The Original Temperatures Project

Guest essay by Frank Lansner


Presentation of the Original Temperatures project.

Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Adjustments of temperature data
3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG
3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI
3.3. Adjustments: The BEST project
3.3.1 BEST / Austria
3.3.2 BEST / Denmark
3.3.3 BEST / Hungary
3.3.4 BEST / UHI
3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data
4. Results from original temperature data

1. Introduction
The number of adjustments of temperature data appears overwhelming and often undocumented. Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?
As a sceptic it is my opinion that we need to know for sure. I therefore started out 18 months ago collecting original temperature data and now I have started presenting the results on www.hidethedecline.eu

I experienced a lack of will from the national meteorological institutes to freely share the tax paid data I asked for. I even had assistance from a large Danish Newspaper to ask the questions for me, send mails etc. I asked for raw data from datasets beginning before 1950, especially the non-coastal stations:



In my analysis of the Czech Republic today I use around 50 stations. The national Czech meteorological institute wanted 3450 EUR for 10 longer datasets (just yearly values).

Data sources: Meteorological yearbooks, statistical yearbooks, World Weather Records, national archives, books, different databases (NACD, NORDKLIM etc.), web sites Tutiempo and more.

The number of existing longer temperature series is large. Even smaller European countries often has around 50-70 longer datasets available. And for example already in 1945 Spain collected temperatures from 500 stations.
In the following I will try to answer these questions:
1) What does original temperature data tell about the climate now?
2) What does original temperature data tell about adjustments in climate science?


Fig 2: You will need some patience if you want to collect original temperature data.

2. Methods

OAS and OAA locations – how geography determines temperature trends.
For all areas analysed (almost 20 countries by now) we see a large group of stations with warm temperatures trends after 1930 (“OAA” stations) but also a large group of stations with very little or no warm trend after around 1930 (“OAS” stations).
The classification of OAA versus OAS simply depends on geographical surroundings.

Fig 3
In the writing “RUTI Coastal stations” (based on GHCN V2 raw) I found that Non-coastal temperatures (blue graph) were much more cold trended from around 1930 than the Coastal trends (red).  http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php


Fig 4
But Non-coastal stations can be divided further into Ocean Air Affected stations (“OAA”, marked yellow) and then Ocean Air Shelter stations (“OAS”, marked blue).
OAS areas thus have some similarities with valleys in general, but as illustrated above, the OAS areas cover a slightly different area than the valleys.

In general I have aimed to find average OAA temperature trends and average OAS temperature trends for the areas analysed. For each country analysed I have made comparison between national temperature trends as published by the “BEST” project and then the OAA and OAS temperature trends from original data. I want to know if BEST data use both the warm trended OAA data and the more cold trended OAS data. In addition, I have made comparisons of ECA&D data versus original for many countries and also HISTALP data versus original.
More info can be found on:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-introduction-267.php

3. Results: Adjustments of temperature data


3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG


Fig 5 The Austrian ZAMG website “HISTALPS” (http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp) presents their versions of Alpine temperature data online for Austria and several nearby areas. All datasets seem to show a clear warming trend.


Fig6
However, the valley stations in best possible shelter against ocean air (OAS) have all been adjusted by ZAMG to show warm temperature trends.

From Original data we can see, that the cold trended stations (OAS) are in fact in a comfortable majority in the Alpine area and I believe ZAMG should explain themselves.
More examples of HISTALP/ZAMG adjustments from many countries:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-histalp-264.php
More on original Alpine temperature data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php

3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI
To evaluate ECA&D temperature data I have so far mostly studied the differences between temperature data from Tutiempo and ECA&D. Tutiempo do not change data after they first publish it. I have this from mail correspondence.
On the other hand, ECA&D frequently adjust their datasets and thus normally, ECA&D represents newer versions than Tutiempo. Therefore the difference ECA&D minus Tutiempo often tells us about the adjustments done lately to the data represented by ECA&D:


Fig 7
ECA&D temperature versions versus Tutiempo versions averaged for each nation.
For most countries analysed, ECA&D temperature data versions have warmer values for temperatures than Tutiempo in recent years. Especially for the years 2010-2012 ECA&D seems to add a lot of heat to data when they adjust.

I will ask some of you to download ECA data from these locations:
http://eca.knmi.nl/indicesextremes/customquerytimeseriesplots.php
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/europe.htm
Online data can change or disappear any minute…
More on the ECA&D adjusted data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-ecad-263.php

3.3 Adjustments: The BEST project
The BEST project collects data from different sources often already related to NOAA and NCDC. BEST often present multiple versions/copies of the same longer datasets already used repeatedly in climate science. BEST have not required the large bulk of existing temperature data from the national Meteorological institutes.


Fig 8
For all countries analysed so far, the BEST national data is nearly identical with the coastal trends and the Ocean Air Affected (“OAA”) locations. The data from the Ocean Air Shelter (“OAS”) stations appears to be completely ignored by the BEST project country after country after country. Just as we saw for HISTALP.

3.3.1 BEST / AUSTRIA

Fig 9
Also for Austria BEST closely follow the OAA area station temperature trends; it’s impossible to see that the majority of Austrian stations – the OAS valley stations – have had any impact on the national result from BEST.

3.3.2 BEST / DENMARK


Fig 10 Danish temperature stations used in the “Original Temperatures” analysis.
Red arrows: The BEST project only use longer data series from coastal stations.
In fact, DMI (the Danish meteorological institute) will not share any other long temperature sets with even the Danish population, and DMI claimed not to have the older data we asked for on digital format. I had to dig data up myself. (So now i hold tonnes of Danish climate data in digital format that DMI dont have?)

Blue areas on the graphic above are best sheltered against the dominating western winds of ocean air and they are labelled “OAS” below.


Fig 11
Average of Danish coastal temperature series from original data and then the 5 longer temperature series made available by DMI for the public and climate science including BEST. The blue graph is an average of all Danish OAS areas (all blue areas in fig 9) created from original data.

More on Denmark and South Sweden:

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-denmark-and-south-sweden-270.php


3.3.3 BEST / HUNGARY

Fig 12
For the Hungarian Valley (one of the largest OAS area in Europe), the BEST team has used an OAS temperature station “Pecs”. Above, the Pecs temperature trend is shown together with other Hungarian stations.  These original data do seem rather homogenous?


Fig 13
None the less, the BEST team adds around 0.7 K of warming to the Pecs data. BEST use a so called “Regional Expectation” for all countries i have analysed, and change original data so they approach these expectations. Best also claim that Hungary as a nation has experienced this warming trend.

More examples of how data from OAS stations has been avoided by BEST, see for example from fig 22 and onwards for German OAS stations:

Erfurt, Halle, Fulda, Kassel, Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Bamberg, Hamburg, Kiel, Lubeck, Magdeburg, Nurnberg, Ulm, Augsburg, Leipzig, Arnsburg, Torgau, Bayreuth, Brausnchweig, Regenburg, Stuttgart and Darmstadt. (Ok, Hamburg is not an OAS station, but BEST can change data from these too…)
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-germany-276.php

I cannot document the fate of all temperature stations used by BEST and this is why I primarily aim to document the adjustments country for country, see more:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-best-265.php

3.3.4 BEST / UHI:
Best claim that UHI plays no role. But remember results for all 11 countries analysed; First BEST first avoids the cold trended stations (by deselecting or warm-adjusting OAS stations) and THEN they compare the remaining warm trended OAA stations with city stations. It is on this basis that BEST concludes that UHI is not an issue in climate data.
Here is how UHI affects “climate” data in real life:

Fig 14. Some Rhein-Ruhr stations illustrated together with some nearby stations. Base period 1900-1920. What flavour of Urban heat warm trend do we want?

3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data
BEST also claim that they prefer unadjusted data over adjusted. So why did they not require the large bulk of unadjusted longer datasets from national meteorological institutes and year books like I did?


Fig15. From the BEST FAQ web site.

BEST adjustments leads to the ignoring of the cold trended stations, the stations from valleys (OAS areas). So is it true when BEST claim not to use adjusted data? The red box above is my suggestion to an update of their FAQ-text. See more in “Original temperature: BEST”.

4. RESULTS FROM ORIGINAL DATA

Fig16
Observed original temperature trends from some stronger European OAS areas. The areas in shelter of ocean air show little or no heating I Europe from around 1940.


Fig 17
By using base period 1961-1990, we see that the OAS temperature datasets shown in fig 16 from different countries in Europe are in fact rather similar. That is, valleys not disturbed much by ocean air winds in different areas of Europe show almost the same signal, the same story.

In general, the warmer years in recent decades appear to have temperatures that resemble the warmer years before 1962.


Fig 18
Recent decades of coastal areas are 0,5-1 K warmer than the 1920-50 warm period.


Fig 19
European Coastal trends versus Land trend from Ocean Shelter Areas.


Fig 20. Land stations in shelter against ocean air show that the warming 1930-60 was rather similar to the warming 1990-2010.

What does the missing warming of areas not much affected by ocean air temperature trends  indicate?

My thoughts:

Or alternatively, perhaps the CO2-theory suggests a pattern where land areas with little noise from ocean air trends show no heating after around 1930? Or can the climate “science” very fast produce a paper with such a conclusion?


Fig 21
In the writing “Original temperatures: The Hungarian Valley”, the area in the red circle above was examined. This area is one of the largest and best Ocean Air Shelter areas in Europe. For Astronomic purposes you would put your antenna on a mountain peak, but for observing climate signals as pure and strong as possible you should consider using the valleys or “Ocean Air Shelter” areas to get the strongest and purest climate signal.
Let’s take a look at similar areas in other areas of the world:

Fig 22
In all cases GHCN raw V2 temperature data (shown in RUTI articles) do not show recent temperatures warmer than for example the 1930´ies. In all cases these specific areas represents some of the most cold-trended areas of the respective continents.
For the US MIDWEST, the air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.


Fig23
From RUTI USA: The number in each 5×5 grid tells how much warmer or colder the decade 1998-2008 is compared to 1930-40. In many cases, the recent decade is half a Kelvin colder than the 1930´ies.
This illustration is taken from “RUTI: USA”.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/north-america/usa-part-1.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/south-america.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php

I think all in all on the described basis it is fair to conclude that the missing warming in areas in shelter of ocean air is likely to be a global phenomenon. Any protests?
Is it fair then to call the missing warming after around 1930-1940 of areas in shelter of ocean air a global problem for the CO2-theory?

Or do CO2-theory explain why temperature stations in best possible shelter against ocean air winds cannot really show warming after 1930-40?

PS: Please let me know if you have access to original temperature data, we need to expand the database of original temperature data.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data, Temperature and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

196 Responses to The Original Temperatures Project

  1. M Courtney says:

    Hmm, is there any evidence that the LIA occured earlier in central European regions than in coastal regions? Records of famines should show up.
    If the ocean’s cause a lag coming out of the LIA it seems reasonable that they would do so going down.

  2. lorne50 says:

    A lot of your graphs do not show up please fix and will be back to read this . I’m using chrome a browser , and see the same with explorer .

  3. lorne50 says:

    K got them all disregard post above thx.

  4. Soarer says:

    That is an amazing piece of work – the amount of effort involved is immense. I look forward to reading the more detailed work on your site, which I have only skimmed so far.
    This is definitely a post to bookmark. Thanks.

  5. Steve (Paris) says:

    Standing ovation sir

  6. MattN says:

    1990-2020????

  7. RichardLH says:

    Have you published your data anywhere as I would love to compare it to the BEST database they have published.

    One of the most interesting things about the BEST data is the surprisingly few 1*1 degree land cells they have actual data for that is longer than 60 years.

    —-
    Unique BEST Station IDs with any temperature records : 81370
    1 degree Lat/Long grid cells >60 years coverage : 173
    —-

  8. temp says:

    Any chance for some of the countries refusing to give up temp data have FOI laws?

    If so you maybe able to use them to get the data indirectly. Filing a FOI asking how BEST got the data, how much they paid for it, what type of document form they got it in and probably some other things will require them to respond. If they respond in good faith(probably won’t happen) then you can simply follow the BEST produce and obtain the data as they did… which i’m sure was free of charge.

    If they refuse to respond and such at least you have proof they are purposely hiding the data from you and since you are working with a newspaper they maybe able to apply pressure to them to get the data released.

  9. M Courtney

    Hmm, is there any evidence that the LIA occured earlier in central European regions than in coastal regions? Records of famines should show up.
    If the ocean’s cause a lag coming out of the LIA it seems reasonable that they would do so going down.

    The LIA seems to have appeared first around Greenland and Iceland
    According to Brian Fagan’s book, “The Little Ice Age”, they were affected by increasing cold and spreading sea ice as early as 1200.

    This suggests the oceans cooled first.

  10. Rob aka Flatlander says:

    Fantastic work, 1 question why do you plot 1930’s vs 2000’s? One chart that id love to see is 1880 to 2013 average temperature winter and summer at full scale (ie -65 to +45°C) It would be a couple of nearly straight lines. when the chart is 1 or 2 degrees each way it is so misleading and falls so far out side of error of margin. Early measurements even with expensive and accurate thermometers are probably a degree each way for eyeballing a reading, later electronic measurements have what? for a margin of error 0.5 or 1? A top to bottom chart of 1 to 2.5 degrees tells me nothing considering all the stations all the equipment, all the people involved, does Joe read a thermometer low vs Harry who reads it high?
    Again nice work I look forward to watching this data and analysis with much interest.

  11. The gymnastics required to get original data seem to be as important as the data itself.

    Nice presentation which strongly confirms that air temperature is not a realistic measure of any climatically important variable. Air temperature is a weather variable, if anything.

    Putting the thermocouple inside of a multikilogram sphere of aluminum inside the sensor shelter might give a more useful measure, since it could be used to estimate the change in energy in the area.

  12. Steven Mosher says:

    ‘If the BEST project aimed to show something better than we have already from GISS, HadCRU or NOAA, then BEST should simply have asked for all the temperature datasets from the national Meteorological Institutes. Why not?”

    The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
    There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
    citizens. Open data.

    Here is what Phil Jones did. he took data from NWS as you suggest we should.

    Then when we asked him for the data he used, he said. Go get it yourself.

    In short, we aim at taking all the that is publically available. No sign in, no registration, no request to people who could deny your request. That way people can check the work.

    I’ll note that there is also data that we could have used that we would have to pay for?
    Imagine the uproar if I said ‘ well we paid for that data so you cant check it”

    When I started this in 2007 I held to one position. Phil Jones should not be using data from NWS that is not freely available. Publically open and maintained into the future.

    Its interesting to see Phil Jones approach ressurrected at WUWT

  13. Greg says:

    Amazing, I was thinking of just such a project this week, and you put it in motion.

    I just powered up my computer to have another look at HISTALP and I find this. Brilliant.

    there are certainly sampling issues etc with most data sets but the problem comes when the “corrections” are as large as the remaining long term signal.

    Further more, most of the adjustment are very speculative at best. Making speculative adjustments increases the uncertainty, not reduces it. However, we usually find after “correction” the published uncertainty is less.

  14. Thrasher says:

    Did you adjust the raw data for TOBS?

    The analysis is very nicely broken down but no substantial conclusions can be drawn without adjusting for TOBS. Until you adjust for that, decades like the 1930s will look warmer than they actually were.

  15. Rob aka Flatlander says:

    Just to add to my above comment, what if on the “basic results” map you colored points within say 0.25K or 0.5K green? What would the map look like? Would there be a considerable amount of blue or red?

  16. NikFromNYC says:

    Wonderful graphic arts presentation on top of an epic data dig. Take notice, reporters, book writers and documentary makers!

  17. Thanks Frank. Very good article.
    Yes, most political-scientific meteorological institutions seem to be hiding the small decline in temperatures. They are trying to avoid reaching a tipping point for CAGW, I think.
    Also, very good website at http://hidethedecline.eu also. You have links from oarval.org.

  18. mpainter says:

    A work of the first importance. This introduces the same sort of close inspection of the use of temperature data that Steve McIntyre has forced on the proxy data used for paleoclimate reconstructions.

  19. RACookPE1978 says:

    Excellent information baseline and trending. Thank you.

    Request the phrasing in this paragraph be clarified:

    “Above, the Pecs temperature trend is shown together with other Hungarian stations. These original data do seem rather homogenous?”

  20. David S says:

    I applaud your efforts. Prior to 1950 the original data would be handwritten sheets. I once tried to copy handwritten temperature records for 1 station for 1 year into a spreadsheet. That was an enormously time consuming task. It made me wonder who would have done this job for all weather stations for all years up to the computer era… or maybe if anyone ever did it.

  21. Henry Clark says:

    IIRC, the BEST publication was done with someone who pretended to be a skeptic but was quite an environmentalist as seen in prior work.

    This article illustrates some cases of a true temperature history more like a double peak than a hockey stick over the past century. Looking at publications made in the 1970s is an easy way to see the large first peak in temperature history, as the very most reliable sources are not electronic but paper copies impossible to invisibly rewrite later. (Back then, the CAGW movement hadn’t developed yet; mankind was being blamed for global cooling; and enviro-activists didn’t universally know which way to fudge the data yet).

    The double peak is the history which an unfudged Northern Hemisphere or global temperature index would display, as well as the pattern in solar activity meanwhile (and that in the AMO but with the AMO being another temperature index itself by definition rather than an independent climate driver).

    Such can be seen along with much else in http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg

  22. RichardLH says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am

    “There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
    citizens. Open data.”

    The data you have published seems to be very light in the early part of the record (i.e. 60 years coverage : 173
    —-

    We have much better area coverage since the satellite record came on line, What is really missing is quality data from before then. Unfortunately your published data does not extend our known data record set very much (at a grid level).

  23. Greg says:

    Frank, have you managed to get HISTALP “ORI” files. They say they are available but I have not found them. Have they been removed recently? Their site seems to state quite clearly they are there :?

  24. NC Brian says:

    One of my favorite sites is climate4you.com. It does a good job of tracking the published data. In the section labeled Global Temperatures, it shows how the NCDC has adjusted the anomalies over time. Looking at the charts, it is obvious that the NCDC has adjusted earlier temperatures down and recent temperatures upward. One chart takes two dates, January 1915 and January 2000. In May 2008, the difference in the anomalies of these two dates was 0.39 degrees C. Now in December 2013, the difference is 0.52 degrees C. The graph shows how the anomalies have changed for these two dates over time.

  25. lb says:

    Thank you very much for your work.

    In my layman’s opinion it looks like many AGW studies have been based on falsified data.

    Some of your figures (Fig 3, 11, 12, 16) show a warmer period from ~1920-50, a colder period from 60-80, and again a warmer period from 1990 until now.

    Many people born in the sixties tell me ‘In my youth, the winters were much colder and it had
    a lot more snow’. I wonder what their parents or grandparents would say.

  26. temp says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am

    “The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
    There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
    citizens. Open data.”

    Two things with this. First the post argues BEST adjusted the data themselves in many cases.

    Second and more to the point. The vast majority of the data comes from groups that are fanatically pro-doomsday cult. The publicly released information can and does seem to be heavily edited/picked to support the cults predictions. Selective use of data has been a huge problem when dealing with cultists. Just because the selected data they use somewhat support the arguments they make already invalidates the arguments since they are openly admitting they are cherry picking the data they see fit to add solely by personal whim.

  27. Greg says:

    Bohm et al 2009 covers how they “corrected” the flat temp records by adding two adjustments of 0.5 deg C each.

    http://pluslucis.univie.ac.at/FBW0/FBW2010/Material/2009-09-04-Boehm-etal-CLIMCHANGE.pdf

    Data from most of the long alpine stations (good long records from observatories) are pretty much flat until 1970 until “corrected”.

    Maybe the proves AGW !?

    Interesting to project to dig out all the data before adjustments and see what the story is .

    Also see my look at Hadley ‘corrections’ to SST:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2

  28. To Temps: Thanks for comment!
    You write: ” how BEST got the data..”
    But BEST chose – as Mosher writes – NOT to require the large bulk of longer unadjusted datasets from the national MI´s.
    At the same time the claim they prefer unadjusted data.

    Example:
    From Denmark normally only coastal stations “Nordby”, Hammer Odde”, “Vestervig”, “Tranebjerg” and then the strongly UHI infected Copenhagen station.

    BEST did nothing to improve this bizarre Warming-friendly choice of stations, instead they just use around 3 versions of each of the coastal stations, and then 5 copies of the Copenhagen station.
    And then we as sceptics are supposed to be “happy”.
    But I have digged up around 60 longer Danish stations from ALL areas of Denmark.
    And this changes the picture when you dont just use warm trended data as basis like BEST to in all countried analysed so far.

  29. mpainter says:

    Also, this posting shows us once again that what is lacking from so many of these climate studies is good, old-fashioned scientific rigor. Using data which has not been rigorously screened is bad enough, but some use suspect data that they have good reason to question. Climate science is the very pits of science.

  30. R. de Haan says:

    Great work.
    The Germans had their airport meteorologists type in the historic temperature data from the airfield controller log book over the past years.
    I fact I know a guy who was doing this horrible job for months.
    Locking up the data behind closed doors, a pay wall, manipulating the data, eradicating warm periods from the past (cooling the past) and throwing away = destroying the original data should be regarded as an offense or at least a dereliction of duty or even fraud.

    Try to get in touch with skeptics who have collected data files in the past and see if you can exchange them en build a record.

    The climate scare mongers are not going to give up even if they have to play dirty and we don’t want to hear that global warming is killing us when we’re in a deep freeze.

    Thanks for your trouble and good luck with your quest.

  31. Greg says:

    Steve Mosher says: “In short, we aim at taking all the that is publically available. No sign in, no registration, no request to people who could deny your request. That way people can check the work.”

    In some ways that is a great approach. Sadly, it falls in practice because it is the publically available data that has been manipulated and the originals (if they have not be “lost”) are only given to people who can be trusted to “say the right thing” or “help the cause”.

    regards

  32. By all rights, CRU and BEST ought to be sponsoring you, for doing the work they should have done. Their sponsors should take note of your work. Thanks for giving us a peek at this very worthwhile effort.

    Your distinction of OAA an OAS type of stations is unexpected. Is it possible we are looking at a European centric, rather than worldwide, observation? If the OAA stations are colder that OAS stations in the 1930-60s, is it possibly related to changes in Gulf Stream warming of Europe over the century?

    If I may suggest, the greatest leverage in this work might be in the publication of the longest unaltered, unadulterated, overlapping temperature records that can then be used to Quality Assess other groups’ attempts at reconstructed global historical temperature record assessments.

  33. RichardLH says:

    I have for Germany mad a long row of examples orignal versus BEST, check out the Germany writing.
    I have TONNES of German meteorologic yearbooks and are not cheap nor easy to find, so i hope you guys can use it ;-)

    About making data online. I think this will be a goal at some point.
    However, i have to feel confident about the rights and so on. I believe it shold be within the law to pass data on since the meteorological institutes already themselves have published data many years ago, but I have to be sure. I dont want to give this new project problems with lawsuits. In sure there are people who would love that. But you can always mail me!! Im very busy with MANY children, work etcetc so forgive me for slow response times…

  34. @Stephen Rasey, thank you so much for comment!

    You write: “Your distinction of OAA an OAS type of stations is unexpected.”

    Well yes indeed!
    BEST use data where OAS data signal appears to be completely slaughtered, and as Steven Mosher says, BEST use data that was already used, online. This suggests that BEST are not the only ones killing the OAS data, we already now know that HISTALP did the same.

    At some point of course we have to move on and analyse HadCRU, GISS to check for the systematic elimination of the cold trended OAS stations. For now im working with more countries. And I can say already now that the findings will be confirmed by the next coutnries too

  35. rtj1211 says:

    You’d have thought that parts of Central Siberia and the interior of China would also have little impact of oceanic variations on temperature, but I don’t know if there are reliable networks of measuring stations there. Probably will be in Russia, can’t comment on China…….

  36. Thrasher

    Did you adjust the raw data for TOBS?

    The analysis is very nicely broken down but no substantial conclusions can be drawn without adjusting for TOBS. Until you adjust for that, decades like the 1930s will look warmer than they actually were.

    This only has relevance in the USA, where most stations moved from afternoon to morning recording as a matter of policy.

    In other countries, such as those Frank has looked at, there was no such blanket changeover. Certainly time of observations could have changed in some places, but are just as likely to have left a warming bias.

  37. daveburton says:

    I’ve been collecting versions of NASA GISS’s “Fig.D” U.S. Surface Temperature Anomaly data files, here:

    http://sealevel.info/GISS_FigD/

    If anyone reading this has other Fig.D versions squirreled away, I’d be grateful for copies.

    It doesn’t help that GISS has configured their web server to block access by archiving tools like archive.org, webcitation.org, and citebite.com; e.g.:

    http://wayback.archive.org/web/20130607084126/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt -> “Access denied.”

    In fact, they even block wget, run from your own computer. I think it will be necessary to spoof a web browser to automate downloading of their files.

  38. R. de Haan says:

    One other tip, many countries like Germany and The Netherlands have big communities of amateur meteorologists. You can find them on the web. Their data goes back before WWII, even earlier so maybe you can make a deal with them.

    I know many of them are very serious about their hobby and measure their data conform the same standards KNMI measures temperatures with similar equipment.

    As for the German meteorologist I know who was typing in the data form the air traffic controller logs, he plotted the data from airports that had no paved runway at the time the records were made. In the fifties, sixties and seventies many of those “green” airfields got a nice tarmac runway with taxi ways, paved platforms and steel hangars with hot tin roofs.

    Just like the expanding urbanization and the replacement of ground stations a major hick up in historic temperature data.

    The question remains not only what, where and how and under what circumstances they have been measuring but also how the have been adjusting that data.

    finding the original data is quite a quest and if you ever be able to retrieve this data, piles of question will remain.

    Finally I would like your attention for an article about temperatures published by E.M. Smith at the Chiefio Blog called: Calorie Counting Thermometers:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/calorie-counting-thermometers/

    and the web site from Burt Rutan who has collected piles of data files from the web to provide his view on the AGW hysteria:

    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

  39. mikef2 says:

    So do I understand that ‘BEST’ was really just the same old ‘adjusted/lets ignore’ data that we all complained about in the first place? Who would have thunk it. But apparently its ok as so long as you use what the others use – you get the ‘BEST’ temp record!! Rather than look at the possibility that it actually maybe gigo. Are people really happy with themselves doing that kind of thing? When you know what you are producing has a huge question mark hanging over it. Not even curious? Wow…….! Well I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again. My gut tells me there is no 10yr/12yr/13yr/17yr pause in global warming. The ‘rise’ that is documented in the records of the main dataset crunchers was purely a statistical artefact of various adjustments, ignoring of uhi, ignoring the fallout from station shutdown, ignoring land use change etc. And now that all those adjustments have been done we have…er…nada. Its just the same as in business, sure you can tweak the figures to make a couple of years look good, but it will just bite you in the ass later. Climate science seems to be at that crossroads, hoist by their own petard methinks. And I don’t think it was even deliberate, just the madness of crowds.

