An analysis of the Central Netherlands Temperature record

Many readers are familiar with the Central England Temperature Record (CET), now Frank Lansner investigates the Central Netherlands Temperature Record (CNT). Long, but enlightening. – Anthony

Guest post by Frank Lansner

Fig 1 The Dutch population do not have access to their raw temperature data before 1951 for the area of their country marked red.

Instead the KNMI has decided only to make available their “CNT”, the Central Netherland Temperature index.

KNMI do make two coastal temperature series available before 1951 (Vlissingen and De Kooy) and then some strongly adjusted temperature series (De Bilt and Maastricht). Finally the Northern Eelde Station that has not been adjusted has been made publically available, fortunately.

To make the “CNT”, KNMI use strongly adjusted versions of their temperature data, let’s start out with Maastricht:

Fig2

Before 1950 close to one full Kelvin of heat has been taken out of data. The strong dive in temperature 1950 has been removed.

Fig3.

Exactly the same occurs for the De Bilt station, the temperature dive in 1950 has been removed.

Fig4

Here the combined adjustments of Maastricht and De Bilt data. The “Central Netherlands Temperature” index is shown here too. It is almost identical to the adjusted De Bilt and Maastricht data.

Fig5.

The raw temperature data from Bruxelles station Uccle obviously confirms the raw versions of De Bilt and Maastricht. Perhaps slightly more urban heat warm trend can be spotted in the Uccle data. But check this:

Fig6.

It does seem that the other Bruxelles station “Bruxelles National” has less warm trend than the Uccle station, suggesting a little UHI in the Uccle dataset?

Fig7.

Let’s move on, the Luxemburg station is available from Crutem3, and the dive in temperature from the late 1940´ies to 1956 yet again is confirmed.

Imagine that KNMI was correct in their adjustments and just by coincidence we have De Bilt, Maastricht, Uccle and Luxemburg showing a HUGE freak error simultaneously in 1950.

Would it take a miracle at this point for KNMI to be correct?

Well, let’s move on.

Fig8.

From GHCN we have Frankfurt-Wiesbaden temperature data again the warmer pre-1950 data are confirmed. In addition the warm peak 1957-62 is stronger in central Germany.

In my previous article on this matter I analysed a row of German stations from raw GHCN V2, check link in the end of the article.

Fig9.

On the site “Tutiempo” you can normally find adjusted data but I checked out this “Ypenburg” station. It appears that in the period approx. 1936-55 there was an Airport in Den Haag called Ypenburg. Tutiempo for some reason holds just a little sequence of apparently raw data from Den Haag Airport:

Fig10.

The Ypenburg station is around 10 km from the coast. The “choice” of years available from Ypenburg is perfect: We have once again confirmed the large dive in temperatures 1949-1956 in Southern Holland.

How about Paris data? They must be available? For some reason NO raw temperature data is available before 1951 from all Northern France. But Paris then?

Fig11.

Obviously we should expect some UHI for a Paris station, but none the less, the Paris Orly data – (although not showing 1956) do confirm the warmer pre 1950 temperatures compared to the 1970-80 level. Also Paris do not support KNMI and their “CNT”.

Fig12.

When I first looked at Paris “raw” GHCN data I was surprised because the year 1949 showed a large temperature dive unlike the other stations in the area. However, the 1949-dive in GHCN Paris L Bourget was contradicted not only by all other stations in the area, but also by the other Paris dataset, Paris Orly, here taken from Tutiempo. Thus, all Northern French raw data are eliminated in GHCN before I 1951, and then the only dataset with a 1949 peak happens to have the data point lowered 2 K.

Fig13.

Before returning to the Netherlands, Finally one more German station from raw GHCN V2, Dresden (for more German and Czhech stations, see the link 2 in the end of the article).

Gemert:

Yet another Dutch temperature station seems to behave wrongly according to KNMI, and then the error happens to take place in 1950, so that KNMI have to lower the pre-1950 temperatures:

Fig14.

This is how KNMI illustrates the corrections done to the Gemert station. They compare to a reference dataset I believe is not public, but that is likely to resemble the CNT.

KNMI explains the changes to the Gemert station:

Gemert had a large break in October

1949, when the station was renovated. In the period 1906_

1949 the record shows a significant positive trend relative to

the reference stations Oudenbosch, De Bilt and Winterswijk.

This trend was likely to have been due to a gradual growth of

the vegetation at this station until the re-instalment in 1949

So, the increasing divergence 1906-1950 with (already adjusted!) De Bilt and more is due to plant growth, and the change 1949-50 is then due to re-instalment, KNMI says.

Fig 15.

Same scenario, this time its Uccle divergence from the KNMI “homogenized” De Bilt data set.

