The Wacky World of Weather Stations: An Interesting Problem

Please refer back to my first post for site specifications.  Also refer back to No. 92: Logan City for more up to date specifications.

I have been too kind.

I have noticed that nearly all site plans in Queensland have clearly labelled “True North” or “Magnetic North” points- mostly Magnetic.  The BOM 2018 specifications which I have only recently seen say that site plans “should have true north clearly indicated”.  Are Queensland officers not familiar with this requirement (the Logan City 2019 plan shows Magnetic North)?  Or are they super-diligent in identifying non-compliant sites and screens not oriented correctly, and alerting their supervisors to this fact?  In either case, what have Bureau supervisors or management done to rectify the situation?

Meanwhile, what to do?  Is the station non-compliant because of this, or just the site plan?  Unless there are good reasons not to, I will have to give the Bureau the benefit of the doubt- otherwise a large majority of Queensland stations will be automatically non-compliant!

As well, I will from now on much more strictly assess the compliance of airport stations in minimum distance from turning areas, runways, and taxiways; and other stations compliance through distance from “surrounding features out to about 60 m” and “significant features which may affect the microclimate even though the site remains within specification; (eg. ‘Dirt car park 50 m NE asphalted, March 2010’.)”

Later I will go back and reassess some of the stations which have been less rigorously checked.  The number of non-compliant sites is set to soar.

Tags: , , , , ,

4 Responses to “The Wacky World of Weather Stations: An Interesting Problem”

  1. John in Oz Says:

    More non-compliant sites are hardly necessary to demonstrate the slap-dash ‘compliance’.

    It would be interesting to hear the BOM explanation of how they adjust/homogenise and/or apply an ‘expert eye’ to reveal the ‘true’ temperatures.

  2. Bill in Oz Says:

    Well I have been reading the BOM’s “Meteorological Observations and Reports Instrument Siting Requirements” published in 2018. I notice that this was signed off by the director in 2014…

    I notice also that the cover photo is of the Sydney Airport BOM weather station..Was this not one of the BOM stations which you found non compliant a few weeks ago ?

  3. Bill in Oz Says:

    Yes Ken, Sydney Airport is number 34 in your series. And it’s suc a nice photo !

    Being sarcastic of course !

    John In Oz : I suspect that this is the first time anyone has ever exposed the depth & extent of BOM’s non compliance when gathering weather data. But we will not know the complete reality until all of the BOM’s weather stations have been checked.

    Finally Ken , at some point it would be good if there was a complete list of all the failed BOM stations, as a sidebar on your website. That would make accessing your check of each station more accessible to readers. But I recognise this might just be a time and energy issue.

  4. kenskingdom Says:

    Yes i will be compiling a clickable list of stations, perhaps sorted alphabetically, when complete. And when will that be?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: