Launceston temperature history illustrates how BoM inserts a large warming trend where raw data shows little change over 100 years

In 2012 the Australian Bureau of Meteorology brought out their ACORN SAT highly adjusted and warmed temperature data for just over 100 stations with all data commencing in 1910. Launceston starts in 1885 but the early data has gaps so we start at 1910 comparing raw data trends with warming trends from the BoM highly adjusted ACORN SAT.

It looks clear that the data as collected over more than 100 years shows no significant warming.
Over twenty years ago I built the two Australian long term series
Average of 25 Regional and Remote Stations –
Average Temperature for the 6 Capital Cities
It looks as though I had not found the Launceston data at the time the above was contructed in 1991.
The aim is to update more long term stations data as collected and contrast with ACORN SAT.

GoogleEarth image of the various sites at Launceston
1 – Launceston Royal Park
2 – Launceston Balfour Street
3 – Launceston Tamar Street
4 – Launceston Pumping Station – 1 to 4 number 91049 alt 24.4m
5 – Launceston Airport Comparison – 91104 alt 170m
6 – Launceston Airport Comparison
7 – Launceston Airport – 91311 – alt 166.9

6 thoughts on “Launceston temperature history illustrates how BoM inserts a large warming trend where raw data shows little change over 100 years”

  1. Warwick

    I tested your assumptions using BEST vs ACORN for maxima at Launceston 1910 to 2013.

    Those naughty naughty people at BoM aren’t trying hard enough to fudge their data. BEST has a 1.1C trend increase over the period, whilst ACORN only has 0.6C.

    It is easy to cast slurs. Much harder when you have to justify your conclusions. Try again Warwick.


  2. Tom Harley makes an excellent point. No surface temperature records can be called high quality. Just opening up a Stevenson screen can make the temp jump half a degree or more, and many observers were very sloppy in their readings as well. Only satellite sensing of the troposphere can be called high quality. Computerised homogenisation of raw surface data only compounds the problem.

  3. George Bailey: are you suggesting that BEST is actually worst. However Tom Harley makes a remarkably excellent point..

  4. No, and I disagree. In 50 years time whatever Tom Harley sets as a “high quality” data set will be out of date. It is the nature of science, and scientific measurements, that continuous improvement occurs. The quality of the network at the moment could only have been dreamed of 50 years ago.

    The brilliant science that is being brought to the fore is the processes to extract a signal from the data, with all its good and bad points, in the best way we can. We are fortunate in Australia that we have great metadata, and a very good dataset that enables this to be done with great confidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *