Skip to content

Temperature Adjustments At Brisbane

August 24, 2014

By Paul Homewood 


Further to my post yesterday concerning temperature adjustments at Amberley Aero in Queensland, it is worth looking at Brisbane Eagle Farm Airport, the nearest station on the ACORN dataset of high quality stations used by the Australian BOM. Brisbane is just 30 miles from Amberley.


This is the raw data used on GHCN V2 till 2011.




And this is the current GHCN V3 plot, based on adjusted temperatures.




A slight difference!

It is said that temperatures at Amberley needed to adjusted, as the trend there did not correlate with other stations nearby. Apparently, Brisbane needed to be adjusted for the same reason!

  1. permalink
    August 24, 2014 4:02 pm

    I’m surprised the Beeb has even told us about the record low August temp in NI. Without any weasel words too!!
    David Bains
    Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

    • David permalink
      August 24, 2014 5:37 pm

      I live in NI and confirm that it was quite chilly last night. For August.

      But wait a minute: in terms of ‘year-to-date’ temperatures, 2014 Jan-Jul is the warmest on record in NI (started 1910). The BBC hasn’t yet mentioned that at all.

      Does this make the BBC an undercover ‘sceptical’ outfit?

  2. Tim Crome permalink
    August 24, 2014 4:55 pm

    Isn’t this type of massage criminal?

  3. August 24, 2014 5:28 pm

    Lying with statistics? Never heard of such a thing!

  4. Keitho permalink
    August 24, 2014 5:49 pm

    Fuck these guys, just fuck them man . i am sick of this deception.

  5. David permalink
    August 24, 2014 5:50 pm

    Re the post by Paul:

    Another airport! They’re notoriously unreliable in their early years. Most airport temperature records come from manually read Stephenson screens, whose purpose was to inform re local aviation conditions, not for quibbling over long term temperature changes. They were placed where it made them easy to read. Close to roads, buildings, car parks, etc.

    I can’t find the Eagle Farm data from BEST, but again, adjustments by BEST for Brisbane are in full agreement with both NASA and BOM:

    So what are we saying here? Has there been a global conspiracy between temperature data providers such as BOM, GISS and BEST to make it look like recent temperatures have been warmer than they actually have been? To what end?

    Is that what we’re saying? Does that strike anyone as being a reasonable line of thought?

    • August 24, 2014 6:07 pm

      Or are we relying too much on algorithms?

      As a minimum, all raw data should be kept and made available to the public. This I believe was a particular issue for Jennifer Marohasy, when she was trying to piece this altogether.

      To be fair to NCDC, they do keep the raw data open.

    • Mikky permalink
      August 24, 2014 6:12 pm

      To what end?

      To perpetuate the Great Climate Scam: pay loads of money in taxes and energy bills and we will stop the temperature from rising (even though it isn’t).

    • Retired Dave permalink
      August 24, 2014 8:11 pm

      The unreasonable line of thought is to assume that any of these series are not contaminated by the others. It is a bit like GCM’s, they all show warming, they are designed to, but some show more than others.

      It has reached the point now with some databases where the original data has been lost – either carelessly or deliberately or just incompetence. Have a good read at the Climategate emails for a start and some of the follow up FOI fallout. As Paul says not all centres have (or at least will admit they have) the original data. Such tampering is now surfacing not only in Australia (it already has in NZ) but also in the USA. Funny how the adjustments always produce a warming trend. Can anyone show me a downward adjustment in data from the last 50 years?

      In some countries data tampering is a criminal offence, especially with government data.

      It is surely obvious that any temps before 1950 get amended downwards and those after get amended upwards – to what end? exagerate a trend surely. A couple years back the 1930’s Icelandic temps got adjusted downwards, either by an algorithm or a fraud. The correctly exposed thermometers inconveniently showed that 1930’s Iceland was as warm as 2010 – we couldn’t have that now could we?? All this without the knowledge of the Icelandic Met Service of course. We all know those tesky 1930’s thermometers were always too warm /sarc off

      I think Paul and others are right – the near automatic adjustments of data is likely to be at fault. I can think of quite a few occasions in a cold UK Winter where the genuine difference in minimum temp between two reporting sites only a few miles apart was 8/9 deg C. Homogenise that.

      • Brian H permalink
        August 28, 2014 10:10 pm

        Relying on “neighbouring” stations to make wholesale adjustments amounts to data erasure. There is no excuse.

    • Green Sand permalink
      August 24, 2014 10:07 pm

      “They were placed where it made them easy to read. Close to roads, buildings, car parks, etc.”

      O the arrogance! Has it ever crossed your mind that those who have gone before might actually have been intelligent and diligent?

      DW it is now obvious you are of the new species “homo superbus”, absolutely certain history is wrong, know unequivocally what the future holds, whilst remaining at a total loss about present.

  6. Retired Dave permalink
    August 24, 2014 7:35 pm


    “They were placed where it made them easy to read. Close to roads, buildings, car parks, etc.”