So the Uccle increase in divergence 1906-1950 to the “homogenized” KNMI De Bilt data is also plant growth then? And also a re-instalment in 1949-50 in Bruxelles, perhaps?

But the increase in divergence is even faster 1880-1906 – So plants grew even faster before 1906?

Fig 16. From figure 5 of [1].

1) Its definitely possible that I misunderstand this figure, but as I understand, it shows the divergence between individual stations and then a reference trend based on data from Netherlands? If so, how come al stations show a positive divergence 1940-50? Should a valid reference not be made so that it resembled actual temperatures of Netherlands as much as possible?

2) The Maastricht and De Bilt stations only differ from this reference with around 0,15 K.

As the difference between raw Maastricht/De Bilt versus CNT is around 10 times as much, this suggests that this figure actually show divergence between a reference and already ADJUSTED temperature sets. I’m not sure what scientific value this has.

3) The Eelde divergence is shown lower than the De Kooy divergence. As we will see later, Eelde is roughly 0,5K warmer than for De Kooy before 1950.

So how come they can show De Kooy with a warmer divergence than Eelde?

Again it seems that several data sets have been adjusted before showing divergences in the above illustration.

One more note: The illustration do not show data points for Leeuwarden 1949-55?

Fig17.

Many Tutiempo temperature series I have been able to test against raw data appear to be warm adjusted. But the point here of mentioning Leeuwarden none the less is that we from Tutiempo learn that this data set do exist at least from 1949.

So, why did KNMI only use data from 1955 in their illustration?

Eelde:

Fig18.

In Northern Holland we also have the KNMI data for Eelde and it can be proven unadjusted against NACD V1. Eelde data resembles Leeuwarden data from Tutiempo, and thus the Tutiempo Leeuwarden dataset also appear unadjusted.

In comparison with the previously shown apparently raw datasets, this Northern region with the Eelde and Leeuwarden stations appears to have had a slightly colder period 1930-50 but still around 0,5-0,6 K warmer than the “CNT”.

Coastal temperature stations of the Netherlands.

Fig19

When examining data we know is raw (or have a reason to believe is raw), then only the coastal stations Vlissingen and De Kooy show similarity with the “CNT” temperature trend before 1950.

CNT appear to be the “Coastal Netherlands Temperatures” rather than the “Central Netherlands temperatures”.

Fig20.

We can now estimate coastal and Non-coastal temperature trends for Benelux based on coastal stations De Kooy and Vlissingen and non-coastal stations Uccle, Luxemburg Airport, Eelde, Maastricht and De Bilt. All are raw datasets. Obviously stations Uccle and Maastricht are likely to include some urban heat.

Fig21.

NE USA coastal and Non-coastal temperature trends. Somewhat similar to the Benelux data sets. (taken from link 3: From RUTI Coastal temperature stations.)

Closing comment:

Yes, here and there I cannot be 100% sure which stations are adjusted and which are not.

The issue here is that raw data from KNMI is not just freely available, that would be a lot easier. But since this is not the case, I find it better to try to give the best estimate possible.

Bonus info.

Fig22.

The distance ocean air influence over land is illustrated her for SW Jutland [4]. Most of the ocean effect disappears just around 5 km from the coast (depending on topography also). Therefore the poorest stations to use for land temperature estimation are the coastal stations. However, many hundred kilometres from the coast, still the coastal trends can dominate temperatures on hills and mountains, and sometimes valley stations just downstream from larger mountains.

Links:

1 The creation of a Central Netherlands Temperature, KNMI:

www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/CNT.pdf

2 NW Europe and De Bilt (more details on German stations from raw GHCN V2)

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php

3 More on Coastal temperatures.

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php

4

http://img.kb.dk/tidsskriftdk/pdf/gto/gto_0047-PDF/gto_0047_69738.pdf

If you have the time, please cut and paste the below temperature data while they are online…

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Brize_Norton/36490.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Prestwick_Airport/31350.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Bremen/102240.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Hamburg-Fuhlsbuettel/101470.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Hannover/103380.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Nuernberg/107630.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Koeln_Bonn/105130.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Paris-Orly/71490.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Szczecin/122050.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Gdansk-Rebiechowo/121500.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Gdansk-Rebiechowo/121500.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Koebenhavn_Kastrup/61800.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Bruselas_Bruxelles_National/64510.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Leeuwarden/62700.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/YPENBURG_NAFB/62000.htm

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Guernsey_Airport/38940.htm

PLEASE GIVE ME A TIP IF YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE ON

RAW TEMPERATURE DATA IN WRITINGS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Marchand

I think an analysis of my hometown (village) up in the Jura mountains would be interesting for the population of the world, will you do it? The name of the place : Le Lac des Rouges Truites, France. It is as good a proxy as your little province of the Netherlands.

Harold Ambler

Temperature data, like fine shellfish, are best enjoyed raw.