  40. Greg says:

    exerpt from Boehm et al ( incl Phil Jones ) showing adj applied to HISTALP

  41. R. de Haan says:

    Someone else with a lot of data sets at hand: What Catastrophe?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html

  42. Greg, you ask if i have the original Austrian data?

    Yes indeed !

    They are hard to find – at least with a base in Denmark where i live – but again and again i have been struck by extreme luck from above and found things. Sometimes with help from antique book stores abroad. I have the original meteorological year books within one meter from me now. I think i will sit on them!
    No I will put them in a safe place.

  43. Bill Yarber says:

    Excellent start to uncovering the adjustments (i.e. lies). Historical data should NEVER be changed. Even when there is a disconnect due to a new technology. The data from the new technology must be calibrated to agree with historical data for any comparisons. To do otherwise, which is what we see the AGW crowd doing, is dishonest, misleading and unscientific. NASA/NOA “time of day” adjustment is simply a fudge factor to get the desired final result. Hansen should have been professionally reprimanded and crucified for the “adjustments” he introduced after 1999. That should have led to his immediate dismissal for cause and without pension. We are fighting a well intrenched & well funded political enemy and we must not give up.

    Bill

  44. more soylent green! says:

    Should I be bothered that BEST doesn’t know the difference between “extend” and “extent?” Don’t they proofread their own website?

  45. Eliza says:

    Antony This is probably is one of the most important and scientifically significant posts concerning global average temperatures ever put on this site. I am amazed how little attention has been given it. It should be a top top sticky post for a week at least!!! The amount of work and meticulous detail gone into this publication is mind boggling. It completele wrecks poor ol Mosher and the BEST project LOL.

  46. Claimsguy says:

    Whatever happened to the Watts 2012 paper?

  47. KNR says:

    Adjusting data is not a problem , provided its justified , the changes made are well documented and the pre-adjusted data is still available. But what we often seen in climate ‘science’ is all of these or some of these missing. And when ‘mistakes ‘ are made and admitted to by lucky chance there always made to the benefit of ‘the cause ‘
    Given this pattern you can see why trust is not high when it comes to such adjustments.
    Once again its worth remember that a student handing an essay would be required to meet all three of this requirements , therefore we can ask once again why the professional working in this area cannot match this standard ?

  48. Trasher, Thank you for comment!

    You write: “Did you adjust the raw data for TOBS? ”

    TOBS TOBS TOBS
    This is a FINE thing about working with ORIGINAL YEARBOOKS, everyone should try it..
    In the year books you can see exactly when data was recorded. You can see IF the TOBS actually changes. And do you know what? TOBS HARDLY EVER CHANGE !
    Therefore, if someone suggests that “oh this adjustment is probably due to TOBS”, then you should say: “No, its probably NOT ”
    Reality is – and at some point i will make a writing on TOBS issues found in original documentation – that after the early 20´th century TOBS changes are rare. We may have such an issue with some of the Dutch stations and therefore i have used averages of 8,14,19 hour reading all the way, exactly to avoid this rare TOBS issue. This is explined in theNetherland article.

  49. eyesonu says:

    @ Frank Lansner

    Good work and very interesting.

    This will rock the sinking ship CAGW. Well … except the one frozen in ice.

  50. A C Osborn says:

    Frank, all I can say is WOW!!!!!.
    I am so impressed by the efforts of one man.

    I am fairly sure that E M Smith has some Raw Data, also there are extensive records for Australia here

    http://gustofhotair.blogspot.co.uk/

    and I think you may be able to get them for New Zealand from here

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/

    Euan has some for Scotland here

    http://euanmearns.com/

    I am sure for such an important project they would be happy to share.

  51. phodges says:

    Wow, amazing job digging up, compiling, and analyzing all this data.

    “None the less, the BEST team adds around 0.7 K of warming to the Pecs data. BEST use a so called “Regional Expectation” for all countries i have analysed, and change original data so they approach these expectations. Best also claim that Hungary as a nation has experienced this warming trend.”

    BEST uses the same method to mutilate our local region as well. All stations in the region show the double hump, with the 30’s warmer than ca. 2000. BEST then adjusts them to match the “Regional Expectation”- creating a hockey stick.

    The peak of the recent warming was about 2002, since when we have seen a considerable drop.

    Your OAA/OAS thesis is further corroborated by a recently published paper on the snow pack here. Snow plots and stream flows broke into 2 categories, the divisor being 8500ft altitude on the western side of the Sierra Nevada crest. The lower maritime set showed decreasing snowpacks with earlier stream flows…the continental side showing increasing, later peaking snowpacks and later, higher streamflows.

    An interesting exception is Yosemite Park Headquarters, which shows a temperature record matching the Eastern Sierra/Great Basin although it is located on the western side in Yosemite Valley.

  52. A C Osborn says:

    I think TonyB may have most of the UK as well, but I am not sure.

  53. daveburton says:

    more soylent green! wrote, “Should I be bothered that BEST doesn’t know the difference between “extend” and “extent?” Don’t they proofread their own website?”

    That’s not actually on the BEST web site. That bit in the red box is somebody’s joke.

  54. Re: Lansner 9:56 am: We may have such an issue with some of the Dutch stations and therefore i have used averages of 8,14,19 hour reading all the way, exactly to avoid this rare TOBS issue.

    There you go, Thrasher. A prime dataset to evaluate just how much difference a theoretical TOBS adjustment will make to daily min-max records. Personally, I think it is lost in the noise.

    Lansner (main post): Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?

    Excellent turn of phrase. Worth remembering in any open debate or peer review.

  55. Eric Simpson says:

    And the summary?
    I starting reading this and was trying to read the whole thing, but I did yearn for a summary, the bottom line(s). Can we in a few sentences and a link in our blog posts or comments make it clear that the alarmist scare mongers have made a mockery of the truth and adjusted their way to give the false appearance of hockey stick warming? Or not? And yes, in summary, hiding the data is not good.
    What gets me is it seems that every single adjustment, whether “justified” or not, is always made to the benefit of the warmist case. When it’s 1000-1 or 1000-0 as far as pro-warmist adjustments, we can a smell a rat.

  56. wayne says:

    ” Sadly, it falls in practice because it is the publically available data that has been manipulated and the originals (if they have not be “lost”) are only given to people who can be trusted to “say the right thing” or “help the cause”. ”

    Exactly, already manipulated.

    I can not applaud this approach enough Frank! It is what has been needed for so long, lurking in the background.

    As for the TOB “adjustments” (the time that max/min diurnal readings are observed), just try to get the code that all publically available records are first put through the ringer, good luck, I had little of it. If anyone does have the code (any language) for the TOB adjustments, I would appreciate a link to it. I think TOB at best is a strawman argument along with the WWII SST bucket adjustments but those are great cubbyholes to hide untraceable adjustments.

  57. Stephen Richards says:

    Great effort Franc. huge piece of worK. Oh and it’s “pasteurization”

  58. jorgekafkazar says:

    Excellent post, Frank. Diligent, thorough, outstanding.

    My understanding is that the TOBS corrections were accomplished with model algorithms, resulting in corrections where in some cases none were needed.

  59. daveburton says:

    From this graph (the 2nd graph here), it appears that for the U.S. Surface Temperature data, TOBS added 0.34 °F = 0.19 °C. That’s out of a total of 0.6454 °C of warming which they added to 1998 relative to 1934, between the 1999 and current versions of their data.

          1999 version   2013 version
     1934     1.46           1.2217 °C
     1998     0.92           1.3271 °C
            --------       --------
              0.54          -0.1054 °C

    Most of the adjustments are unexplained. I tried to get an explanation of the adjustments from the CSRRT, but they didn’t know.

  60. daveburton says:

    Paul Homewood wrote, “This only has relevance in the USA, where most stations moved from afternoon to morning recording as a matter of policy.”

    Really? Didn’t they use Six’s registering thermometers for recording daily highs and lows? If so, the time of observation would not be very important, most days.

  61. lb says:

    Bill Yarber says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:49 am

    [...]
    NASA/NOA “time of day” adjustment is simply a fudge factor to get the desired final result
    [...]

    Reminds me of the ‘daylight savings’ scheme. According to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterstation, in Germany the ‘part time’ weather stations do the readings at 0700, 1400 and 2100.

    If they actually measure temperature at 0800, 1500 and 2200 in summer, I think that might lead to
    a slight increase in measured summer temperatures.

  62. temp says:

    Eric Simpson says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:12 am

    “And the summary?”

    Basic summary.

    Many places refuse to turn over climate data,
    BEST adjusted and cherry picked much of the data they used,
    Coastal areas appear to be heavily effected by coastal winds that are likely very very poorly documented,
    Non-coastal wind effected areas seem to have little to no warming,
    “Free”/online unadjusted data appears to be mostly at or near satellite data start thus provides little extra info about the past,
    Looking for help from anyone who has Europe based original data outside of the “taxpayer funded yet refuse to turn over data to the public/taxpayer groups”.

  63. Max Hugoson says:

    I love the “magic” areas which have no noticeable trend over 100 years. Makes one rather SUSPICIOUS of “instrument artifacts” (i.e., see http://www.surfacestations.org) as the source of the “GLOBAL warming” seen by these observing stations. That would lead to the strong conclusion that with a COMPLETE LACK OF QUALITY CONTROL the data may be “statistically” meaningless.

  64. Eric Simpson says:

    You know what, even if the Arctic and Antarctic were melting away to nothing to much less, it wouldn’t prove anything, other than that we have had some (probably natural) warming and / or cyclical phenomena. But that’s not happening. This year we have record levels of Arctic ice growth, and record Antarctic sea ice. And it just doesn’t feel any hotter, any different, than it did decades ago. And we got record cold all over the place, with right now, after noon, Chicago is experiencing windchills of -41°F. And why was the world record hot temperature set way back in 1913? Certainly a century of runaway warming would have broken that record somewhere, but, alas, the 1913 record still stands! Something is fishy. A lot of people suggest the 1930s were hotter than today. That’s why this work on the “adjustments” made to the temperature record is so important.

    And another thing, when we look at the past 100+ years of temperature change, even when we have to try to peer through grossly mis-adjusted warmist data and a growing urban heat island effect, we see little discernible changes in the rate of early 20th century (low CO2) and later 20th century (higher CO2) change. It suggest NO signal from CO2. And we also know that the original IPPC contention that there was a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature was clearly rebutted in 1999, yet the ipcc fought this tooth and nail until 2003 when they finally conceded, and yet in 2005 Al Gore still deceptively put forward the discredited points about CO2 in his movie (yes, see what I’m talking about regarding Al Gore & CO2 in this key 3 1/2 minute video). Look, throughout history you cannot ferret out ANY effect of CO2. You can say that maybe there’s been an effect, or that our their theory suggests an effect, but data doesn’t show it. And the fact that we’ve had this 15 year temperature stall out, and that the warmist adjusted 20th century temperature record appears to have had only mild (NOT hockey stick style!) warming, and before that, going back hundreds of thousands of years and even hundreds of millions of years, there’s no evidence at all of CO2’s effect, all this suggests that the IPCC is plain wrong on CO2.

  65. RE Caption to Fig. 15:
    Fig15. From the BEST FAQ web site.
    I suggest it be modified to:
    Fig15. From the BEST FAQ web site (with my suggested update.)

  66. Max Hugoson says:

    Mr. Burton: As the saying goes, SHIRELY YOU JEST!

    “Really? Didn’t they use Six’s registering thermometers for recording daily highs and lows? If so, the time of observation would not be very important, most days.” Just because an old journal publishes an article on something which could give a better temperature record, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS USED from that time or anything of the like. This is ‘backwards fantasy” from a forwards perspective. Check out surface stations.org, and other resources. The gathering of PEAK and LOW temperatures prior to WWII around the world, was more of a matter of “by guess and by golly. THE INORDINATELY low temperature from the DEW line had to do with people feeling it was TOO COLD TO GO OUT and so they Guessed or exaggerated for the entertainment of the Russians.

    Sorry, again, the older the measurement, the LESS likely to meet any modern “quality control” standard. That is the primary reason that 1 to 2 to 3 degree variations (degrees C) in averages are suspect if not meaningless.

  67. Alec Rawls says:

    If this sea-air vs. sheltered air difference in temperature trends is borne out, it is really a huge discovery. History will be curious: did it just jump right out, or did Frank have to follow some serendipitous path of intuition and trial and error before he happened onto it?

    If it is borne out one of the biggest implications will be for model testing. It will have implications for the sequence of air/land vs ocean warming. CO2 driven models have the air warm first. Cloud modulated models have the oceans warm first.

    But what does it all MEAN Basil? Personally, I can’t begin to fathom how there could be decadal persistence of inland-coastal temperature differences when the air circulates in days. How to get a persistent difference? Were the 1930’s a period of relative cloudlessness over the oceans and relative cloudiness over the land? Is that even a possible pattern? Or does cloudlessness over the land cause nighttime temperatures to fall by more than it causes daytime temperatures to rise?

    That might be something to look into: do daytime vs nighttime temperatures suggest a possible role of coudiness in the difference between coastal and inland temperatures in the 1930s?

  68. Bill Yarber says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:49 am
    “Excellent start to uncovering the adjustments (i.e. lies). Historical data should NEVER be changed.”

    Thank you so much, it was exactly my wish that this was some kind “start”, hopefully a snowball that could get the process started, get many people to collect even more data, make peoble contact their governments if the meteorological institutes refuses to deliver tax paid results to the public.

  69. Greg says:

    Frank Lansner says:
    Greg, you ask if i have the original Austrian data?
    Yes indeed !
    They are hard to find –

    ====

    Great. However, my question was not just curisosity. Let me be more specific:

    could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?

    Thanks.

