations. (All the people I knew there have either retired or moved-on.)
At another of our old research centres (Inverell), they installed an AWS and 90-litre screen (I have pictures) but the site is not now part of ACORN-SAT. Data for Scone R/C was also used in ACORN-SAT, but the site has now closed; so to has Wagga, Cowra and Wellington.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
Big sigh for the days you could pop your head out the door and say what a glorious day it is today, let’s hope we have a few more days of Summer!
By the way here in the UK it’s been a horrendous start to the year, we’re almost in May and tomorrow’s temperature is forecast as highs of 9°C and lows of 0°C I was born in early April and as a child growing up in the 60’s I had one year when it snowed on my birthday and another year when I had a birthday party in the garden with a paddling pool, I have photos to prove it. In 63 years nothing has changed and I’m 100% certain the next 63 years will be more of the same, and the next +
The really sad thing is that my 12 Grandchildren are growing up being scared to death with the nonsense being spouted today, and that their lives are going to be minutely organised for them by big brother. Green on the outside and red on the inside 🍉
Freedoms are being taken away world- wide as we speak in the name of anthropogenic global warming, although of course they’ve stopped bothering with the anthropogenic bit and the global warming bit…climate change means absolutely nothing🤷🏻♀️
Crazy times indeed!
I worry about the mental health of the children growing up today. There are a lot of people who are determined to scare the children to death over CO2 and its supposed connection to climate change.
The children don’t know that “climate change” is just weather and is normal and as far as anyone can show, CO2 has nothing to do with it.
So kids, when you hear someone say some weather event like a tornado, or a hurricane, or a wildfire, or excessive rainfall, was caused by CO2, you should know they are misinforming you, either wittingly or unwittingly. Either way, there is no evidence that CO2 is causing any changes in the Earth’s weather. No evidence, kids.
Learn the difference between evidence and speculation, kids. What the Climate Alarmists are giving you is pure speculation, not evidence. And everything they have speculated about over the last 50 years has proven to be wrong. So stay sane and don’t take these climate alarmists seriously.
Gunnedah was a slip-up in that the data is all from Gunnedah Resource Centre but I mistakenly put 2001 as an AWS installation.
The Resource Centre had a replacement mercury thermometer in early 2002 which might explain the jump in extremes. It was possibly replaced because of errors such as in the extremes.
In which case, a few other examples …
Original probes
Adelaide where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 33.0 to 41.6 in the five years before and after 1996 when AWS became the primary instrument, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 35.0C to 35.6C. Adelaide’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 2.4 to 4.8 a year, with their temperatures dropping from 41.0C to 40.3C.
Bathurst where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 33.4 to 42.4 in the five years before and after 1996 when AWS became the primary instrument, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 32.0C to 32.2C. Bathurst’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 3.0 to 4.4 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 36.1C to 36.5C.
Birdsville where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 23.8 to 45.6 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 2001, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 42.6C to 42.9C. Birdsville’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.4 to 4.4 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 45.7C to 46.0C.
Bourke where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 33.4 to 38.4 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 1998, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 39.9C to 40.1C. Bourke’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 5.0 a year, with their temperatures steady at 43.4C.
Bundaberg where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 28.4 to 43.6 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 1997, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 32.3C to 32.4C. Bundaberg’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 4.0 to 8.0 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 34.6C to 34.9C.
Butler’s Gorge where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 36.4 to 38.8 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 2008, with 90th percentile temperatures steady at 24.8C. Butler’s Gorge frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 3.2 to 3.8 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 30.0C to 30.7C.
Cabramurra where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 24.8 to 36.8 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 1996, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 23.7C to 23.9C. Cabramurra’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 3.2 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 27.8C to 27.9C.
Camooweal where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 32.6 to 39.2 in the five years before and after AWS installation in 1997, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 40.9C to 41.1C. Camooweal’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 5.6 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 43.1C to 43.2C.
Ceduna where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 32.2 to 33.8 in the five years before and after 1996 when AWS became the primary instrument, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 37.4C to 38.5C. Ceduna’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 4.8 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 43.7C to 43.8C.