Latitude

Frank….excellent work…and a lot of it
1930’s-40’s….American dust bowl

This is all good and great. But at other times remember the layman. We need concise arguments to defeat the warmists when they can convince most of the public in just 10 words: “it’s hot… and look what CO2 did to Venus!”
We got to get it down to just a few words.
Don’t bring a treatise or dissertation when 30 words would be better. Indeed, in some cases, the very (long) length of skeptic arguments can be used against it. Why do the skeptics need so many words? What are they hiding? I can’t make heads or tails of what they’re saying…. look at Venus.
There are subsidiary points (credibility & deceptions & ideological motivations of the warmists, sea & ice levels etc) that should be attacked separately, but we have 2 main debunking points to keep in mind, to kind of refer back to sometimes when “digressing” into extended verbiage. 1. There’s nothing wrong with the climate. It’s that simple. The fabricated hockey stick has been debunked; there is nothing at all unusual about temps, or the rates of recent temp change.
And 2. CO2 has nothing, or effectively nothing, to do with the climate. Yes, and if you doubt this, consider that it turns out (surprise) that there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 effects temps on a climate level. None. At best we have an ambiguous and arguably dubious theoretical model. And, further, here’s an excerpt that can give us cover on the CO2 question: [Mit Professor] Lindzen says: “Claims… that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.” Piers Corbyn, in a comment, takes it further: “Observational evidence gives the possibility that the net effect of CO2 increases on World temperatures may not be ‘only trivial’ but in fact miniscule, zero, or even negative due to errors in some of the science some claim or – I would suggest – hitherto not understood feed-back and competing processes…”
And 99% of the public doesn’t even know what is presented in the following video, that the ipcc deceived the public in claiming the causal correlation between temps & CO2. See algor repeat this key ipcc deception, and help spread the word to the public at large about this must see ~ 3 minute video:

Mac the Knife

Hmmmm…..
I thought the Dutch were chocolate experts, but for KNMI – Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, it looks like ‘fudge’ may be their true calling.
MtK

read the papers on uccle.
also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations. WRT coastal stations you must stake care there as well since the predominant effect is a narrowing of the standard deviation at least up to 50km from the ocean. beyond that range the sd increases.. generally speaking.

Alexej Buergin

There used to be a commentator named R. R. Kampen (IIRC) on WUWT who worked for the Dutch Metoffice. Maybe his email can be dug out and maybe he would comment on this?

Greg House

Eric Simpson says:
May 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm
We got to get it down to just a few words.
Don’t bring a treatise or dissertation when 30 words would be better.
=========================================================
Here we go. The idea, that back/trapped radiation can significantly warm the surface was debunked by professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
This is they reason, why older people were not taught the “greenhouse effect” at schools, although the hypothesis is 150 years old.

pat

watching everyone rugged up at the tennis in Rome, this doesn’t surprise me:
18 May: UK Telegraph: Britain colder than Arctic and Antarctic with just two weeks until summer
Britain is colder than winter as the country faces a late spring washout weekend – as it emerged parts of the Arctic and Antarctic are warmer than Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9272469/Britain-colder-than-Arctic-and-Antarctic-with-just-two-weeks-until-summer.html

I had to pay $50 US to get the RAW DATA for the Chanhassen MN station. I’m still P-O’d over this. My grandparents paid for it, my parents paid for it, I paid for it.
I don’t have the time to “tilt at windmills”. If I did, I’d be suing the NOAA under FOI to get all the RAW DATA MADE PUBLIC.
How damned (sorry, you can edit it if you want…remember Gone with the Wind, it’s a vulgarity..that’s all!) hard is it to put out this data? Well, Chanhassen MN was 1.8 MB. The 1400 some stations in the USA would be about 2 GB. Heck, I’ll pay for the THUMB DRIVE myself…
WHAT A SCAM! What proof that NOAA is HIDING INFORMATION THEY DON’T WANT US TO HAVE!
Max

Rob R

Mosh
Regarless of the latitude, longitude and altitude, the long-term trend in raw temperature for each of the different stations should be similar. The long-term trend for each station should also be similar to that of the regional temperature index. The combined effect of altitude and latitude is to warm or cool the entire temperature history of one site relative to another. The first difference between two sites (or between one site and the regional index) should be approximately constant over time unless there is some other factor such as UHI, which would give as gradual change rather than an abrupt one. We do not see that in the sites discussed above.
In the case of the stations and index under discussion by Frank Lasner there is a common change point around 1950. The past seems to have been made colder by an abrupt adjustment to the older part of the data. The reason for this needs to be explained.

Philip Bradley

In the early 1950s, the East Flevoland Polder was drained, 56,000 hectares of water became land.
De Bilt, for example, became twice as far inland as previously. Any summer – winter divergence at that time?