  70. Gail Combs says:

    Eric Simpson says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:12 am

    And the summary?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    English is not Frank Lansner’s native language.

    Not only has Frank done the enormous amount of digging and organizing for this data, he is reporting it in a language he is not really comfortable with. (His English has improved quite a bit since the first I read an essay of his.)

    I thank Frank for his great effort.

  71. Alec Rawls says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:08 am
    “If this sea-air vs. sheltered air difference in temperature trends is borne out, it is really a huge discovery. History will be curious: did it just jump right out…”

    First my only aim was to find areas of similar temperature trend. This is very important if you want to easily pinpoint outliers and adjusted material. And if you want to stitch two datasets its gets very noisy if they have quite different kind of trends.

    I have seen in my “RUTI CHINA” analysis some examples where HadCRU use OAA for early years and then OAS for later years for calculating some grids. The reduces heat in the past and promotes heat in recent years. Therefore I had to identify areas of similar trends, also to avoid the possibility of too-short datasets to be misleading. If you have area of similar trend, it cannot give big errors to stitch sets.

  72. Anton Eagle says:

    I wonder if this whole OAA and OAS thing is just a proxy for urban heat island?

    It seems to me that coastal areas tend to be (in general) more likely to be urbanized than non-coastal areas. People just like to live on the coast. Also, people will probably be more likely to want to live in the yellow areas (from fig 4) than the blue areas, so again, maybe this signal is just an indirect measurement of land-use and urban heat island. Just a thought.

  73. timetochooseagain says:

    @ Frank Lansner- I understand that in many places in the world, observation time has long been standardized, so that is probably correct for the most part. As I understand it, however, the place where TOBS adjustment is mostly made is the US, where we *don’t* have standardized time of observation.

    @ Steven Mosher it is commendable to want to achieve a result that can be checked so focus on publicly available data. What you say does raise the question though: Why does BEST get about the same answer using only publicly available data, as Jones does using non publicly available data, and why do *different people* who have jumped through the difficult hoops to get non publicly available data, *not* get Jones’ results?

    It seems to me that the best fight to have, is a fight to free the non publicly available data, to make it publicly available. That way, we can see if using it in an analysis would alter the results, *and* that result would be publicly checkable.

    Until then it appears that non public data either disagrees with BEST (Lansner) or agrees with BEST (CRU) depending on what you do with it. This strikes me as kind of interesting, don’t you agree?

  74. Greg says:

    ” And if you want to stitch two datasets its gets very noisy if they have quite different kind of trends.”

    I was quite curious as to why the “HISTALP” site contains data from a couple of sites such a Paris which are hardly “ALP” , much nearer the coast and a major metropolis. Not surprisingly the data have significant difference in form.

    The motivation for including such records in HISTALP is not made clear.

  75. Greg says:

    timetochooseagain says: “Why does BEST get about the same answer using only publicly available data, as Jones does using non publicly available data”

    I don’t think they do get the “same answer”. BEST shows a much more monotonic rise ( 1998 El Nino is barely visible). They do find warming because they start with pre-heated data. but the results look notably different compared to other datasets.

  76. Tim Clark says:

    jorgekafkazar says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:26 am
    Excellent post, Frank. Diligent, thorough, outstanding.
    My understanding is that the TOBS corrections were accomplished with model algorithms, resulting in corrections where in some cases none were needed.

    You are correct. Look for Karl Peterson papers.

  77. Gail Combs says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:08 am
    …If it is borne out one of the biggest implications will be for model testing. It will have implications for the sequence of air/land vs ocean warming. CO2 driven models have the air warm first. Cloud modulated models have the oceans warm first.

    But what does it all MEAN Basil? ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It means the oceans are the dog and the atmosphere is the tail being wagged. Not really surprising given the shear size and mass of the oceans.

    Of course that relegates CO2 to a bit part at best, since it is clouds/water vapor that regulate how much energy enter the oceans and how much is deflected.

    That the ‘CO2 is the climates control knob’ fantasy has managed to have legs for this long is an incredible piece of propaganda not to mention a testament to the blindness of scientific institutions.

  78. Eric Simpson says:

    Gail Combs says at 11:19 am
    And the summary?…. English is not Frank Lansner’s native language.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    To make it clear I intended no criticism of Frank Lasner’s excellent work. I was just hoping for a summary, of which I thank temp for a good one, though I’m still asking any others who want to, to give there versions of a summary. Because it’s that important, to have a concise useable summary(s) of this to replay in various venues.

  79. A C Osborn
    Thank you so much for your comment!

    Yes the whole idea is to start a wave of data sharing, demands to get access to ALL raw data of temperatures. The reason that i “shut up” about this project for so long was that i wanted some kind of granate chock effect when releasing in order to finally get the snow ball roling of demands to see tax paid data everywhere.

  80. Hans Erren says:

    Original unhomogenised Netherlands data before 1950 are online, who did you contact?

    http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html

  81. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    An impressive amount of work. Thank you very much. I will have to devote some time to study this properly.

  82. Stephen Rasey, you write:
    “Lansner (main post): Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?”

    Well this little “joke” I as a real nerd has been laughing a little, honestly. It sort of takes the air out of the fine word “homogenization” used for sometimes apparently dirty actions.

  83. Timetochooseagain

    @ Frank Lansner- I understand that in many places in the world, observation time has long been standardized, so that is probably correct for the most part. As I understand it, however, the place where TOBS adjustment is mostly made is the US, where we *don’t* have standardized time of observation.

    I think you have this in reverse.

    I understand that the US does now have standardised times, but did not in the past. For the most part the change has been from afternoons to mornings.

    How much difference all this makes is, of course, highly debatable. But I think Frank confirms my original statement, that outside the US TOBS is pretty much irrelevant.

  84. Steevo says:

    It is amazing what happens to theories when examining real/raw data sets vs. data that has had hedonistic adjustments applied. When one is trying to obfuscate reality, or when inventing legend, the first task at hand is to deny access to the facts. It seems to me sequestration of raw data is the equivalent of staging a bonfire using books as fuel.

  85. Greg says:

    Alex Rawls: “I can’t begin to fathom how there could be decadal persistence of inland-coastal temperature differences when the air circulates in days. How to get a persistent difference? ”

    Land warms quicker than ocean with the same change in radiative input : specific heat capacity being the main reason. That much is not contraversial.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219

    I was also doubtful at first since oceans basically rule the climate, but since the difference is only a few tenths of a degree it is not impossible for a small difference to be maintained by an sustained increase in radiative input.

  86. Hans Erren says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:53 am
    “Original unhomogenised Netherlands data before 1950 are online, who did you contact?”

    No, only certain datasets mostly coastal (Vlissingen, Den Helder, to some degree Groningen) and then some adjusted datasets where the adjusted versions seems to be considered unadjusted?

    Fact is, the datasets I asked for in raw format, (primarily those far from the coast and not on hill areas facing ocean winds) They did not deliver. I found them my selves. And I now have much more data from Holland than you can possibly find online.
    Hans, I dont aim to harm anyone in person so i dont think i should give you names online.

  87. wayne says:

    Eliza says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:54 am

    “Ant[h]ony This is probably is one of the most important and scientifically significant posts concerning global average temperatures ever put on this site. I am amazed how little attention has been given it. It should be a top top sticky post for a week at least!!! …”

    Ditto Eliza. I have to duplicate and state my agreement, it’s importance is paramount and at the center of what everyone keeps dancing around on the edges.

  88. BBould says:

    What exactly “IS” the number you use for each day to computer temperature used in climate science graphs? Is it the average of the day? Is it taken multiple times each day and plotted or averaged? Curious minds want to know. I have no idea.

  89. Stephen Richards says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:22 am
    Great effort Franc. huge piece of worK. Oh and it’s “pasteurization”

    Ohhh thankyou!! Now I can sleep tonight, brilliant!

  90. daveburton says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:40 am
    Paul Homewood wrote, “This only has relevance in the USA, where most stations moved from afternoon to morning recording as a matter of policy.”

    I have the 1934 original USA meteorological year book (as 12 monthly wrintings). I can check the TOBS for 1934 if it is of som use? I have not had the “power” to generally reuire all material from the USA.

  91. timetochooseagain says:

    @ Paul Homewood- I should have phrased that better. My understanding is that other countries have *always* had standard observation times, it is *only* the US in which this was not true (a few other countries, too, but to my knowledge none of the countries focused on above (except the US)). And since it *is* now true, in the US that would lead to widespread changes in the time of observation-which would not occur elsewhere since they had standard times to begin with.

  92. Sweet Old Bob says:

    Being an old farm kid, “pasture ization ” fits pretty well too.
    Especially a bull pasture…

  93. Richard M says:

    I suspect the nearness of oceans is a key. As one goes inland the effect of the ocean heat is reduced. Instead, the sun provides more of the energy that goes into the temperature data. What we see near oceans are the various ocean cycles, the MOC/THC and the PDO/AMO. To determine if the planet is seeing any effect from increases in CO2 the only data used should be the land data far away from oceans (and land use changes).

  94. Greg,
    you write: “could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?”
    The ORI files are the ORIginal datasets, the ones taken from the original meteorological year books published long before things got political and perhaps criminal.

  95. The BEST adjusted series by Hungary is poor quality: failing breakpoints, unprovoked breakpoints, likely bad correction values (mainly the end of the series of Pécs)

    After two years work available the new homogenised climate data series of Budapest!
    Homogenised monthly mean temperature series (1780-2013) with UHI (Urban Heat Island), elevation and observation hours correction;
    and homogenised monthly precipitation amount series (1841-2013).

    Available here: http://www.varaljamet.eoldal.hu/cikkek/climate_budapest.html (hungarian language only)
    Monthly mean temperatures [°C]: http://www.varaljamet.eoldal.hu/file/15/budapesttemp1780.txt
    Monthly precipitation amounts [mm]: http://www.varaljamet.eoldal.hu/file/35/budapestprec1841.txt

    The next station will be Pécs (150 years data series [mean temperature and precipitation amount]). This adjusted series will be complete likely in Spring 2014.

  96. Anton Eagle, Always nice to speculate a little, but the OAS / OAA differences are not at all a result of UHI on the coast.
    In many countries, the coast stations are actually smaller places, a lighthouse often. And the OAA data – the ocean air affected stations far from the coast – are often hill or mountain stations, quite rural.

    And this “rural-ness” of OAA stations is used be BEST to claim that UHI is not a problem.

    This BEST claim is Just as STUPID as claiming that the emperor is not naked when he in fact is, because “the smart guys says so”.

  97. nc says:

    This work is so important it should be given its own sidebar for easy reference and for those coming into this site for the first time.

  98. holts says:

    S Mosher if you don’t try and use all the data that is available(or don’t even try to get it!) then your results are not much use really!
    Simple as that, Use all the excuses you want, but they are just not valid!

  99. Awesome stuff. That’s a heap of work. Well done. I have noted here in Oz that same difference in coastal vs inland temperature trends
    See http://eyesonbrowne.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/is-it-getting-warmer-in-australia-well-that-depends-on-where-you-live/.

    Ciao.

  100. Keith Minto says:

    Alec Rawls

    That might be something to look into: do daytime vs nighttime temperatures suggest a possible role of coudiness in the difference between coastal and inland temperatures in the 1930s?

    I was thinking along those lines, inland, away from the ocean there would be less cloud and more radiation to space at night, lowering Tmin and lowering the average. This is my experience where I live in the area indicated in Australia in Fig 21.
    If so, then use Tmax only for climate purposes.

  101. Greg says:

    Frank Lansner says:
    Greg,
    you write: “could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?”
    The ORI files are the ORIginal datasets, the ones taken from the original meteorological year books published long before things got political and perhaps criminal.

    ===

    Yes, I know what they are , that’s why I’ve been asking for them, since you said you have that data.

    Now I know English is not you main language, so which part of “could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?” are you having trouble understanding?

    Thanks.

  102. AP says:

    Apologies for being narky: I have noticed that charts on this, and similar blog sites are always poor quality. People need to learn basic charting / graphing skills. Charts always should have labelled axes and titles. The body text should always reference the chart directly (e.g. Figure xx shows us that…), rather than leaving the reader to guess the point you are trying to make. Additionally, acronyms should always be spelt out in full in the first instance of use in a piece of text. I found this article very difficult to read.

  103. Greg says:

    http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/34/1/index.html

    “Station-mode series are present in HISTALP as “homogenised” and as “original”.

    Austrian hom- and ori-station-mode-series are downloadable for non-profit research without restrictions.”

    DO YOU HAVEA LINK TO THAT DATA?

  104. Frank

    This is a very interesting piece of work. Well done. I will look at it in much greater detail over the next few days but in the meantime you might find these of relevance.

    A few months ago I published this at WUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/

    It demonstrates that paleo reconstructions centred on 50 year data points don’t pick up the natural variability that occurs on annual and decadal basis and is shown on instrumental records. A bit like the fine grains of sand falling through a coarse sieve. The next graph is taken from it. It is fairly crude but sets the Hockey stick against CET. In it I had researched glacier movements. These are represented by the Blue rectangles-closed at top indicates glacier retreat, closed at bottom glacier advance. You can see a century long cold spell around 1200. The climate recovered then declined again. You can see a short lived glacier retreat around 1700 which lasted for 50 years before a temperature decline, then a warming again incorporating the present day.

    the last link goes to my article on arctic ice between 1920-1950. After reading hundreds of papers I have little doubt that arctic ice in the period declined to around todays levels before recovering again around 1960, before it started to decline again round the time of the first satellite data in 1979. Glaciers in the alps, the arctic and antarctic were also declining sharply at the time.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

    i would doubt that it is any warmer today than during the 1920/1950 period. intriguingly phil jones believes that the 1730’s were only slightly cooler than the 1990’s. Since then in the UK temperatures have declined.

