Count the ways this site breaches the Bureau of Meteorology own rules:Ken Stewart finds the relevant BoM guidelines. Clearly this site is on a slope, too close to buildings, too close to tall foliage, too close to heat sinks, it should not be artificially watered, or near asphalt. It should have a 30 meter buffer zone, and not be shielded from the sun, rain or wind. BillinOz points out that it is totally screened from the southerly cold winds, and the cold air will be drained from the spot down the slope.
How much do the Bureau of Meteorology care about climate change? — About 1m out of 30m or 3% of their advertised "care" factor. That's a a 97% Junk-Science rate. The future of life on Earth is supposedly at stake and the "experts" can't even be bothered accurately measuring the climate change they tell us we need to pay billions of dollars to solve.
Obviously every record claimed at this site is scientifically meaningless. This sort of error can't be homogenized or adjusted away, but taxpaying Australians might think that installing a proper site would be possible when we pay them over a million dollars a day.
Mt Barker's temperatures are published at their Latest Weather Observations page. As Stewart points out this flawed site is used to adjust temperatures at official superstar ACORN-SAT sites at Adelaide, Cape Borda, Nuriootpa, Robe, and Snowtown. And thus does bad data pollute Australia's temperature records and the press releases that are used to scare the public into paying more money to fix a climate problem no one can be bothered to even measure properly.
The bottom line? Ask our M.P.'s to audit the Bureau of Met. If the environment matters, there must be an independent audit. Skeptics have asked, and the Bureau threw out the whole dataset to avoid the audit. They admit they won't describe their methods. If the Greens or Australian Conservation Foundation cared about the environment, they would demand an audit like we do.
In 2015 this site was on the other side of the block next to the driveway and car. "Lucky" the BoM realized, and … moved it to another inadequate spot.
Next question, if the weather officials in Western nations have a policy of constructing lying ground stations, what else are they lying about? You'd have to assume they're lying about everything.
Update: Lest anyone think for a moment that the above is a mistake or an oversight... this is another one, and they included the official plan in the blog post.