Mosher says:

you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations.

Steve, that’s only if you want to compare or combine absolute temperatures. The raw data is fine for observing changes in temperature over time, like the big 1950 temperature drop that Frank is focused on. Its presence in pretty much all raw temperature records (except a few that are highly moderated by proximity to the ocean) show that it really happened and should be represented in the combined record.

Greg House says May 17, 2012 at 7:33 pm:
… =========================================================
Here we go. The idea, that back/trapped radiation can significantly warm the …

Bzzzt!
Recommend one subject to study: IR Spectroscopy.
Please note which molecules this involves.
Then report back.
(Also note we are dealing with different rates of cooling as opposed to this idea you expressed about ‘significantly warm …’)
Thank you in advance.
.

Greg House

_Jim says:
May 17, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Bzzzt!
Recommend one subject to study: IR Spectroscopy.
Please note which molecules this involves. … …
=================================================
No valid arguments, I am not surprised.

Mosher is right. You cannot just combine the records. You must do them like BEST, slice and dice them so that the absolute temperatures are never seen, much less trusted. You just find the slopes you like, then when an inconvenient drop in temperature occurs you whip out the scalpel, break the record, shift and suture. You just cannot use the absolute temperatures. (That would be too easy!) You can only trust the slopes (that you don’t want to cut) /sarc
In all seriousness, there is a missing plot in this fine(!) document. There are a bunch of wiggles with various adjustments. Let’s see a plot that just combines the adjustments. It ought to be a set of overlapping step functions of different plateaus and smooth slopes. From what we’ve seen, many of them change right at 1950. I like to hear a good reason for that.
Well done, Mr. Lansner!

@Harold Ambler. “Temperature data, like fine shellfish, are best enjoyed raw.” Love that comment. So appropriate, already a classic!
@Greg House. “Here we go. The idea, that back/trapped radiation can significantly warm the surface was debunked by professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html.”
Great, though that particular passage per your link could use some cleaning up, modern rewording. In ads or presentations, we note a basic point, and give references to extensive rebuttal-resistant support for the claims. And what you reference in the link is a point of support that we keep in the arsenal, that we refer to, in making a foundational point: that at best all we have supporting CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas is an arguable and tentative theoretical model, NO evidence.
Your point illustrates the scientific uncertainty with the theoretical model, the obvious lack of consensus, if you will. Others suggest CO2 only has an effect below 200ppm. There is also the issue of the missing tropospheric heat signature, and of the missing heat generally (it’s not at the bottom of the ocean!). As with your link, many contend that while CO2 has demonstrable effects in closed systems, the trace gas has no effect in the wide open atmospheric system. When the theoretical model is so uncertain and arguable, the (lack of) evidence must trump the sketchy model. Especially, I hasten to add, when the radical cap & trade type schemes that the leftists advocate call for up to 83% mandated CO2 cuts (this passed in the U.S. House in 2009), and would in effect take a wrecking ball to civilization as we know it.
My contention, and this is consistent with the ultra-trace nature of this gas, is that much more weighty factors such as variation in the sun and ocean and atmosphere overwhelm any conceivable minimal effect of CO2. My analogy: imagine a big high school basketball gym / auditorium in freezing winter weather, with all its big doors kept wide open. And then take a tiny 800w bathroom heater, and run it continually inside the gym. Sure, the tiny heater, just like trace gas CO2, heats a little bit. But the little heater is overwhelmed by other factors, by the size and scope of the frigid environs surrounding the gym. It’s not going to change the temperature in the open auditorium by even the slightest.
I think that the leftist politicos and econuts drummed up the whole theory to meet their specification. And since its inception, the theory has been supported by untold billions or trillions of $, and by an unquestioning MSM. Just as your link tells it… in the past, CO2 was dismissed as an ineffectual greenhouse gas. Why the change all of a sudden only when the leftist enviros came to the scene??

Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
read the papers on uccle.
also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences
Most of Holland is not more than around 30m above sea level. The country spans 2 degrees of latitude.

Atomic Hairdryer

Re Mosher

Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
read the papers on uccle.
also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations.

Perhaps not this time. Holland isn’t well known for it’s mountainous terrain. De Bilt altitude is around 5m, Maastricht 65m. I don’t think that justifies cooling them by 1K. Keeping some employees in De Bilt warm and well fed might.