    Good luck with your project

    tonyb

  105. @Claimsguy at 9:55 am
    Whatever happened to the Watts 2012 paper?

    Ditto. Who is reviewing the paper? Lois Lerner’s department at the IRS?

  106. Justthefacts62, yes indeed, the Australian Coast does the trick to!!

    Taken from RUTI Australia

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php

    One thing so convincing to me is, that even though the NON-COASTAL trends in East versus West Australia is quite different, then in both cases, the respective COASTAL trends are around 0,6 K more warm trended. Its.. perfect …

  107. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    Excellent work and fair questions.

    Finnish meteorological institute has decided to publish a major part of it’s meteorological and oceanographic datasets as Open Data. http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/open-data-manual. I don’t know about data suitability for OAS analysis or data completeness/reliability in general, but it’s available electronically and for free of charge. It’s perhaps of assistance.

  108. Greg, i have only a link to what i used from HISTALP/ZAMG, the homogenized data:
    http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/Statmod_AT_T01.html , see the ZIP files in the bottum, here fore Austria.

    My original files has not been put online. At some point this is of course the goal but i dont want to face legal problems, so im not sure i can put these data in digital format online.
    But I would like to hear opinions on this.

    You can see much more in
    “Original Temperatures: HISTALP”

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-histalp-264.php

    and
    “Original Temperatures: The Alps”

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php

    You can also send me a mail, but I am a little slow in answering these days :-)

  109. helen says:

    At the moment the website Michael Smith News includes a discussion on record warm year in Australia. I would love to have your experts consider the facts presented by a blogger. It is a new topic for michael, although in general he is suspicious of Main Stream Media bias.

  110. Bill Illis says:

    One of the world’s oldest stations is Hohenpeissenberg, Germany. Its records extend back to 1781.

    The temps have always been recorded at 700, 1400 and 2100 hours since this time according to the “Mannheim hours”.

    So no TOBs adjustments are required and one wonders why the US needs to have so many TOBs adjustments when the Head of the US weather bureau was already issuing edicts on using standard hours as early as the late-1800s.

    Now Hohenpeissenberg is given special status by GISS (I guess due to its length and the fact that the monks running it knew that temperatures needed to measured at the same time of day unlike most climate temperature data adjusters today. I mean c’mon, people were not that stupid to just go around measuring temperature at different times of the day. )

    Hohenpeissenberg has its own link at GISS Surface Temperature Analysis page.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt

    (You can get updated data) and it shows cyclical changes in temperature (AMO-like) and temperatures were higher in the late 1700s and parts of the early 1800s than today (and BEST has completely different set of numbers for the station than these).

  111. @holts at 1:02 pm
    S Mosher if you don’t try and use all the data that is available(or don’t even try to get it!) then your results are not much use really!
    My take is about 120 degrees different from yours. BEST takes a lot of pride in having 40,000 stations, but when you look at their record length and gaps you get on
    (12/20/13 8:09 am)

    (from 3 of 14 datasets, 31,485 unique station ID sites)
    7,113 sites have at least 10 years of data, and less than 12 months of gaps
    4,343 sites have at least 30 years of data with less than 36 months of gaps.

    Remember, BEST discards the absolute value and only considers the trend in temperatures, after slicing and dicing the records beyond recognition. (See Denver Stapleton Airport)

    Another statistic from (RichardLH 8:31 am above)
    Unique BEST Station IDs with any temperature records : 81370
    1 degree Lat/Long grid cells >60 years coverage : 173

    1 degree Lat/Long grid cells with any coverage : 9,660 (RichardLH 12/22 12:41 pm)
    Total land area 1×1 deg grid cells = 18,792 (RichardLH 12/22 2:19 am)

    You should not cherry pick data in a scientific study.
    But you should cherry pit the data.
    When I am preparing a meal, wholesomeness is a concern.
    Keep the pits, the dirt, the stems, the flies, the maggots out of the food.

    Garbage in, Garbage out applies to almost everything except pig raising.
    Even with pigs, you better cook the final product properly.

  112. Gunga Din says:

    PS: Please let me know if you have access to original temperature data, we need to expand the database of original temperature data.

    ======================================================================
    I copied list of record highs and lows for Columbus Ohio into an Excel spreadsheet. I have the years 2002 (from http://archive.org/web/web.php , “TheWayBackMachine”), 2007, 2009, two from 2012, and 2013. All except 2002 were copied from here, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/cmhrec.htm at the time they were there.
    If that is the kind of thing you’re looking for I’ll send it to you if you tell me how. But I do warn you that it was only intended to satisfy my own curiosity and use. If it something you I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing. (Of course, many of the list can be gotten directly from TheWayBackMachine though I know they don’t have 2007 but no records changed (were adjusted) between 2002 and 2007.

  113. Gunga Din says:

    TYPO!!
    “If it something you I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing.”
    Should be:
    “If it is something you want, I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing.”
    (The spreadsheet is not as confusing as my original sentence! 8-)

  114. @Bill Illis at 2:04 pm
    One of the world’s oldest stations is Hohenpeissenberg, Germany. Its records extend back to 1781.

    Out of curiosity, was it a mining town?
    It might be heavily forested today, but what were the forests like 150-200 years ago?
    Summit County, Colorado is forested by a near mono-culture lodgepole pine forest about 120-140 years old (end of life). In the late 1800’s, all the trees were cut down to support the mining boom. The forests were replanted. But there was human induced climate change over that century and a half.

  115. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    “Finnish meteorological institute has decided to publish a major part of it’s meteorological and oceanographic datasets as Open Data. ”

    Brilliant, thankyou, at first glimpse i could not actually see data, i think i did not press the correct links.
    Anyway, its interesting if this is raw data, but it also has some value if phoney.
    Thanks
    K.R. Frank

  116. Bill Illis,

    Hohenpeissenberg is located in the Northern frontier region of the Alps. So to speak where the Alps is about to raise up above from the lower surrounding areas. Therefore The Hohenpeissenberg station is to be considered Ocean Air Affecte, OAA, see Yellow area 14 (Yellow areas are OAA) :

    Thus Hohenpeissenberg used by GISS is perhaps not that surpricing.
    Quite near by we have German stations Garmisch Parten Kirchen and Mittenwalde (OAS area Blue 15 in shelter from Western winds) and these stations has much less warm trend. But they are not used by GISS, right?

  117. Margaret says:

    I think the best source for unadjusted New Zealand data is here – you have to sign up but it is free and automatic:
    Sign up for free access to NIWA’s raw climate data http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/

    If you want to double check that it is the raw data the original Official Year books are all online and have the temperatures as reported at the time:

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/digital-yearbook-collection.aspx

    Finally this report of the INTERCOLONIAL METEOROLOGICAL CONFERENCE HELD AT MELBOURNE IN 1881, which can be found by searching on this site http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs (sorry I couldn’t work out how to give a direct link the the page, but you will find it no trouble)
    outlines the decisions taken in 1881 on how the various meterological variables were to be collected in a systematic way across Australasia (ie both Australia and New Zealand). It also gives as an appendix the stations reporting regularly at that point in time across the various Australasian colonies, their latitude and longitude and height above sea level.

  118. Margaret says:

    I should have added to my post on New Zealand stations, that the record also includes a number of sub-Antarctic islands – so it is of more interest than just New Zealand as such

  119. Manfred says:

    Impressive Hercules work !

    I hope Mosher and others will have a look at this within their own projects AND even request the data to be used in their own data basis (I assume Frank Lansner will share it freely)

    Summary as I understood:

    Ocean air sheltered stations (OAS) in Europe (and perhaps the whole world) show little or no warming since the previous warm period in approx. 1930-1960.

    His theory is, that the sea surface has been warming since the little ice age, and ocean air also warmed coastal and other ocean air affected regions, but not OAS regions.

    The greenhouse effect would have required OAS regions to warm as well, therefore, this result is not consistent with GHG theory (except for a very low sensitivity or a counteracting unknown effect). It is then also an indication, that the recovery of sea surface temperatures from the little ice age may not be due to GHGs.

    Additionally, he shows, that OAS data is poorly represented in global temperature data sets, such as BEST, and that some data, used as input had already been “pasteurized”.

  120. Manfred…!

    You could make a living out of producing fine concise resúmes, fantastic. And on top, you actually got my point perfectly!
    Thanks!!!

  121. TB says:

    “I think all in all on the described basis it is fair to conclude that the missing warming in areas in shelter of ocean air is likely to be a global phenomenon. Any protests?
    Is it fair then to call the missing warming after around 1930-1940 of areas in shelter of ocean air a global problem for the CO2-theory?

    Or do CO2-theory explain why temperature stations in best possible shelter against ocean air winds cannot really show warming after 1930-40?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Frank:
    Concerning comparison of coastal station historical record of temperature. As someone who lives near and at times on the coast, and who additionally forecast the weather professionally at RAF bases on both coast (RAF Valley, Angelsey Wales ) and inland in Lincolnshire. I detect an obvious (?) missing variable in this analysis. And that is SST’s.
    Coastal temperature is greatly regulated by on-shore winds, which in turn are greatly regulated by sea temperatures. What about sea temperatures in the period 1920 –1950? How were they behaving?
    Well it turns out that both the PDO and the AMO were in +ve (warm) phases…..

    Also, from the above, it can be seen the cold phases coincided ~1960-90.
    Now, this cycle would necessarily have affected coastal stations to a greater extent than inland ones. Generally in an onshore wind-regime, coasts will have greater sunshine than inland stations (convection/stratification of cloud due higher temp) and sea-breeze affects tending to clear coastal cloud in summer. So the warmer SST’s in the 20-50’s era would have impacted coastal affected stations preferentially over sheltered ones with temperature more directly correlated to SST’s.
    Then another factor appears…

    It is also a well accepted fact that global temperature for the period ~1960-80’s were affected by “global dimming”…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
    “Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed”

    This dimming effect (of darker clouds) would have had a greater impact away from coasts due the greater cloud fraction there and hence an enhanced –ve radiative imbalance than just cloud fraction alone.
    To further quantify this effect, whether or not my reasoning is objected too, then at the very least, a correlation over the period of the air temperature trend needs to be carried out against surface sea temperature anomalies in both the Northern Atlantic and N Pacific.

  122. @Margeret:
    The NZ material looks very interesting indeed, thank you very much. Only little thing i would have prefered is, if the data was found on photografs of the origina year books :-) But I think that this is ok anyway, at least it takes only a couple of original year books to test if these data are in fact original

    @TB
    The coastal temperatures – often from lighthouses, sometimes even on islands – are mostly representing the MAT (Marine Air Temperature), not SST. MAT oscillates a little more than SST.

    If I shoul obtain MAT (or SST) for, Netherlands data going back to year 1900 preferably, then i would need also raw data for this, and raw data specifically for the waters near the Dutch coast.
    I believe there is a CRU database for MAT and a few others, but when in fact I already have the air temperatures on the coast, i think its not that much of a loss that I dont also have the MAT recorded on ships near the coast. I dont think really that my points are dependent of this, but I have had the thought at times.

    BUT!
    On a more global basis i think i do what you seek, see fig 3 in this article on global coastal temperature trends: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php

  123. TB says:

    Frank:
    Just 2 mins of looking and I have data from the station I worked at in 1987 – going back to 1930.
    it’s 03302..
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/valleydata.txt

    And a few mins more….
    Also for inland Oxford is available back to 1853

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/oxforddata.txt

    or Sheffield 1883

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/sheffielddata.txt

    In Scotland there’s Stornoway 1873:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/stornowaydata.txt

    and Eskdalenuir 1914:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/eskdalemuirdata.txt

    Have you see this paper?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

    I still maintain that a sea fetch will have high correlation with SST’s of closest approach to the station of interest.
    Yours

  124. 1sky1 says:

    Frank Lanser:

    Happy to see others interested in exposing the difference between corrupted and/or manufactured data and that which is the product of pristine measurements. The problems ecountered in digging out the latter are not just the usual ones of historical research or of bureaucratic inertia; they seem to be matters of political warfare. Keep up the good work!

  125. Phil says:

    Although I have not done an exhaustive review of the literature, only TOBS error means appaear to have been studied/modeled/adjusted. No one, to my knowledge, has ever looked at TOBS error variances. While an adjustment of the mean may seem a logical way to correct for biases, it does not correct nor have any effect on variances. If the TOBS error introduces enough uncertainty, then a trend may not be statistically significant, even if there is a bias correction.

    I have spent several years looking at TOBS in the hope to someday publish something, but, for several reasons, it doesn’t look like I will be able to do so by myself at this time. The chart below is an example of some of my research. It shows the “Confidence Interval” due to TOBS adjustments. This is calculated as follows.

    Using hourly data, I calculated an “actual mean” as of midnight each day. Although there are several ways to approximate the “actual mean” in this manner (I looked at the rectangular approximation, the trapezoidal approximation and Simpson’s Rule), the differences are not very large. For simplicity, I used the rectangular approximation (i.e. adding the 24 hourly temperatures and dividing by 24). Then, I computed a maximum and a minimum for the previous 24 hrs, using the highest hourly number as the maximum and the lowest hourly number as the minimum.* I then repeated this for each “time of observation”, by sliding the 24 hour window one hour at a time for each of the 24 hours. A TOBS “error” was then calculated for each hour by taking the difference between the maxmin mean and the “actual mean” for the 24 different “times of observation.” I then calculated the standard deviation of the errors for each hour of each day over a one year period. The chart below was calculated using hourly data for Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Arkansas for 1984. It appears to be typical.

