BoM failure as specified by BoM

The raw articles for this whole blog idea have been provided for me by Lance Pidgeon AKA Siliggy around sceptic circles so it is mostly a guest post by him – thanks Lance.
On the 2nd of July 2017 the BoM weather station at Goulburn Airport recorded a very nippy morning and if you were quick at checking the BoM www page you might have been lucky to see minus 10.4 logged.
The story was told at the time by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy at her web site – “Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum Temperature: Set Sunday 2 July 2017 – 4July 2017”
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-erases-goulburn-record-minimum-temperature-set-sunday-2-july-2017/
I chipped in after a few days with: – “BoM fiddling Goulburn minimum temperature 2nd July 2017 reveals extent of errors in BoM AWAP temperature maps 6Jul2017”
www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5206
and I also blogged a wrap after a “month of BoM shooting itself in the foot” Wow – reminds me how sceptics made front page of “The Australian”
“Persistent truth telling climate sceptics cause the BoM to shaft itself again 1Aug2017”
www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5246
Graham Lloyd’s well informed series of articles for years in “The Australian” critical of BoM gave the hypersensitive pompous bureaucracy plenty to hyperventilate to itself about. Add to that the truth-telling comments by climate sceptics high-lighting the Goulburn Airport and Thredbo July 2017 temperature reporting irregularities by BoM also reported by the press understandably lead to the apoplectic giant BoM setting up a 2017 “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Automatic Weather Stations” by an international panel. The panel had five members – three from New Zealand and two from the BoM.
A pdf of the BoM’s 2017 “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Automatic Weather Stations” can be downloaded here.
www.bom.gov.au/inside/Review_of_Bureau_of_Meteorology_Automatic_Weather_Stations.pdf
There must have been FOI requests for correspondence surrounding this 2017 review because two pdf’s of FOI30-6150 can be downloaded off the BoM www site – the newest by data is labelled Part1
www.bom.gov.au/foi/release/FOI30-6150_DocumentSet_ForRelease_Redacted_r_Part1.pdf
The oldest by date is labelled Part2.
www.bom.gov.au/foi/release/FOI30-6150_DocumentSet_ForRelease_Redacted_r_Part2.pdf
Both redacted pdf’s of the FOI30-6150 release are shown here
search.bom.gov.au/s/search.html?query=FOI30-6150&collection=bom&Submit=Search
along with the top URL “Disclosure Log” which is an interesting list of FOI material released by BoM since 2010. Plenty to research there.
www.bom.gov.au/foi/disclosure.shtml

Now to the meat of todays blog by Lance. If I add any point it will be [in brackets]
BoM tried to blame a faulty AWS but Lance points out how in the pdf doc ITR637 testing in 1994 at the makers “ALMOS” in the US – BoM only ever specified that AWS to record down to -10. Not colder than minus 10.!!
Lance text below here
From a Bureau of Meteorology FOI release the following internal email contents after the public had noticed temperatures not being recorded below -10.4 degrees.
“The equipment wasn’t faulty. The purchase specification required operation down to -10 ˚C, so the words need to be carefully written.”
Just how independant is this advice?
Page 77 of this PDF
www.bom.gov.au/foi/release/FOI30-6150_DocumentSet_ForRelease_Redacted_r_Part1.pdf
Where was this specified? I
A big clue is in this same BoM document mentioned on page 88 of the PDF. So hard to aquire it needed to be sent from New Zealand.
“Bruce Hartley has kindly forwarded ITR 637 summarising the tests on the AWS ADC cards.
The test results on P4 indicate that the 4-wire resistance measurement (which answers an
earlier question of mine) does not perform as well as might be expected”
And from that document we read;
“4. CONCLUSIONS
a) The performance of the resistance channels of the ALMOS AWS does not meet Bureau
Specification A2671 [1] requirement for electrical system accuracy over the full scale range of -10
to 55 °C.”
Here is that hard to obtain document. See attached. ITR637 INSTRUMENT TEST REPORT NUMBER 637 – Summary Report on ALMOS A.W.S. Tests – Jane Warne Senior Physicist Physics Laboratory BoM 21Oct1994
www.warwickhughes.com/agri16/ITR637.pdf
So the “full range” specified in A2671 was -10 to +55. When Australia had recorded much colder.
“Testing of the MSI1 card at the Bureau’s metrology area and the vendor’s facility in
1994 determined that the card would not report temperatures where the resistance
was equivalent to a temperature below –10.4°C. Subsequently, a new model card
(MSI2) was developed and procured from the vendor, with testing at the Bureau’s
metrology area in 1999 showing this card could operate accurately and successfully
at temperatures down to –25°C.”
www.bom.gov.au/inside/Review_of_Bureau_of_Meteorology_Automatic_Weather_Stations.pdf
Not only did problems pop up in Goulburn and Thredbo in 2017, with automatic weather stations being the primary instrument from late 1996, this problem was general until sometime after the mentiond 1999 test. ITR657 also attached.
Link to ITR657 INSTRUMENT TEST REPORT NUMBER 657
www.warwickhughes.com/agri16/ITR657.pdf
There are even odd accuracy specs mentioned in it.
Lance
[Later when I (wazz) have time there is much BoM pomposity to puncture in the two FOI30-6150 pdf’s – just now I lack the time but readers are welcome to post any examples that gets them laughing]