Why are coastal temperatures lower than inland temperatures in the earlier period, but not in the modern period? Air pollution from coal powered ships and coal warmed homes etc causing more coastal fogs in the earlier period? Another recent study in Holland showed improved visibility over the 1980-2000 period, allowing greater insolation at the surface.

rclarkres

There is another way to check the weather station data as follows:
The minimum meteorological surface air temperatures in this region should track the Atlantic Ocean temperatures quite closely. The prevailing weather systems approach from the Atlantic Ocean. I checked in my data collection and there was a decrease in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) from 0.407 C in Oct. 1955 to -0.243 C in June 1956. This is a drop of 0.65 C that is consistent with the measure weather station data. I am using the NOAA ‘long’ AMO data set. It may be better to use a local ocean temperature from another database.
I have used the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to check the California climate record and the AMO to check the UK climate record. I just used a 5 year rolling average with a linear fit to the data over the same period of record. The difference in slope (with care) provides an indication of the local urban heat island effect. It can also indicate other station anomalies. There are further details in an older post: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php
The difference in temperature between the minimum and maximum temperatures is an indication of the local solar heating effects. The monthly averages of the min. and delta temperatures can be quite revealing. The can show the ocean influence for example.

rclarkres

There is another way to check the weather station data as follows:
The minimum meteorological surface air temperatures in this region should track the Atlantic Ocean temperatures quite closely. The prevailing weather systems approach from the Atlantic Ocean. I checked in my data collection and there was a decrease in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) from +0.407 C in Oct. 1955 to -0.243 C in June 1956. This is a drop of 0.65 C that is consistent with the measured weather station data. I am using the NOAA ‘long’ AMO data set. It may be better to use a local ocean temperature from another database.
I have used the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to check the California climate record and the AMO to check the UK climate record. I just used a 5 year rolling average with a linear fit to the data over the same period of record. The difference in slope (with care) provides an indication of the local urban heat island effect. It can also indicate other station anomalies. There are further details in an older post: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php
The difference in temperature between the minimum and maximum temperatures is an indication of the local solar heating effects. The monthly averages of the min. and delta temperatures can be quite revealing. This can show the ocean influence for example.

David Archibald

Max Hugoson says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Please email me the Chanhassen data as I would like to see if there is a solar signal in it.
david.archibald at westnet.com.au

Brian H

In the atmosphere, IR-active molecules contribute more to dumping heat from the top than trapping it at the bottom.

Brian H

It’s all in the timing, Mosh; same old same old: lower the early readings, boost the later ones. If it’s too blatant, lose the early ones.

Kelvin Vaughan

On the BBC news this morning they were complaining that the cold wet April has reduced the numbers of wildlife. That’s pointer to what will happen in a cooler planet. I hope the IPCC are listening.

Myrrh

pat says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm
watching everyone rugged up at the tennis in Rome, this doesn’t surprise me:
18 May: UK Telegraph: Britain colder than Arctic and Antarctic with just two weeks until summer
Britain is colder than winter as the country faces a late spring washout weekend – as it emerged parts of the Arctic and Antarctic are warmer than Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9272469/Britain-colder-than-Arctic-and-Antarctic-with-just-two-weeks-until-summer.html
===========
“Forecasters say the chilly spring washout is due to warm high-altitude Atlantic jet stream winds swinging south – delivering a heatwave to southern Europe while Britain is hit by soggy low pressure and cold air from the Arctic.”
This is what p*ss*s me off – they always go to real weather phenomena when they have to explain unseasonable cold, but now even ‘normal’ hot summer temperatures are global warming.
As to the opening post – how many records around the world have been adjusted for this propaganda since, was it Salinger?, first began the process in New Zealand? Have these adjusted records completely compromised the historical data? What have we lost here, besides all the hundreds of years in some cases of dedicated work in the infant science?
Unconscionable.

Steven, no need to worry too much about differences in altitude when looking at NL figures. It’s a pretty flat country 🙂

tonyb

Frank
Very nice study again. You are on a real roll at present!
I wonder if the constant fiddling with figures has its genesis in such studies of Historic temperatures carried out by such as Phil Jones. In a book of his I recently read, in which he re-analyses a number of the very earliest instrumental temperature records (18th Century) he made a comment something along the lines of;
‘The instrumental records we examined seemed to be showing warmer temperatures than our computer models indicate should have ocurred. We have therefore adjusted the instrumental record.’
I was dumbfounded when I read this.
tonyb

tonyb

Frank
Here is the book in which the commemt was made (or in onre of the articles that acciompanied its publication)
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/book/978-1-4020-0556-5
I see one of the long data sets was in Belgium so may have some relevance to the Dutch experience.
——- ——–
RonbR said above
‘In the case of the stations and index under discussion by Frank Lasner there is a common change point around 1950. The past seems to have been made colder by an abrupt adjustment to the older part of the data. The reason for this needs to be explained.’
I think I have explained it in the post above for the longer sets, which doesn’t make it right of course. I don’t subscribe to a conspiracy theory but perhaps there is an over reliance on computer models. All in all the historic temperature records are a mess because of the constant readjustments made and the manner in which they were originally taken. I wouldn’t bet the house on any temperature record, even modern ones and especially ones that purport to be ‘global.’
tonyb

MikeA

Disappointed to see 1K referred to as heat, which is energy and typically measured in Joules. To not realise the difference between temperature and heat is inexcusable when writing a scientific article. Or am I misreading things?

