Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

1. In 1996, when the Bureau converted to custom-made electronic probes for temperature recording, rather than averaging temperatures over one to five minutes as is standard practice around the world from such equipment, did the Bureau start recording one second extrema resulting in a non-standard method of measuring (spot readings) from non-standard equipment (custom-built probes) making it impossible to establish the equivalence of recent temperatures with historical data? 2. How did the Bureau take into account the change in thermometers from mercury/alcohol to platinum resistance thermometers when homogenising data? 3. Could the Bureau provide specifications for the platinum resistance thermometers? 4. Why did the Bureau manipulate thermometers at Goulburn and Thredbo by putting a limit on how low the temperature can go? 5. Could the Bureau explain why putting a downside limit on temperature recordings isn’t fraudulent? 6. Why should the Bureau be believed when it says there were the only two weather stations (Goulburn and Thredbo) out of 700 stations where downside limits were placed on thermometers? 7. Given these two stations were detected by external sources shouldn’t the entire network by audited by an external auditor on a regular basis to ensure that there has been no further tampering of thermometers by the Bureau? 8. In 2011, the new Australian Climate Observation Reference Network – Surface Air Temperatures (ACORN-SAT) system for calculating the national average temperature removed 57 stations from its calculations, replacing them with 36 on-average hotter stations. Can the bureau confirm this had the effect of increasing the homogenised Australian average temperature by 0.42 degree Celsius, independently of any actual change in the weather?

Answer:

Question Number: 50
PDR Number: SQ22-000099
Date Submitted: 22/02/2022
Department or Body: Agriculture Water and Environment

1. The Bureau of Meteorology’s (The Bureau) automatic weather stations (AWS) record 1-minute air temperature data in accord with World Meteorological Organization recommendations. These 1-minute values are recorded as the temperature observed in the last second of each minute, not an extrema from the recordings taken throughout the minute.

Research undertaken by G.P. Ayres and J.O. Warne, published in the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science [Response time of temperature measurements at automatic weather stations in Australia, 2020], addresses measurement intervals. This research demonstrates there is no significant difference in the method employed by the Bureau, and an averaged measurement taken over 1 minute.

This has been supported through parallel observations using manual and automatic instruments, which have demonstrated that there is no significant difference between temperatures recorded by manual and automatic equipment in the same environment (i.e. within the same Stevenson Screen). As such, data recorded using current AWS technology can confidently be compared with historical data from the same sites.

2. As outlined in the response to SQ22-000099-1, the change from manual to automatic observations, in itself, had no significant effect on temperature observations, as demonstrated by direct comparison or parallel observations taken in the same Stevenson Screen.

In cases where the change from manual to automatic instruments coincided with a site change, this had an impact on temperature observations. These impacts were dealt with through the normal comparison station and homogenisation process that is explained in great detail on the Bureau’s website and is supported by peer-reviewed literature.

3. Construction specifications for the Bureau temperature sensors are included in the attached pdfs.

The sensing element used in the Bureau’s thermometers meets international standard BS EN 60751-2008 [IEC 2008], band 5 (1/10 DIN) which have a R0=100 ? and ? = 0.003850 ?/(?.°C).

Each instrument is tested and calibrated across the full operational range prior to installation in the field in the Bureau of Meteorology’s Standards and Metrology Laboratory.

4. Please refer to response to written Question on Notice number 176, portfolio question number 134 at the 2020-21 Budget Estimates, tabled on December 3 2020 which provides detail on these thermometers.

The Bureau has not manipulated thermometers at Goulburn and Thredbo.

As detailed in the Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Automatic Weather Stations (2017), the AWS’ at Goulburn and Thredbo were inadvertently fitted with a MSI1 hardware card during maintenance. The MSI1 card is unable to function at temperatures below -10.4°C. These installations occurred in November 2002 and May 2007 respectively.

The Bureau acknowledges that not adequately communicating the limitations of the MSI1 card to its field staff resulted in an error, and the AWS systems at Goulburn and Thredbo were not able to read temperatures below -10.4°C. Corrective action has been taken.

Bureau staff replaced the inappropriate MSI1 cards with the MSI2 alternative at both sites in July 2017.

5. The Bureau rejects the assertion that placing a downside limit on temperature measurement constitutes an attempt to deceive.

All sensor equipment has an effective operational range and therefore a ‘downside limit’ and an ‘upside limit’. The Bureau makes every effort to ensure that sensor equipment employed in each location has appropriate operational limits.

The Bureau has performed an in-depth review of all 724 automatic weather stations, and can confirm that the technical specifications for each are fit-for-purpose for the climate of their installed location.

6. An extensive external review of the Bureau’s automatic weather stations was undertaken in August 2017. The findings of this review are publicly available on the Bureau’s website.

It was found that ‘the Bureau’s data quality control processes work well, flag errors appropriately, and that the Bureau’s practices are of a high standard, and are in line with accepted practice for meteorological services worldwide’.

Furthermore, the Bureau can confirm that there were only two stations (Thredbo and Goulburn) where observations were affected by downside temperature limits. This was noted through the external AWS review.

7. The Bureau does not tamper with thermometers.

Irregularities in the data transmitted by the Thredbo and Goulburn automatic weather stations were identified by the Bureau through automated and manual quality control processes. It is through these reviews that the cause of the fault was determined and subsequently rectified. This is laid out in the report Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Automatic Weather Stations, 2017 pages 48 and 50, available on the Bureau’s website.

The Bureau’s quality monitoring system is regarded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as a best practice climate data management system. Further, the WMO standard for such systems is based on the Bureau’s system.

The Bureau is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities for temperature and pressure calibration to the internationally recognised quality standard ISO17025.

Under this regime, the Bureau’s temperature measurement and quality control systems and processes are subject to a surveillance audit every 18-months, with an in-depth reaccreditation audit every three years.

8. No; the change described had no effect on the expression of national average temperature.

In both ACORN-SAT and its predecessors, data from each station are expressed as a difference (anomaly) from the average for a standard reference period (currently 1961-1990). The station anomalies are then averaged into a national value. Since the anomaly for all stations, by definition, has an average of zero, changing the stations used makes no difference in itself to the national average. The reason why anomalies, rather than absolute values, are used is to prevent any bias that may arise from changes in the network, such as the opening of new stations in particularly hot or particularly cold areas.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

LATEST QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

THE ISSUES

Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy

READ MORE

Education & Family

READ MORE

Energy

READ MORE

Environment

READ MORE

Health, Aged Care & Seniors

READ MORE

Primary Industries

READ MORE

Immigration & Foreign Affairs

READ MORE

Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism

READ MORE

Defence

READ MORE

Federation Reform

READ MORE

I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,

Gerard