7 thoughts on “BoM failure as specified by BoM”

  1. They may need to revise their specified temperature range
    New England yesterday Boston minus 9℉ (minus 23℃) Providence RI minus 8℉ (minus 22℃) Binghampton NY minus 11℉ (minus 24℃)
    All record lows (previous minus 4℉ a mere minus 20℃

    They may have to rerun their “Coming Little Ice Age” predictions from the 1960’s and 1970’s.

  2. How does the BoM work this out?
    The Western Far Northwest Area (District 46) and District 48 show on the map as being 2-3C above average.
    But if you check the main sites in that area, they record below average.
    Only Cobar in that area was 0.4 above (Collarenbri should be in the NW area – it is east of Walgett).

    www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml

  3. Thanks Ian for highlighting BoM wacky contouring – I see you active on the issue in 2014 too. I did mention their map contouring errors in-
    “BoM fiddling Goulburn minimum temperature 2nd July 2017 reveals extent of errors in BoM AWAP temperature maps 6Jul2017”
    www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5206
    IMHO Lance Pidgeon has been a hotshot for years nailing BoM AWAP map contouring errors.
    I have blogged often on the subject over a decade or so – incl rainfall too. Remember my National Night-Time Hotspot –
    Ignore the spam infesting older blogs.
    To sum up Ian – I have concluded that the AWAP contour maps produced by BoM are simply their compromise between producing the “maps they want” – and smoothing the data they have to draw the maps with.

  4. Totally agree with you. I have been checking the data regularly. I presume BoM use the 1961-90 period to set the average rather than the sites’ AWAP data. Maybe they also use only the ACORN sites, I don’t know. When questioned about this in a Senate committee meeting, the BoM rep mumbled on about homogenisation, shading, cleaning, etc. He couldn’t give a succinct answer to any question as how they came up with the mean temps for an area.
    BTW, Aus mean temp anomaly for Jan was ‘exactly’ 0 degrees. Max mean was 0.30C below average and min mean was 0.28C above average. Mmmmm – an example of their maths ability. Can’t have a below average mean, can we?

  5. Warwick

    On interpolated contouring, minor civil wars have been fought over the best algorithms for this. The geoscience area is still undergoing skirmishes. The one big no-no for all the contenders is playing with the posted point data to achieve “smoothed” contours showing what a clever predictor one might be.

    Obviously, I agree with you and the other comments here. The BoM(bo) (that’s bimbo with two o’s) certainly discard point data if that achieves a “better” map from a predetermined viewpoint.

    One time I saw a very senior geoscientist sacked because he had surreptitiously removed an inconvenient datum (a drillhole log) from the contours, which resulted in the operation crashing a big stratum fault completely unexpectedly.

    Would that such rough justice be visited upon our bureaucracies.

    (btw, I’ve discarded the 8’s in my posted name – it seems no-one else is claiming the unadorned name now).

  6. Thinking back over decades using contoured mineral exploration geochemical data – anybody promoting spurious high contours would be quickly exposed by a spot sample values map. After a few years exploring a district we usually admit that the next Butte is not there and move on to another cluster of licences.
    But BoM have the problem that they never move on but their network is always changing. BoM maps sure have the 1910-1911 summer nippy. I kept a screen save.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.