    The “confidence interval” is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the temperature in Fahrenheit, converting it to Celsius, multiplying by 1.96 (2 sigmas) and then dividing by two to obtain a plus and minus “X” pseudo confidence interval. This purports to show the variance of the TOBS error due purely to a change in the time of observation using actual data.

    The implication of this seem obvious. Since the rate of warming is supposedly about 1°C per century, it would seem that any trend based on afternoon observations, where the TOBS error appears to create an additional ±2.5°C uncertainty (for 5:00 P.M.), would not be statistically significant. Maybe a claim can be made that this uncertainty is reduced by appealing to various statistical miracles, but, at first sight, this would seem to be a significant hurdle to overcome.

    Preliminarily, I would submit, therefore, that no conclusions regarding long-term trends can reasonably be made based on stations with afternoon observation times. Conclusions regarding long-term trends based on stations with morning observation times have a much smaller TOBS uncertainty (±1.5°C for 7:00 A.M.), but this is still large. I would say that this analysis of the apparently large uncertainties created by TOBS errors cannot be used either to prove or disprove (C)AGW or any other theory. Instead, it would appear to highlight serious problems with the available data that preclude any strong conclusions. Likewise, I think this analysis calls into question the validity of any TOBS adjustments.

    It would appear that there is enough variability in the shape of the daily temperature curve that an adjustment of the mean cannot produce a bias correction within an uncertainty that is useful for estimating temperature trends. I would also say that, although TOBS corrections are not done for all global data, the TOBS error uncertainty shown in this chart is probably present in most global data, as probably relatively few stations have an effective observation time of midnight.

    Since I still have some hope to publish this someday, I hereby claim copyright, and everything else I can to preserve whatever I can for as long as I can.

    *Karl et al., 1986 has a discussion beginning on page 7 of the pdf (pg 151 of the published paper) of the differences between the actual maximum and minimum and the hourly max and min. Please refer to Table 3 in that publication for specifics, but these differences appear to be an order of magnitude smaller than the calculated TOBS error uncertainties.

    P.S. Several different people have posted comments at WUWT under the handle “Phil,” so please keep that in mind when searching prior posts.

  126. Phil says:

    Here is the chart referenced in my previous comment. The image did not post.

  127. Pamela Gray says:

    Wow! Eye Candy! Love the work you have put into doing this! If it weren’t for the fact that I have been blessed to find a most wonderful boyfriend, I would be all twitterpated over you instead of him!

  128. Janice Moore says:

    !*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
    LANSER’S ARTICLE SHOULD BE A WUWT PERMANENT FEATURE
    !*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
    Mr. Lanser! Magnificent!

    Thank you, so much, for sharing all your hard work and fine analysis with us. When one thinks, really stops and THINKS, of all the hours you have put into this project….. one is stunned that there is someone out there as dedicated to truth as you (and, yes, along with Tony B and many, many others equally as dedicated, whose efforts are truly heroic).

    How delightful to know that there are lots of little “Franks” (btw, what a perfect name for a truth-teller) growing up (that little girl is darling — hard to stick to the ol’ grindstone with that little sweetie pie calling your name in a sad little voice, “But, Daaaadddeeee, I’m missing you….”, no doubt.). There is hope for the world, yet.

    !*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!

    “For all areas analysed (almost 20 countries by now) we see a large group of stations with warm temperatures trends after 1930 (“OAA” {Ocean Air Affected} stations)… .”

    +

    “For all countries analysed so far, the BEST national data is nearly identical with the coastal trends and the Ocean Air Affected (‘OAA’) locations.”

    {emphasis mine}

    =

    There is no heat hiding in the ocean (else no warmed OAA stations).

    So, at the very least, BEST shoots Climate Clown Trenberth in the foot, there.

    *******************************************************
    BEST is either run by a bunch of crooks or by non-scientists or both.
    ***********************************************************************

    Someone commenting above (who shall remain nameless…) said, perhaps only in jest, that pasteurized “data” may prove AGW fairies DO exist.

    Wrong. AGW is dead.

    Bottom line: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

  129. Janice Moore says:

    Pamela Gray!!! re: Mister Wonderful — I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU! After learning what I know of your life, I have been hoping so much that that would happen for you!! (Ievenprayed). I was hoping you’d find someone who likes to fly fish — does he? LOL, if he doesn’t, he’ll learn, huh? He’d better also be VERY intelligent — or he won’t last long… .

    That was the happiest post I’ve read here in the entire 9 months I’ve been on WUWT. Thanks, so much, for letting us know.

    Smile, smile, and double smile. #(:))

  130. Janice Moore says:

    Best wishes, Phil (NOT the DOT — smile) — I sure hope that publishing you wrote of happens much sooner than you expect. No doubt Mr. Lanser will respond to you (I think it was about 2:30am, now, 5:30am, where the roof is that covers that data-covered desk and the pillows on which he and his big family lay their heads at night).

    (and Phil in California is yet another goodguy Phil, for everyone’s information)

  131. Janice Moore says:

    Heh, heh. I just checked back to see if Pamela Gray responded to my 8:21pm post. LOL, what was I thinking? As if! His gain is our loss. Do drag yourself away once in awhile, though, Pamela, and give us a wave (or one of your blistering, devastatingly accurate, refutations of some of the nonsense that appears from time to time).

  132. OK. So people like Turney and (thousands?) other scientists have millions of dollars for research at their disposal and they can’t think through this like an individual on his own …. Amazing. Great example of scientific mass hysteria and finding what is expected to be found rather than analyzing information to see what interesting things can be found. The hammer and nail dilemma.

  133. wayne says:

    Frank, the more I look at your site and work the more I am impressed. Yours is not only the best, but the only coherent explanation I have ever come across explaining why most rural stations in Nebraska, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri to name a few, your dotted area of this effect in the US, all show nearly flat records, some even negative, from 1895 onward. I look forward to absorbing some more as I get more time (broken pipes put a bit of kink in that). You seem to be on to it.

  134. Greg Goodman says:

    TB says:
    Just 2 mins of looking and I have data from the station I worked at in 1987 – going back to 1930.

    Yes, there is a whole bunch of monthly station data available from Met Office, this is what Euan and Clive Best used for their recent article on sun-hours.

    However, they seem to keep the daily data under wraps. One or two of the longer stations want to change something silly the 350 GBP to give you the daily data.

    If you have any means to access daily data it would be interesting to see, because crude monthly averages are a very poor way to analyse a system which is heavily influenced by a massive satellite with orbital parameters of 27.3 27.55 and 29.5 days !!

  135. Greg Goodman says:

    TB says:
    January 6, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Very good points to raise about linkage with SST. The coastal affected vs non coastal area distinction that Frank is looking at is interesting but needs to taken in context of known meteorology without being too simplistic.

    There are all sorts of known phenomena which will affect cloud cover as air comes in land and rises over mountains. It takes very little change in cloud cover to make the tenth of degree scale changes everyone wants to get excited about.

    I think the truely alpine stations of the HISTALP project may be informative if we can obtain the “ORI” data before they added 1 degree warming to the data.

  136. Janice Moore says:

    Yes, yes, blank Jim, I HEAR YOU YELLING (all the way from Texas — they can yell MIGHTY BIG, down there, heh). Lansner. Please pardon my careless mistake, Mr. Lansner.

  137. Greg Goodman says:

    Frank Lansner says:
    Greg, i have only a link to what i used from HISTALP/ZAMG, the homogenized data:
    http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/Statmod_AT_T01.html , see the ZIP files in the bottum, here fore Austria.

    My original files has not been put online. At some point this is of course the goal but i dont want to face legal problems, so im not sure i can put these data in digital format online.
    But I would like to hear opinions on this.

    =====

    Thanks for the clarification. HISTALP claim on their site that ‘original’ data is available but that does not seem to be true. My guess is that it was included at some time in the past but has now been hidden from sight. They have not removed the text where they claim it is available.

    If you read the Boehm 2009 paper that shows the flawed and speculative adjustments that they have derived from Hohenpissenberg ;) and applied to all other stations. Equally the hourly data and documentation of the changes does not even appear to be in peer reviewed literature. Simply some “conference proceedings” document which is not even linked anywhere.

    You can see in the original data that 1780 was warmer than 1950 ! Most of 19th and first half of 20thc gets cooled by almost a full degree. Then we start to worry about almost a degree of global warming.

    It’s also interesting that this record bottoms out around 1880 unlike the usual SST records that are coldest around 1918 and still quite warm in 1880.

  138. wayne says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm
    “Frank, the more I look at your site and work the more I am impressed. Yours is not only the best, but the only coherent explanation I have ever come across explaining why most rural stations in Nebraska, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri to name a few, your dotted area of this effect in the US, all show nearly flat records, some even negative, from 1895 onward.”

    Its kind of funny, also i have heard “climate scientist” say : “We dont know why Turkey has not been warming much”..
    Well… one look at Turkey on a map explains it. Its full of mountains almost out to the shores, and therefore most of the country is valleys, OAS. Bingo.
    See “Original Temperatures: Turkey”:

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-turkey-269.php

    Thank you so much for comments ALL!!!!

  139. Greg Goodman says:
    “Yes, there is a whole bunch of monthly station data available from Met Office, this is what Euan and Clive Best used for their recent article on sun-hours.

    However, they seem to keep the daily data under wraps. ”

    If you adjust data, normaly you fiddle with the yearly data. You dont adjust every hourly reading or so, and yes, hiding daily data does smell a little. Especially when we talk about climate data.

  140. TB and others!

    Thankyou for sending links to (hopefully) original temperature data!
    TB: For UK I do have something too, actually rather fine stuff, but what strikes me is: How come I have had no luck finding meteorological year books for the UK? A country with 55 million people, there should be plenty of this stuff out there. Perhaps i just have not had the luck with Uk… or the market somehow has been vacuum cleaned for meteorologicla year books.

    Still: I live in Denmark, and A LOT of material is fully available in libraries of other countries, especially the USA!!!! If anyone out there is just as nerdy as me, and actually look up this stuff, takes photographs of all pages with yearly data in meteorological year books it would be fantastic. But lets coordinate what material is in fact missing. Hope to hear from “a crazy bugger” like me…

  141. tonyb says:

    Frank

    As you know my particular interest is in historic temperatures prior to 1850, as there was generally greater variability and lows and highs of temperatures and weather extremes then. (see my link at 1.17 above)

    I visit the Met Office library frequently. I know there are original copies of the US Monthly weather report back to around 1870. I will call in to the library this week if I can and see if it contains original information that might be useful to you on the US

    TB has pointed out various sources in the UK. I tend to concentrate on CET, and as you know there are two major data sets based on it. There is monthly data compiled by Gordon Manley to 1659 and the record back to1772 compiled by David Parker who I met up with a couple of weeks ago. He is interested in my project to extend CET to 1250AD.

    The 1772 record is the one mainly used by the Met office but it does not include the very intriguing uptick in temperatures during the first three decades of the 1700’s which caused Phil Jones to write a paper in which he queried whether natural variability was greater than he thought, as the temperatures in the 1730’s were only fractionally below that of our warmest decade in the 1990’s and is by far the biggest ‘hockey stick’ in the long record.

    David’s article on how he compiled 1772 is I think included in my article ‘the long slow thaw’. You must know however that CET has been constantly adjusted so the only original data is likely to be in David’s original paper .

    As regards longer records that have been adjusted it is worth looking up the ‘improve’ project funded by the EU in which seven long temperature records were examined and adjusted. This contains references to original data primarily in Italy

    http://www.isac.cnr.it/~microcl/climatologia/improveb.php

    Data is routinely adjusted and I think it would be helpful if the reasons for it could be explored as there MIGHT be a valid reason. Personally I become bemused when temperatures from say the 1930’s are adjusted 70 years after the event.

    Will let you know what I find at the Met Office library regarding the US record. Is there anything else that I could specifically look for whilst there?

    all the best

    Tonyb

  142. bw says:

    Good job. Other people keep trying to find “good” temperature data to test the “mainstream” claims, such as BEST. The Surfacestations site for example is important.

    Seven rural temps in western europe with long term temperature records show zero warming.

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/western-europe-rural-temperature-trend.php

    Another place with well maintained surface temperature records over less time (since 1958) is Antarctica.
    Amundsen-Scott, Halley, Davis and Vostok stations show zero warming since 1958.
    Original temperature data for the south pole station are maintained at the Univ. of Wisconsin.

  143. Espen says:

    Frank, congratulations on a really impressive piece of work!

    Here’s something I just discussed on the topic of Norwegian temperatures that might interest you: We’ve just had the rainiest snowless Christmas for years, and today there’s around +7C outside, not the typical January temperatures. Of course, some alarmist are seizing this opportunity to sell the idea of “No more White Christmas”, despite several recent Decembers having been extremely cold (which also was blamed on “climate change”, of course).

    So I had a look at the official Norwegian December record – and it actually shows that the Decembers of the thirties were slightly warmer: http://eklima.met.no/metno/trend/TAMA_G0_12_1000_NO.jpg

    However, the current warm period is wetter:

    It’s interesting to see that the “great European climate step change” which seems to have occurred around 1987-1989 isn’t very visible in Norwegian temperatures (at least compared to some of your records above, where it is easily visible), but it’s clearly visible in the precipitation record. I guess a warmer Atlantic may give a wetter Norway?

    In any case, has anybody been able to give a good explanation of what really happened in the 1987-1989 European climate shift?

  144. Lance of BC says:

    This is the Most important post of 2014 deserving a sticky.

  145. tonyb says:
    January 7, 2014 at 1:32 am
    “As you know my particular interest is in historic temperatures prior to 1850, as there was generally greater variability and lows and highs of temperatures and weather extremes then. (see my link at 1.17 above)

    I visit the Met Office library frequently.

