THE Australian Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, doesn’t have a set of temperature thermometers regularly positioned across the landmass of Australia from which it might derive an average annual temperature. Rather many more of it’s approximately 750 temperature recording stations are in south eastern Australia, some have records that date back to the 1850s, while others only started recording last year.
How do you derive an average annual temperature for Australia from such a mix of measurements? 
The Bureau’s solution is to select a subset of about 112 stations from the 750. Some of the stations in the subset started recording temperatures in the 1850s, others not until the 1960s. Then the bureau truncates the longer temperature records, in some cases by discarding over 50 years of data, indeed everything before the somewhat arbitrary date of 1910. Data before this date is not considered reliable, but then the Bureau applies corrections to some of the rest of the data even though it should be reliable. Then the adjusted and truncated values from the subset are fitted to a grid to generate an area-weighted average of the data.
There is no single document that describes this methodology. Rather in a letter from the Bureau dated 24th January, responding to my request for information, I was directed to a mix of Bureau reports, peer-reviewed papers and also a PhD thesis by way of justification, methodology and for a list of stations.
In short, there is no straightforward way to verify the claim that last year, 2013, was the hottest calendar year on record. This is the claim the Bureau made in a media release on 3rd January 2014.
When individual stations with long temperature records are examined the late 1890 and 1930s appear to be as hot as recent years.
Ever since Climategate, deeply disturbing questions have been asked about the way climate science is conducted and also the state of the climate data. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s own databases feature in the leaked emails with the infamous ‘Harry Read Me’ file complaining about jumbled values and incorrect start dates for particular stations.
The mainstream climate science community has a vested interest in the average temperature for Australia increasing year-on-year because it has embraced the theory of anthropogenic global warming and invested heavily in research that assumes this theory.
It is time that the Bureau was more transparent in how it calculated its average annual values, and that it developed a method for benchmarking these annual average values. The benchmarking could be against satellite data and also against individual stations in Australia for which there are long temperature records.
**************
Click here to download the Bureau’s reply to my letter of 9th January requesting information to enable verification of the claim that 2013 was the hottest year on record.
Click on the image to see a chart of the Bureau's annual mean temperature anomaly for Australia, this value is derived from the annual mean.
Jennifer,
Are you planning to write again with supplementary questions? You seem to have deduced some of the BoM methodology for creating an Australian temperature figure. The thing I missed was an account of the method and reasoning for the adjustment of individual thermometer records.
As you say Bob FJ at 901 am , how could it be? ”The BoM has published data for Jan 2014, which despite all the talk of severe heatwaves in the SE, shows an anomaly much less than in 2013 for the whole of Australia. (similarly December)”. So which data are you questioning, the Jan 2014 or the Jan 2013 and why. I think you would have your answer if you hit the moving average button for monthly data. I cant wait for the next instalment due end of Feb for the summer of 13-14. My guess it will show the record heat giving rise to the 2013 record is over and that will make you wonder whether there ever was a record year. Lucky Feb is a short month – will that bias it?
An El Nino trend is likely to develop this year, Gavin Schmidt, deputy director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said this month. … Depending on the size of the El Nino, it may push 2014 and, more likely, 2015 up the rankings of warmest years on record, the Goddard Institute’s Schmidt said on a conference call.”
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-28/el-nino-may-develop-as-most-models-predict-pacific-ocean-warming
Some, but not all, models predict this warming may approach El Niño thresholds by early winter. Model outlooks that span autumn have lower skill than forecasts made at other times of the year, hence long-range model outlooks should be used cautiously at this time.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Who should the tax paying Australian public trust – BOM or (Gavin from) RC?
Which of this advice is in Australia's national interest.
sp @10:33 am
Another aspect of Mr Plummer’s recommendation of SKS & RC websites, of which I know little other than in rebuttal reports from various rational sites is that they are rather low in traffic.
Immensely more visited and which have attracted “bloggies awards” regionally for best scientific sites are:
Locally; Jo Nova
UK; Tallblokes
USA; WUWT
This site and many others such as Steve McIntyre’s and Bishop Hill’s are also close contenders I think.
Mr Plummer seems to live in a very small world.
And via SKS:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=abbott&x=0&y=0
there is this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/03-3
"Tony Abbott's a reckless ideologue who ignores the science and is intent on listening to people who are part of the tinfoil hat brigade," Greens leader Richard di Natale told reporters in Melbourne, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
“In fact, the only people that don’t believe that climate change is real are prime minister Abbott, his cabinet and some of his advisers,” Labor leader Penny Wong told reporters in Adelaide, according to The Guardian. “He thinks [the climate science] absolute crap and the policy he has is a con job that you have when you think climate change is absolute crap.”
BOM has directed taxpaying Australians to this site for a BALANCED perspective.
I can only wonder what the accountable Minister would make of that. And the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The resident idiot has failed to grasp one simple point of realpolitik - there is a new government in office, and I suspect BOM has failed to grasp the same point.
Who should the tax paying Australian public trust – BOM or SKS?
A difficult question since BOM has chosen to be associated with SKS.
sp - RC and sks are holy writ compared to the squalid disinformation sites you lot frequent. What serious scientist would be caught dead quoting a denier site. There is no "other side" of the argument. It's like presenting the other side of the flat earth argument? Surely you're joking.
MPs are used to a plurality of views in the electorate. It seems lil' old totalitarian book-burning you does not. Get over it.
"Australia has fine democratic institutions and traditions – like Westminster tradition of ministerial accountability." ah come on - I'm gonna start crying soon.
Anyway how's that 2 year ENSO forecast going?
Luke - provide a clear and simple definition of OWNED and we can proceed from there.
BALANCE - perhaps Mr Neil Plummer should also be invited to explain why (say) two sites that present an alternative climate perspective were not also included in the somewhat intemperate BOM reply.
Why just SKS and RC? The perspectives presented at both sites are blatantly partisan - no balance there.
I trust the Australian public to form their own opinions after being presented with the facts. It is clear that SKS presents spurious "facts" and is laden with opinion.
Taxpaying Australian citizens are entitled to request clarification from their local member or ministers.
The best democratic outcomes are derived from robust debate where both sides of he argument are presented. Australia has fine democratic institutions and traditions - like Westminster tradition of ministerial accountability.
It seems to me BOM has presented only one side of the argument and should be invited to explain why to the minister and parliament.
BOM should provide facts to assist Australians act in the national interest. SKS presents opinion that is manifestly not in Australia's national interest.
Who should the tax paying Australian public trust - BOM or SKS?
Shonk Neville does his usual no duty of care style contribution. Didn't even read the comment. Typical reckless Nifty. "Yes sp go the RC and learn how to turn data on its head to get the result you want". No it's about a MOOC down by other parties doofus.
Then we have the usual sp sceptic drivel attack - take a snippet from a BoM letter of reply and over-generalise it. A really big sook about a comment that RC and sks being an answer to many questions about climate change - in how many words? Good lord.
Incidentally BoM won't back down on targeting sceptic rot and have gone on record on Hansard to do so. Don't think you can try it on sp - it's not your paid for comment dodgy contracting business. Who do you think you are (oh I forgot - an idiot who misquotes BoM on 2 year ENSO forecasts - how's that working out for you BTW).
Remember the smackdown
Dr. Greg Ayers on Climate Science, Pell and Plimer for the Hansard record
Hansard transcript ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
ESTIMATES (Additional Estimates)
MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2011
Hey reckon you could do the MOOC course sp - I reckon you wouldn't even pass. First whiff of something quantitative and you'd be in trouble.