In Australia, two unpublished reports were generated about 15 years ago which went to the issue of the validity of using urban stations to compile large area temperature trends.
[1] The 1990 BoM draft Paper, M.J. Coughlan, R. Tapp and W.R. Kininmonth; 1990, “Trends in Australian Temperature Records” by three senior BoM staff, defined urban heat island (UHI) magnitudes by various comparisons between central city sites in all the Australian state capitals and their respective airports, more than one satellite site in the case of the larger cities.
The BoM found substantial urban warming greater than the scale of global warming. Extracts from Coughlan et all 1990 are below.
[View first page of Coughlan et al 1990. Download 300KB zip file of 18 gif images of Coughlan et al ]
Conclusion from Coughlan, et al 1990 re Urbanization Trends
3.3 Mean temperatures
Estimates of the trends in the annual average daily mean temperature also indicated warming at most of the non-urban sites except Brisbane Airport. The strongest warming over the periods examined was 0.26 C decade-1 Mean temperatures at Brisbane Airport cooled by approximately 0.03 C/ decade. Trends in urban-rural differences were all positive.
These estimates are greater than those of the trends this century, reported by Jones et al. (1989), in annual mean Southern Hemisphere air temperature, over both land and sea, and sea surface temperature, which have all shown rises of approximately 0.06 C /decade.
The authors or BoM, whoever, failed to comment to the relevant Journal that the 1986/1989 Jones / CRU papers generating the IPCC “global warming”, did in fact use these UHI contaminated Australian state capitals, a methodology that by any scientific logic has to be highly questionable in view of the findings by the BoM. Not to mention hundreds of published papers over the decades defining the UHI in various localities.
Comments to Journals are a frequent event when scientific differences need resolving or areas of disagreement need clarifying. A body with the prestige of the BoM should have had no problem getting its voice heard in the A.M.S. Journal if the will was there. The prevailing view in the BoM was obviously that it was more important not to “rock the new IPCC boat”, than to draw attention to blatantly bad science. Considering Australia’s great interest in the development of IPCC policy as a large resource exporter, policymakers today should be asking the BoM for a public “please explain” over their 1990 meek acceptance of the bad science involved in the use of Australian temperature records containing UHI exaggerated warming trends, by the UK CRU / Jones research group and the IPCC.