    Hi Tony my good old friend :-)
    Again thankyou for all your intense studies year after year!!!
    Now… What does it take for me to make you go to that library, take photos of UK meteorological year books, the summaried for the stations???

    If it is of any comfort, I have taken 42.000 pictures of handwritten sheets in the Danish National archives… he he… And the meteorological year books will be done within a few days….. notch notch notch??
    I can offer champaigne and whatever it takes-…!

    All the best to you too, always cosy to hear from you!
    K.R. Frank

  146. Espen!

    Thank you su much for the comment!

    And ou know what?? Norway is the country im working on right now, it is SO interesting work because Norway “HAS IT ALL” !
    Norway has Coast line, HIGH mountains, and THEN THEN THEN, Norway have deep valley, umm what a yummi.
    And on top, Norway has so many many long temperature stations, fantastic. I am working with i guess around 100 long Norwegian stations, so it will take some time.

    And, in all the coutnry articles i add all kinds of observations, so if you come up with something Norwegian maybe we can fill it in. Im ready with my stuff in a week i think.

    K.R. Frank

  147. About “sticky post” etc: Thank you for the kind words.
    But see this from Anthonys side: The truth is, that this work is done without the power af a large organization. This means that the risk of “something wrong” is there although i think my findings are solid.
    If Anthony makes too much out of this and then “something is wrong” its a blow to the credebility of his site and nobody wants that.
    Instead, check out how many articles are coming out on WUWT now, and notice that Anthony none the less took the time to publish this large writing. For this im grateful.
    Perhaps when all are sure this is solid it will be taken to a higher level.

  148. Jack Simmons says:

    What an ambitious project.

    Just thinking out loud here.

    I’ve thought about going to the public library and requesting the original hard copy temp records being kept. Several years ago I looked up the temps on my date of birth throughout Colorado. Just for fun.

    Instead of sitting down and transcribing all those tables by hand, error prone and tiresome, why not develop a phone app designed to do two things:

    1) save the image for documentation,

    2) covert the tables into spreadsheets.

    Simple no? Already done on PCs: http://www.minipdf.com/scan-to-excel/picture-to-excel-spreadsheet.html

    So take pictures of original hardcopy. Convert to spreadsheets.

    Import spreadsheets and images into database.
    Done.

  149. Peter Taylor says:

    great work Frank….I did something along these lines for Arctic stations in preparation for my book ‘Chill’ (2009) and went through all available online material – usually NOAA stations, selecting only those stations with a record going back far enough to capture the 1920-1940 warming and enough to the present to capture the very recent Arctic warming (2000-2005 as I finalised the draft in 2008). It was clear from all stations that there was a double-humped camel and not a hockey stick! Yet the camel disappeared in regionally homogenised data sets – I think a Swedish professor took NOAA/IPCC to task on the Scandinavian results which disappeared the first hump.
    Out of 32 stations with long records, only 5 had warmer second peaks around 2000, and 3 more or less the same, all others had higher first peaks around 1940. When I looked again around 2011, there were more high second peaks – about half of the stations – and NOAA’s average for all its Arctic stations now showed a distinctly higher second peak – but of course, this would have included adjustments.

    I note your interest in Czech data….if you are local to Czech, do drop me an email as I am currently visiting the country and having some very enlightening talks with geophysicists in Prague about geomagnetic correlates with atmospheric wind patterns! You can get the address from my ethos website above.

    Note to Henry Clark! and all others at wuwt who like to take a swipe at ‘environmentalists’….I am such with a long history of working to clean the oceans of pollutants….you guys need to appreciate your environmental history or get condemned to repeat it – it was activists that cleaned up most of the pollution in the US and Europe….NOT governments, who always sided with industrial interests – with the honourable exception of Scandinavian governments and the Germans. When it came to stopping the dumping of radioactive waste in the world’s oceans (led by UK and not participated in by the US), it was Greenpeace and the Seamen’s Unions (in response to their activism) that stopped the dumping – I was then a scientist/legal activist advising NGOs such as Greenpeace, AND when the governments eventually got the message that they had to clean up their act, I helped the UN create better protection of the marine environment. I actually wrote a peer-reviewed paper on what was wrong with the UN system, but nobody refers to it! Thus, the IPCC repeat all the old ‘mistakes’, especially the reliance on models.
    Those were the days before the corrupt influences of AGW. I admit now that I stand alone among environmentalists….they have all lost their critical faculties (just as happens with many bloggers on WUWT when they pontificate on world development issues and environmentalism). It is not just a sad state of affairs but a dangerous and unprecedented alliance of ‘greens’, bankers, brokers, UN bureaucrats, turbine makers, and of course, computer modellers….but it does not help to blanket them with terms such as fascists/commies/socialists as if that described anything useful….this is a modern syndrome for which we don’t yet fully have the vocabulary (I am working on that!).

    Thanks again Frank for this mine of useful information….I agree with others, it is one of the most significant posts at wuwt.

  150. tonyb says:

    Frank

    I have seen the US Weather survey records in the reference section of the library but not the UK ones. I will specifically ask, but it may be that as it is data used by the Met office scientists (who are on the floor above) they keep the material in their own personal libraries or on digital files. Much of the data will be in Met office reports.

    Just to ensure I know your exact requirements I understand you are looking for the original daily meteorological records for each of the UK stations. (which will include temperatures, wind speed, rainfall etc) Is that correct? If so, have you got a particular time span that you want me to concentrate on?

    all the best

    tonyb

  151. James Sefton says:

    Australia’s raw data is available here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/

    And the adjusted Acorn-Sat data is here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-network

    I’ve done some charting close to home and the Acorn-Sat adjustments are obvious!

  152. John Whitman says:

    Frank Lansner,

    I admire your strategy and your in-process evaluations of your ongoing efforts.

    Please advise if you need some addition manpower/brainpower. { I am retired. : ) }

    John

  153. @Peter Taylor

    thankyou for your kind words! But no I dont live in the Czech Republic but I have friends there, in Olomoud.

    Environmentalists!
    I find your writing very uplifting, and I think i am in the same boat, perhaps “worse” than you. I have a passion for wind wills even though it may be irrationa. Just the feeling of standing next to this “thing” that just make energy out of the thin air!! Amazing, truly.

    I like very much if people understand that being sceptic about climate fraud is not and never will be a political agenda, its a scientific opinion. Thats why it nice to have also “environmetalists” aboard the ship, let people know that we all want to protect our Earth – obviously – but lies and fraud is just not the way.

  154. Bob Kutz says:

    I’ve made this suggestion before, in other venues;

    Someone ought to collect a data set from microfiche’d newspapers.

    I know the collection methods are not consistent. I know the data could hardly be considered reliable. BUT; it hasn’t been adjusted. No one out there is going around changing microfiche archives to support the AGW orthodoxy. To the extent that it exists (and it does) it is unmolested.

    If you want a large data set that covers a long time span and which could not have been manipulated, newspaper archives may be your best bet.

    Maybe you could recruit a network, similar to what surface station did.

    Just my $0.02

  155. tonyb says:
    “I have seen the US Weather survey records in the reference section of the library but not the UK ones. I will specifically ask…”

    Are you saying that there perhaps are NO meteorological year books in UK for the british people to see? Not even in libraries? Its great that you will ask! Maybe at least you can find out what exactly those books are titled?

    Tonyb:
    “Just to ensure I know your exact requirements I understand you are looking for the original daily meteorological records for each of the UK stations….”

    Actually not. Meteorological year books normally comes in first a daily section and then often section 2 is Monthly/yearly summaries. These are what i want photographs of. All countries even banana republics have such year books from at least 1920-30. My guess is that UK have these books from around 1850.

    its absolutely fantastic that you will assist here, and no matter the result, then the knowledge it gives is a step forward.
    K.R. Frank

  156. Marc77 says:

    Great work.

    Lately, I also had this idea that most warming was occurring near of large bodies of water. I think the Great Lakes might be an other place where the temperature has increased more in the recent period. I wonder if it is possible to show whether the region is warming out of normal or catching up to temperatures that other regions had experienced 65 years ago. My guesstimate shows that the difference between Toronto and Montreal(1.8° of latitude) should be greater than Montreal and Quebec(1.3° of latitude). But both pairs now have 2°C of difference. Between the warm year of 1953 and the warm year of 2012. Toronto TMAX has warmed by 1.0°C, Montreal by 0.7°C and Quebec by around 0.3°C. There might be something there.

    Also, it is possible to do a simple cheap adjustment for TOBS. You can average the 5 days max and min. The time of observation cannot have as much of an effect over a 5 days period. And if 5 days is not enough, go for 7+…

    One thing that annoys me a lot about normal reconstruction of temperature, they tend to conclude to a large decrease in diurnal temperature range. But they do not offer a good explanation for it. In many regions in Canada, if I compare a station from the 1940s with a station from the 2000s and both stations have the same DTR, there is often a cooling signal. It is important to be careful because in the 1940s, the stations with lower DTRs often had lower TMAXs possibly due to urban pollution(wood burning or else…). I have often heard people say that CO2 could reduce the rate of cooling. But if CO2 had removed 1°C of cooling per day, the temperature would necessarily increase at this rate. Clearly it is not the case. I think only two factors can affect the DTR:
    1- The daily variation in heat content goes down. Clouds or pollution could be responsible.
    2- The amount of matter affected by the DTR goes up. If the daily variation of heat content is spread over a larger portion of the atmosphere, the variation of temperature would be smaller. Also, more evaporation or snow melting during the day can also limit the variation in temperature.

    I don’t know if the daily variation in temperature has been measured to happen at a greater altitude. I wonder why satellites do not evaluate the DTR at different pressures. Also, If the DTR is really going down, the 1-day variance or 3-day variance could possible be affected. A lowering of the DTR is a lowering of variability, it should not be limited to only the day to day variability. But in some cases, if you compare the warmest and the coolest stations of a region. The warmest station has warmer nights in general. But at the end of a sequence of very cold nights, the warmest station might end up just as cold as the coolest station. It looks like the warmest station needs time to release its accumulated heat. So a change in variability can also be caused by the UHI…

    We need more good work like this, there is a lot to be done…

  157. Marc77 says:

    Said in a more simple way, the comparison between different periods of time should be done between stations with a similar siting. A constant geographic position is better, but it does not guaranty a constant siting. It should be better to look for pairs of station with a similar DTR and similar variability from day to day, similar amount of rain etc… The comparison could also be done with station a long distance apart if it is possible to calculate their theoretic normal. Constant geographic siting is not constant siting, so it is important to look to other stats.

  158. Marc77
    “t should be better to look for pairs of station with a similar DTR and similar variability”

    Thank you for comment –
    This is correct! and its a bit like saying: Dont extend OAA with OAS and vice versa. Ocean Air affted stations has smaller DTR , so your point I´d say is similar to mine.

    K.R. Frank

  159. usurbrain says:

    Years back I wanted to look at the old NWS Heating Degree Days. I was contemplating purchasing a Heat pump and wanted to know how it would compare to an area where I lived before and used one. Found the data tables and wondered why most of the cities listed started at 1975 but didn’t think much of it. There were many that started in the 40’s and 50’s
    4 or 5 years ago I had a brainstorm, “If it is getting warmer, then the total degree heating days would get lower in value.” Since I had that Idea I have not been able to find any data on the internet that goes back to the 40’s or 50’s any more. I know it exists, I saw it.
    Where di it go? what will that information tell us? How many fewer HDD’s are there today than in 1950 for cities in the USA, EU, etc?

  160. jaymam says:

    In New Zealand, newspapers have been archived from 1840 or earlier, and these contain weather information. The newspapers have now been scanned and converted to searchable text, up to about 1945 so far. I have seen weather information as far back as 1842.
    Here is weather information for 1869:

    I intend to save the page images and put all the data in a spreadsheet. This will take a long time!

  161. Hi Jaymam,

    You can only get daily data this way? And from Auckland only? I think there will have to be better ways to do the trick. Are you in New Zealand? If so, perhaps goto the national library and look for meteorological year books for New Zealand and Australia, that would be very helpful. These have a section with monthly and yearly summaries for most stations. That would be much more effective.

    All the best!!
    K.R: Frank

  162. DR says:

    First, great post. Second, I haven’t found one post where Steven Mosher called you or anyone else for that matter, a moron…..yet. That may be a record in itself.

  163. Brian H says:

    Edit: in the red box in #3: “to a large extend extent”

    Hiding of the public’s meteorological records is data-crime.

  164. Brian, Correction is done, thank you!

    K.R. Frank

  165. jaymam says:

    Frank
    I seached for Auckland weather, because that’s where I live. As you can see, those words are high-lighted. Yes, there may be weather data published in books. However I want raw data, with no processing at all. I can do any processing needed. It is more likely that the data published in a dozen different newspapers back in the 1800s will not have been altered by someone with an agenda.
    I have obtained Auckland data from everywhere I can find, and that is from GISS and NIWA. Here is about all I have:

    I don’t understand why there is no recent data. I see no hockey stick.

  166. @Jaymam

    Ok thanks!

    But the printed meteorological annual books, published every year do have the original values from most stations normally. Its much faster because there is normally a section with yearly and monthly numbers for each stations. Meteorological year books are pretty much obligatory on national libraries, but I cant travel to each country due to work and family, so that limits me a lot.
    Anyways, best of luck.!!

  167. Larry K says:

    The problem with global temperature record graphs — even if one is able to obtain an unadjusted record going back 100+ years; is that one is not comparing the same station data from the past compared to the present.