REPLY:
English is not his native language, he simply made a mistake. – Anthony

Laws of Nature

Hi there,
I was bicycling near Delft for a few years. An every day I passed that weather station (I guess it was placed at N51°59’57 E4°23′.06)
Well, while the station itself was very good, nice Stevenson screen and so on, but it was obviously placed to close to a building, a heavy used parking area and a recently built bicycle lane (the tunnel you can see on Google earth nearby was build after 2004 and changed the whole pathway). Also, the station was moved away in about 2010.
My guess would be, that due to the heavy population density in The Netherlands most of the stations experienced some kind of UHI effect in the last 100 years!
I would be very skeptical about all this data!
All the best regards,
LoN

Tallbloke, you ask howcome coastal temperatures trends are more warm trended than non-coastal.
Heres my writing on Coastal temperature trends:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php
The divergence before 1950 coastal vs. non-coastal in the netherlands is not different from what se see in the rest of the world.
But WHY?
Thats a good question, most “obvious” explanation would be that it takes longer time to heat up oceans than land. That is, the land warming 1920-50 was just much faster than the oceans could change temperature. Then later the warming appears not too fast for oceans to adjust.
But this ispure speculation, of course.
Locally in Denmark (and Holland) we have the obvious situation, that winds in warmer periods comes from NW or W. In Colder periods we have more wind from the East.
This suggests that in the warm period 1920-50 in Denmark-Holland (from Morocco to Iceland) the coastal stations were prevented to rise too much to to constant stronger ocean buffering of temperatures on coasts. Therefore the coast thermometers are not that good to show heat. They certainly show something else than near by in-land stations.
K.R. Frank

Steve Richards

Clog-Gate!

Silver Ralph

And I hope they drop these annual temperatures off the chart for 2012, its been f-f-f-f-freezing there.
Flower show in April was nearly cancelled due a lack of flowers. Most trees did not open their leaves until May 7th. Very poor growing season all round.
Silly me – this will be billed as the warmest year on record. Amazing what you can do with statistics.
.

Mosher, to me it seems that you guys at BEST have tried to use math on a giant pile of rotten manipulated cherrypicked temperature data.
Before doing the “Sherlock Holmes” work like I do above, you should not even begin thinking in mathematical terms. Or perhaps you have a function
“Do Unfraud IT_Temperatures” ?
What we saw in Holland is just business as usual.
Here examples from France and central Europe:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/the-adjustments-of-the-french-and-austrian-warm-peaks-1989-95.php
Germany and more:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php
Mozambique (!!)
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/africa/mozambique.php
Zimbabwe:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/africa/zimbabwe.php
USA:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/north-america/usa-part-1.php
Australia (Darwin!!)
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php
And why not the most UHI manipulated country in the world TURKEY!
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/turkey.php
etcetcetcetcetcetcetc.
I have been a full time programer for 14 years in Novo Norrdic, so actually i can make a program.
But only if data appear genuine!!!

Silver Ralph

>>Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
>>>you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you
>>>correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations
>>since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance
>>>in temperature between stations.
Altitude in Holland????
Oh, and Steven, you forgot to add the other law of adjustments.
“All adjustments to the temperature record must make the historic temperatures appear colder than they were in the raw data”
There – fixed that for you.
Steve, if this was a true procedure for adjustment, then approximately half of the samples would have the historic temperatures being increased. But they never are, are they. If all adjustments are one way, thus creating a 20th century warming trend, then this is fraud. Give me one logical reason why all historic temperatures need cooling, rather than warming?
.

DirkH

Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
“also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations.”
The Nits / In The Dutch Mountains

Leo Norekens

“Fig6. (…) suggesting a little UHI in the Uccle dataset.”
This aerial photo of the Uccle weather station (Royal Meteorological Institute) may bring some enlightenment :
http://www.astro.oma.be/common/ksb/foto_1926.jpg
It was taken in 1926, and it shows a relatively rural setting. Uccle (or Ukkel in Dutch) used to be a small suburb of Brussels (population 3.091 in 1815, 19.967 in 1903 and over 74.000 today — Population density 3,349/sq.km in 2008). Today -although on the outskirts of town- it is an integral part of Brussels, capital of Belgium and Europe.
(Google Maps : http://g.co/maps/qwxmg )