Replacement probes
Adelaide where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 39.8 to 46.8 in the six years before and after 2003 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 35.6C to 36.1C. Adelaide’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 4.2 to 7.8 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 40.5C to 41.2C.
Alice Springs where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 46.5 to 57.0 in the six years before and after 2011 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 39.8C to 39.9C. Alice Springs frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 5.0 to 7.3 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 42.4C to 42.7C.
Bathurst where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 45.5 to 58.2 in the six years before and after 2012 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 32.3C to 32.6C. Bathurst’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 5.2 to 10.0 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 36.5C to 36.8C.
Bourke where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 38.0 to 57.5 in the six years before and after 2015 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 40.4C to 40.8C. Bourke’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 5.0 to 13.0 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 44.2C to 44.4C.
Brisbane where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 21.7 to 39.2 in the six years before and after 2013 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 31.2C to 31.4C. Brisbane’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.2 to 4.0 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 35.2C to 35.3C.
Broome where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 43.5 to 49.0 in the six years before and after 2015 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 37.9C to 38.0C. Broome’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 6.0 to 6.7 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 40.7C to 41.2C.
Bundaberg where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 45.8 to 50.5 in the six years before and after 2010 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 32.2C to 32.3C. Bundaberg’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 5.2 to 6.3 a year, with their temperatures steady at 34.4C.
Charleville where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 29.3 to 33.3 in the six years before and after 2004 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 39.0 to 39.1C. Charleville’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 1.8 to 3.7 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 42.2C to 42.5C.
Cobar where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 35.5 to 45.0 in the six years before and after 2016 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 38.8C to 39.5C. Cobar’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 3.3 to 9.5 a year, with their temperatures increasing from 42.9C to 43.7C.
Coffs Harbour where the annual frequency of 90th percentile days increased from 36.5 to 61.5 in the six years before and after 2013 when the AWS had a replacement probe, with 90th percentile temperatures increasing from 29.9C to 30.1C. Coffs Harbour’s frequency of 99th percentile days increased from 2.2 to 6.8 a year, with their temperatures steady at 34.3C.
There’s a lot more stations in ACORN beyond the character C (keeping in mind this analysis uses RAW temps, not adjusted temps).
If anybody cares to read the study (http://www.waclimate.net/aws-corruption.html), other factors are discussed such as site relocations, small screens, etc, coinciding with AWS.
As in the examples above, there’s all sorts of variations between increased frequency and average extreme percentile temperatures.
However, no two stations are the same and different probe types are installed in different locations, although a fairly common theme is that if the frequency of extremes dropped so too did their temperatures, and vice versa if the frequencies increased. Yes, you’ll find exceptions but I’m talking about averages and majority numbers.
That’s why it’s important to get the collective averages which, as per the chart in this post, show a sudden increase at the time of AWS installation.
The rapid shift is, of course, most stark among the 69 stations with increased frequency. The 36 stations with a decline also have frequency and extreme temps charted on my page.
If a significant majority of ACORN stations show an increased extreme temperature frequency coinciding with AWS installation, I think it raises questions about instrument contributions to both record hot days and overall monthly/annual averages.
I congratulate Jennifer for organising this post despite knowing she’d have to put up with attacks from those who either instinctively criticise any evidence contrary to climate change or who otherwise are known to believe that AWS probes exaggerate extreme temperatures.
Dear Chris,
Due to site relocations and the change to 90-litre screens, most datasets are not homogeneous. Just a few:
At Bourke, the site moved 700m north in 1998. At Birdsville, it moved in June 2000; At Bundaberg, in 2010; at Cabramurra in 1996; at Camooweal, in 1998; Bathurst, 1996; at Charleville in 1990 and 2003; Cobar, small screen & AWS 1/5/1997, move November 2000… Sometime in the last 5-years I have analysed most of those datasets using BomWatch protocols.
I still can’t understand the graph at the top of the post and with every thing confounded (including rainfall), I’m unsure what is ‘proved’ by all this.
Kind regards,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au