    There were less stations in the past and new stations were being added all the time over the past century, along with some being dropped. A graph showing the global average temperature for the year 1900 – 2000 contains different stations for the year 1900 compared to what the year 2000 does. Essentially, the 2 years are not comparable (different data sets) — yet there they are on the same graph. This is either misleading or has the potential to be, as different sets of data (different stations) are being compared on the same graph of the temperature trend over the last 100+ years as if it’s the same data source.

    Secondly, and this is the more important issue related to the different station data for different years — is what is the mix of rural/urban stations? Since urban stations show a higher temperature (on average) compared to rural stations (on average), having more urban stations in the mix will increase the overall average temperature of even an unadjusted data set. The point is, that if more urban stations have been added to the temperature record over the past 100+ years, then a positive temperature trend will show up on the graph just from that fact alone.

    For example, suppose in the year 1900 the station mix is 50/50 rural/urban and that urban stations have on average a 1.0C higher temperature than rural stations do. The urban stations in this case would be raising the overall average temperature 0.5C compared to just the rural stations alone. Now move to the year 2000 — what is the mix of urban/rural stations now? Suppose the mix in 2000 is now 20/80 rural/urban. Then the urban stations would now be adding 0.8C to the average of the rural stations. A 0.3C increase over a century by just the changing mix of rural/urban stations.

    I used 1.0C higher average for urban stations just as an example, but maybe the figure is higher and it may have also increased over the years compounding the effect on a graph showing the global average. Adding more urban (or rural) stations with a higher and higher UHI effect wold increase the average global temperature data even more.

    What is the change in the mix of rural/urban stations from the year 1900 to the present in the temperature sets like GISS or HADCRUT4? What account has been made of the increase in the global average from just changing the mix of rural/urban stations?

  168. JTF62 says:

    @James Sefton
    says:
    January 7, 2014 at 8:24 am
    “Australia’s raw data is available here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/

    And the adjusted Acorn-Sat data is here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-network

    I’ve done some charting close to home and the Acorn-Sat adjustments are obvious!”

    James,
    It seems your publishing of this page internationally has crashed it, or perhaps BOM is too embarrassed to have this info available to the public and have “temporally” closed it down.

    Ps love to see what you have on Oz comparisons with Acorn.

  169. DTFoz says:

    In Fig 22 you state that “air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.” Having lived most of my life in the upper Midwest, I would suggest that much of the midwest is actually more affected by Southern Gulf air masses than Pacific air masses. Just wondering if you should account for or at least note this in your study. Great work overall.

  170. Dear Larry,
    One of the main advantages of working with the huge number of stations avaiable from meteorological yearbooks etc. is, that the for example change of station siting or any other error becomes easily detectable. Check out “Original Temperatures: The Alps” here we have more than 150 stations represented , hereof over 90 in OAS sitings. The odds that these 90 stations – that show pretty much the same temperature trends – shoulld all show something wrong is not possible.

    A change in siting – that you mention – would affect one station in at one particular point in time it if this siting change results in a notable change that year for that station it would stick our from the other 90 stations from that year.

    So, working with this huge number of stations from rather small areas is a good approach. The typical alternative: Mostly OAA stations and large urban stations , and much fewer stations is not scientific useful.

  171. @DTFoz

    Thank you !
    Its true that the US Midwest at times have winds originating from the South, the Mexican Golf.
    However the longer periods with the dominating Western winds, plus Nothern and Eastern winds are much larger that the periods with Southern winds. Therefore in the US Midwest it is only a smaller fraction of the time that winds from ocean can influence temperature trends.
    (Also, if you go near to the equatorial region it seems that ocean temperature trends has little heat trend only. I dont know if this has an impact.)

  172. J Hosfield says:

    CO2 theory? Do you suggest that C02 is not a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in our atmosphere? Do you expect that with ever increasing global populations demanding access to electricity that C02e ppm will not continue to increase in the current mod us operand i? I understand the motivations of the skeptics and naysayers. I have trouble understanding why climate scientists would want to falsify data. To what end? As a conservative person, given current understanding of greenhouse gasses, I feel we should work to mitigate the problem as soon as possible so as to reduce the cost and impact.

  173. @J Hosfield
    You write: “Do you suggest that C02 is not a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in our atmosphere?”

    Dear J Hosfield. I simply present data as they are. And I simply point out that the bulk orignal data is often not used in climate science, and data is in fact kept away from public access.

    On my religion: I am honest when I say to you that there seem to be no warming in areas over land in areas where ocean air do not dominate temperature trends, then its true.

    This is NOT supporting that the very small changes in CO2 forcing should have led to a enormous warming at all. Perhaps some warming that is so modest that it is hard to even measure in the temperature data. Maybe.

    This is what data tell us. Are we then “naysayers” if we mention this?
    Those who wants dissenting voices silenced, are they the ones that will ensure progress to humanity?

    CO2:
    In 2008 on WUWT i wrote this article. No one has ever managed to argue against the findings, please read, I would be happy to hear your comment:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    K.R. Frank

  174. tonyb says:

    Hi Frank.

    As promised I went to the Met Office library today and spent about three hours there. The met office library is vast. They have been collecting information on many different aspects of the weather for many decades. The result is that there is too MUCH data to readily identify what you require. There are many different series of data which have been summarised in a variety of ways.

    According to the librarian there is no such thing as a ‘Met Office annual year book’ that he has seen in the library. I strongly suspect this lies in the digital data, which I will come to in a minute.
    Some of the hundreds of different series I came across were as follows;

    ‘Daily weather report and summary’ which lists specific places and is collated. This took up many shelves and I suspect is far too detailed.

    Also old bound books covering 6 monthly periods of daily weather reports from 1877. This seems to have become quarterly reports in 1920 and stopped in 2008 when it became box files. This seems to be a better collation of the items in 1)

    ‘London weather centre uk monthly weather summary’ covers 38 uk stations and lists mean max, mean min and differences from normal temperatures . One book 1988-1991 and a box file with same title 1985-1991

    Also box files of ‘weekly data’ starting 1993 and going up to 2011 (suspect it will be updated to end of 2013)

    This next series was interesting with many books of;

    Meteorological observations of stations of the second order from 1873 to 1920 and includes daily readings –summarised each month for barometer, wind, temperature etc and covering minor stations instead of the large stations. (much less likely to have been amended)
    Met office quarterly weather reports 1865 to 1904

    this series seems to have then become;
    British meteorological and magnetic year book from 1905 to 1911

    Weekly and monthly weather reports from 1869 to 1996

    Hourly readings from the self recording instruments of the seven observatories 1974-1900

    There were some potentially very interesting books from ;
    University of Birmingham department of geography monthly climatological summary
    Straightforward listing of each months temperatures wind etc. Earliest book was 1983 and the last book was 1993.

    There was a similar series in 10 books from 1962 ‘Durham university daily met.obs. again from the dept of Geography

    Another interesting series

    UK climatological observers link 1977 to 2011 (20 box files) much of this summarised in the book
    Climatological averages for 1981 -2010 and 2001-2010
    Isbn 978-0-9569485-0-2. As well as a book there were also two documents with the same titles that had been bound in an office
    1961 to 1990 averages and extremes
    And 1971-2000 averages

    Several digital suggestions;

    A great deal of data is online-I suspect routinely with new data from around 1993 although this doesn’t mean the older less important data has been digitised . However I would be amazed if the key information you want isn’t available in a digital format. To access it
    Go to ;

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

    insert ‘monthly data’ (or other search terms) in top right hand box and in that instance you will arrive here;

    http://search.metoffice.gov.uk/kb5/metoffice/metoffice/results.page?qt=monthly+data&button=Search

    I suggest you register for ‘data point.’ If you need to be resident in the UK I will register on your behalf but you will have to tell me EXACTLY what you want.

    Alternatively, Met office researchers will find information for you and either photocopy or scan it for you, but you need to be specific. I have always found them very helpful but there is a limit as to the amount of material they can provide. Their email is;
    metlib@metoffice.gov.uk

    The first obvious question is to ask them if there are UK weather year books.

    Also, I think the data from both the Universities sounds worthwhile and contacting them directly might be useful as it is likely they will have digitised their old records.

    If it goes back far enough the UK climatological observers link also seemed interesting.

    As I say Frank, there is FAR too much information to easily find exactly what you want, so I suggest your first port of call should be the met office web site and to ask at metlib.
    It strikes me that it would be interesting if you could get the current digitised data and I could then double check specific periods from the original books.

    Let me know how you want to proceed.

    With best regards

    Tonyb

  175. Frank says:

    Dear Tony!! Thank you so much for your enquiry!

    Even countries like Uganda, Angola, Bolivia and Costa Rica have published meteorological year books from at least from around 1930-40. But supposedly not the UK??

    What makes your findings look even more dodgy is, that you do find something around 1870-1910 then… pretty much nothing? … And then again something from around 1980.

    This pattern resembles what I have seen here and there for other countries, the warm years 1930-50 are harder to dig up. As far as I can see, the helper at the library could not offer you data that continues from 1930 and foreward. I find this so odd that the word “dodgy” is on my tongue.

    I will try to use the email address and hear what they have to say about this, thankyou verymuch!!!!

    K.R, Frank

  176. frank

    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. The UK has a huge amount of data which has been subdivided into a large number of categories. Perhaps the complete year books come under a completely different name.

    Let me know what the researchers at that email address say. Alternatively try entering various terms into the web site.

    I will email a couple of people and see if they can suggest anything.

    tonyb

  177. Hi frank

    These may be worth looking at

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-anomalies/#?tab=climateAnomalies

    They are UK climate anomaly maps relative to 1961-1990 average from 1919 to 2013

    This is taken from the above link

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/ukcp09/

    My surmise is that the Met Office is very long established and has produced a huge amount of material over the years which keeps hundreds of scientists in a job. I suspect they find it far more interesting to analyse obscure data in minute detail so consequently the basic and boring raw material of monthly temperatures takes a back seat!
    tonyb

  178. Tonyb,
    I meant that IF actually there where no station data available, then it would be more than odd – and yes , that is my opinion, we dont have to agree on everything.

    Anyways, the material we are looking fore is called:
    MONTHLY WEATHER REPORT by Meteorological Office.

    Here is a link:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/monthly-weather-report-1930s

    I was very happy to se REAL PHOTOS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in pdfs !
    But it seems that only front cover is available this way? You can see that the original data tables start on the next page, but…

    Then they write about tables, with data, havent found it yet, but perhaps…

    K.R. Frank

  179. Better link:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/monthly-weather-report

    It looks as if the did not make the content of the Monthly Weather reports public?
    I think this is what we are looking for. And i would like Ireland too :-)

    K.R. Frank

  180. And then there are some station data here…

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/

    K.R. Frank

  181. Frank

    Coincidentally earlier this evening I had asked someone formerly connected with the Met Office and they replied as follows;

    ‘I’m not immediately aware of year books but the Monthly Weather Report and British Rainfall were published throughout the period mentioned (1930-1950) and may contain all the necessary data.’

    hopefully this will be available as digital information. Let me know.

    tonyb

  182. Hi Tony,

    But here ..

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/monthly-weather-report

    – we can see that they exist 1884-1993.
    They just only scanned the front page… no raw data… surprise…

    K.R. Frank

  183. Brian H says:

    Possible they use some other excessively verbose and “precise” terminology for “year books”?

  184. tonyb says:

    Frank

    I took 3 photos on my ipad. Unfortunately it refuses to send emails at present so I cant transmit them.

    However, they are from the various series I mention above and clearly show such things as actual mean daily and max daily and mean temperatures for each month.

    As Brian H says, perhaps the Met office use some other term for year books or perhaps they found it more useful to have monthly data as each section within the met office might then have utilised the data as was appropriate to their areas of interest.

    There is a vast amount of highly detailed original raw data by day and by month in the records I saw.

    Perhaps on Monday we might find out from metlib how to obtain the yearly data.

    tonyb

  185. Frank

    If you have no luck looking through the Met Office web site or by contacting Met Lib on Monday I would contact;

    philip.eden@bbc.co.ukphilip.eden@bbc.co.uk; (this is an email address in the public domain)

    Philip is a very well known weather forecaster and takes a keen interest in British data. Here is his web site;

    http://www.climate-uk.com/

    tonyb

  186. Great, Tony thanks for all the tips, I will let you know what I find out, and then im looking forward to hear about your monday-mission!!

    K.R: Frank

  187. Frank

    Your English is good. When I said;

    “Perhaps on Monday we might find out from metlib how to obtain the yearly data.” the ‘we’ meant ‘you’!

    It will be intriguing to see what you find out and will help if I can by perhaps checking the paper copies against some of the digital data.

    However. I go away next Saturday for two weeks. Coincidentally its to Bad Gastein and Bad Ischl which were the very stations you mentioned in your report. Do you know where the temperature station is supposed to be located at each location as it would be interesting to see if either is affected by external sources that might influence the temperature.

    tonyb

  188. Dear Tony, I will happily take over, but first I need to finish collecting and finishing “the Original Temperatures: Norway” writing, but I will pick up the inputs you have given as soon as I have a moment.

    K.R. Frank

  189. PS: Tony, I have some UK stuff already ;-)

  190. Dear Tony, I tried to mail to philip.eden@bbc.co.uk but my email was rejected by their system. I guess they will only allow emails from certain senders. Anyways, lets continue our dialog on normal email.
    K.R. Frank

  191. Brian H says:

    Frank;
    “Writing” is not an English noun, except perhaps as an anachronism. Use “write-up” or “article” or some other term if you don’t want us to guess each time you use it.

  192. Brian H says:

    PS;
    It can be used as a gerund, to indicate an activity. But not for the result.

  193. Thanks Brian, where are you from?

  194. Brian H says:

    Canada, currently (last 30+ yrs) Vancouver.

Comments are closed.