Myrrh

Greg House says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Eric Simpson says:
May 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm
We got to get it down to just a few words.
Don’t bring a treatise or dissertation when 30 words would be better.
=========================================================
Here we go. The idea, that back/trapped radiation can significantly warm the surface was debunked by professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
This is they reason, why older people were not taught the “greenhouse effect” at schools, although the hypothesis is 150 years old.
================
That plus the history of Arrhenius getting the wrong end of the stick in the first place..
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ Under Greenhouse Effect:
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
“2.0 How the “Greenhouse Effect” Is Built upon Arrhenius’ Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation
Arrhenius’ first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.
.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:
2.3 Obfuscated Energy Creation versus “Kirchhoff’s Law”
It is an interesting fact that Arrhenius (1896 and 1906b) obfuscates his critical backradiation mechanism of the “Greenhouse Effect” by focusing the reader’s attention on the idea he falsely attributed to Fourier, which is now found in the dictionary; namely, that the atmosphere admits the visible radiation of the sun but obstructs the infrared radiation from the earth. However, Arrhenius’ calculations are based on surface heating by backradiation from the atmosphere (first proposed by Pouillet, 1838, p. 44; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 63), which is further clarified in Arrhenius (1906a). This exposes the fact that Arrhenius’ “Greenhouse Effect” must be driven by recycling radiation from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the earth’s surface. Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point out that this is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind – a type of mechanism that creates energy from nothing. It is very easy to see how this mechanism violates the first law of thermodynamics by counterfeiting energy ex nihilo, but it is much more difficult to demonstrate this in the context of Arrhenius’ obfuscated hypothesis.”
==========
There you have it, Arrhenius’s garbage in garbage out because he didn’t understand what Fourier was saying, and then properly debunked by Wood. Arrhenius didn’t understand convection or the second law, he was just making up his own fisics.
AGWScienceFiction fisics knows this history – it hides it.
Just as it hides the Water Cycle and the direct Heat from the Sun in its comic cartoon energy budget.
And in 30 words or less:
The Hothouse Limerick
There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a “heat” most spontaneous!
Timothy Casey, 2010
See the section “Volcanic CO2 for a debunking of Keeling – bearing in mind that Keeling had an agenda – anti coal – and chose one of the world’s major carbon dioxide producing areas to base his exploration of his mythical ‘well mixed background CO2 levels” – if anyone here seriously thinks that this, even it existed, can be found in Hawaii on top of the world’s largest active volcano and surrounded by constant volcanic activity – eruptions, venting, thousands of earthquakes every year in a warm sea over a hot spot creating volcanic islands – he’s lacking common sense. NOAA push this site as a ‘pristine environment for measuring global background carbon dioxide levels’, defining “pristine” as a site free from local input.. This isn’t the only site next to volcanic activity, and of course, the AGWSF department works hard to make disinformation appear as if genuine science:
“2.0 Calculated Estimates: Glorified Guesswork
In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than “scientists” in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach’s estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts.”
But, I like the idea of getting the arguments down to ’30 word soundbites’, and a fuller exposition in a sentence or three…

Stephen Richards

Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
read the papers on uccle.
also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations. WRT coastal stations you must stake care there as well since the predominant effect is a narrowing of the standard deviation at least up to 50km from the ocean. beyond that range the sd increases.. generally speaking.
I was going to comment but TallBloke beat me to it. No hills for 400 Km and 100km of land below sea level.

Didn’t find much on a search for weather reports from 1950 Netherlands (but maybe using the wrong language 😉
Did find this from just across the channel in England:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1950_1974.htm

1950 (February):
1. One of the WETTEST Februarys across England & Wales. Using the EWP series, it ranks in the ‘top-5’ of such months.
1950 (April):
1. A heavy SNOWFALL on the 25th and 26th in 1950 caused much damage in south east England, bringing down over a thousand telegraph poles and numerous trees.
1950 (21st May): DESTRUCTIVE MULTIPLE TORNADO
A clutch of what is thought to be three tornadoes, one of which did considerable damage, moved from the Wendover to Linslade area in the NW Home Counties. Much damage, with heavy rain and large hail.
1950 (26th September): ‘BLUE MOON’ EVENT
Smoke particles from large-scale forest fires in Alberta, Canada were blown across to NW Europe on strong upper-level winds and led to the widespread viewing of a very rare ‘blue moon’ event. The base of the pollutant cloud was around 12000 ft and the top circa 20000 to 25000 ft. In addition, the sun was coloured when it appeared through gaps in the cloud. Aircraft traversing the cloud were covered by an oily substance believed to be a resinous distillate from the burning wood.
1951 (March):
1. Notably WET across England & Wales. Using the EWP series, just into the ‘top10’ of such-named months.
1951 (November):
1. Notably WET across Britain & Ireland. By the England & Wales precipitation (EWP/Hadley) series, it was firmly in the ‘top-10’ of WETTEST Novembers for England & Wales, with 180 mm, or around twice the long-term average. It was also exceptionally wet across Scotland (wettest November in the 20th century) & Northern Ireland. [EWP &c]
1951 (December):
1. Several episodes of HIGH WINDS affected the British Isles towards the end of December 1951. The most violent event occurred on the 30th: it caused extensive and widespread DAMAGE, with FLOODING in some coastal spots. Considered at the time as the most extensive and severe gale in Scotland since 1927. Several DEATHS. The strongest GUSTS were 94 kn at Millport (Isle of Bute), 87 kn Bell Rock (North Sea/east of Dundee), 85 kn Benbecula and Tiree (Hebrides) and 88 kn Edinburgh (Turnhouse) airport. The WIND at Benbecula average 73 kn (F12) over a one hour period in the morning. [HS/23]

So it looks like there was a heck of a lot of “cold and wet” in the neighborhood.
Perhaps some Dutch speakers could do a similar search?
It also looks like the AO took a dive into 1950-51
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
So I think there is independent confirmation of a likely cold excursion, though more evidence is needed to assure it. Saying “nothing happened” seems quite wrong.

SRJ

The GHCN v2 raw data is not really “raw”, it is an monthly average of daily averages. Prior to 1950 only 3 daily measurements were sent from de Bilt to GHCN. These daily measurements were made at the hours 8, 14, and 19. So the lowest temperatures in the daily cycle (occuring during the night) were not sampled. After 1950, measurements for all 24 hours are sent from de Bilt to GHCN. Thus giving a much better representation of the daily cycle.
That means that prior to 1950 the daily means in GHCN v2 are too high, compared to an average formed from a proper representation of the daily cycle.
As a consequence of this, the GHCN v2 data prior to 1950 from de Bilt is not recommended for climatic analyses.

Philip Bradley

tallbloke says:
May 17, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Air pollution from coal powered ships and coal warmed homes etc causing more coastal fogs in the earlier period? Another recent study in Holland showed improved visibility over the 1980-2000 period, allowing greater insolation at the surface.

I agree. Data from the UK show fog frequency fell from about 1950. And as I noted above the coast moved in parts of Holland by as much as 10 kms. There is also a strong seasonal effect from fog, summer cooling, but winter warming. A seasonal/diurnal breakdown of temperatures would tell us rather more than a gross average.

Robert of Ottawa

Eric Simpson
“Look at Mars” – more CO2 than the Earth and much colder!

Hi SRJ!
GHCN V2 comes in a version adjusted and an unadjusted.
Its true the even the raw version appears to have been fiddled with (Berlin Dalhem, Paris etc..) and certainly the GHCN unadjusted V2 is cherry-limited in data availabilty, but still its what we have available in public….
Welcome 😉 to the world of WattsUpWithThat SRJ, nice to see you here . Keep it up..
K.R. Frank

The GHCN temperature record has also been ‘got at’ for stations in the Arctic. A comparison of GHCNv2 against the GHCNv3 ‘revision’ reveals a shameless lowering of pre-1960 temperatures by 0.9C, and a shameless hike of 0.8C by the late 1960s. By fiddling the figures for Iceland and N. Russia a spurious 1.7C warming trend is conjured up. The guardians of this data need to be audited and maybe prosecuted.
http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html

phlogiston

All this leads to the proposal for a new art form: Climate Topiary
In conventional topiary one clips the leaves of shrubs such as box or privet into shapes of animals, birds or anything else. The same can clearly be done – albeit in a 1-dimensional line only – with the climate record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topiary
Perhaps a WUWT competition in climate topiary could be launched for the most compelling and artistic adjustment of the 20th century temperature record, to look like a leaping horse or Loch Ness monster etc.

SRJ:
After 1950, measurements for all 24 hours are sent from de Bilt to GHCN. Thus giving a much better representation of the daily cycle.
That means that prior to 1950 the daily means in GHCN v2 are too high.
No.. any change in data could just as well result in a cold adjustmens as a warm adjustment.
Besides, ITs not only GHCN raw V2 that has the original De Bilt.
If this is a general Dutch issue why are not the coastal stations changed in 1950 like De bilt?
And howcome the 1949-56 temperature dive are seen in the near by countries?
And why are we not allowed to see any data (except strongly urban) for Belgium etc?
K.R. Frank

Louis Hooffstetter

Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
read the papers on uccle.
also you cannot compare raw absolute temperatures unless you correct for altitude differences and latitude differences in stations since both latitude and altitude explain a majority of the variance in temperature between stations.
Steve, I’m sure your argument has some merit, but we’ve seen this modus operandi many times before. “Real Climatologists” have”adjusted” yet another temperature index to cool the past and make current temperatures appear “unprecedented”. This is systematic, global fraud, plain and simple. If you have a rational explanation for these global temperature adjustments, let’s hear it.