    Not if the job was done properly they weren’t.

    One of the contamination problems in the USA is the exact opposite – where well exposed Stevenson Screens have gradually had their surrounding concreted and tarmaced over.

  7. Streetcred permalink
    August 24, 2014 11:16 pm

    I live not far from said weather station … it has been bloody cold this winter, and summers for a few years have not had those long stretches of very hot days that we’d become accustomed to at the peak of climate hysteria.

    Other than for a physical intervention … like concreting over paradise for a parking lot, or instrument drift … there should be no need for “homogenisation”. The data is the the data. Brisbane Aero measures a cooling trend that is unique to its location … that other locations, as far away as nearly 1,000km, show a warming trend is of no relevance to Brisbane Aero. Those warming trends may be (in my view, are) influenced by physical features that are not present in Brisbane … like proximity to desert for example, and completely different seasonal climates.

    BoM are disingenuous in their ‘fraudulent’ adjustment of the data record and moreso in their arrogant dismissal of clear evidence to that end. If IQ in Australia is on the wane, let it be said that the BoM leads the way.

  8. Ian George permalink
    August 25, 2014 3:37 am

    Below is a comparison between the CDO (raw) temps and ACORN temps for Sydney Observatory, Jan 1926. Sydney Obs would be ‘state-of-the-art’ then so why the large adjustments to the daily temps?
    Raw ACORN
    1st 22.9 21.8
    2nd 23.5 22.3
    3rd 25.4 24.8
    4th 27.9 26.9
    5th 20.6 19.5
    6th 24.3 23.2
    7th 32.2 30.8
    8th 24.2 23.2
    9th 22.2 21.2
    10th 24.3 23.2
    11th 24.9 23.8
    12th 26.3 25.7
    13th 39.9 38.8
    14th 25.1 24.5
    15th 23.7 22.7
    16th 30.7 29.3
    17th 23.2 22.1
    18th 25.4 24.8
    19th 24.7 23.6
    20th 21.4 20.3
    21st 24.4 23.2
    22nd20.6 19.5
    23rd 23.3 22.1
    24th 28.3 27.3
    25th 24.7 23.6
    26th 27.4 26.6
    27th 35.5 34.4
    28th 38.3 37.2
    29th 23.9 22.8
    30th 25.6 24.9
    31st 27.8 26.8
    The monthly mean has been reduced from from 26.2C to 25.2C – a full degree (Sydney Obs average Jan mean is 25.9C).
    So was Sydney Obs adjusted because it was inconsistent with neighbouring stations?
    The only station nearby was Richmond RAAF. Its mean that month was 30.4C – a full degree above its average Jan mean. So that can’t be why.
    And one wonders why we are sceptical.

    • David permalink
      August 31, 2014 8:34 am

      Ian George

      Those are daily max temps (Tmax). Monthly means for Jan 1926 are 23.0 (CDO ‘raw’) versus 21.8 (ARORN). Information for this site was also produced by BEST (22.2 raw and 22.1 adjusted). Clearly the raw data used by BEST doesn’t correspond to that of CDO.

      BOM station information states that daily min temps (Tmin) weren’t recorded at Sydney Obs. until 1955. CDO ‘raw’ Tmin data pre-1955 appears to be extrapolated. CDO and BEST apparently used data from different sources for ‘raw’ Tmin figures pre-1955. If the ACORN adjustment process used similar data to BEST to fill in the pre 1955 Tmin blanks it would explain why the ACORN and BEST adjusted figures are in reasonable agreement.

      BEST identified an “empirical break” in the Sydney Obs. ~1918, biasing temperatures high until ~1930 (see link). This would explain why downward adjustments were made to the 1926 raw Tmax data by both groups.

      Click to access 151986-TAVG-Alignment.pdf

      • Ian George permalink
        September 1, 2014 10:41 am

        Thanks, David.
        However, if the statement about the ’empirical break’ is true, why would the max temps for May, 1923 increased in the ACORN record so that it became a hotter month than May 1958.

  9. John Wilbye permalink
    August 25, 2014 8:10 am

    I used to cycle regularly to work and the route took me under the railway which ran along an embankment. What was noticeable was that often the home side of the embakment would be frost free when immediately after the 15 metre tunnel I would be on frosty paths.

  10. August 25, 2014 10:12 am

    “It is said that temperatures at Amberley needed to adjusted, as the trend there did not correlate with other stations nearby.” What a handy one-sentence encapsulation of Climate Antiscience.

  11. catweazle666 permalink
    August 25, 2014 3:03 pm

    There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

    Then there is government temperature data…

    • Brian H permalink
      August 28, 2014 10:17 pm

      Yeah, there’s a conflict of interest there. Which opens up the politics of policy-relevant data custody.

  12. August 30, 2014 1:48 pm

    This is so disturbing!


  1. All the facts you need in one page! | Roald j. L.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: